No prior shilling experience needed? Wow! How is that not a prerequisite?

This is just too funny!

Here's my resume:

Wow! that's already far more that what the zero questioning the average vaccine-abiding parent does.

Merck etc. must be immensely pis_sed at the Internet, it's costing them billions in lost sales.

Actually I think you have that backwards in questioning. I have several questions that folks like you have failed to answer. Here is one: please provide the verifiable financial data that shows the USA would save more more money by not getting each child two MMR vaccines in their life, versus the treatment of measles, mumps and rubella for each child. Include the costs of hospitalization (about one in ten for measles, mostly for pneumonia which requires lots of medication/equipment to keep a kid alive), the increased cost of deaf/blind education from all three diseases, and the costs of the funerals for the about one death per one to three thousand cases of measles.

Be sure to provide verifiable documentation for your numbers. Something that is similar to this:
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.
An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.

and this (includes how much it cost the state's medicaid system):
West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.

and this:
Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):577-85.
Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.

By the way, have you ever questioned Wakefield on why he never defended himself in the GMC hearings? Or why he left the Royal Free Hospital after they offered him a chance to expand of his research, which was then taken by Dr. Brent Taylor? Who came up with these papers:
Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.

and:
BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.

Or are you one the many Wakefiled sheeple followers who just gives him money?

"...please provide the verifiable financial data that shows the USA would save more more money by not getting each child two MMR vaccines in their life, versus the treatment of measles, mumps and rubella for each child."

Money never was my argument against vaccination. Straw man.

However, if the ever rising autoimmunity epidemic is caused by these massive immune interventions, as it seems logical, then the costs of vaccination must have long landed on da Moon.

Trading a child fever episode for massive chronic diseases with life-long treatments... it blows the mind. Wait, this is Big Pharma's wet dream!

I am sorry, I am asking questions I want answered... you don't get to choose what questions I ask. And I see you are just using blatant assertion for "data." Again, that is not verifiable financial data.

How about why did Wakefield not defend himself in during the GMC hearings? And why did he leave the Royal Free after they asked him to do bigger versions of this studies? Was this because his fraud would be discovered, especially after Dr. Brent Taylor did them without making up stuff?

Another question, you wrote: "Money never was my argument against vaccination." How does money not play a part in your comment that says: "Merck etc. must be immensely pis_sed at the Internet, it's costing them billions in lost sales."? So you don't mean "billions" in dollars but actual disease infections. How is that not about money?

"...How does money not play a part in your comment that says: "Merck etc. must be immensely pis_sed at the Internet, it's costing them billions in lost sales."

You asked my opinion about the pretended economic benefit of vaccines vs treating diseases (false dilemma, vaccines don't prevent).

Obviously, Merck can't profit from measles because there's no medication to treat it, but Merck sells vaccines.

Still need the numbers? it's x = 0 vs. x > 0.

"...How about why did Wakefield not defend himself in during the GMC hearings?"

I don't care about Wakefield, he didn't investigate the mechanisms of vaccine-induced (adjuvant) autoimmunity which is my workhorse.

No, I did not ask for your opinion. I specifically asked for data, not your opinion (which by definition is not data). I still want you to answer what the relative costs of preventing any disease versus letting a kid get sick and suffer from that disease. Again, I want verifiable documentation from you to support your statements (not your opinion!).

You made the claim about "the zero questioning the average vaccine-abiding parent does." So I am showing you that we do ask questions, just not the same questions you think we should ask.

"Obviously, Merck can't profit from measles because there's no medication to treat it, but Merck sells vaccines"

So they don't make drugs to help with artificial ventilation to keep kids alive with pneumonia? Nor do they make the antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that kids get because measles damages their immune system for years? It is blatantly obvious that you do not understand the impact of measles, mumps and rubella. Do you think hospital care does not cost money (many times from taxes, especially in countries with a national health system).

"I don't care about Wakefield, he didn't investigate the mechanisms of vaccine-induced (adjuvant) autoimmunity which is my workhorse."

Again, I did not ask you if you cared about Wakefield, I asked you a common question those of us who prefer that our children not get diseases have about his behavior. Also he invented an autoimmunity condition, a form of intestinal inflammation. Of course it does not exist.

"...So they don't make drugs to help with artificial ventilation to keep kids alive with pneumonia?"

You're equating measles with pneumonia. I, my sister, my classmates have had the measles, what happened to our pneumonias?

"... still want you to answer what the relative costs of preventing any disease versus letting a kid get sick and suffer from that disease."

Before answering questions that assume "vaccines are effective", I require evidence of efficacy which vaxxers never produce when asked. Can you?

By the way, I am pretty you have been given real answers on the effectiveness of vaccines. You more than likely reject the answers, and then claim that because they are not 100% effective that they are worthless. The typical Nirvana Fallacy.

This seems to be true that you will reject any truthful data filled answer that does not fit your fact free "opinions." This is why this satirical blog exists, to poke fun at fools like you.

By the way, here are more answers to more questions:
https://www.sciencebasedmed...

and another:
http://scienceblogs.com/ins...

But that is all the playtime I have left today. I can't spend my entire weekend on the internet posting dozens to hundreds of comments in a single day. I also know you will not answer my questions, but trot out another excuse or two. Thinking I wanted your "opinion" even after I asked for verifiable documentation... that was hilarious!

"... I am pretty you have been given real answers on the effectiveness of vaccines."

Assumptions.

Asking for evidence is the first step of any intelligent person before joining a camp in a debate. Therefore I too assume that you've asked for it and seen it. Can you now return the favor and show it to me?

No simple correlation incidence/vaccine, please! as that statistic is tainted by dozens of confounding factors (standards of living also correlate with incidence of infectious disease).

"...here are more answers to more questions:"

Sorry by I've never based my position on vaccines on the opinions from a blogger. My source of choice is PUBMED and asking the CDC directly.

The thing is, even though you can access the real data you either don't understand them, or put them through the Htrae filter that turns them into nonsense.

Correlation does not imply causation ... unless it puts vaccines in a good light. LOL.

You're exhausted and babbling, go take a break.

Here is another question for you:

Do you think we should trust studies funded by wealthy persons who wish to push an agenda, and possibly influence a court case? Should we trust the studies that got funding from the Dwoskin Family Foundation? For more information:
http://leftbrainrightbrain....

And they also paid for a "Vaccine Conference" in Jamaica:
http://leftbrainrightbrain....

Perhaps you should ask them to fund your research. Maybe you can get a nice tropical vacation out of it.

"..Perhaps you should ask them to fund your research."

Why wouldn't the vaccine industry do that? Do they have something to hide?

"..Perhaps you should ask them to fund your research." - Chris

Why wouldn't the vaccine industry do that? - vacuous

Have you ever written a grant proposal (for funding from anywhere)? Were you funded? If not, why not? If so, have you published your results? Citation?

You really do display reading comprehension problems. Chris suggested a soft touch for funding to explore your ideas formally, rather than wasting time arguing on the interwebz. If you think you have a legitimate hypothesis, do the research. What you're doing now, doesn't cut it.

The Vicuna Autopista is probably very confused. That is quite common with roads used by camel relatives with very nice wool. Kind of like a sheeple, only much softer in both the fleece and the head. The road is just full of rocks.

"..Have you ever written a grant proposal"

New straw man argument: If you haven't published a paper then you must accept the pro-vax view.

Have you? Have all the pro-vaxxers that can't produce any evidence of their "points proven 1.000's of times" when asked? Then why should I?

Nice try, but no. You are the one who basically said why wouldn't the "vaccine industry" fund your research?

Do you read what you yourself write? Don't bother to reply. The question answers itself.

The original questions were

Have you ever written a grant proposal[...]?

[If so,] Were you funded?

If not, why not?

Way to go, not reading what anyone else writes, either.

"...You are the one who basically said why wouldn't the "vaccine industry" fund your research?"

Since "my research" only exists as an ass_umption by Chris, he should be able to answer all your straw man questions.

Post by Chris:

Perhaps you should ask them to fund your research.

What research, Chris?

Are you so clueless to not know how to click on links? The only "vaccine industry" the Dwoskin family is part of is spreading anti-vaccine nonsense.

More history for lurkers:
The Benefits From 10 Years of Measles Immunization in the United States

and
A STATISTICAL STUDY OF MEASLES (1914)

I did not have a chance to see if the links are live, but do try to read the last page of that hundred year old article.

You got serious comprehension issues. I don't care about Dwoskin, first time I head of him.

I asked why wouldn't the vaccine industry fund my research?

Does it have something to hide?

So you had no clue who paid for Chris Shaw's research on aluminum adjuvants that he did at the University of British Columbia? That is just hilarious.

I bet you go all about who funds the research all the time, and you can't be bothered to find out who funds the research you claimed to be interested. Do you seriously live on Htrae?

Edit to add: a The Spudd article should be "Anti-vaxer is surprised to learn his favorite studies paid by rick folks with an agenda."

Whatever "funding scandal" you can fabricate, it's aficionado's play compared to the massive fraud seen in vaccine industry trials:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jul 7

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

"widespread manipulation of CONCLUSIONS and spurious notoriety of the studies."

Is Cochrane Research on Dwoskin's payrole too?

So yes, the vaccine industry has A LOT to hide. Scientific fraud is the preferred method to bring vaccine products on the market.

Just read who funded Shaw's papers, it is written on each one of them (especially that most recent ones which were so bad they were published in a pay-to-publish journal). It is quite clear it is from the Dwoskin Family Foundation. Ms. Dwoskin was on the board of NVIC for a while.

Also, that is a five year old influenza study, plus the real point of vaccinating healthy adults to to protect others in the community (babies, the elderly, etc). By the way, none of the influenza vaccines contain adjuvants. You are cherry picking. And probably quite embarrassed that you had no clue that the funding for some of your favorite "aluminum adjuvant" studies were tainted (along with being very badly executed).

"...Just read who funded Shaw's papers, it is written on each one of them"

Nothing to hide, potential conflicts of interest must be declared.

Not the case with most industry-sponsored vaccine papers though ... a lot to hide!

Pneumonia is very common with measles. The young man in Wales died from measles pneumonia a few years ago. Your anecdotes are not data, this is more appropriate:
The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review:

Measles infects the respiratory tracts of nearly all affected persons. Pneumonia is the most common severe complication
of measles and accounts for most measles-associated deaths

"Before answering questions that assume "vaccines are effective", I require evidence of efficacy which vaxxers never produce when asked"

That is interesting, because it brings up another question I ask folks like you that they refuse to answer. The following is US Census data on measles rates during the 20th century. Please tell us why the numbers of measles cases dropped 90% between 1960 and 1970, and later never ever rose up to 1970 levels again. There are some restrictions: do not mention deaths (learn the difference between mortality and morbidity), do not mention any other decade, do not mention any other disease, do not claim that they changed the name of the disease, and do not mention any other country (England and Wales are not American states)... edit to add, make sure you provide the PubMed indexed studies to support your answer!:

From http://www.census.gov/prod/...
Year.... Rate per 100000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2
1997 . . . . . . 0.1

"Pneumonia is very common with measles....The young man in Wales died from measles pneumonia a few years ago."

Significance of "one case a few years ago":

- After vaccination: Coincidence.
- After measles: Very common.

"..Measles infects the respiratory tracts of nearly all affected persons."

Perhaps, but if that so-called "infection" caused pneumonia then nearly all infected would suffer from it, right? Why does only a minority get it?

"...The following is US Census data on measles rates during the 20th century. Please tell us why the numbers of measles cases dropped 90% between 1960 and 1970, and later never ever rose up to 1970 levels again."

It's extremely simple to understand:

1) Before mass vaccination, any "measles-like" illness (broad, catch-all clinical definition) was classified as "measles".

The numbers in this period are, therefore, a grossly overestimation of true prevalence.

2) Once vaccination in place, the diagnosis shifted to "measles-like" PLUS "lab confirmed".

Additional requirements -> less cases. This shift alone justifies the drop in the diagnoses whether a vaccine was used or a kiss in the butt.

Pre-vaccine measles cannot be compared to pot-vaccine measles because the latter is a subset of the former.

"...From http://www.census.gov/prod/....... Rate per 100000 of measles"

Last week I received an answer from the CDC regarding the exact introduction of criteria (2) above (lab confirmed), this was the answer:

From: Rota, Paul (CDC).

Your question: “at which point in the the time frame did virological surveillance become the norm?” was referred to me by Dr. Hinman. I am responsible for virologic surveillance for measles virus in the US.

Virologic surveillance was initiated at CDC in the early 1990s, and we quickly obtained genetic evidence that allowed
us to track the transmission pathways of measles virus.

Let's look at the early 90's

1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1

Now what you saw above, while attributed to a "vaccine miracle", is just the predictable effect of shifting the diagnosis from clinical only to lab-confirmed:

You've all been had.

You seem to have a reading comprehension fail. I specifically said "do not mention any other disease, do not claim that they changed the name of the disease", plus I said to provide the PubMed indexed studies.

Which is almost as funny as thinking I asked for your opinion.

By the way, they did have ways to detect measles, just not a way to differentiate them between country variations. Virology was a little more advanced in the 1950s than what you think (guess how they figured out there were three different strains of polio).

I predicted it correctly in the post I just added... You'll make up excuses. You are hilarious, and deserve your own article on this blog on how well you avoid direct questions, and for your productivity of complete nonsense.

"... I specifically said "do not mention any other disease, do not claim that they changed the name of the disease"

OK so you knew about the diagnostic swindle! How can I not claim they changed the diagnostic criteria when they did?

"...Virology was a little more advanced in the 1950s than what you think"

I don't "think", I've looked at the ever more restrictive evolution of the diagnostic criteria and report what I have seen. Basically, measles, like polio, have been redefined away by the virological tests.

Still, the old measles and old polio (by the old definitions) are thriving today! Let's look at the Mexico case:

2014: http://www.who.int/immuniza...

- Suspected measles cases: 4,512
- Confirmed measles: 2 (lab confirmed).

The pre-vaccine criteria for "measles" is the same as post-vaccine "suspect case" (one meeting the clinical definition).

Therefore, by the pre-vaccine criteria Mexico suffered a large measles epidemic in 2014 LOL. By post-vaccine criteria 98% of the clinical cases are not measles anymore.

Thus, a mere diagnosis flip-flop accounts for a whooping 98% reduction of the incidence! A kiss in the butt would achieved the same reduction as the vaccine.

It begs the question: if not measles, what were those 4,510 suffering from? Were all benign? LOL. NOBODY GIVES A FLYING FK! no money to be made there.

"OK so you knew about the trick!"

Yes, it is a clueless trick. Mostly because you don't understand the history and science.

For the lurkers on some measles history that would be of interest:
Mass measles immunization in Los Angeles County

Measles epidemiology and vaccine use in Los Angeles County, 1963 and 1966

"...For the lurkers on some measles history that would be of interest:

Mass measles immunization in Los Angeles County

Measles epidemiology and vaccine use in Los Angeles County, 1963 and 1966"

WARNING: diagnostic shifts badly polluting the data!

In the 1960s?

Only on Htrae.

"...In the 1960s?"

From your first paper:

(page 1888)

Discussion

It is difficult to prove that the measles vaccination campaign definitely altered the outcome of the 1966 measles epidemic.

The paper is, therefore, grasping at straws trying find some real or pretended benefits.

All of that would dramatically change once lab-confirmation became the norm ... all "measles" went right under the carpet... look! there' s nothing here! (just 1,000's of "uconfirmed" cases left to rot in their illness).

"...Yes, it is a clueless trick. "

Then why did you fall for it? You're not so intelligent anymore?

Tell me ... what the fk were those 4,510 Mexicans with "suspected measles" suffering from? What were the names of their true diseases?

What was the incidence of pneumonia among those 4,510 Mexicans with "suspected measles"? How much Merck life-support meds did they consume? How many died?

Today the labs say "Bah! it's not measles, these people don't really exist".. ... but in the 70's all 4,512 Mexicans would have been diagnosed with measles, their eventual pneumonias attributed to measles, their deaths attributed to measles and contributed to breed the measles=deadly myth of today.

HOW MUCH OF THE "OLD MEASLES" EPIDEMICS WAS "TRUE MEASLES"?

We can't possibly know ... but looking at Mexico for a clue, the true incidence could have been as low as 0,044% of the diagnosed ... Whoa!

Damn, I know someone who would be perfect but is not a citizen.

I applied - but I doubt I'll get in...

I'm not a USA Citizen, and I have a degree in Biotechnology (not from Google University)

Oh well... :/

And for being in another country. On the bright side, the commute would have been horrendous. :-)

Shame on you for being overqualified! ;)