Arguments from authority is a logical fallacy. You can wax poetic about authoritative organizations and how they endorse it’s safety, but that doesn’t make a logical argument.

In case you didn’t realize it, calling me names is also flawed logic. If I didn’t know better I would think I was debating a highschool student.

Once again, one can’t provide an accurate risk of vaccination because the adequate safety trials haven’t been done. Even worse, accurate tracking of vaccine problems is extremely inaccurate and flawed. You can skirt around that issue all you want, but without rigorous safety information, you can’t determine an appropriate risk factor. Without a risk factor, you can’t compare risks. That’s pretty basic.

There are unvaccinated populations available—you should know since you continually whine about them. It wouldn’t be unethical to do a long term study on them. It’s certainly easy to identify them.

Given that on this topic, the glass is half empty for you, I’m sure you’ll think of some more roadblocks.

There is really no good excuse for compulsary reporting and followup of all vaccine adverse reactions. Is that an ethical problem too?

Do you still not see why it is not ethical to do a Randomized Control Trial on children for something that they know mostly prevents pertussis and when vaccinated kids do get the disease it is much less severe?

And to think you want to be considered smarter than Health Canada, WHO, CDC, the public health agencies of Japan and all of Europe and all the epidemiologists in the world.

You illustrate my point about not getting it. You bring up epidemiologists, but epidemiology can’t provide good data on safety, especially when the tracking data is so poor. That would be reserved for well designed RCTs.

But you keep the faith!

Put up or shut up.

All he can say is that it does not meet his Bizarro World criteria. He seems to find that epidemiologists don’t know what they are doing, yet he is quite unwilling to send in his resume to Health Canada to help them fix all the problems he sees with them.

What evidence does Schwartzy have that the DTaP is more dangerous than pertussis?

“(though I noticed this morning that Kev may have deleted your comment because it was not on subject, and I am sure that is why Autism-News-Beat deleted your postings——your repeated diversions are very tiresome. Take a hint: stay on topic).”

(Autism-news-beat deleted research links to Cochrane reports on the Flu vaccine in an article about flu vaccines—LOL, I guess you find study references about flu to be off topic for a flu discussion)

(PS: Why don’t you answer the Gardasil argument in parenthesis, since that’s how you initiated the discussion on it?)

“But most epidemiologists…”

I state there is no credible safety data (i.e. can’t calculate risk from vaccination), and yet you immediately discuss epidemiology data of incidence (something you seem obsessed with). So let’s go through the BASIC mathematics:

In order to calculate risk of disease contraction and subsequently risk of damage from disease you need to accurately track yearly incidence in target population, and you need to track the damage due to disease in the population contracting the disease.

Q1: How accurately is incidence actually tracked on Pertussis?
A1: Pretty poorly since many incidence of Pertussis on not distinguishable from a regular cough so it is underreported.

Q2: What does an unquantified underreporting of incidence do to our risk measure for damage based on contraction:

A2: The risk of damage from pertussis is overstated because the actual incidence is higher than reported while incidence of damage is most often accurately reported (due to post mortem analysis).

But that alone isn’t really the problem because despite these problems I’m assuming we could probably come up with some reasonable upper and lower bounds on risk from damage from disease.

Risk analysis requires us to also have a risk of damage from vaccines. Since there are no credible safety studies and since event reporting of historical vaccinations are rife with inaccuracy, we can’t actually quantify the risk from the vaccine. So how exactly do you propose to do a risk comparison given you can’t quantify the second risk factor? Repeating an unanswerable question doesn’t help your case.

Along with the map at the bottom of that CDC report, there is this paper that shows that pertussis is more prevelent where there are more vaccine exemptions:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/c.....96/14/1757

“States with easy procedures for granting exemptions were associated with a 90% higher incidence of pertussis (IRR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-2.28) and states with a medium difficulty for granting exemptions were associated with a 27% higher incidence of pertussis (IRR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51) compared with states with difficult procedures to obtain exemptions.”

I still would like to see what information you have that shows that the DTaP is more dangerous than pertussis.

How is putting a response in parentheses as an afterthought “drilling”? It was only in response to your attempts to divert from the subject and main topic of the posting to your own interests. (though I noticed this morning that Kev may have deleted your comment because it was not on subject, and I am sure that is why Autism-News-Beat deleted your postings——your repeated diversions are very tiresome. Take a hint: stay on topic).

You continue “Oh, there are certainly attempts. But none that accurately represent credible numbers. If you can’t even measure incidence of Pertussis accurately, how will you calculate risk of contraction or suffering damage?”

Well, then you do not have enough information for your pointy little head. But most epidemiologists have noted that with reduction of vaccination for pertussis, pertussis returns. Often with deadly results. This is what happened in Japan, Boulder, CO, and other areas with lower vaccination rates. If you look at the map at the bottom of this report:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe.....mm5450a3_e … you will see that the highest number of pertussis are in states with lowest vaccination rates (like Colorado).

You still need to show me the evidence you have that the DTaP is more dangerous than pertussis.