Harradine said

[Here is the WDDTY forum resident Pharma troll defending Allopathy and playing 'Show us the Proof'. Show us the proof and we will use it if valid is the lying song they have to sing to hide the fact they have an Allopathic monopoly.
Even 1,200 citations on Vitamin C and infections isn't enough proof for this character, of course. The aim is to cast doubt on non-Allopathic medicine, and draw attention away from the dark side of Allopathic medicine, like its monopoly, iatrogenic deaths and disease, and no diseases cured except bacterial infections.
These characters are running a monopoly and they aren't going to give it up without a fight.]

The Pharma troll song
Anyway, as I say, I am happy for alternative treatments to be used by anyone that wants them, provided they do not make claims that they have no evidence to support. I don't believe anyone should get away with that, pharma company, anyone. Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?

[The usual Anecdote don't count.]
With the greatest of respect, more anecdotal evidence. "one single incidence", "these two boys". Thes are anecdotes. Like I say, with all due respect, you're struggle to understand what I mean by evidence. A good read that makes you think "wow!" is not it!!! Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?

[An Allopathy wanting proof Homeopathic medicine works?? ]
As for being a Pharma Troll, I am simply asking for someone to provide some decent evidence that homepathy works. How can that possibly be a biased request? How could anything be more neutral? That's what scientists ask each other all the time, part of their job- providing evidence. Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?

[Only a vaccine, of course.]
Yes, we are still waiting for an aids "cure" (a vaccine most likely). Any idea why its not around yet? HIV is a complicated little virus that mutate very rapdily. Its difficult to design a vaccine for it since there are countless strains. Hopefully as we learn more we will get there. Or do you think Vitamin C or homeopathy will ultiamtely have better success in threating HIV/AIDS? For that you would need evidence.Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?

[A paean to Allopathy. Classic!]
Psychiatric drugs have helped millions! They are far from a cure, but my God, have you no idea how much antipsychotics have helped? People with major depression? The evidence that these drugs have helped millions is overwhelming. Of course they are not cures! No one has ever said that they are. But they have turned people lives around from the days when there were no treatment options at all. Again, what are you suggesting, that Vit C or homeopathy are more effective in treatment psychiatric illness? For that you would need evidence which so far says the opposite.Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?

My defence of these treatments is the evidence that they work. Publically avaiable, open access, reems and reems or corroborating evidence. If you disagree with it, or interpret the evidence in a different way, then say so. Provide example. Evidence is the only defense. Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?

[The old show-us-the-evidence.]
You know what I am going to ask for next- that's right, evidence! Go on, some peer-reviewed studies would be ideal really, but any evidence at all. We can all look at it then, judge it for ourselves and take nothing on faith or face value. Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?

[So you give him the Levy book with 1,200 medical references proving vitamin C will cure infections. Obviously Dr Levy hasn't a clue, he's biased!]
Whale, if I read someone's book, it will lay out their argument. And I would have hoped, refer to the studied they rely on for evidence. And then I would have to look at those studied myself. I might agree with the book's author and I might think they are wrong. That's what data is for, so we can be impartial and not rely on one author or another, we can be unbiased.
I am interested in the original data. Not an author's book. Even if they are 100% correct and I agree with them anyway, don't you appreciate the difference? One lets me make my own mind up, the other presents the data as they see it. I would rather remain unbiased from the outset and make my own mind up. Wouldn't you? The trouble with medicine

When they can't answer the UK measles death stats they jump continent (see Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?), and these made up stats are very useful for UK propaganda, not just their genocide efforts in Africa.

whale said:

Q 1. Tell us how you figure out vaccination played any part in measles deaths decline? Remember parents believe vaccination saves kids from measles deaths.

As Clifford G Miller - trained scientist (physicist) & commercial attorney (not vaccine damage litigation) points out, measles deaths would have declined to one or two a year with or without the vaccine http://www.whale.to/v/offitt.html

It is admitted even by gov only 10% of vaccine reactions are reported (more like 1-3%), so if you cut the 70 deaths in half, but say 20 as DPT is more toxic, then it wouldn't be a stretch to say 20 are killed by MMR. Whatever, it is certainly way more than would be killed by measles.

2. Q. What is the point of using a vaccine that kills more kids than the disease? Even assuming it eliminated deaths, which it didn't as the stats show.

harradine said:

Lets look at measles then.

Here is a graph similar to the one your posted, but as well as showing measles deaths, it also shows the number of measles infections. This provides important information since after all, in a developed country like the UK, deaths from measles are thankfully rare, but measles can have other serious effects in children other than death. Looking at the graph one can clearly see the value of vaccination.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/measles/measles_deaths2007.htm

Ok, that's in the UK. What about the rest of the world. Vaccination has been even more effective there since measles is one of the developing world's greatest causes of vaccine preventable infant mortality. Its is a more serious disease in children for many reasons, But just look at the data to see how many lives vaccination has saved.

Here is a story from the Guardian outlining the success globally of measles immunisation programmes.

Between 1999 and 2005, there was a 60% reduction in annual measles deaths worldwide, from 873,000 to 345,000, according to United Nations figures reported in the medical journal the Lancet. Africa, where children are most prone to die when they catch measles because of poor nutrition and other infections including HIV, has led the way, with a 75% drop in deaths. In 1999, 506,000 African children died - 90% aged under five. By 2005, the figure had fallen to 126,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1994033,00.html

"What clearer proof could there be of the value of investing in immunisation?" Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of Unicef

Some more on the story here:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10987.html

An international vaccination programme to combat measles has exceeded targets, reducing child deaths from the disease by 60% between 1999 and 2005.

The international Measles Initiative launched in 2000 by the World Health Organization and UNICEF had aimed for a 50% reduction in 45 target countries.

“Deaths have fallen from 873,000 during 1999 to 345,000 by the end of 2005,” said WHO director-general Margaret Chan, on Thursday. “This is a 60% reduction.” And the news is even better in Africa, Chan said. “Deaths there declined by 75%, so Africa is leading the way.”

Measles deaths in children under five fell from 791,000 to 311,000 over the same period, globally.

The new figures estimate that, altogether, measles vaccinations have prevented 7.5 million deaths between 1999 and 2005, and 2.3 million of these were attributable to the intensified programme. “This is tremendous news for the world’s children,” said Ann Veneman, executive director of UNICEF.