The amount of smoke you are now pouring forth should give everyone on this forum a good laugh. Thanks.
You do say I can ignore your ad hominem leading assertion, however, you then reassert it here, claiming your "experience" is sufficient support.
I decided to add the first 2 sentences late in composing my email. If you think they are ad hominem, which I deny, ignore them. Just respond the other questions I raised.
As to your prejudices, I have a great deal of experience with the way you have put things for many years. That admittedly doesn’t count as proof, but it is germane. Anyone acting as a referee for any scientific journal which allows authors’ names to be seen by the reviewer would take such evidence into account. That wouldn’t automatically lead to rejection, but it would— and I think should—lead to close examination of the kinds of questions I raised. In a similar manner, an author’s ties to a vaccine-producing company would matter.
By the way, I have no ties I know of to the vaccine industry, but I have seen and read about enough vaccine successes that I trust them overall, though of course with a grain of salt depending on the source of the claims. I have recently gotten the viral pneumonia vaccine and am in the process of getting the new shingles vaccine. I had a horrible case of the flu some forty years ago, and have since religiously gotten the annual vaccine as early as possible, and for what it’s worth haven’t had flu since. I took a pretty thorough look at the claims about vaccination causing autism, for instance, and rejected them based on the overall evidence. I am not quite as convinced that pre-natal sonograms are as innocent, but see the predominant culprit in increased autism being the age of the parents plus increased diagnosis. In addition, I have not seen compelling evidence that the now larger numbers of vaccines for young children cause any particular problem.
On Sep 15, 2019, at 10:45 PM, Jim West <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Your reply is ad hominem. Where you not taught the problems that brings? That it is logical fallacy? Uncivil? Off topic?
Your primary assertion is, "You have a very long-standing prejudice against vaccination that would bias any study you do."
Can you prove that?
You have a very long-standing prejudice against vaccination that would bias any study you do. Why should your investigation be considered remotely credible? Did you or anyone predict in advance that specifically measles would result from the pollution you cite? If so, why measles, and why that year, when the pollution was not new? What specific mechanisms do you propose would cause a rise in measles just then?
Why would the cases fall off if the pollution continues? What about upstate measles cases and cases in other states? Are they all near superfund sites? Or are you, ex post facto, noting a random correlation? Do you suppose if so there is anything remotely scientific about your conclusions?
The idea of herd immunity and of a specific population that refuses immunization leading to increased cases is well established and predictive. Why do the more or less random correlations you cite in any way undermine those well established expectations?
I doubt you have any even moderately reasonable answers that come anywhere close to disproving the standard explanation.
Meanwhile you are busily trying to undercut public confidence in vaccination, which, without serious scientific justification will only help endanger innocent people. Why isn’t that odious?
Michael via iPhone, so please ecuse misteaks.
On Sep 14, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Jim West <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
NYC DOH investigated record-high measles epidemics in 2019, however, they did not conduct an environmental review of the OBVIOUS.
All epicenters are downwind from frack-gas fueled power plants, and suffer intense ground pollution from massive legacy industry (solvent spills). EPA Superfund Sites correlate with measles case counts. Measles virology omits proper controls and toxicological factors are not discounted.
A vaccine cannot immunize you from this. It will certainly immunize industry from liability. The epicenters are commercial areas worth trillions.