In article <[log in to unmask]>, dated Tue, 3 Nov
1998 at 12:59:04, Tim Barnes <[log in to unmask]> writes
>1/ I am still personally satisfied that the balance of evidence is in
>the MMR vaccine's favour. I know that it is impossible to say any
>medicine is 100 percent safe, but I was under the impression that with
>respect to autism and IBD there was no convincing evidence it was
>anything other than zero. So from where does a figure of 0.0001 percent
>come? Is it just another way of saying zero?
I have no specific knowledge of MMR. I would just comment that this
appears to be yet another case of absence of proof being presented as
proof of absence. I would have thought the bottom line is that until we
know the true cause behind the problems that have tentatively been
linked with MMR by some, MMR will remain a candidate whatever the
'official line' says. It's all down to probability. No sensible
scientist will talk of zero probability on the basis of absence of
proof.
Chris
--
Chris Salter (Vice Chairman) Lincolnshire Post-Polio Network
Registered Charity No. 1064177
<URL:http://www.zynet.co.uk/ott/polio/lincolnshire/>
Web Site & Vice Chairman Email: [log in to unmask]
Honorary Secretary Email: [log in to unmask]
Member of the British Healthcare Internet Association
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|