A tree with a chunk of its bark missing will, like the human body, try to repair the damage. In the case of a tree, it will cover the bark wound with sap/wax. That living organisms will respond to outside threats, and remember the signatures of the threat for future reference is the null hypothesis of vaccination.
With a vaccination, you are simply trying to add a specific outside threat to the body defence library without causing the threat to break out full-scale in the body while doing so. A threat which is known in the immune system defence library will be responded to much faster than a threat which must first be identified and catalogued, which is the reason such a threat will have less time to build up strength and thereby less time to cause damage.

Ah, I think that is part of the reason we have a disagreement on the issue. It's not the type of null hypothesis I'm familiar with.

Using your definition, I guess the burden of proof that there is no benefit to vaccinations would rest with me.

Yes, I am assuming that the standard theory is the null hypothesis, which the challenging hypothesis should be tried against.

What did you consider the null hypothesis to be?

I was going with:

• The treatment is the vaccine.
• The treatment group are those treated with the vaccine.
• The control group are those without the vaccine.
• The observed results would be whether the subjects got the disease.
• The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference between the control and the treatment.

If there is a significant difference, the null hypothesis that there is no difference would be rejected.

I am guessing you are stronger than I on statistics..

American research may vindicate Dr. Wakefield and expose vaccine danger.

Scientists fear MMR link to autism:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

It would be interesting to read the paper this article is talking about.

Scientific method.

This is happening in the U.S. I do not have information re: Canada:

Employers start firing employees who test positive for certain prescription drugs

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Companies across the United States have started including some prescription drugs in random employee drug tests, and firing workers who test positive.

For example, Sue Bates lost her job of 22 years as an assembly line worker at Dura Automotive Systems after she tested positive for hyrdrocodone, a drug she had been legally prescribed.

Dura and other employers claim that many medications may hamper a worker's job performance and even affect job safety. Yet many workers' advocates object to such summary punishment for taking legal medication.

"I don't think it should end the way it did," Bates said. "You tell somebody you lost your job because you're on prescription medication and they're like, 'Yeah, right.' "

Indeed, many of the workers fired for taking pain medications had been prescribed those drugs after they were injured on the job. Some of those workers allege that their employers used the drug tests as a pretext to fire them and thereby avoid paying their insurance premiums.

Data from workplace drug testing company Quest Diagnostics shows that employees are 400 percent more likely to test positive for opiates (which includes many popular prescription painkillers) after suffering an injury than employees undergoing tests at the time of hiring.

Yet no one denies that legitimate medication may adversely affect employee performance, or that many people do in fact abuse narcotic painkillers and other prescription drugs. Quoting Dr. Julian Whitaker in their book Side Effects, Kenneth W Thomas, Ron Gilbert and Gerd Schaller write, "There is currently a nationwide epidemic of prescription drug abuse in this country. In a report by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, it was revealed that this type of drug abuse had nearly doubled from 7.8 million to 15.1 million from the years 1992 to 2003."

"This may be the point guard for an important societal issue," said Robert Cochran Jr., a pain doctor treating three fired Dura employees who are now suing the company.

"How do we address these drugs as a society?"

Sources for this story include: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht....

Suzanne

Medication strips your body of vital nutrients, says pharmacist

by Neev M. Arnell

(NaturalNews) Often prescribed to alleviate symptoms of illness, pharmaceutical medications rarely attack the root cause and cure the illness and have the added downside of side-effects.

Aside from the litany of side-effects listed, new book "Drug Muggers: Which Medications Are Robbing Your Body of Essential Nutrients" suggests the medications may be further adding to your state of illness by "stealing nutrients from your system or preventing their absorption." Not only might this make you feel worse, but it also may cause you to develop another condition.

Author of the new book, leading U.S. pharmacist Suzy Cohen, claims, "If you run low on even one vital nutrient, you can experience a cascade of uncomfortable side effects," she claims. Eating healthy is not going to save you either, if you are taking nutrient-robbing medications, according to Cohen.

"Even if you eat fresh fruits and vegetables every hour, you still get only a fraction of the essential nutrients you need from these foods -- and if your medication is depleting them, you'll need even more," says Cohen.

The solution is supplements, according to Cohen, who suggests specific doses in her book depending on what drugs you are taking.

Here is a list of some medications and the associated side effects from Cohen's new book:

* Statins block the production of CoQ10, an anti-oxidant and nutrient associated with energy production. Risks include: fatigue, weakness, memory loss, shortness of breath, leg cramps and frequent infections.

* Antibiotics kill bacteria, including good bacteria that produce B vitamins. Risks include: heart disease, increased risk of cancer, leg cramps, low thyroid and bone loss.

* Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, a type of painkiller commonly referred to as NSAIDs, include ibuprofen and aspirin. They raise the risk of stomach ulcers and bleeding by attacking prostaglandins that protect the stomach lining. This also leads to a loss of iron, which can be made worse by some NSAIDs that also bind to iron and make it useless. Risks include: heart disease, depression, diarrhea, mouth sores and anemia.

* Some ACE inhibitors, a treatment for high blood pressure that dilates blood vessels, attach themselves to zinc in the body. This can affect certain kinds of cell growth in the body, the immune system and the production of testosterone. Risks include: loss of sex drive, prostate problems, hair loss and slow wound healing.

* SSRIs antidepressants or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as paroxetine and fluoxetine (Prozac), may affect thyroid hormone production, which regulated metabolism, digestion, mood, immune function and muscle function. Risks include: hypothyroidism, depression, weight gain and lowered immunity.

* Diuretics, prescribed for hypertension, heart failure and edema, increase urine production, leading to loss of minerals and nutrients, including vitamin C and calcium. Risks include: slow wound healing, depression, leg cramps, weight gain and brittle bones.

* Prescribed to control hormone levels, the pill and HRT
also destroy good bacteria in the gut and affect synthesis of nutrients, including vitamin B6 and zinc. Risks include: insomnia, memory loss, irritability, heart disease and increased risk of cancer.

* Diabetes medications, including metformin (Glucophage), metformin and sitagliptin (Janumet), and glipizide (Glibenese, Minodiab), reduce levels of succinate dehydrogenase, CoQ10 and hemoglobin. Low hemoglobin levels can lead to lowered levels of vitamin B12. Risks include: anemia, muscle cramps, fatigue, memory loss and irregular heartbeat.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...

Suzanne