Wow – that’s worthy of an “I struggle with long sentences” if ever
Typical echo chamber making personal attacks to drive someone away
TBH it's the amount of words which you are posting that's driving me away.
Googling "how many cases of oral vaccine causing polio in the uk" led me to:
Vaccine Knowledge - Polio
which states
"Until 2004, the vaccine used in the UK was a live attenuated (weakened) oral polio vaccine (OPV). In a small number of cases this vaccine actually caused polio itself (30 cases in UK between 1985 and 2002). Although the disease had been eradicated in the UK, it remained endemic in many countries, so there was a risk it could be reintroduced to the UK through travel and immigration.
By 2004, vaccination had eradicated polio from all but a few countries worldwide, and the UK was able to switch over to the inactivated (killed) polio vaccine, which does not contain any live viruses and cannot cause the disease itself".
It doesn't mention how many doses were given between 1985 and 2002 or how serious the 30 cases were.
ernielynch
TBH it’s the amount of words which you are posting that’s driving me away.
You won't want to read all of this then
https://history.nasa.gov/columbia/CAIB.html
Summary here
slowoldman
Googling “how many cases of oral vaccine causing polio in the uk” led me to:
Which is all very interesting (now the can of worms is open). I'll probably read just out of interest after my ride.
My point though had nothing to do with polio (or even vaccinations per se) rather how poor and misleading information on what are considered "authoritative sites" drive people to google and some will fall on anti-vax (in this case) sites rather than Oxford Uni.
You won’t want to read all of this then
No you are right..... how did you guess?
Even though you tantalised me with talk of 'significant overprediction of penetration'.
‘significant overprediction of penetration’.
Story of my life.
