Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[Obelix]

"If" is a useful word isn't it?

 

10,000,000 saved isn't mentioned in the article- just the 100,000 dead from side effects.

 

Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence) and subject of the article you in the link, being a logical person and world-leading expert when it comes to medical study data says these drugs are causing a lot of harm and, in most cases, doing no good.

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312615-Prescription-drugs-are-killing-us-says-Dr-Peter-Gotzsche-and-hes-not-the-only-one

 

 

---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 00:09 ----------

 

Yes- don't you?

 

Once again you are just picking on a single point and waving it around and going "look, it's abig number its baaaaaad"

 

But without any context whatsover, it's irrelevant. The article doesnt provide any deatils whatsover, it just waves about a big number to look scarey. The correct response to that is "so what?"

 

100,000 a year dying is only a problem if there is no net reduction in morbidity and mortality.

 

When you look at the other side of the coin then it's far more useful. But if 100,000 a year die, and 1 million a year live, then it's a far better situation.

 

Of course the "article" doesnt say anysuch at all. It's not even talked to the good Dr. For all we know it's cherry picked his quotes to make it look bad. It doesnt say when or where such quotes came from. It doesnt reference the articles or symposia where they were said. It's worthless.

 

So again I say

 

So what?

[MAC33]

What a load of cod-- seriously.

 

Take the time to listen to the guy speak before rationalising away this guys opinion as irrelevant or worthless.

 

But of course you will not take the time to listen-- as you'd rather not know the ugly truth.

 

Fair enough then--- just don't post your opinion based on doing NO research on this guy.

 

100 000 dead is far from irrelevant!

[Eric Arthur]

Yes- don't you?

Cochrane is fine but your report isn't by Cochrane. Obelix has pointed out the basic problems with how is being reported in your reference.

 

What Cochrane have been unequivocal about is that they found no link between MMR, autism, and a whole host of other maladies.

 

We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections.

 

Nobody else has been able to show a proper MMR /autism link either. We have to accept that there is no link.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Eric Arthur

[Cyclone]

 

100 000 dead is far from irrelevant!

 

It's relevance is entirely dependant on how many people were saved.

 

A number conspicuously absent.

[JFKvsNixon]

If we banned the use of general anaesthetics, we could cut down the amount of people who died from the side effects of drugs, the same would also apply with strong painkillers. Is this desirable though?

[sgtkate]

If we banned the use of general anaesthetics, we could cut down the amount of people who died from the side effects of drugs, the same would also apply with strong painkillers. Is this desirable though?

 

Just get everyone to go on a meditation course prior to major surgery. Job done. Then again I can probably find a YouTube video with a guy in a white coat proving that meditation has killed at least one person so it should be banned.

[Obelix]

What a load of cod-- seriously.

 

Take the time to listen to the guy speak before rationalising away this guys opinion as irrelevant or worthless.

 

But of course you will not take the time to listen-- as you'd rather not know the ugly truth.

 

Fair enough then--- just don't post your opinion based on doing NO research on this guy.

 

100 000 dead is far from irrelevant!

 

Your comments are sadly usually a load of cod.

 

Lets try a different perhaps none emotive viewpoint for you.

 

Airbags kill people when they go off. This is a known problem. Some people die as a result of having a small explosion go off in their face.

 

If airbags kill say 150 people a year (which I understand is the figure in the USA) is that acceptable?

 

If airbags kill 150 people, and save 8000 lives a year is that acceptable?

 

That's the first point. If drugs kill 100,000 a year then it's pointless to pontificate on that without knowing how many they save.

 

Secondly my criticism is NOT of the scientist you are so beloved of. It's of the way it's been reported without sources, references, and with obvious bias.

 

IT's called a hatchet job and has no place in serious debate.

[Eric Arthur]

Do I take it from the silence that logic and science just won the argument because of the data put forward by anti-vaccers?

[Cyclone]

They're just gathering energy for their next nonsensical rant.

[onewheeldave]

Cochrane is fine but your report isn't by Cochrane.

True. It was Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence). He knows far more about medical evidence and the accompanying appropriate procedures for processing it than you, or any other pseudo-rationalists on this thread.

 

So, why are you all picking fault with his figures? Do you really think that when he says 100,000 deaths a year, he hasn't taken into account and adjusted for, any benefits?

 

Also, he's been very clear in other writings, that he considers the drugs to be beneficial for only a tiny proportion of patients, and overall, to be counter productive.

 

He also points out that he has, because of his job, greater access to pharma companies original data than other scientists. And, he says that those 'hard to obtain' reports show the pharma companies are corrupt and bury evidence that show these facts.