Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[cgksheff]

I guess I'm just a global kind of guy.

 

I guess that the phrase "All over the place" would be more apt.

[MAC33]

Compulsory if you want to keep your job.

 

 

Up to 200 doctors, nurses, firefighters, prison officers, police officers, forensic scientists and binmen say they have developed serious physical and mental health problems after injections essential for their work over the past 10 years. All have given up their jobs and some are now 60 per cent disabled.

 

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/150804/Fury-at-vaccine-scandal

[Obelix]

Compulsory if you want to keep your job.

 

 

Up to 200 doctors, nurses, firefighters, prison officers, police officers, forensic scientists and binmen say they have developed serious physical and mental health problems after injections essential for their work over the past 10 years. All have given up their jobs and some are now 60 per cent disabled.

 

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/150804/Fury-at-vaccine-scandal

 

I've highlighted in bold the "weasel" words that bring nothing at all to the debate. All they do is inflame and distort the opinion, but then its that rag the Express so theres no surprise.

 

Come back when you have the studies and the actual numbers.

[Eric Arthur]

Up to 20 a year? There are half a million doctors and nurses alone in the UK. It would be a miracle if some people didn't have an adverse reaction.

 

This is just another story with no grasp of basic statistics.

[Cyclone]

No. You're agreeing that the pharma companies suppress unfavourable study results.

 

That's the issue. The fact that pharma companies suppress unfavourable results.

 

I've no idea whether or not the pharmas are suppressing a report showing that people are worse off taking a vaccine than not, but I know the truth of the first statement (that they suppress unfavourable data) is not contingent upon the existence of that, or any other report.

 

You haven't demonstrated that they do or CAN suppress unfavourable results.

[onewheeldave]

You haven't demonstrated that they do or CAN suppress unfavourable results.

 

I can't, to your satisfaction, do so.

 

Because all you'll accept is scientific trials results, and my position is that all trials results are susceptible to influence from companies with financial interests.

 

So all that 'evidence' is, from my viewpoint, potentially tainted, and, therefore of little use.

 

But I know, from logic, common sense and experience, that walking across a road without looking is likely to be harmful: one of many things that I have no need of scientific trials results, in order to decide my beliefs and actions.

[unbeliever]

I can't, to your satisfaction, do so.

 

Because all you'll accept is scientific trials results, and my position is that all trials results are susceptible to influence from companies with financial interests.

 

So all that 'evidence' is, from my viewpoint, potentially tainted, and, therefore of little use.

 

But I know, from logic, common sense and experience, that walking across a road without looking is likely to be harmful: one of many things that I have no need of scientific trials results, in order to decide my beliefs and actions.

 

If all evidence that one can hypothesise with cause might be tainted is disregarded, no matter how much of it there is, nor how implausibly large the conspiracy would have to be for it all to be corrupt; then we're all is deep dodo anyway.

 

I suggest that you assign a plausible number to the probability that each study is falsified or corrupt enough to change the result and said corruption has not been uncovered. Even if that were as high as 0.5 (50%), the probability that as few as 10 independent studies which agree are all so corrupted is 0.5^10, which is just under 0.0001, or 0.01%. Even with 5 such studies, the probability is 0.5^5 or 3%.

 

Academics are not so easily corrupted. They are though often wrong, which is why they spend so much time debating with each other. No matter how wise and learned an expert is, for important things they are expected to do experiments/studies to back up their opinion. Furthermore their experiments/studies will be repeated by others/rivals to confirm/refute the results. Often with a mind to proving them wrong. They are expected to be crystal clear about their methods and analysis, open with their data, and to respond constructively to critics.

 

Even if "big pharma" attempted to organise a giant conspiracy to sell harmful or ineffective products, not enough academics could be bought to achieve it. Not least because the un-bought academics would be all over the matter looking for failure to follow good practise and hints of error.

Edited March 4, 2016 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

I can't, to your satisfaction, do so.

 

Because all you'll accept is scientific trials results, and my position is that all trials results are susceptible to influence from companies with financial interests.

 

So all that 'evidence' is, from my viewpoint, potentially tainted, and, therefore of little use.

 

But I know, from logic, common sense and experience, that walking across a road without looking is likely to be harmful: one of many things that I have no need of scientific trials results, in order to decide my beliefs and actions.

 

I'd accept an expose in a reputable media outlet, followed by a criminal trial.

 

You've no idea how studies are put together or conducted, you've no idea what kind of oversight occurs or how the regulatory regime operates. You're entire opinion is based on the fact that pharma companies are profit making.

[Eric Arthur]

I'm certain that there are locked filing cabinets in Glaxo et al at crammed full of research that they would rather not have in the public domain. Anti-vaxxers would call that suppression. I'd call it common sense, mainly because of the competition but also because there are crazy anti-vaxxers out there.

 

It doesn't mean that there is a big conspiracy to sell drugs that they know are harmful because as many of you are pointing out, you can't shut up academics even if you try. That's why Andrew Wakefield lost his licence to practice.

[onewheeldave]

I'm certain that there are locked filing cabinets in Glaxo et al at crammed full of research that they would rather not have in the public domain. Anti-vaxxers would call that suppression. I'd call it common sense, mainly because of the competition but also because there are crazy anti-vaxxers out there.

 

 

Yes- I call that corruption. Because it means that the health service using public are being duped: results showing harmful effects of drugs are hidden away and patients suffer ill-effects/death as a direct result of that data not being available to the decision-making doctors.

 

We all saw how the tobacco companies managed to also preserve their profits decades after the point science knew that their product was amongst the biggest killers of human beings, they were also deeply corrupt.

 

Now the same thing is happening again, and, people like you, who clearly know that research is being suppressed, are actually defending it

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 10:04 ----------

 

If all evidence that one can hypothesise with cause might be tainted is disregarded, no matter how much of it there is, nor how implausibly large the conspiracy would have to be for it all to be corrupt; then we're all is deep dodo anyway.

 

There is no conspiracy- this is a consequence of our healthcare being inextricably bound up with, and, heavily influenced by profits.

 

There's no high up group of evil people trying to dope up the population, it's a simple consequence of a large system whose decisions and end results are based on profit, rather than what's best for public health.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 10:13 ----------

 

 

Even if "big pharma" attempted to organise a giant conspiracy to sell harmful or ineffective products, not enough academics could be bought to achieve it. Not least because the un-bought academics would be all over the matter looking for failure to follow good practise and hints of error.

 

It's not a conspiracy.

 

There are plenty of medical professionals standing up to, and, trying to expose (whistle-blow) the corruption in our health care systems- some of them have been mentioned on this thread.

 

But we can also include people like Drs Caldwell Esselstyn & McDougal, who put out lots of info via youtube, and, who have great success by weaning their patients off statins and other drugs, then treating their patients heart disease via a plant based diet.

 

They are quite vocal in condemning the current approach to both healthcare in general, and, to coronary heart disease in particular.

 

It would also include Dr. Peter Gotzsche (leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center )

"much of what the drug industry does, fulfills the criteria for organised crime in US law. And they behave in many ways, like the mafia does. They corrupt everyone they can corrupt... they have bought every type of person, including ministers of health in some countries." Dr. Peter Gotzsche