Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[unbeliever]

I'm not.

 

The issue with the medical industry is that it passes on the corrupted data from the pharma industry and it ends up as the official guidance passed on from the healthcare system to the public.

 

While I wouldn't say I 'blamed' the medical industry for that (it's just doing it's job, as with any data processing system, the old saying "garbage in, garbage out" holds) I do think it would be a really good idea, if the corruption issues with the pharmas was sorted out- cut the problem off at the root, as it where.

 

Then the medical industry and healthcare system could be passing on advice based on reliable data.

 

That way, people like me, and probably many of the anti-vaxxers, would trust the healthcare system.

 

Are you suggesting. That there is nobody in the entire world, free from the control of the big evil "pharma" monster; with the resources, and inclination to perform their own double-blind studies on these matters and expose this vast conspiracy that you've concocted. Really?

 

It's so profoundly preposterous that it's hard to see how anybody in their right mind could support it.

[onewheeldave]

Are you suggesting. That there is nobody in the entire world, free from the control of the big evil "pharma" monster; with the resources, and inclination to perform their own double-blind studies on these matters and expose this vast conspiracy that you've concocted. Really?

 

No. Yet again I've suggested nothing of the kind

 

But, as you bring it up yourself, and, because Cyclone seems to be getting bored-

 

And around and around we go. Evidence, don't be silly.

 

then, just out of interest, can you name a single individual or organisation who is

 

..free from the control of the big evil "pharma" monster; with the resources, and inclination to perform their own double-blind studies on these matters and expose this vast conspiracy that you've concocted.

 

And then, if you can identify such a individual.organisation, could you explain just how double-blind studies can expose pharma corruption? Generally, criminal investigations are the appropriate tool when it comes to uncovering corruption or finding an organisation innocent of it.

[Obelix]

 

then, just out of interest, can you name a single individual or organisation who is

 

 

Well the research team I was in at Uni for a start....

[the_bloke]

While I wouldn't say I 'blamed' the medical industry for that (it's just doing it's job, as with any data processing system, the old saying "garbage in, garbage out" holds) I do think it would be a really good idea, if the corruption issues with the pharmas was sorted out- cut the problem off at the root, as it where.

 

Earlier, you made it clear that you don't consider that the people who work in the labs are corrupt. By saying that corrupt data is being entered into the system and studies are being rigged, you are implicating everyone who works in the lab, from the lowest to the study director level including all the QA teams who double and triple check everything. Like I said previously, you have a conspiracy theory in mind that is so big it would fail at the slightest investigation as the numbers of people involved would make it impossible to keep a lid on it.

 

You clearly don't understand how study data gets into systems for analysis, you don't understand the holy grail of raw data and you certainly don't understand what GLP is. If there is corruption, it is where money changes hands at board level, not where people do their day to day job.

[Obelix]

including all the QA teams

........

you certainly don't understand what GLP is. .

 

Next post from OWD will be about you using nasty corrupt acronyms to hide behind, when everyone else whose done anything vaguely science-y at all will know exactly what GLP means....and how you use QA to ensure it's working.

[onewheeldave]

Well the research team I was in at Uni for a start....

 

OK. Their name, where they get their funding from etc?

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 14:30 ----------

 

Earlier, you made it clear that you don't consider that the people who work in the labs are corrupt. By saying that corrupt data is being entered into the system and studies are being rigged, you are implicating everyone who works in the lab, from the lowest to the study director level including all the QA teams who double and triple check everything. Like I said previously, you have a conspiracy theory in mind that is so big it would fail at the slightest investigation as the numbers of people involved would make it impossible to keep a lid on it.

 

You clearly don't understand how study data gets into systems for analysis, you don't understand the holy grail of raw data and you certainly don't understand what GLP is. If there is corruption, it is where money changes hands at board level, not where people do their day to day job.

 

Depends where it's entering the system, doesn't it? If it's corrupted prior to data entry then you can't blame the data enterers.

 

But, if you're interested in that, you're far better off watching some of Peter Gotzschers videos, he's not only director of the Danish Cochrane foundation, but he's a lot more access to the relevant facts than me. I'll post some more links if you want?

 

So you're aware of board room level corruption? Your use of the conditional really weakens your stance if you are- surely everyone reading this, regardless of their intelligence, is aware of the fact that there's boardroom corruption in pharma?

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 14:31 ----------

 

Next post from OWD will be about you using nasty corrupt acronyms to hide behind, when everyone else whose done anything vaguely science-y at all will know exactly what GLP means....and how you use QA to ensure it's working.

 

Wrong again

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 14:33 ----------

 

Next post from OWD will be about you using nasty corrupt acronyms to hide behind, when everyone else whose done anything vaguely science-y at all will know exactly what GLP means....and how you use QA to ensure it's working.

 

Does no-one else find this kind of thing a bit childish?

Edited April 4, 2016 by onewheeldave

[Obelix]

OK. Their name, where they get their funding from etc

 

You really think I'm stupid enough to give that sort of information out to you?

 

I offered to meet but you were not interested. Sorry but there is no way I'm subjecting them to the crackpot tomfoolery you are eminently capable of coming up with.

[the_bloke]

Depends where it's entering the system, doesn't it? If it's corrupted prior to data entry then you can't blame the data enterers.

 

How do you suppose data is corrupted before it's entered? Someone swaps your sample? Changes all the calibration on your scale? Magically reduces the level of radiation in the urine of your rat test subject? Every hour of a three month study?

 

But, if you're interested in that, you're far better off watching some of Peter Gotzschers videos, he's not only director of the Danish Cochrane foundation, but he's a lot more access to the relevant facts than me. I'll post some more links if you want?

 

I've established that all you are working from is a bunch of youtube videos and making guesses from the soundbites he's giving you. He's certainly not said anything about the MMR vaccine has he?

 

So you're aware of board room level corruption? Your use of the conditional really weakens your stance

 

No, I'm not and no it doesn't. This thread is truly going in circles and it's pointless trying to reason with you at any level.

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

I've established that all you are working from is a bunch of youtube videos and making guesses from the soundbites he's giving you. He's certainly not said anything about the MMR vaccine has he?

 

 

 

No. He seems fully occupied with his research into criminal corruption in the pharma industry and everyone they deal with, at the moment.

 

He's written a lot about SSRIs (not positive stuff), prescribed drugs being the 3rd leading cause of death in the civilised west and the fact that doctors are inadequately trained to understand drug interactions and people are dying because the inadequately trained doctors then prescribe drugs which cause harm.

 

So no, it's me whose kind of extrapolating from the facts that corrupt pharmas=corrupt data, to the possibility that any decisions made, about drug safety or vaccine safety, could be false due to said corrupt data, or, even if that batch of data was solid, by the compromised integrity of any system which is either unaware of, or, unwilling to address, the reality of pharma corruption.

[unbeliever]

No. He seems fully occupied with his research into criminal corruption in the pharma industry and everyone they deal with, at the moment.

 

He's written a lot about SSRIs (not positive stuff), prescribed drugs being the 3rd leading cause of death in the civilised west and the fact that doctors are inadequately trained to understand drug interactions and people are dying because the inadequately trained doctors then prescribe drugs which cause harm.

 

So no, it's me whose kind of extrapolating from the facts that corrupt pharmas=corrupt data, to the possibility that any decisions made, about drug safety or vaccine safety, could be false due to said corrupt data, or, even if that batch of data was solid, by the compromised integrity of any system which is either unaware of, or, unwilling to address, the reality of pharma corruption.

 

I'm with him on SSRIs. But that's a problem with doctor training not "big pharma".

 

Your assertion that any kind of corruption within an industry should lead us to discard any and all evidence from that industry is so silly that it can only be a convenience to justify a position you've taken for other reasons.

Add to that, the fact that you're not consistent in the application of that logic (such as it is).

 

Where does this really all come from?

Do you run an alternative medicine shop or something?