Given the dangers and lack of effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs, their 'evidence base', their 'science' is about the only thing they have going for them. But this is also a myth, albeit of popularly believed myth. Medical science is not 'science'; it is bought science, cheque-book science. You cannot trust it because those who pay for it determines its conclusions!
This is well, and simply explained in a new article in Natural News
False Foundations of Science: Can Vaccine Studies Be Trusted?
in which Neil Z. Miller explains that "many 'scientific' studies are literally nonsense. He quotes the Journal of the American Medical Association [2005;294(2):218–28] that showed that a third of "highly cited original clinical research studies" were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies.
He explains that drug and vaccine studies are normally funded by the manufacturers, and they expect the outcomes to validate the safety of a drug or vaccine they want to promote. In most cases, the drug companies will have spend many £s millions on developing the drug.
"Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not uncommon to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine's apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a landmark study published in Pediatrics [2003;112:1039-48] found that cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines "resulted in a significant positive association with tics" and "increased risks of language delay."
Miller goes into some of the tricks used to give the public the wrong information - misinformation. This is, of course, the evidence that homeopathy denialists say is the 'evidence base' for ConMed. It is a sham.
* Evidence of harm can be downplayed, and no-one picks this up
* Important information can be missing from a study, including information on the efficacy of the vaccine or drug. Sometimes, evidence of harm is not mentioned.
* Drug companies commission studies in order to prove that fears about a vaccine or drug are unfounded.
* On ploy is to "design studies comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people" when the "honest studies would compare them to an unvaccinated population"
* Many studies excludes groups, like older people and children, or those with pre-existing conditions, but are then used with these groups.
"Although some studies are mere propaganda, part of a larger disinformation campaign designed to promote a vaccine agenda, other studies link vaccines to debilitating and fatal diseases. For example, the British Medical Journal [1999;319:1133.] and Autoimmunity [2002;35(4):247-53] published data correlating the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine to rising rates of type 1 diabetes. The hepatitis B vaccine has been linked to autoimmune and neurological disorders. Guillain-Barre syndrome - a serious paralytic disease - is a well-known adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. These are just a few of the many scientifically documented correlations between vaccines and incapacitating ailments that I will discuss in upcoming articles".
As patients, we should not trust a medical system that can do such things. Conventional medicine does not have an 'evidence-base' worth dying for! It is time that governments, the NHS, GPs, and above all, the mainstream media began to raise these questions.
This is well, and simply explained in a new article in Natural News
False Foundations of Science: Can Vaccine Studies Be Trusted?
in which Neil Z. Miller explains that "many 'scientific' studies are literally nonsense. He quotes the Journal of the American Medical Association [2005;294(2):218–28] that showed that a third of "highly cited original clinical research studies" were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies.
He explains that drug and vaccine studies are normally funded by the manufacturers, and they expect the outcomes to validate the safety of a drug or vaccine they want to promote. In most cases, the drug companies will have spend many £s millions on developing the drug.
"Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not uncommon to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine's apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a landmark study published in Pediatrics [2003;112:1039-48] found that cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines "resulted in a significant positive association with tics" and "increased risks of language delay."
Miller goes into some of the tricks used to give the public the wrong information - misinformation. This is, of course, the evidence that homeopathy denialists say is the 'evidence base' for ConMed. It is a sham.
* Evidence of harm can be downplayed, and no-one picks this up
* Important information can be missing from a study, including information on the efficacy of the vaccine or drug. Sometimes, evidence of harm is not mentioned.
* Drug companies commission studies in order to prove that fears about a vaccine or drug are unfounded.
* On ploy is to "design studies comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people" when the "honest studies would compare them to an unvaccinated population"
* Many studies excludes groups, like older people and children, or those with pre-existing conditions, but are then used with these groups.
"Although some studies are mere propaganda, part of a larger disinformation campaign designed to promote a vaccine agenda, other studies link vaccines to debilitating and fatal diseases. For example, the British Medical Journal [1999;319:1133.] and Autoimmunity [2002;35(4):247-53] published data correlating the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine to rising rates of type 1 diabetes. The hepatitis B vaccine has been linked to autoimmune and neurological disorders. Guillain-Barre syndrome - a serious paralytic disease - is a well-known adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. These are just a few of the many scientifically documented correlations between vaccines and incapacitating ailments that I will discuss in upcoming articles".
As patients, we should not trust a medical system that can do such things. Conventional medicine does not have an 'evidence-base' worth dying for! It is time that governments, the NHS, GPs, and above all, the mainstream media began to raise these questions.
