Vaccinations; recent developments

[sarkeizen]

The Science of conducting and evaluating 'studies' is old hat - the techniques have long ago been developed and proven.

So why wasn't my assessment that you have nothing to say on the subject true?  By virtue of have zero idea on how to construct a study - why would you think you know anything at all about how to judge if someone has handled data improperly.  Let me know when you can answer that one.

Why the secrecy?

There isn't any.  Today with eJournals a lot of studies include extended data if not raw data and if they don't you usually just request it from the author. That's how Hooker did his reanalysis of Thompson's study.  By the sound of it he didn't even request the data from Thompson, as he was only one of the authors on that study.  If you ask, most researchers will gladly hand it over.  Other studies are based on public datasets like the China–Cornell–Oxford Project.  Which are available on the internet.   If you can't find the data you're looking for then just ask the research groups PR dept and you'll get it.

Why the cooked results?

As someone who has done forensic work of this nature I always find how the public's ideas about how to bias a study is so far from how it happens.  I can pick out a study that's been set up to a particular parties advantage without much trouble.  As well as one that has been constructed by an idiot like yourself.  Watching you is sort of like a IT person watching a movie about hackers.

Take a rather public example T. Collin Campbell who wrote the seminal scare-people-into-vegetarianism book "The China Study".  He has been pressed - for a number of years to defend how he came up with the results in his exceptionally stupid book.  The likely answer is: He just made them up.  It took nine years before someone brought this up.  Why did it take so long?  Because it's a popular science book, there is no peer review and no governing body.  You just publish it.  It was trivial to find the problem once someone looked.  That's how easy it is to find "cooking".  Pharmaceutical studies - at least those that need to pass FDA have a lot of people looking at them.  In fact if you look at studies that support products that don't have to pass FDA - homeopathy, acupuncture (there are some regulations around this) other herbal remedies.  What do you find?  Well the quality of the study drops hugely.  Which does much to ruin your ideas that everything which supports vaccines is somehow biased.

your arguments really do lack substance

Nope, they are clear and straightforward.  Either you believe that propaganda as I've defined it does influence peoples choices or it doesn't.  You seem to claim that it doesn't.  Which is pretty interesting.   

and convey the impression that your task truly is one of deception.

I doubt any rational person believes that.

[Cap-Z-ro]

I doubt any rational person believes that.

Now how in the hell would a paid traitor to the human race possibly have any idea what " any rational person believes" ?

Astounding psychopathy

Regards...

[sarkeizen]

Holly atom our savior, that is a lot of research

Research actually requires more than just assertions.  That could be entitled 50 stupid things anti-vaccine people say and you wouldn't have to change a word.

Again, the usual offer is open.  If there is one or two things in that article which you consider strong evidence of harm or lack of efficacy.  Then please point out the specific point and I'll address it.  Be prepared to answer WHY you think it's strong evidence though.

This is something most of you won't do.  Perhaps because none of you know how weighing evidence is a science - which is why you have to ridiculous beliefs that you do. 

Oh and Joel - you haven't responded to my intellectual challenge.  Why is that?  Scared?

[SeaMonkey]

What's really behind the measles vaccination hysteria?

Love of Money is an open doorway to corruption.

[SeaMonkey]

Eight invented 'diseases' Big Pharma is banking on.

MMR vaccine may cause cancer and mutate DNA.