|
|
Rich wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1127501322.817942.96420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > David Wright wrote:
> >> In article <1127495900.944407.203520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >David Wright wrote:
> >> >> In article <1126881518.967447.32960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
> >> >> >Monopolies
> >> >> >
> >> >> >To : All participants and readers of misc.health.alternative + other
> >> >> >health-related newsgroups
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum
> >> >> >are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A
> >> >> >number of individuals with ties to industry are engaging an effort to
> >> >> >shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while
> >> >> >denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, PeterB, I see there is actually some value to your presence here.
> >> >> Many of our readers may never have seen a genuine paranoid in action.
> >> >> Now they can observe you, if they wish.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks, Dr. David.
> >>
> >> Don't mention it. I didn't want people to think you lacked any
> >> redeeming social value, even if you did retire ignominiously from
> >> our little chat about the value of vaccination.
> >
> > I so appreciate your generosity. I didn't retire from the debate about
> > vaccine, though. The readers were told in item 3 of my "warning" post
> > that pharma bloggers work hard to have the last word, and so you did.
> > There is only so much time available to repeat oneself and show that
> > cathy was struggling to come up with shreds of evidence in defense of
> > vaccine. My call for randomized, double-blind, long-term studies
> > proving the effectiveness of vaccine went unasnwered, by you, cathy, or
> > anyone else. I understand, of course. There are no such studies. I
> > can only hope that readers had an opportunity to sift through a hundred
> > posts and find the 3 or 4 paragraphs that really mattered.
> >
>
> "Randomized, double-blind" studies are not the only valid research tools
> available. You demand for such studies of vaccines displays an ignorance of
> how scientific research is really done. Those modalities are particularly
> useful for testing medications whose results must be evaluated subjectively,
> such as self-report of pain levels, or observation of cold symptoms, but in
> the case of vaccines, perfectly valid research studies can be done
> statistically. Once a vaccine has been shown to have protective value
> against a serious illness, it would be unethical to use placebos and
> withhold that benefit in further research.
That's certainly the view promoted by the makers of vaccine.
Unfortunately, anti-body titres don't tell us how effectively vaccine
confers immunity in the real world. Contrary to the shrill voices of
your fellow pharma bloggers, I accept that vaccines work, the problem
is we don't know how WELL they work, and that's important. The article
I posted on flu vaccine demonstrates the dispute over study results by
various health agencies and whether we should be stock-piling. This is
happening because the drug makers don't want to disrupt their global,
bread and butter vaccine franchise. When the science of marketing
replaces the science of medicine, everyone loses in the end.
PeterB
|
|