|
|
PeterB wrote:
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
You really need to do some research before you spew bullshit. I did, and
it is obvious that you do not have a clue.
|
|