ADVERTISEMENT

RFK Jr reports 20% of Moderna Vaccine recipents suffer "grave injuries"

Joes Place said:
Sure! They actually retract publications when they find evidence of fraud or malfeasance.

Have yet to see your anti-vaxxers acknowledge the MMR/autism claims are bogus. Yet both that "study" was retracted AND multiple other studies never identified any correlation (in fact, the Danish study, as I recall, actually identified a trend toward PROTECTIVE aspects of those vaccines relative to autism rates).
Click to expand...
And Horton of The Lancet again in April '15
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
Joes Place said:
Sure! They actually retract publications when they find evidence of fraud or malfeasance.

Have yet to see your anti-vaxxers acknowledge the MMR/autism claims are bogus. Yet both that "study" was retracted AND multiple other studies never identified any correlation (in fact, the Danish study, as I recall, actually identified a trend toward PROTECTIVE aspects of those vaccines relative to autism rates).
Click to expand...
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” – Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine
 
Nat Algren said:
And Horton of The Lancet again in April '15
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf
Click to expand...

Looks like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, as opposed to looking at individual works on their merits.
 
Nat Algren said:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” – Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine
Click to expand...

"Much", meaning "some".

You're attempting to claim it is ALL under some nefarious Big Pharma conspiracy.
 
Joes Place said:
"Much", meaning "some".

You're attempting to claim it is ALL under some nefarious Big Pharma conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Someone is taking great liberty here on the English language and that person is you, Joe. "Much" in NO WAY means "some". Much means "great amount".

Marcia Angell's quote was 10 years ago. The stranglehold that Big Pharma possesses has only tightened. If you were to ask anyone on Capitol Hill what industry is the most corrupt, you will universally be told the oil lobby. Big Pharma spends TWICE as much as the oil lobby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
Joes Place said:
Looks like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, as opposed to looking at individual works on their merits.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
Nat Algren said:
Someone is taking great liberty here on the English language and that person is you, Joe. "Much" in NO WAY means "some". Much means "great amount".
Click to expand...

It's an exaggeration, for sure.

Info in your science and med literature undergoes a LOT more review than what you guys post off Youtube. Can you describe the review process for your websites and Youtubes - be specific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
Joes Place said:
It's an exaggeration, for sure.

Info in your science and med literature undergoes a LOT more review than what you guys post off Youtube. Can you describe the review process for your websites and Youtubes - be specific.
Click to expand...
Broad brush.
 
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
Nat Algren said:
WOW! Journal editors are so on the take. So, this is how they pay for their children's private school.
https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4619
Click to expand...

"To address potential editor conflicts of interest, journals typically have recusal processes that exclude editors from review of manuscripts where the editor has a conflict; we found that three quarters of journals reported having a recusal process on their website."

Seems like more than "much" have recusal processes. "Most" do.
 
Joes Place said:
"75% with recusal policies"
Click to expand...
That's what you want to go to war with? LMAO!

Now open up the pop-up and tell me how many thousands they rake in...if you're honest...and we know you're not because medicine is no less corrupt as any other sector...in fact, more so. They spend more than double the oil lobby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
Nat Algren said:
Oh brother! What a corrupt bunch of whores.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126053/#ref15
Click to expand...

You do recognize that was >15 years ago, and most conferences and associations have much different policies on handouts today, right?

(I know, because I've been to lots of medical conferences, and a couple companies I worked for decided to comply with those policies. And they had lots of internal training for the marketing folks on what is 'ok' today and what's not)
 
Nat Algren said:
Oh brother! What a corrupt bunch of whores.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126053/#ref15
Click to expand...

2014 Code of Ethics:

  1. Any gifts accepted by physicians individually should primarily entail a benefit to patients and should not be of substantial value. Accordingly, textbooks, modest meals, and other gifts are appropriate if they serve a genuine educational function. Cash payments should not be accepted. The use of drug samples for personal or family use is permissible as long as these practices do not interfere with patient access to drug samples. It would not be acceptable for non-retired physicians to request free pharmaceuticals for personal use or use by family members.
  2. Individual gifts of minimal value are permissible as long as the gifts are related to the physician’s work (e.g., pens and notepads).
  3. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs defines a legitimate “conference” or “meeting” as any activity, held at an appropriate location, where (a) the gathering is primarily dedicated, in both time and effort, to promoting objective scientific and educational activities and discourse (one or more educational presentation(s) should be the highlight of the gathering), and (b) the main incentive for bringing attendees together is to further their knowledge on the topic(s) being presented. An appropriate disclosure of financial support or conflict of interest should be made.
  4. Subsidies to underwrite the costs of continuing medical education conferences or professional meetings can contribute to the improvement of patient care and therefore are permissible. Since the giving of a subsidy directly to a physician by a company’s representative may create a relationship that could influence the use of the company’s products, any subsidy should be accepted by the conference’s sponsor who in turn can use the money to reduce the conference’s registration fee. Payments to defray the costs of a conference should not be accepted directly from the company by the physicians attending the conference.
  5. Subsidies from industry should not be accepted directly or indirectly to pay for the costs of travel, lodging, or other personal expenses of physicians attending conferences or meetings, nor should subsidies be accepted to compensate for the physicians’ time. Subsidies for hospitality should not be accepted outside of modest meals or social events held as a part of a conference or meeting. It is appropriate for faculty at conferences or meetings to accept reasonable honoraria and to accept reimbursement for reasonable travel, lodging, and meal expenses. It is also appropriate for consultants who provide genuine services to receive reasonable compensation and to accept reimbursement for reasonable travel, lodging, and meal expenses. Token consulting or advisory arrangements cannot be used to justify the compensation of physicians for their time or their travel, lodging, and other out-of-pocket expenses.
  6. Scholarship or other special funds to permit medical students, residents, and fellows to attend carefully selected educational conferences may be permissible as long as the selection of students, residents, or fellows who will receive the funds is made by the academic or training institution. Carefully selected educational conferences are generally defined as the major educational, scientific or policy-making meetings of national, regional, or specialty medical associations.
  7. No gifts should be accepted if there are strings attached. For example, physicians should not accept gifts given in relation to the physician’s prescribing practices. In addition, when companies underwrite medical conferences or lectures other than their own, responsibility for and control over the selection of content, faculty, educational methods, and materials should belong to the organizers of the conferences or lectures.

Note that 2014 is LATER THAN 2003, in case that's overly complex for you.
 
Joes Place said:
You do recognize that was >15 years ago, and most conferences and associations have much different policies on handouts today, right?

(I know, because I've been to lots of medical conferences, and a couple companies I worked for decided to comply with those policies. And they had lots of internal training for the marketing folks on what is 'ok' today and what's not)
Click to expand...
And it's been downhill ever since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
Nat Algren said:
Wikipedia? LMAO.
Click to expand...

Go look the law up for yourself. Just because Wikipedia happens to have a summary of it doesn't alter it's a "real" thing, and resulted in substantial improvements in transparency.

This is like all the Youtube vids you idiots post on thimerosol, which was removed from US vaccines in 2001.
 
What other country allows DTC? Selling drugs on a corner = bad. Selling Big Pharma drugs a gazillion times an hour = good...for Big Pharma and the politicians who receive largesse.
 
Nat Algren said:
What other country allows DTC? Selling drugs on a corner = bad. Selling Big Pharma drugs a gazillion times an hour = good...for Big Pharma and the politicians who receive largesse.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with "journals" and "physicians"?

This is getting to be a bigger and bigger Gish Gallop for you.
 
Joes Place said:
Go look the law up for yourself. Just because Wikipedia happens to have a summary of it doesn't alter it's a "real" thing, and resulted in substantial improvements in transparency.

This is like all the Youtube vids you idiots post on thimerosol, which was removed from US vaccines in 2001.
Click to expand...
A) Link to my posts on thimerosal.
B) Learn how to spell thimerosal correctly before positing yourself as an expert.
C) Here is the link to the CDC illustrating that flu vaccines were littered with thimerosal during the '15-'16 season. I believe 48 million doses were administered that season.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6430a3.htm#Tab.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Tax records reveal the lucrative world of covid misinformation

Replies
15
Views
308
Off Topic
PBhawkeye
PBhawkeye
K

Natural Immunity for the win AGAIN

Replies
229
Views
2K
Off Topic
LBoogie28
LBoogie28
cigaretteman

RFK Jr. says he’s running for president, and could draw Republican support

Replies
7
Views
201
Off Topic
gohawks50
gohawks50
Kenneth Griffin

The Steep Cost of Ron DeSantis’s Vaccine Turnabout

Replies
5
Views
78
Off Topic
Kenneth Griffin
Kenneth Griffin
cigaretteman

Surgeons Improve Function of Kidneys Transplanted From Genetically Altered Pigs

Replies
1
Views
34
Off Topic
GOHOX69
GOHOX69
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back