peer studies? proof?? - Page 2

[prosciencemum]

Well let us know how you get on convincing your "conventional minded person" with all that. Hard to debate or debunk your hidden resources, but apparantly you're not after that.

Odd really - seems to me a forum labelled "discussion and debate" with the big red rules at the top about whats ok to post is being pretty clear about what it is for.....

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Well let us know how you get on convincing your "conventional minded person" with all that. Hard to debate or debunk your hidden resources, but apparantly you're not after that.

Odd really - seems to me a forum labelled "discussion and debate" with the big red rules at the top about whats ok to post is being pretty clear about what it is for.....

Rude? Check. Sarcastic? Check. Derisive? Check. Mocking? Check.

Miss anything? Oh, yeah, the post where you imply that non vaxxed kids are parasites leeching off the actions of all the good little vaccinators. Classic. Ok, now you get the last word...

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by orthodoxmom 

I don't mean to be offensive here. I was upfront from the beginning with my beliefs that are founded on accurate information. If you disagree, there was no need to get involved with it. Im not sure why you bothered to respond when you did not have anything to offer.

In your opinion your beliefs are founded on accurate information.

Since this is the "Vaccine Discussion and Debate" forum I find it hard to believe that you honestly thought that people might disagree with your posting. Just because someone may have a different opinion than others certainly doesn't mean that they have nothing to offer to the conversation.

[Mirzam]

An excellent article on the flawed process of peer review

[R]obbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked 'publish' and 'reject'. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back 'How do you know I haven't already done it?'

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/021813_A-Flawed-Process-Is-At-The-Heart-of-Science-and-Journal-Publications.shtml

[Rrrrrachel]

Yeah the system has some issues. That's for sure.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

An excellent article on the flawed process of peer review

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/021813_A-Flawed-Process-Is-At-The-Heart-of-Science-and-Journal-Publications.shtml

Here is some more food for thought when it comes to considering research

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0404.brownlee.html

http://www.healio.com/pediatrics/practice-management/news/online/%7BDEE8C766-75CA-42B6-80D0-A666E459DB1A%7D/Drug-trials-funded-by-industry-more-likely-to-publish-favorable-results

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/PRC/15964

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185567

http://bostonreview.net/BR35.3/angell.php

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf  (about the UK but still relevant IMO)

http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html

some of these articles are older - but again still relevant IMO since not much has changed in this regard