The truth about vaccines cannot only be found in peer-reviewed studies - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 20Likes
  • 4 Post By Mirzam
  • 3 Post By beckybird
  • 2 Post By serenbat
  • 3 Post By kathymuggle
  • 4 Post By samaxtics
  • 3 Post By beckybird
  • 1 Post By serenbat
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 7 Old 08-27-2014, 07:56 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
The truth about vaccines cannot only be found in peer-reviewed studies

You Can’t Find the Truth About Vaccines by Burying Your Head in Peer-Reviewed Studies

Quote:
If you are so focused on hard evidence to satisfy your rational left-brain, you will never realize that you are working with faulty data. You will miss the big picture by being so obsessed with details. Yes, it is important to have evidence to back your claims, but if you fail to understand the gigantic scale to which data is corrupted by moneyed interests, then you will fail to see the truth about vaccines (i.e. that they damage the immune system, cause autism in some individuals and create horrendous side-effects).

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#2 of 7 Old 08-27-2014, 10:52 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,932
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Agreed. I can get out of bed each morning without a peer reviewed paper telling me to do so.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#3 of 7 Old 08-27-2014, 11:11 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,370
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by beckybird View Post
Agreed. I can get out of bed each morning without a peer reviewed paper telling me to do so.
But can you sleep it night?!

Phone does not allow me to add my expression!!
applejuice and beckybird like this.
serenbat is offline  
#4 of 7 Old 08-27-2014, 11:24 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
I agree.

It goes well beyond the quote, though.

I always laugh a little when someone says they only want want to look at articles in peer reviewed journals. Oh, I know why they say it (and maybe peer review is the best we have got) but it is hardly the golden ticket to information and I wonder if those who say it realise there are significant issues with the peer review process.

Here is the Guardian on it:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...review-science

"Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed."

A nice collection of articles that examine the issues of peer review can be found here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/

I enjoyed this article, from the list :
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerrev...ture05009.html


"It's been peer reviewed, so it must be right, right? Wrong! Not everything in the peer-reviewed literature is correct. Indeed, some of it is downright bad science. Professional scientists usually know how to rate papers within their own fields of expertise (all too often very narrow ones nowadays). We realize that some journals are more stringent than others in what they will accept, and that peer-review standards can unfortunately be too flexible. A lust for profit has arguably led to the appearance of too many journals, and so it can be all too easy to find somewhere that will publish poor-quality work."
applejuice, serenbat and beckybird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#5 of 7 Old 08-27-2014, 11:50 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Remember, or perhaps I should say, ever heard of Scott Reuben?

Quote:
Scott S. Reuben, MD, formerly chief of the acute pain service at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., is said to have fabricated his results in at least 21 articles dating back to 1996.
Quote:
James C. Eisenach, MD, editor in chief of Anesthesiology, which published three of the tainted papers, said Dr. Reuben’s data have been cited 40 times per year—twice as much as other articles in the field.
my bold


Quote:
What’s particularly surprising given the dimensions of the case, Ms. Johnston said, is that Dr. Reuben’s research managed to raise no alarms among peer reviewers. However, she added, “the peer review system can only do so much. Trust is a major component of the academic world. It’s backed up by the implication that your reputation will be destroyed if you violate that trust.”
my bold

The link for all three quotes: http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/Vi...=21&a_id=12868

So it's not just the initial paper but all the papers that cite it and all the medical personnel whose practices are influenced by the papers.

Apply this now to what the CDC appears to have done by manipulating data. The ramifications are potentially enormous.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#6 of 7 Old 08-27-2014, 01:32 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,932
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Not everything in the peer-reviewed literature is correct. Indeed, some of it is downright bad science.
Especially if the literature has anything bad to say about vaccines, right?
Mirzam, applejuice and serenbat like this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#7 of 7 Old 08-27-2014, 04:08 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,370
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
I agree.

It goes well beyond the quote, though.

I always laugh a little when someone says they only want want to look at articles in peer reviewed journals. Oh, I know why they say it (and maybe peer review is the best we have got) but it is hardly the golden ticket to information and I wonder if those who say it realise there are significant issues with the peer review process.

Here is the Guardian on it:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...review-science

"Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed."

A nice collection of articles that examine the issues of peer review can be found here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/

I enjoyed this article, from the list :
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerrev...ture05009.html


"It's been peer reviewed, so it must be right, right? Wrong! Not everything in the peer-reviewed literature is correct. Indeed, some of it is downright bad science. Professional scientists usually know how to rate papers within their own fields of expertise (all too often very narrow ones nowadays). We realize that some journals are more stringent than others in what they will accept, and that peer-review standards can unfortunately be too flexible. A lust for profit has arguably led to the appearance of too many journals, and so it can be all too easy to find somewhere that will publish poor-quality work."

Very good points Kathy!
applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off