http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=Article&ID=610
|
|
Vaccine Information
Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Healthy
People |
Critique of
Government-Funded Epidemiology Since I
have been occasionally criticized for adopting, as it were, too acerbic a
tone in my contributions on vaccination questions, I will try to demonstrate
why those of us who have opted to contest the position of the
medical-industrial-governmental complex on this issue at times feel overcome
with rage at the abominably poor quality of the pro-vaccination epidemiologic
research which is foisted on the public in the hope and expectation that no
one will ever take the trouble to check it out and criticize it. One feels rage as well
at the complicity of the "peer reviewed" journals which print these
awful productions. It is abundantly clear, if further proof were needed, that
"peer review" means simply preventing criticism of certain
commercial interests and blocking the emergence of competing viewpoints. Finally, one feels rage
and exasperation at the total inability of journalists -- who are reputed to
be professional sceptics -- to see through, and expose, this duplicity. They
fearlessly cross-question generals and members of the cabinet, even the
President himself, but are struck dumb by the self-promoting assertions of
some character in a white coat ("Say Joe, how do you spell
'breakthrough'"?). Let us not forget that
it is small and defenceless babies who are being turned into mincemeat by
these commercial products known as vaccines. Once upon a time, long
ago in the 1940s and 1950s, physicians who were interested in vaccine
reactions actually (would you believe it?) went into hospitals, and even to
people's homes, to examine babies who were thought to have suffered some sort
of adverse reaction. They went so far as to speak with the parents and to ask
their opinion. This was called by one British pioneer "shoe-leather
epidemiology." Today our
epidemiologists have progressed way beyond those primitive techniques. Rarely
do they actually observe a sick baby. Rarely do they actually discuss a case
with the parents. Oh no! That would be accepting "anecdotal
evidence" -- a cardinal sin. That would be mistaking the well-known
"background incidence" of SIDS or epilepsy or asthma or diabetes,
or you name it, for a vaccine reaction. Never mind that no research exists on
any such "background incidence" in an unvaccinated U.S. population.
Our epidemiologists are not fazed by this. They just keep repeating the
mantra until everyone is convinced that a "background incidence"
must have been demonstrated somehow, somewhere, by someone. Fortified by these
unproven assumptions and methodological limitations, epidemiologists funded
by government agencies and the medical-industrial complex fill the pages of
medical journals with trash epidemiology -- the articles discussed below are
prime examples -- which, in a sort of scientific apotheosis of Gresham’s Law,
drives good research out of circulation or prevents it from being published. |
Health News |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||||
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.