And if you want to talk unethical behaviour......
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-...easles-vaccine
And if you want to talk unethical behaviour......
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-...easles-vaccine
And speaking of conflicts of interest, Dr Paul Offit, who is a pediatric professor at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (which has very close financial connections with Merck) sat on the advisory committee who were voting whether to include the Rotavirus vaccine to the schedule.
Turns out Dr Paul Offit already owned a patent (in conjunction with the Children's Hospital) to a Rotavirus vaccine but instead of excusing himself from the vote, he voted for it and then went on to sell the patent for $182 million.
Source?
If by posts you also mean posts that KM's horse has gish galloped past, then yes. The fucker must be on steroids to be running so strongly
He was trying to address technical stuff for a while too, rather than the normal he said she said, or this bloke is corrupt therefore all big pharma have kitten smoothies for breakfast or whatever; I even taught him about how important the basic technique of control groups were.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Well, before you go crowing too loudly we should take a closer look at that study you linked.
The authors chose 2 countries to compare against America's infant mortality rate and concluded that it showed the US figure could be skewed by 40%.
That's 2 countries. Remember the derision expressed over the fact that Andrew Wakefield's study included only 12 children?
Do we know whether the authors chose those 2 countries specifically because they classify certain early gestation births as stillborn?
In order for the study to stand up to close scrutiny we would need to know how many other countries classify those births similarly. (I'm sure if the study does contain that information someone will be kind enough to point it out).
I mean, heaven forbid that an author might be selective in their comparisons in order to knowingly misrepresent a conclusion.
Incorrect there were two reasons the data is skewed one is economic relative wealth race variation. the other is the different way the US birth stats are listed. PS they also still use feet inches and yards as well.
Andrew Wakefield handpicked the patients to suit his result , made up where they were from, made up diagnosis, paid for samples, ordered tests he had no good reason, and failed to disclose a huge conflict of interest. plus many more things as well. He did so, as he was developing his own Vaccine and was getting paid by lawyers in a lawsuit. all undisclosed.
He also made up results all these facts were proven. Funny enough not one person has been able to replicate his results.
Those studies refer to all the birth in the usa all the births Finland etc
The three countries were chosen as the US was ranked poor Finland and i think Demark were ranked high.
You yourself started on the USA as an example.
As i am feeling sorry for you here is an article written for someone who lacks basic understanding of case studdies and data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.240e87de3f17
![]()
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks