Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[mashman]

Because that's what makes them work?

Makes what work?

[Ocean1]

Makes what work?

Vaccines. Occam's razor says the most likely reason any particular ingredient exists is because it's functionally beneficial.

Either that or the bogymans are sticking it in there to dispose of vast quantities of toxic metals cheaply.

Or they secretly don't like all dem needy sick people and have decided to kill them.

Or the toxic sludge is designed to expose sheeple to the radioactive vapour trails, allowing the lizards to hypnotize them.

Or sommat.

Maybe.

[mashman]

Vaccines. Occam's razor says the most likely reason any particular ingredient exists is because it's functionally beneficial.

Either that or the bogymans are sticking it in there to dispose of vast quantities of toxic metals cheaply.

Or they secretly don't like all dem needy sick people and have decided to kill them.

Or the toxic sludge is designed to expose sheeple to the radioactive vapour trails, allowing the lizards to hypnotize them.

Or sommat.

Maybe.

Yes, they only serve a financial purpose. Well done. I had almost given up on you. Judging by the way the industry is protected from the findings of new scientific evidence, the promoted results are entirely financial irrespective of efficacy and a question mark over exactly what is in there and is these vaccine by accident, not design (shows you didn't read the article) effects on the human body. Myopic as always and now we potentially we know why.

[TheDemonLord]

Judging by the way the industry is protected from the findings of new scientific evidence

But didn't you just say that almost 50% of Medical research may be invalid?

You can't have it both ways sunny-Jim - either Research that is peer reviewed is Valid (and so your claims about "Research" being hidden have some form of merit) - or the entire field is corrupt and so too is this bit of "Research"...

[Ocean1]

the promoted results are entirely financial irrespective of efficacy

Well they wouldn't be very fucking financial if the product wasn't efficacious, would they?

Nor would there be a great deal of product efficacy if there wasn't any finance involved.

[husaberg]

But didn't you just say that almost 50% of Medical research may be invalid?

You can't have it both ways sunny-Jim - either Research that is peer reviewed is Valid (and so your claims about "Research" being hidden have some form of merit) - or the entire field is corrupt and so too is this bit of "Research"...

To be fair the guy that said it was the guy that published Andrew Wakefield then said the lancet didn't need to retract it. it was 12 years before they finally did.
Despite it being being proven to be a fraud that years before.

[RDJ]

But didn't you just say that almost 50% of Medical research may be invalid?

You can't have it both ways sunny-Jim - either Research that is peer reviewed is Valid (and so your claims about "Research" being hidden have some form of merit) - or the entire field is corrupt and so too is this bit of "Research"...

Context is critical - one horse in a race is always faster than another, but which horse...? Hint for the insightless; peer-reviewed research in some fields is much less likely to be valid than in other fields. You can do your own research on whether diversity-intersectionality-queer-people-of-furriness studies are more or less likely to lead to invalid conclusions, than in hard-repeatable-science-fields' studies, or not, whatever.

And as Fleming proved with penicillin, sometimes data are the plural of anecdote. For example, when I was training, before there was a hepatitis B vaccine, hep B was an actual epidemic in New Zealand and many people mostly but not exclusively Maori, died from it, and it was not a nice process for the sick. in training it was not uncommon for one or two students every few years' class to not be able to practice in 'invasive' fields of medicine (like surgery) after graduating, because they contracted Hep B during training and remained antigen positive. Even Hep A could have someone need to repeat a year because they couldn't study while they were sick for weeks.

Once Hep A and B in the vaccines came on the market, these occupational cases simply vanished. Unfortunately, because of less-than-near-complete uptake of the vaccine, we still have preventable Hep B cases in the general population. We also have the scourge of hepatitis C, against which every medical person I know wishes we had a vaccine already.

Now you can make fun of the science all you like and you can question the motives of the vaccine manufacturers and doctors and nurses who recommend and administer it all you like, we still have freedom of speech in most regards. But in the end, you're like the homeless guys sleeping outside a nice family home, drinking Thunderbird, belching and cursing the inexplicable success of the house’s inhabitants because they get up, go to work, try to improve their and other people's lives, draw conclusions from facts, test those conclusions, implement changes as best they can in what they see as useful, with what they have to work with, and get paid at the end of it.

[Katman]

But didn't you just say that almost 50% of Medical research may be invalid?

You can't have it both ways sunny-Jim - either Research that is peer reviewed is Valid (and so your claims about "Research" being hidden have some form of merit) - or the entire field is corrupt and so too is this bit of "Research"...

Making sense of these things called words really isn't your forte, is it?

[mashman]

Well they wouldn't be very fucking financial if the product wasn't efficacious, would they?

Nor would there be a great deal of product efficacy if there wasn't any finance involved.

Depends on how you sell them and how influential your client base is when it comes to white lies.

So negative Moriarty. The need would still exist. Why would peoples drive to want to solve that need not exist simply because money doesn't? Stop projecting and accept what the experts are saying. Money is destroying trust in medical science.

[TheDemonLord]

Making sense of these things called words really isn't your forte, is it?

Whereas you are still struggling with making sense.

Point being - if you are going to have a dig at Peer Review and Research - lambasting it as mostly invalid, you then cannot cite a piece of research to further your view point.

[Ocean1]

Depends on how you sell them and how influential your client base is when it comes to white lies.

So negative Moriarty. The need would still exist. Why would peoples drive to want to solve that need not exist simply because money doesn't? Stop projecting and accept what the experts are saying. Money is destroying trust in medical science.

Ohyeah, teh whole pharmaceutical industry depends on lies. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...3.figures-only

You still don't geddit, do you? Money is a unit of value. Money is a measure of work done, services supplied, products made. No money: no medical science.

But next time you go see the doc just explain that your need is more important that his and I'm sure he'll waive what little you already pay for his services.

[Katman]

Whereas you are still struggling with making sense.

Point being - if you are going to have a dig at Peer Review and Research - lambasting it as mostly invalid, you then cannot cite a piece of research to further your view point.

You rightly pointed out that the Editor of The Lancet states that possibly half of published research is invalid but then go on to draw the conclusion that either peer reviewed articles are valid or the entire field is corrupt.

[Katman]

No money: no medical science.

It's the incentive of making ever increasing amounts of money that has corrupted a significant percentage of scientific research.

[Ocean1]

It's the incentive of making ever increasing amounts of money that has corrupted a significant percentage of scientific research.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me, you should report that shit.

[TheDemonLord]

You rightly pointed out that the Editor of The Lancet states that possibly half of published research is invalid but then go on to draw the conclusion that either peer reviewed articles are valid or the entire field is corrupt.

You are almost there - There's a reason I use a superficially arbitrary standard:

1: The Editor never states which or what articles he thinks is BS - this Ambiguity is being abused by people who wish to use it as a reason to dismiss any published articles that are in direct conflict with their PoV.

2: In the stated opinion, to bolster it, they are using a published article (which has been subjected to the same scrutiny as the articles that are being dismissed) to bolster their PoV.

You can't pick and choose - currently It's one standard for the evidence that supports the viewpoint and a different standard for evidence that rebuts it.