If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD
David Wright wrote:
In article , john wrote: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause autism. There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a 2003 U.S. Congressional Committee. Let me guess. That's be the committee chaired by Dan Burton, who is already convinced that vaccines cause autism. He then commissioned the Geiers, who also believe it, to find evidence to support their belief. Golly gee, they found it. What a surprise. If evidence this biased came from the "vaccines don't cause autism" researchers, the anti-vaxers would be screaming the house down. But bias is only bad when they think their opponents are showing it. This debate is not scientific but is political. True. There's no real scientific debate about the worthlessness of the typical anti-vaxer "evidence." I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled by nothing less than spin and propaganda Put forth by organizations like "Defeat Autism Now!" for which Ayoub is a shill. to review the extensive scientific evidence for themselves showing the vaccine-autism link, even though "experts" disagree.. --- [July 9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering the causes, treatment of autism ----David Ayoub, MD I assume the word "experts" is in quotations because someone like Ayoub would mean, say, Bernard Rimland. Read this decision: http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Jeff wrote:
Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these claims with peer-reviewed research. Jeff He can't. Any any time he is challenged he just posts stuff like his reply to your e-mail. Or he'll attack you personally. Or he'll link you to material unrelated to the topic in question. Simple reality is he cannot support his position with any medical or scientific literature produced in the last decade. All he has in science from the 1960's, his webpage (whale.to), and his imaginary friends. We're still waiting for him to explain away the results of a recent study which showed that a decade after mercury was removed from all childhood vaccines in Quebec, autism rates have remained unchanged (they've actually increased, but not to a statistically significant level). His response so far was to slander the authors of the study and cite unrelated material. Bryan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Bryan Heit wrote:
Jeff wrote: Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these claims with peer-reviewed research. Jeff He can't. Any any time he is challenged he just posts stuff like his reply to your e-mail. Or he'll attack you personally. Or he'll link you to material unrelated to the topic in question. Simple reality is he cannot support his position with any medical or scientific literature produced in the last decade. All he has in science from the 1960's, his webpage (whale.to), and his imaginary friends. We're still waiting for him to explain away the results of a recent study which showed that a decade after mercury was removed from all childhood vaccines in Quebec, autism rates have remained unchanged (they've actually increased, but not to a statistically significant level). His response so far was to slander the authors of the study and cite unrelated material. That report is being discussed in the Blogosphere and the vicious attacks of the anti-vac liars are being destroyed. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD
"Jan Drew" wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message hlink.net... "Jan Drew" wrote in message . net... (...) Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is caused by mercury in vaccines. ACTually, you have! http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm Wrong on two counts: 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer. Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc. Boom. Right there IMMEDIATELY. The Medical Experts Speak Out on the Dangers of Thimerosal and the Possible Link Between Administration of Multiple Thimerosal Containing Vaccines and Autism Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, MD, FAAFP Director International Child Development Resource Center 1663 Georgia Street Suite # 700 Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Tel: (321) 953-0278 pdf Slide Show New Evidence Points to an Link Between Environmental Poisons and Learning Disabilities Written Supplement to Dr. Bradstreet's Oral Testimony at the Hearing of the Government Reform Committee, Congress of the United States, US House of Representatives pdf file Dr. Neal A. Halsey, MD Director Institute for Vaccine Safety Johns Hopkins University Suite # 700 Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Tel: (321) 953-0278 pdf Slide Show Commentary on Potential Risk from Thimerosal for Infants Dr. Jane Maroney El-Dahr Chief, Section of Pediatric Allergy/Immunology/Rheumatology Tulane University Health Sciences Center New Orleans, Louisiana pdf Slide Show Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes Dr. David S. Baskin, MD Professor of Neurosurgery and Anesthesiology Baylor College of Medicine Houston, Texas pdf Slide Show Neuropathological, Neurochemical and Clinical Considerations |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD
"Jeff" wrote in message ink.net... "Jan Drew" wrote in message . .. "Jeff" wrote in message ink.net... "Jan Drew" wrote in message . net... (...) Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is caused by mercury in vaccines. ACTually, you have! http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm Wrong on two counts: 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer. Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc. My computer works just fine. For some reason, the ISP doesn't connect to the site. I can't ping the URL, either. I can ping google.com, so it is not a problem with my computer. 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that doesn't mean they are. Jeff Not a matter of what I think. Facts are facts. And the fact is that they are not "experts." They/re Idiots or shills. Jeff The Medical Experts Speak Out on the Dangers of Thimerosal and the Possible Link Between Administration of Multiple Thimerosal Containing Vaccines and Autism Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, MD, FAAFP Director International Child Development Resource Center 1663 Georgia Street Suite # 700 Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Tel: (321) 953-0278 pdf Slide Show New Evidence Points to an Link Between Environmental Poisons and Learning Disabilities Written Supplement to Dr. Bradstreet's Oral Testimony at the Hearing of the Government Reform Committee, Congress of the United States, US House of Representatives pdf file Dr. Neal A. Halsey, MD Director Institute for Vaccine Safety Johns Hopkins University Suite # 700 Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Tel: (321) 953-0278 pdf Slide Show Commentary on Potential Risk from Thimerosal for Infants Dr. Jane Maroney El-Dahr Chief, Section of Pediatric Allergy/Immunology/Rheumatology Tulane University Health Sciences Center New Orleans, Louisiana pdf Slide Show Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes Dr. David S. Baskin, MD Professor of Neurosurgery and Anesthesiology Baylor College of Medicine Houston, Texas pdf Slide Show Neuropathological, Neurochemical and Clinical Considerations |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD
"Mark Probert" wrote in message ... Jeff wrote: "Jan Drew" wrote in message . .. "Jeff" wrote in message ink.net... "Jan Drew" wrote in message . net... (...) Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is caused by mercury in vaccines. ACTually, you have! http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm Wrong on two counts: 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer. Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc. My computer works just fine. For some reason, the ISP doesn't connect to the site. I can't ping the URL, either. I can ping google.com, so it is not a problem with my computer. 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that doesn't mean they are. Jeff Not a matter of what I think. Facts are facts. And the fact is that they are not "experts." They/re Idiots or shills. The best choice is "idiots" since this decision by a US District Court Judge: http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf Both Haley and Geier were given the old heave ho out of court. I suspect that their days as "expert" witnesses are numbered. Dr. Geier was not qualified becuase his cuasation theory was filled with *speculation the is directly contary to the conclusions reached in well respected and numberous epidemiologicand medical studies. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` Same goes for Dr. Haley. speaking of heave ho. In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner. 92-02731 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747 November 9, 1992, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S. Probert. DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred. COUNSEL: Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for petitioner. JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur. Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent, Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. OPINIONBY: Per Curiam. OPINION: [*282] [**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29, 1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4, 1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee. [**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992. The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the default motion. The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of professional misconduct. The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately. Source: NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT Currency Status: ARCHIVE RECORD NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION Name: MARK PROBERT Date Of Birth: 11/XX/1946 Gender: MALE Address: 1698 WEBSTER AVE MERRICK, NY 11566 County: NASSAU Phone: 516-968-5572 EMPLOYER INFORMATION Employer: MARK S PROBERT ESQ Organization: PERSON LICENSING INFORMATION Licensing Agency: NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION License/Certification Type: ATTORNEY License Number: 1253889 Issue Date: 00/00/1978 License Status: DISBARRED License State: NY |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD
"Jan Drew" wrote in message .com... "Jan Drew" wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message thlink.net... "Jan Drew" wrote in message . net... (...) Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is caused by mercury in vaccines. ACTually, you have! http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm Wrong on two counts: 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer. Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc. Boom. Right there IMMEDIATELY. The Medical Experts Speak Out on the Dangers of Thimerosal and the Possible Link Between Administration of Multiple Thimerosal Containing Vaccines and Autism Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, MD, FAAFP Director International Child Development Resource Center 1663 Georgia Street Suite # 700 Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Tel: (321) 953-0278 pdf Slide Show New Evidence Points to an Link Between Environmental Poisons and Learning Disabilities Written Supplement to Dr. Bradstreet's Oral Testimony at the Hearing of the Government Reform Committee, Congress of the United States, US House of Representatives pdf file Dr. Neal A. Halsey, MD Director Institute for Vaccine Safety Johns Hopkins University Suite # 700 Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Tel: (321) 953-0278 pdf Slide Show Commentary on Potential Risk from Thimerosal for Infants Dr. Jane Maroney El-Dahr Chief, Section of Pediatric Allergy/Immunology/Rheumatology Tulane University Health Sciences Center New Orleans, Louisiana pdf Slide Show Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes Dr. David S. Baskin, MD Professor of Neurosurgery and Anesthesiology Baylor College of Medicine Houston, Texas pdf Slide Show Neuropathological, Neurochemical and Clinical Considerations |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
"Bryan Heit" wrote: snip Jeff wrote: Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these claims with peer-reviewed research. Jeff http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm Something Rotten at the Core of Science? by David F. Horrobin Abstract A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the issues of the acceptability and reliability of scientific evidence. In its judgement in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow, the court attempted to set guidelines for U.S. judges to follow when listening to scientific experts. Whether or not findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided one important criterion. But in a key caveat, the court emphasized that peer review might sometimes be flawed, and that therefore this criterion was not unequivocal evidence of validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of peer review adds to this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of correlation between reviewers' recommendations. The Supreme Court questioned the authority of peer review. Many scientists and lawyers are unhappy about the admission by the top legal authority in the United States that peer review might in some circumstances be flawed [1]. David Goodstein, writing in the Guide to the Federal Rules of Evidence - one of whose functions is to interpret the judgement in the case of Daubert - states that "Peer review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice" [2]. In public, at least, almost all scientists would agree. Those who disagree are almost always dismissed in pejorative terms such as "maverick," "failure," and "driven by bitterness." Peer review is central to the organization of modern science. The peer-review process for submitted manuscripts is a crucial determinant of what sees the light of day in a particular journal. Fortunately, it is less effective in blocking publication completely; there are so many journals that most even modestly competent studies will be published provided that the authors are determined enough. The publication might not be in a prestigious journal, but at least it will get into print. However, peer review is also the process that controls access to funding, and here the situation becomes much more serious. There might often be only two or three realistic sources of funding for a project, and the networks of reviewers for these sources are often interacting and interlocking. Failure to pass the peer-review process might well mean that a project is never funded. Science bases its presumed authority in the world on the reliability and objectivity of the evidence that is produced. If the pronouncements of science are to be greeted with public confidence - and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that such confidence is low and eroding - it should be able to demonstrate that peer review, "one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice," is a process that has been validated objectively as a reliable process for putting a stamp of approval on work that has been done. Peer review should also have been validated as a reliable method for making appropriate choices as to what work should be done. Yet when one looks for that evidence it is simply not there. Why not apply scientific methods to the peer review process? For 30 years or so, I and others have been pointing out the fallibility of peer review and have been calling for much more openness and objective evaluation of its procedures [3-5]. For the most part, the scientific establishment, its journals, and its grant-giving bodies have resisted such open evaluation. They fail to understand that if a process that is as central to the scientific endeavor as peer review has no validated experimental base, and if it consistently refuses open scrutiny, it is not surprising that the public is increasingly skeptical about the agenda and the conclusions of science. Largely because of this antagonism to openness and evaluation, there is a great lack of good evidence either way concerning the objectivity and validity of peer review. What evidence there is does not give confidence but is open to many criticisms. Now, Peter Rothwell and Christopher Martyn have thrown a bombshell [6]. Their conclusions are measured and cautious, but there is little doubt that they have provided solid evidence of something truly rotten at the core of science. Forget the reviewers. Just flip a coin. Rothwell and Martyn performed a detailed evaluation of the reviews of papers submitted to two neuroscience journals. Each journal normally sent papers out to two reviewers. Reviews of abstracts and oral presentations sent to two neuroscience meetings were also evaluated. One meeting sent its abstracts to 16 reviewers and the other to 14 reviewers, which provides a good opportunity for statistical evaluation. Rothwell and Martyn analyzed the correlations among reviewers' recommendations by analysis of variance. Their report should be read in full; however, the conclusions are alarmingly clear. For one journal, the relationships among the reviewers' opinions were no better than that obtained by chance. For the other journal, the relationship was only fractionally better. For the meeting abstracts, the content of the abstract accounted for only about 10 to 20 percent of the variance in opinion of referees, and other factors accounted for 80 to 90 percent of the variance. These appalling figures will not be surprising to critics of peer review, but they give solid substance to what these critics have been saying. The core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in terms of oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major journals) and funding is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance. Given the fact that most reviewers are likely to be mainstream and broadly supportive of the existing organization of the scientific enterprise, it would not be surprising if the likelihood of support for truly innovative research was considerably less than that provided by chance. Objective evaluation of grant proposals is a high priority. Scientists frequently become very angry about the public's rejection of the conclusions of the scientific process. However, the Rothwell and Martyn findings, coming on top of so much other evidence, suggest that the public might be right in groping its way to a conclusion that there is something rotten in the state of science. Public support can only erode further if science does not put its house in order and begin a real attempt to develop validated processes for the distribution of publication rights, credit for completed work, and funds for new work. Funding is the most important issue that most urgently requires opening up to rigorous research and objective evaluation. What relevance does this have for pharmacology and pharmaceuticals? Despite enormous amounts of hype and optimistic puffery, pharmaceutical research is actually failing [7]. The annual number of new chemical entities submitted for approval is steadily falling in spite of the enthusiasm for techniques such as combinatorial chemistry, high-throughput screening, and pharmacogenomics. The drive to merge pharmaceutical companies is driven by failure, and not by success. The peer review process may be stifling innovation. Could the peer-review processes in both academia and industry have destroyed rather than promoted innovation? In my own field of psychopharmacology, could it be that peer review has ensured that in depression and schizophrenia, we are still largely pursuing themes that were initiated in the 1950s? Could peer review explain the fact that in both diseases the efficacy of modern drugs is no better than those compounds developed in 1950? Even in terms of side-effects, where the differences between old and new drugs are much hyped, modern research has failed substantially. Is it really a success that 27 of every 100 patients taking the selective 5-HT reuptake inhibitors stop treatment within six weeks compared with the 30 of every 100 who take a 1950s tricyclic antidepressant compound? The Rothwell-Martyn bombshell is a wake-up call to the cozy establishments who run science. If science is to have any credibility - and also if it is to be successful - the peer-review process must be put on a much sounder and properly validated basis or scrapped altogether. David F. Horrobin, a longtime critic of anonymous peer review. heads Laxdale Ltd., which develops novel treatments for psychiatric disorders. In 1972 he founded Medical Hypotheses, the only journal fully devoted to discussion of ideas in medicine. References 1. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993), 509, 579. 2. Goodstein, D. 2000. How Science Works. In U.S. Federal Judiciary Reference Manual on Evidence, pp. 66-72. 3. Horrobin, D.F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263:1438-1441. 4. Horrobin, D.F. 1996. Peer review of grant applications: A harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet 348:1293-1295. 5. Horrobin, D.F. 1981-1982. Peer review: Is the good the enemy of the best? J. Res. Commun. Stud. 3:327-334. 6. Rothwell, P.M. and Martyn, C.N. 2000. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123:1964-1969. 7. Horrobin, D.F. 2000. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J. R. Soc. Med. 93:341-345. Llinks International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Scientific Publication - articles and abstracts from the third congress, held in 1997. The fourth congress will be held in September 2001. Peer-Review Practices at EPA - a section of the 2000 NAS report Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research-Management and Peer-Review Practices, which discusses the strengths and limitations of the process. Can Peer Review Help Resolve Natural Resource Conflicts? - suggests that a modified form of peer review could be useful in policy-related decisions. Evidence and Expert Testimony - includes many online references for scientific evidence. Peer Review Articles - an annotated bibliography covering scientific peer review and its relevance to judicial proceedings. Related HMS Beagle Articles: Top Ten Reasons Against Peer Review and Top Ten Reasons For Peer Review - arguments both humorous and serious. Anatomy of a Rejection - strategies for improving the outcome of the peer review process. [All emphasis added] |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote: snip Jeff wrote: Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these claims with peer-reviewed research. Jeff http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm Something Rotten at the Core of Science? by David F. Horrobin Abstract A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science. And this is relevant how? Do you even know what peer-review is? I actually agree with much of what was written here; having published several scientific papers I'm well familiar with the peer review system. And there is no question that some (not all) researchers use their powers as reviewers to try and achieve their own ends. In my experience, about 2/3rds of the reviewers provide valid critism and useful suggestions. These people make the system as valuable as it is - a second, new mind to find your holes and make the study better. The other third uses their reviewer powers to slow your work, to try and force you to make conclusions more to their liking, and to try and force your study into their world view. Thank god the good ones are still in the majority. Bryan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
In article , Bryan Heit
wrote: Jan Drew wrote: "Bryan Heit" wrote: snip Jeff wrote: Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these claims with peer-reviewed research. Jeff http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm Something Rotten at the Core of Science? by David F. Horrobin Abstract A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science. And this is relevant how? Do you even know what peer-review is? I actually agree with much of what was written here; having published several scientific papers I'm well familiar with the peer review system. And there is no question that some (not all) researchers use their powers as reviewers to try and achieve their own ends. In my experience, about 2/3rds of the reviewers provide valid critism and useful suggestions. These people make the system as valuable as it is - a second, new mind to find your holes and make the study better. The other third uses their reviewer powers to slow your work, to try and force you to make conclusions more to their liking, and to try and force your study into their world view. Thank god the good ones are still in the majority. Bryan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bryan, One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative points of view from the mainstream. Sharon Hope recently posted a report indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all of the dangerous side effects of statins. Please don't ask for proof since I don't make hard copies of every post that I read. Does JAMA run ads in their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? If so, can you see that there is a conflict of interest. If you wrote a well researched article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the article would be printed in JAMA? I doubt it. Feel free to disagree. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | May 21st 06 05:22 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | April 30th 05 05:24 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | March 30th 05 06:33 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | August 29th 04 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 1 | December 15th 03 09:41 AM |