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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Bryan Heit wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: 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. This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through which support existing theories. Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on re-writing the science books this is what you need to do. I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not complete. 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. Complete and absolute bull****. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165 articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum Does JAMA run ads in their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? Yes. If so, can you see that there is a conflict of interest. No. Most scientific journals are set up such that the editorial boards and advertising boards have no influence over each other. Keep in mind that the people who pick and review papers for scientific journals are not employees of the journal, nor are they paid for their services. Hell, even I have reviewed papers for journals, and my boss acts as an editor for several journals. The whole underlying purpose of this system is to avoid the very conflicts you worry about. Long story short, scientists pick the content of the journal, the advertising guys simply try to pay for it - where do you think the money comes from to pay for all of those journals which have free on-line access? If you wrote a well researched article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the article would be printed in JAMA? They most certantly would. In fact, I found four articles in JAMA on that very topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish... I doubt it. Feel free to disagree. Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong... Bryan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bryan, Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain the review process. I am glad that you were able to get your scientific publications past the peer review process. You made some excellent points. Jason, note how Bryan demonstrated that the conspiracy bull**** is just that. There are those who substitute conspiracy crap for facts, since they are long on the former, and short on the latter. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
In article , Mark Probert
wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: In article , Bryan Heit wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: 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. This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through which support existing theories. Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on re-writing the science books this is what you need to do. I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not complete. 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. Complete and absolute bull****. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165 articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum Does JAMA run ads in their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? Yes. If so, can you see that there is a conflict of interest. No. Most scientific journals are set up such that the editorial boards and advertising boards have no influence over each other. Keep in mind that the people who pick and review papers for scientific journals are not employees of the journal, nor are they paid for their services. Hell, even I have reviewed papers for journals, and my boss acts as an editor for several journals. The whole underlying purpose of this system is to avoid the very conflicts you worry about. Long story short, scientists pick the content of the journal, the advertising guys simply try to pay for it - where do you think the money comes from to pay for all of those journals which have free on-line access? If you wrote a well researched article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the article would be printed in JAMA? They most certantly would. In fact, I found four articles in JAMA on that very topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish... I doubt it. Feel free to disagree. Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong... Bryan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bryan, Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain the review process. I am glad that you were able to get your scientific publications past the peer review process. You made some excellent points. Jason, note how Bryan demonstrated that the conspiracy bull**** is just that. There are those who substitute conspiracy crap for facts, since they are long on the former, and short on the latter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark, Yes, Bryan done a great job. We both know that any magazine that has ads paid for by companies that make statins would in most cases not print an article that was entitled, "The Side Effects of Statins". Of course, an article related to statins might mention some of side effects of statins. The editors know that those companies will stop paying for expensive ads if the editors make them upset with negative articles about the medications those companies make. Jason |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
In article ,
(Jason Johnson) wrote: In article , Mark Probert wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: In article , Bryan Heit wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: 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. This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through which support existing theories. Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on re-writing the science books this is what you need to do. I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not complete. 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. Complete and absolute bull****. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165 articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum Does JAMA run ads in their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? Yes. If so, can you see that there is a conflict of interest. No. Most scientific journals are set up such that the editorial boards and advertising boards have no influence over each other. Keep in mind that the people who pick and review papers for scientific journals are not employees of the journal, nor are they paid for their services. Hell, even I have reviewed papers for journals, and my boss acts as an editor for several journals. The whole underlying purpose of this system is to avoid the very conflicts you worry about. Long story short, scientists pick the content of the journal, the advertising guys simply try to pay for it - where do you think the money comes from to pay for all of those journals which have free on-line access? If you wrote a well researched article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the article would be printed in JAMA? They most certantly would. In fact, I found four articles in JAMA on that very topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish... I doubt it. Feel free to disagree. Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong... Bryan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bryan, Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain the review process. I am glad that you were able to get your scientific publications past the peer review process. You made some excellent points. Jason, note how Bryan demonstrated that the conspiracy bull**** is just that. There are those who substitute conspiracy crap for facts, since they are long on the former, and short on the latter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark, Yes, Bryan done a great job. We both know that any magazine that has ads paid for by companies that make statins would in most cases not print an article that was entitled, "The Side Effects of Statins". Of course, an article related to statins might mention some of side effects of statins. The editors know that those companies will stop paying for expensive ads if the editors make them upset with negative articles about the medications those companies make. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Update: I hope that Bryan sees this: I found this in another newsgroup: Sharon Hope wrote: How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association, refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue? http://www.thincs.org/index.htm select "News" Click on the link for Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors tell us about the nature of these side effects? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: In article , Bryan Heit wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: 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. This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through which support existing theories. Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on re-writing the science books this is what you need to do. I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not complete. 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. Complete and absolute bull****. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165 articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum Does JAMA run ads in their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? Yes. If so, can you see that there is a conflict of interest. No. Most scientific journals are set up such that the editorial boards and advertising boards have no influence over each other. Keep in mind that the people who pick and review papers for scientific journals are not employees of the journal, nor are they paid for their services. Hell, even I have reviewed papers for journals, and my boss acts as an editor for several journals. The whole underlying purpose of this system is to avoid the very conflicts you worry about. Long story short, scientists pick the content of the journal, the advertising guys simply try to pay for it - where do you think the money comes from to pay for all of those journals which have free on-line access? If you wrote a well researched article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the article would be printed in JAMA? They most certantly would. In fact, I found four articles in JAMA on that very topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish... I doubt it. Feel free to disagree. Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong... Bryan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bryan, Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain the review process. I am glad that you were able to get your scientific publications past the peer review process. You made some excellent points. Jason, note how Bryan demonstrated that the conspiracy bull**** is just that. There are those who substitute conspiracy crap for facts, since they are long on the former, and short on the latter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark, Yes, Bryan done a great job. We both know that any magazine that has ads paid for by companies that make statins would in most cases not print an article that was entitled, "The Side Effects of Statins". We both do not know that, and, kindly, do not speak for me. I know just the opposite. Of course, an article related to statins might mention some of side effects of statins. The editors know that those companies will stop paying for expensive ads if the editors make them upset with negative articles about the medications those companies make. As was pointed out to you, the editorial boards of peer reviewed journals do not correlate with the business departments. Like I said, long on conspiracy bull****, short on facts. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Jason Johnson wrote:
Update: I hope that Bryan sees this: I found this in another newsgroup: Sharon Hope wrote: How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association, refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue? http://www.thincs.org/index.htm select "News" Click on the link for Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors tell us about the nature of these side effects? Yet another set of lies. The side effects noted during the IDEAL trial were published by JAMA (table 4), and widely discussed in their letters section: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum It's also worth noting that the IDEAL study was for myocardial infarction; commonly referred to as a heart attack. The extremely high doses of statins used in this study are four times greater then the levels used for normal cholesterol-lowering purposes. Keep in mind that myocardial infarction is highly lethal, even with todays best therapies. As such aggressive therapies are required if we want to save these people, and aggressive therapy often comes at the cost of adverse events. But ask yourself - would you rather attempt a cure, and risk the chance of an adverse event, or not treat yourself and almost guarantee your death? As for the letter not being published, that is nothing special. Any large study will generate dozens, or even hundreds of letters to the editor. Journals simply cannot publish all of them. Look at the link above; you'll see additional links to 7 letters the journal did publish in regards to the IDEAL study, nearly all of which question some aspect of the study. As for the reason the letter in question was not published, the answer is likely that the information they wanted was already included in the article. Bryan |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , (Jason Johnson) wrote: In article , Mark Probert wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: In article , Bryan Heit wrote: Jason Johnson wrote: 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. This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through which support existing theories. Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on re-writing the science books this is what you need to do. I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not complete. 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. Complete and absolute bull****. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165 articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum Does JAMA run ads in their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? Yes. If so, can you see that there is a conflict of interest. No. Most scientific journals are set up such that the editorial boards and advertising boards have no influence over each other. Keep in mind that the people who pick and review papers for scientific journals are not employees of the journal, nor are they paid for their services. Hell, even I have reviewed papers for journals, and my boss acts as an editor for several journals. The whole underlying purpose of this system is to avoid the very conflicts you worry about. Long story short, scientists pick the content of the journal, the advertising guys simply try to pay for it - where do you think the money comes from to pay for all of those journals which have free on-line access? If you wrote a well researched article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the article would be printed in JAMA? They most certantly would. In fact, I found four articles in JAMA on that very topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish... I doubt it. Feel free to disagree. Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong... Bryan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bryan, Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain the review process. I am glad that you were able to get your scientific publications past the peer review process. You made some excellent points. Jason, note how Bryan demonstrated that the conspiracy bull**** is just that. There are those who substitute conspiracy crap for facts, since they are long on the former, and short on the latter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark, Yes, Bryan done a great job. We both know that any magazine that has ads paid for by companies that make statins would in most cases not print an article that was entitled, "The Side Effects of Statins". Of course, an article related to statins might mention some of side effects of statins. The editors know that those companies will stop paying for expensive ads if the editors make them upset with negative articles about the medications those companies make. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Update: I hope that Bryan sees this: I found this in another newsgroup: Sharon Hope wrote: How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association, refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue? http://www.thincs.org/index.htm select "News" Click on the link for Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors tell us about the nature of these side effects? You are assuming an awful lot. First, that the yarn is factual. Second, that what is alleged is factual. Third, that the editors have not dealt with the requestors before, and know what they are up to. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Jason Johnson wrote:
Hello, Are the members of the peer review panel paid for their services? No. If so, they know that they would be fired if they approved articles that mentioned the dangerous side effects and newly discovered side effects of statins or other drugs made by the companies that were advertisers. But they are not paid, so it's a non-issue. Bryan |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... If so, they know that they would be fired if they approved articles that mentioned the dangerous side effects and newly discovered side effects of statins or other drugs made by the companies that were advertisers. But they are not paid, so it's a non-issue. Bryan Oh yeah, not paid to review but you can bet your last dose of mercury that they get funded by vaccine makers, after all the only people who review vaccine articles are vaccine people They did an investigation about how the pharmaceutical companies are funding all the research and spinning the trial results, so you can no longer really trust what you read in scientific journals. They pointed out that when they tried to get an expert to review the scientific literature related to antidepressants, they basically couldn't find someone who hadn't taken money from the drug companies. Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker ditto vax peer review is how they CONTROL science http://www.whale.to/w/journals1.html |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
john wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... If so, they know that they would be fired if they approved articles that mentioned the dangerous side effects and newly discovered side effects of statins or other drugs made by the companies that were advertisers. But they are not paid, so it's a non-issue. Bryan Oh yeah, not paid to review but you can bet your last dose of mercury that they get funded by vaccine makers, after all the only people who review vaccine articles are vaccine people Nope, as I've pointed out to your repetitively, I've reviewed papers but not once ever received or spent a single penny which came from any pharmaceutical company. About the only money paid to academic institutions by pharma is contract fees, as in when they pay us to run some experiments for us. Closest I've come was some free T-shirts for my slow-pitch (beer-ball) team, courtesy of one of our local suppliers. Not exactly a big present, given that we buy close to a half-million dollars of reagents from them every year. They did an investigation about how the pharmaceutical companies are funding all the research and spinning the trial results, so you can no longer really trust what you read in scientific journals. "They" being who? The voices in your head? They pointed out that when they tried to get an expert to review the scientific literature related to antidepressants, they basically couldn't find someone who hadn't taken money from the drug companies. I can think of several people at my uni who'd fit the bill. I guess "they" didn't look very hard. Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker Who's "they"? Bryan |
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 |