No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by uranrising on Mar 25, 2020 10:27:39 AM
Vaccination products not peer-reviewed?

In a corona discussion, some one has written

no vaccine manufacturer offers peer reviewable content on any of it's products. The industry cites that the reason for this is commercial confidentiality.

Elsewhere they wrote

I spent weeks during the 2009 swine flu pandemic researching the science of vaccines. Independent sources back then like the Cochrane Institute, the EU and others, plus the pharma industry itself provided plenty of authentic source material and also a pile of bogus propaganda...At the time I was in the NHS's National Blood Service, (Ipswich Collection Team), and I took an ethical stance on these issues which almost cost me my job. Before leaving the NHS after 12 years this January...

Any comments?

angelico - 25 Mar 2020 10:31:01 (#1 of 11)

Of course there are peer reviews. That's not the same as sharing commercial info. So that one is bollocks.

I have no idea what the second quote is trying to say.

But the tone is very familiar.

uranrising - 25 Mar 2020 10:51:50 (#2 of 11)

The second quote was giving a little of the writer's background, in order to better understand their point. Tis all.

Thanks, otherwwise.

angelico - 25 Mar 2020 10:57:04 (#3 of 11)

There are some excellent sites on this stuff, uran.

Respectful Insolence and SBM especially good:

angelico - 25 Mar 2020 10:58:48 (#4 of 11)

You see, the use of "propaganda" is a bit of a giveaway. But all the tropes and techniques of antivaxxers are dealt with carefully, point by point on SBM.

cozzer - 25 Mar 2020 11:08:35 (#5 of 11)

The second quote was giving a little of the writer's background

Someone who used to take blood donations?

angelico - 25 Mar 2020 12:26:24 (#6 of 11)

Also, internet “research” isn’t research in most cases, even if they spend weeks in front of a screen.

Excluding actual systematic reviews etc.

angelico - 25 Mar 2020 12:27:25 (#7 of 11)

Uran, old top, are you ok with this? And safe generally?

uranrising - 25 Mar 2020 12:35:45 (#8 of 11)

Yes, thanks. (Currently watching Corbyn's last PMQs.) I'm in vulverable groups but have a strong support group including daughters and sons-i-Law, and am usually rather hermit-like. I've been self-quarantining for 3 or 4 weeks and am fine.

Thank you for your kind concern. I appreciate you.

I have posted a couple of links back to the mischief-maker.Don't expect a quick response.

angelico - 25 Mar 2020 12:52:01 (#9 of 11)


angelico - 02 Jun 2020 09:50:11 (#10 of 11)

Recent book review of "What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong" from SBM ) contains this.

The book is full of questionable opinions not backed up by evidence. Here is just a sampling of them:

Malaria is caused by unhealthy living conditions, not by Plasmodium.

“Antibiotics should never be used.”

Gulf War Syndrome was proven to be caused by chemical exposures and vaccine overload.

Diseases are not transmissible between people.

The Black Death was caused by toxic chemicals in comet debris.

“There are no separate and distinct disease entities with distinct causes.”

Humans are not natural omnivores.

Neurosyphilis was actually mercury poisoning.

“Pharmaceutical drugs can neither prevent nor alleviate disease.” (What about insulin?)

They address 5G, fracking, phthalates, bisphenol A, and fluoride, blaming them for causing illness.

Their rant on animal experimentation covers all the usual points but adds germ theory denial.

They question climate change and believe chemtrail conspiracies,

“No infection can cause a birth defect.”

Tenesmus - 02 Jun 2020 10:31:02 (#11 of 11)

At the time I was in the NHS's National Blood Service,

At that time it was called NHS Blood and Transplant, and had been for some years. And donor carers don't tend to be scientists.

Check Subscriptions
Home » Science