Tuesday, 15 June 2010
The Big Pharma Shill Problem ina Nutshell
I've written extensively about this so unless the government can produce real uncompromised evidence that thimerosal and adjuvant do not cause Autism, it's pretty much a stale debate and this will likely be my last article on this topic.
Over the last few years the public has been bombarded with the official mantra that vaccines are safe, that thimerosal doesn't cause autism and that all our fears are unfounded.
We opposition bloggers as a community have tried to reason with these so called experts, and their science based medical retorts (funny how they always have something to say about those new studies). These 'subject-matter' experts refuse to consider that study results, be they empirical or statically derived can be 'interpreted' or influenced for a variaty of reasons.
Very seldom will researchers provide the 'empirical' data derived from a study. The reasons for this vary, sometimes because of privacy issues if the study involved humans (highly unlikely given most studies of any consequence are double blind). Most often the reason is more discreet, like ownership issues, patents pending, corporate influence or they have something to hide.
Take for instance this newest revelation, A doctor in chicago is about to lose his FDA license to conduct research because he falsified data. The Food and Drug Administration said Dr. Daniel Berger "failed to protect the rights, safety and welfare" of patients under his care. Berger also acknowledges his clinic provided phony data to a drug company but blames a former study coordinator. It also just happens that Pharmaceutical giants at times have hired him to be their spokesman and consultant.
In addition to being illegal, submitting false data can put lives at risk because the FDA relies on clinical trial results when it decides which drugs to approve, and the guidelines for using these drugs are based on trial results.
And thus the point of the problem that we anti-vaccine bloggers have been trying to make, this being that companies that fund these trials and studies don't want to have adverse reports, they don't want to see data that says their product is dangerous or causes autism.
If you were a researcher faced with losing further funding for a current project or future funded research opportunities from the Big Pharma companies because you choose to tell the truth about their new drug or vaccine being harmful or you can go along with them and 'interpret' or statistically manipulate the data so that the outcomes are 'safe for humans' and thus the medicine gets approved by the FDA. If there is no way to 'interpret' the data to a more favorable report for them then the study is usually halted and a 'new' study is invested with 'predetermined' outcomes as the target.
So we have several dynamics at play here. The pharmaceutical company doesn't want a bad report on a drug they just spent $100 million dollars or more to develop, There is no profit in that. The researcher who conducted the trial doesn't want to lose the millions of dollars paid for all his hard work in doing the study nor does he want to get blacklisted from future pharma research trials because he reports the truth.
In their own defense, the pharma shills have even started attacking specific bloggers and blogs. Making them out to be quacks or worse and thus trying to render what they say as invalid or of less import. Take for instance Dr. Gorski of Science Based Medicine infamy, he recently wrote about how he is the target of a gambit, calling him a big Pharma 'shill'.
He then goes on in this very lengthy piece telling how he takes no pharma monies (that's good) and in general trying to make his detractors look juvenile (that's bad). And yet in all their articles, no where could I find were they scientifically were able to support their affirmation of thimerosal as safe other than to use the contested studies as proof. Nor has He or SBM addressed my inquiry concerning adjuvants.
Instead he/they opt for the very method of debate they so despise, ad hominem attacks on those of us with as much science training as they. So is it Ad Hominem to ask if you wrote a report for the NIH that was unfavorable would you have to beg even harder the next time for funds Dr. Gorski? Or would it be easier to make the bad results easier to swallow, fit for sheeple consumption, and keep getting money from that teat.
Again I ask you Dr. Gorski and the SBM clan, why aren't you skeptical of the studies? Why are you only skeptical of those of us making a few well founded points.
I think its important to say, that we anti-vaccine bloggers are not against vaccines, we are against unsafe vaccines. Namely, those that contain thimerosal or adjuvants. If you cannot understand why our complaints are relevant as to the funding of said studies then we truly are in danger.
Technorati Tags: pharma shills big pharma vaccines liars falsified data dangerous drugs killer vaccines
The Center examined the neuroscientific dynamics of logic and emotion in decision making while researching neuroscience in business. They found unique corollary relationships between various brain chemicals (neurohormones, neurotransmitters, etc.). This apparent pattern led to a new path of research for the team outside of business.
