FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » nursing
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 9 [134 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 7, 8, 9 Next
Author Message
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:48 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD Reply with quote

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:pkv3b2p4bhg7q4huh6m0c03pltmc62pnna@4ax.com...
Quote:
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l9udnTOBD_T9WSzZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1.4169@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gpisg.63404$fb2.33190@newssvr27.news.prodigy.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/BUYfromUS.htm

Wrong on two counts:

1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.

2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
doesn't mean they are.

Jeff


Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
people!

Liar.

What does Dr Haley do for a living, Jan? What is the web site where he
sells what provides that living, Jan?

Oh, that's right, Dr Haley sells testing and treatments, and he does
it through the Altcorp site.

Now, who's doing the lying ... ?

There is an old saying; "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute
to stupidity."

I will let the reader determine if it applies here.

Jeff
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:49 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD Reply with quote

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CGmsg.1719$2v.595@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Quote:

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1.4169@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gpisg.63404$fb2.33190@newssvr27.news.prodigy.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.

Quote:

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
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:59 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine autism quote of the week by Richard C. Deth, PhD Reply with quote

"john" <sc@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VrqdnWHcD9kmki_ZRVnysQ@bt.com...
Quote:
Unequivocally, There is Strong Evidence Linking Thimerosal to Autism
Open Letter to Gov. Linda Lingle
By Richard C. Deth, PhD, 7/3/2006 11:45:51 AM
I am a neuropharmacologist and Full Professor at Northeastern University
in Boston who has been investigating the molecular origins of
neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders. For the past few years
much of my lab's work has focused on autism, including an evaluation of
the possible contribution of thimerosal, the ethylmercury-containing
vaccine preservative. Based upon my expertise in this area I have
testified to Congress on several occasions, appeared on NBC Nightly News
and in several documentaries and presented our findings at numerous
scientific conferences.

I understand that you are currently evaluating legislation to removal
thimerosal from vaccines used in Hawaii. Let me state unequivocally that
there is strong scientific evidence linking thimerosal to autism, so
taking steps to remove it from vaccines is a true "no-brainer". Moreover,
it is vital that states indicate their expectation of thimerosal-free
vaccines in order to shift the pharmaceutical industry to this safer form.
Public confidence in the vaccination program will be greatly increased
when mercury is removed, allowing the full public health benefits without
the unnecessary mercury burden.

Our research has shown that very low concentrations of thimerosal, typical
of those found in the blood following vaccination, cause strong inhibition
of metabolic processes that are crucial to neuronal cell well-being and
survival. The most sensitive of these processes involves sulfur
metabolism, including the anti-oxidant defense mechanism that is critical
to all cells. The effect of thimerosal is to significantly lower levels of
glutathione, the primary cellular antioxidant. Studies of autistic
children clearly show that they are suffering from oxidative stress and
their glutathione levels are reduced by 40-50%. Thus the toxic metabolic
actions of thimerosal are paralleled in clinical studies of autistic
children.

In further studies we showed that thimerosal inhibits a key cellular
process called "methylation", in which various activities, including gene
expression, are controlled by the transfer of a single carbon atom.
Methylation is closely linked to oxidative stress, and when thimerosal
induces oxidative stress, it also causes impaired methylation. Again,
blood tests in autistic children show that they have impaired methylation.
Furthermore, metabolic therapies that help restore methylation have been
able to improve the clinical symptoms of many autistic children, strongly
indicating that this metabolic dysfunction plays a central role. Genetic
studies have also revealed a higher frequency of risk-inducing
polymorphisms and mutations affecting methylation and sulfur metabolism.
Our most recent research indicates that the brain has a particularly
higher vulnerability to oxidative stress, which helps explain why
neurological problems occur with low doses of thimerosal.

The point of all this scientific background is to reinforce the common
sense logic of reducing mercury exposure by all possible routes, including
vaccine-related. It is illogical to inject mercury into anyone, at any
age, and you will be doing a service to all Hawaiians by helping to
restrict their exposure by signing SB2133 part II.

If I can help provide any further background, please feel to contact me. I
am eager to assist.

Richard C. Deth, PhD is a Professor of Pharmacology for Northeastern
University in Boston, Massachusetts

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6262fd9c-3e87-4331-90d3-8439e50ac607

I read Deth's one paper in the peer -reviwed literature on autism.
Appparently, the comments above came from this research. Unfortunately, the
research he talks about is in a cancer cell line. It is not applicable to
developing human brain cells in humans. It is fatally flawed:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v9/n7/pdf/4001522a.pdf

Jeff
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD Reply with quote

HCN wrote:
Quote:
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1.4169@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gpisg.63404$fb2.33190@newssvr27.news.prodigy.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/BUYfromUS.htm
Wrong on two counts:

1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.

2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
doesn't mean they are.

Jeff


Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
people!

Altcorp is owned by Boyd Haley, and with the recent court decision on
Haley's usefulness as an "expert" witness, I hope that Haley has a day
job somewhere. Both he and Geier were seriously criticized by a very
learned judge.
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD Reply with quote

Jeff wrote:
Quote:
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CGmsg.1719$2v.595@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1.4169@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gpisg.63404$fb2.33190@newssvr27.news.prodigy.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.
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD Reply with quote

David Wright wrote:
Quote:
In article <LfmdnTRjDuPktizZRVnyvg@bt.com>, john <sc@nospam.com> 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
Back to top
Bryan Heit
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jeff wrote:
Quote:
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
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Bryan Heit wrote:
Quote:
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.
Back to top
\"Jan Drew\"
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD Reply with quote

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:mftsg.15$3u1.9@fe08.lga...
Quote:
Jeff wrote:
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CGmsg.1719$2v.595@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1.4169@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gpisg.63404$fb2.33190@newssvr27.news.prodigy.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
Back to top
\"Jan Drew\"
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:42 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week 2 by David Ayoub, MD Reply with quote

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6Ozsg.118522$H71.93796@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Quote:

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1.4169@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gpisg.63404$fb2.33190@newssvr27.news.prodigy.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





Back to top
\"Jan Drew\"
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:04 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
<snip>

Quote:
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]
Back to top
Bryan Heit
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:22 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jan Drew wrote:
Quote:
"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:25 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

In article <e91it6$c1s$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
<bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
Quote:
"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
cathyb
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 365

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:49 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <e91it6$c1s$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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.

Nor does anyone else, Jason. They are, however, archived and
searchable.

Quote:
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, did you never hear of the article purporting to show a link
between MMR and autism printed in the Lancet?

Of course, it was disavowed by most of its authors in the end, and it
was of course a tad embarrassing for the Lancet when they discovered
that the main author, Andrew Wakefield, was receiving money from
lawyers for parents trying to sue a vaccine company. And that eight of
the 12 kids involved in the study were childrn of those parents.

But here's the thing. They printed it.



Quote:
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:19 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

In article <1152676187.060408.286720@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <e91it6$c1s$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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.

Nor does anyone else, Jason. They are, however, archived and
searchable.

Quote:
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, did you never hear of the article purporting to show a link
between MMR and autism printed in the Lancet?

Of course, it was disavowed by most of its authors in the end, and it
was of course a tad embarrassing for the Lancet when they discovered
that the main author, Andrew Wakefield, was receiving money from
lawyers for parents trying to sue a vaccine company. And that eight of
the 12 kids involved in the study were childrn of those parents.

But here's the thing. They printed it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
advocates of creation science. Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
was an advocate of evolution.
It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins. The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 9 [134 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 7, 8, 9 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:11 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » nursing
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Vaccine autism evidence overwhelming john hepatitis 0 Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:22 pm
No new posts Vaccine autism evidence overwhelming john nursing 25 Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:47 am
No new posts Have You Heard This Vaccine Warning on Your Radio? \"Jan Drew\" dentistry 0 Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:31 pm
No new posts Second Dose of Varicella Vaccine May Be Needed to Prevent... georgia lyme 0 Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:08 pm
No new posts Indian Govt responsible for adverse vaccine reactions - D... john nursing 1 Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:19 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0293s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0023s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]