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 3 of 9 [134 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Author Message
cathyb
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 365

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:32 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

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

Jason Johnson wrote:
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.

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 wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.

Quote:
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.

I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.

Quote:
The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.

No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.

It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

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


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 352

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:59 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:

Quote:
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.

As they should.

Quote:
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.

No article advocating creation "science" could ever pass peer review
by real scientists, regardless of their opinions about evolution,
simply because it would not contain any science.

Why should a magazine devoted to science give any credibility to
something which is so obviously not scientific? Similarly, do you
think that MacWorld magazine should carry articles extolling the
wonders of Windows XP, or Biker Chicks carry articles by separation
feminists, or golfing magazines carry articles saying how good it is
to spend the weekends gardening, or gardening magazines carry articles
saying that golf is more important than aphid control, or Catholic
Weekly carry reviews of pornographic films?

Any publication has the right to refuse to publish material which
contradicts or disagrees with its charter or editorial policy. That's
what "editorial policy" means. The Smithsonian is a scientific
organisation, so you would expect to see only science in its
publications. JAMA is a medical journal, so you would only expect to
see properly conducted medical science reported in its pages. The fact
that The Lancet published Wakefield's crap shows that it is possible
for bad science to fall through the cracks at times, and JAMA (or was
it NEJM?) published the ludicrous "108,000 deaths" rubbish that the
quacks keep regurgitating.

Quote:
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

JAMA's funding comes from a lot of subscriptions by a lot of doctors,
hospitals, universities and public libraries, plus some advertising.
The peer review panels are not employees of JAMA, so what would be the
advantage to the members to favour JAMA's advertisers?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Back to top
Bryan Heit
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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 bullshit. 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788123&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16757716&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&itool=pubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16391219&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15572722&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367547&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249563&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum



Quote:
Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins?


Yes.


Quote:
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?


Quote:
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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10568650&itool=pubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15150207&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14519711&itool=pubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11308401&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish...


Quote:
I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.

Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong...

Bryan
Back to top
Bryan Heit
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

cathyb wrote:
Quote:
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 wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.


Well stated. unIntelegent design fails all three criteria to be a
scientific theory:

1) It is untestable. (how do you test for "irreproducible complexity",
or the existence of god?).

2) It is not based on, nor does it explain, previous scientific studies
or their data.

3) It is not falsifiable, meaning that if the theory is wrong you could
never prove so. No matter what result you find, the proponents can
always claim "god du-nn it".


Quote:
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.


I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.


A prejudice which is also dead wrong. See my response to Jason, where I
link to about a dozen studies in JAMA which are about the dangers of
statins.



Quote:
It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

And climate change, and continental drift, and QED, and homeobox genes,
and pretty much every other major scientific theory I can think of.

Bryan
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

In article <jl99b21is3k842mldgk4en2qdn0e2nic7f@4ax.com>, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:

Quote:
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.

As they should.

Quote:
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.

No article advocating creation "science" could ever pass peer review
by real scientists, regardless of their opinions about evolution,
simply because it would not contain any science.

Why should a magazine devoted to science give any credibility to
something which is so obviously not scientific? Similarly, do you
think that MacWorld magazine should carry articles extolling the
wonders of Windows XP, or Biker Chicks carry articles by separation
feminists, or golfing magazines carry articles saying how good it is
to spend the weekends gardening, or gardening magazines carry articles
saying that golf is more important than aphid control, or Catholic
Weekly carry reviews of pornographic films?

Any publication has the right to refuse to publish material which
contradicts or disagrees with its charter or editorial policy. That's
what "editorial policy" means. The Smithsonian is a scientific
organisation, so you would expect to see only science in its
publications. JAMA is a medical journal, so you would only expect to
see properly conducted medical science reported in its pages. The fact
that The Lancet published Wakefield's crap shows that it is possible
for bad science to fall through the cracks at times, and JAMA (or was
it NEJM?) published the ludicrous "108,000 deaths" rubbish that the
quacks keep regurgitating.

Quote:
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

JAMA's funding comes from a lot of subscriptions by a lot of doctors,
hospitals, universities and public libraries, plus some advertising.
The peer review panels are not employees of JAMA, so what would be the
advantage to the members to favour JAMA's advertisers?

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

Hello,
Are the members of the peer review panel paid for their services? 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.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

In article <1152678766.971106.232540@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:


It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.

Quote:
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.

I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.

Quote:
The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.

No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.

It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

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

Cathy,
You always make great points. Were you ever on a debate team?
I know how the process works. Thank goodness for the newsletters published
by alternative doctors such as Doctor Julian Whitaker and alternative
magazines such as "Prevention" and "Life Extension". I visit a health
food store at least once a week and have seen at least a dozen different
alternative health magazines for sale in that store. The vast majority
of people in America are more likely to read those magazines than read
JAMA and related mazagines. It's my guess that more people read the
creation science newsletter published by the Institute for Creation
Research than read the magazine published by the Smithsonian Intitute.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

In article <e931h3$vj7$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
<bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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 bullshit. 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788123&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16757716&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&itool=pubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16391219&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15572722&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367547&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249563&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum



Quote:
Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins?


Yes.


Quote:
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?


Quote:
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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10568650&itool=pubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15150207&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14519711&itool=pubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11308401&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish...


Quote:
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <1152678766.971106.232540@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:


It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.

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.

I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.

The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.

No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.

It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

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

Cathy,
You always make great points. Were you ever on a debate team?
I know how the process works. Thank goodness for the newsletters published
by alternative doctors such as Doctor Julian Whitaker and alternative
magazines such as "Prevention" and "Life Extension". I visit a health
food store at least once a week and have seen at least a dozen different
alternative health magazines for sale in that store. The vast majority
of people in America are more likely to read those magazines than read
JAMA and related mazagines. It's my guess that more people read the
creation science newsletter published by the Institute for Creation
Research than read the magazine published by the Smithsonian Intitute.

Most people prefer the excellent pictures in Smithsonian.
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <e931h3$vj7$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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 bullshit. 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788123&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16757716&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&itool=pubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16391219&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15572722&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367547&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249563&query_hl=1&itool=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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10568650&itool=pubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15150207&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14519711&itool=pubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11308401&query_hl=14&itool=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 bullshit is just
that. There are those who substitute conspiracy crap for facts, since
they are long on the former, and short on the latter.
Back to top
\"Jan Drew\"
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:32 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

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.


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
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:27 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

In article <odetg.356$O06.107@fe12.lga>, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <e931h3$vj7$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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 bullshit. 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788123&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16757716&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&itool=pubmed_Abstract


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16391219&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15572722&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367547&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249563&query_hl=1&itool=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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10568650&itool=pubmed_Abstract


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15150207&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14519711&itool=pubmed_Abstract


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11308401&query_hl=14&itool=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 bullshit 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
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:39 am    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

In article <jason-1207061827180001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:

In article <odetg.356$O06.107@fe12.lga>, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <e931h3$vj7$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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 bullshit. 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788123&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16757716&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&itool=pubmed_Abstract
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16391219&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15572722&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367547&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249563&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Quote:



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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10568650&itool=pubmed_Abstract
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15150207&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14519711&itool=pubmed_Abstract
Quote:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11308401&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum
Quote:

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 bullshit 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:

Quote:
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?
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <odetg.356$O06.107@fe12.lga>, Mark Probert
markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article <e931h3$vj7$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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 bullshit. 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788123&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16757716&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&itool=pubmed_Abstract


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16391219&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15572722&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367547&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249563&query_hl=1&itool=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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10568650&itool=pubmed_Abstract


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15150207&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14519711&itool=pubmed_Abstract


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11308401&query_hl=14&itool=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 bullshit 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
Quote:
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 bullshit, short on facts.
Back to top
Bryan Heit
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&query_hl=1&itool=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
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <jason-1207061827180001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:

In article <odetg.356$O06.107@fe12.lga>, Mark Probert
markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article <e931h3$vj7$1@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> 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 bullshit. 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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788123&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16757716&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&itool=pubmed_Abstract



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16391219&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15572722&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367547&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249563&query_hl=1&itool=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/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10568650&itool=pubmed_Abstract



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15150207&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14519711&itool=pubmed_Abstract



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11308401&query_hl=14&itool=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 bullshit 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.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 9 [134 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:57 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: 0.0696s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0072s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]