Scientific Evidence of MMR vaccine Dangers
Exhaustive, comprehensive, well-researched . . . no, I'm not talking about the BBC programme because they looked at everything except the main point: how did they expect to find scientific evidence where there is no scientific research?
They did a pretty good survey of "the public's" belief in what government tells us about drugs. When I was a kid I remember the grown-ups talking about a new drug. "They wouldn't allow it if it wasn't safe." That was the attitude then, in the days before thalidomide, when we trusted those we had elected and their civil servants. The BBC survey found that now just 1 per cent of us believe what the authorities tell us in this regard.
The "we know what's best for you" still seems to persist in the standard response to what, in the programme, was somewhat dismissively termed Only Anecdotal Evidence (when a few children have died or been distorted but not in sufficient numbers to warrant suspension of the product pending full investigation.) The mantra is 'There is no evidence to prove it is unsafe.'
I'd rather see it the other way round but, of course, they always say the product has been properly tested before release to the market, the market being the medical profession who prescribe it.
Who tests the product? Who funds the research?
Do these two questions answer the question 'why is there no scientific evidence of the dangers of MMR?'
How much is it worth to a major chemical company (which pre-internet were the biggest companies in the world) to have its product declared dangerous?
And the final brain-teaser of the day: are statistics ever distorted to serve the interest of government, commerce or industry?
Are you one of the one per cent?
Lighten up - they know what's good for us. Don't they?
They did a pretty good survey of "the public's" belief in what government tells us about drugs. When I was a kid I remember the grown-ups talking about a new drug. "They wouldn't allow it if it wasn't safe." That was the attitude then, in the days before thalidomide, when we trusted those we had elected and their civil servants. The BBC survey found that now just 1 per cent of us believe what the authorities tell us in this regard.
The "we know what's best for you" still seems to persist in the standard response to what, in the programme, was somewhat dismissively termed Only Anecdotal Evidence (when a few children have died or been distorted but not in sufficient numbers to warrant suspension of the product pending full investigation.) The mantra is 'There is no evidence to prove it is unsafe.'
I'd rather see it the other way round but, of course, they always say the product has been properly tested before release to the market, the market being the medical profession who prescribe it.
Who tests the product? Who funds the research?
Do these two questions answer the question 'why is there no scientific evidence of the dangers of MMR?'
How much is it worth to a major chemical company (which pre-internet were the biggest companies in the world) to have its product declared dangerous?
And the final brain-teaser of the day: are statistics ever distorted to serve the interest of government, commerce or industry?
Are you one of the one per cent?
Lighten up - they know what's good for us. Don't they?
posted by Kris Deva North at 6:09 AM
