How the corruption of science has impacted public perception.

[chr0naut]

We have never had a peer reviewed study which looks at the health stats. of a vaccinated cohort, and an unvaccinated one. 

That is flat-out untrue (please refer to the link at the end of this post).

We have had such studies and the scientific papers published from them, going back to Edward Jenner, who created the very first vaccine.

Part of the approval process for a vaccine, for multiple agencies around the world, are several double-blind studies (not just one) of clinical effect of the vaccines and any possible side-effects. Each of these studies MUST be peer reviewed to be accepted by the approving agencies.

The only one I have seen is from a doctor who kept his own records from patients and over time realized that the unvaccinated patients were a lot healthier than their counterparts. He went public and lost his license very quickly. It was obvious that he was on to something so big and massive sums of money would have been involved if it got any real traction.

That (ex)doctor's conclusions were general and unspecific. The sample size was tiny, and was unrepresentative of the general public (healthy people rarely go to a doctor). It was most likely that ALL his sample set were already unwell, with multiple causes of their illnesses, which shows how skewed his data was. And additionally, I strongly doubt that his findings were peer reviewed or even published in a reputable journal mandating peer review.

But saying that during this covid crisis it has become obvious that vaccinated individuals seem to be doing a lot worse that the unvaccinated ones. In fact it is so bad they have removed vaccine status from the stats. for them to have had to do this the facts speak for themselves. 

Under both of the Trump administrations, they removed and defunded entire departments that collate health statistics. You have to remember who was in power when these attempts to hide health statistics occurred.

But the same is not true in other countries where they have continued to surveill public health and that data shows that in most instances, health among the general public has improved upon the ratios of those specific ilnesses prior to 2019.

When a massive  mistake has been made, especially on this scale, is anyone really surprised that all the stops will be pulled out to minimize it. They would still have to keep pushing it to some extent to make it look right.  It might be the case that a vaccination does stop the incidence of one disease, but  has anyone got any  long term data on what stopping one disease does to the immune system  with regards to other conditions? I doubt it because this is where big money gets involved and things get scary.

What is scary is that the peer reviewed information is freely available to the public, but that people continue to listen to liars who use social media and claim that there is a conspiracy against them, when it is clear that they are, in fact, still vocal on the same social media that they were in the first place.

Your previous post is an example of such lies.

Search results for "cohort studies of the general health of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated"

[chr0naut]

That's a very nice deflection.

That's a very nice deflection, too.

[rickymouse]

The problem goes way deeper than vaccines, after reading so many conflicting research articles over the last fifteen years, I find that a lot of them contradict themselves on research conclusions.  So I started researching why they were so far off from each other, and I found lots of factors that were not properly considered.  

Looking for common ground to see if I could evaluste it properly took reading many days of other research, putting it all together, I made conclusions that actually matched conclusions made fifty years ago which were more accurate than all the new conclusions sometimes.  Seems by wanting to discover something new and taking things apart too much, they actually went nuts, the solution was simple.

Ever watch those Pharma commercials, they say you will feel so much better with the medicine they are pushing....but look at the side effects, they are sometimes worse than what you are treating.  Most medicines are based off natural things, but you can't patent nature, so they make their own chemicals they can patent...they remove the companion chemistry from their medicine that was in the original natural product though, the companion chemistry that helped our metabolism processes correctly deal with that chemistry to detox the negative effects.  Science is picking things apart too much and ignoring things that are real, don't  test out of the parameters and you can patent a chemical because there is no evidence it is bad.  So workers in research cannot test anything other than what they are assigned to work on.

Who funds the research, the parameters of the research, and scanning research to make sure the conclusions actually match the summary is important.  Then people take that research and apply it to things it should not be applied to all the time to profit from it or to gain followers or to promote a need for their services.  I see so much corruption in science that I wiil never blindly believe in it without investigating it on my own.  Much of the time the corruption is in using the research to show something it does not actually show....Like with breast cancer, only a small percentage of them are the ones they call the  HR+++ type.  Yet there are way more of the other type.  Also, why not spend time researching why there is a major increase in those diseases than to spend all the research money trying to find treatments for them.  Seems something is causing the high increase in cancer.  Find the chemistries or combination of chemicals that are increasing the risk.  The fda tests chemicals on their own most times, they do not test how they relate with nature or with other chemicals in the diet or environment.  But chemistries like to combine readily when we eat them, having so many approved chemistries used in and used in growing and processing foods is nuts. 

Hopefully the FDA gets the right kind of people working and running it, I followed the big cutting down in added chemicals in foods years ago in Europe, they lowered the toxicity of their food pretty much, but our FDA did nothing but ignore that.  The FDA has been corrupted for a while, it doesn't mean all the people working there are corrupt, their rules need to be altered to actually protect the people and not the Pharma companies.  By the way, those big fines the Pharma companies get, they can deduct them over a period of years and they result in just a quarter of the money lost that the fine was....paid their dues in advance is usually all it amounts to.  That is actually in some of the stuff from the FDA site I read. 

Like I said, they seem to think everyone is dumb....remember the fresh orange juice thing a few years ago...people think that was fixed, it blew over and people started chasing a different carrot, nothing was fixed, they just had to take fresh off many labels.

[annonentity]

That is flat-out untrue (please refer to the link at the end of this post).

We have had such studies and the scientific papers published from them, going back to Edward Jenner, who created the very first vaccine.

Part of the approval process for a vaccine, for multiple agencies around the world, are several double-blind studies (not just one) of clinical effect of the vaccines and any possible side-effects. Each of these studies MUST be peer reviewed to be accepted by the approving agencies.


That (ex)doctor's conclusions were general and unspecific. The sample size was tiny, and was unrepresentative of the general public (healthy people rarely go to a doctor). It was most likely that ALL his sample set were already unwell, with multiple causes of their illnesses, which shows how skewed his data was. And additionally, I strongly doubt that his findings were peer reviewed or even published in a reputable journal mandating peer review.


Under both of the Trump administrations, they removed and defunded entire departments that collate health statistics. You have to remember who was in power when these attempts to hide health statistics occurred.

But the same is not true in other countries where they have continued to surveill public health and that data shows that in most instances, health among the general public has improved upon the ratios of those specific ilnesses prior to 2019.


What is scary is that the peer reviewed information is freely available to the public, but that people continue to listen to liars who use social media and claim that there is a conspiracy against them, when it is clear that they are, in fact, still vocal on the same social media that they were in the first place.

Your previous post is an example of such lies.

Search results for "cohort studies of the general health of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated"

You just have to look at the Autism statistics do understand something is happening to the highly vaccinated kids. This is a case where the vested interests see only what they want to see.

[ANNEE]

You just have to look at the Autism statistics do understand something is happening to the highly vaccinated kids. This is a case where the vested interests see only what they want to see.

This nonsense again?

In the past Autism was not recognized as Autism.  

High functioning Autism is really tricky to catch and diagnose.

Autism in many cases is genetic and inherited.

[annonentity]

It is strange how the kids seem to get it after  a multiple vaccination shot.

[Creaky]

Always amazes me the religious fervour some defend science with
everything in the world is broken, except the scientific community

Not trying to be inflammatory, it is just what I notice

[ANNEE]

It is strange how the kids seem to get it after  a multiple vaccination shot.

No it's not.

It's coincidence.  There is a debilitating type of Autism that hits about the same age as early vaccinations.

Manic-Panic -- assumptions.

"Regressive autism is a form of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) where a child who appeared to be developing typically loses previously acquired language, social, or motor skills. It often happens between the ages of 15 and 30 months."

[Unknownparadox]

That's a very nice deflection, too.

Get you're own material. You got buttkiss. You claim darvon was taken off the market because people were overdosing. Then when I point out people are over dosing on other pain killers and they are still on the market, it is vapid.

I don't what you are getting paid. But it is to much.

[Unknownparadox]

I just think this needs to be re-posted.

Yes lets look at this.

But, before 2016, government agencies collected statistics about all sorts of things. These statistics revealed trends and instances of unusual occurrences which were investigated and often led to prosecutions.

The current government, however, has closed and defunded most of these government departments because they were allegedly 'inefficient', and have replaced them as a data source, with right-wing social media posts favourable to the current vegetable in chief, and amplified through his propaganda channels.

If you recall, the current incumbent was also there when the data from these departments also became flaky, during the COVID pandemic. Do you remember that? Do you remember the actual locus of government power involved?

If the FDA and other government agencies are now ineffectual, I'd look at those who have ultimately controlled them over recent history, rather than the hands-on workers, many of whom are now no longer employed for some reason.

You guys like AI right?

The opioid crisis in the United States began in the mid-1990s, primarily triggered by the approval and aggressive marketing of OxyContin by Purdue Pharma. This led to a significant increase in opioid prescriptions and subsequent addiction and overdose deaths. Harvard University American Medical Association
 Origins of the Opioid CrisisThe opioid crisis in the United States began in the mid-1990s.
Key Events

• 1996: OxyContin, a powerful prescription opioid, was introduced by Purdue Pharma. It was marketed as a less addictive option for pain management.
  
• 1990s: The aggressive promotion of OxyContin led to increased prescribing of opioids, contributing to widespread misuse and addiction.
  
• 2000s: The crisis escalated with rising rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths. Heroin use also increased as individuals transitioned from prescription opioids to illicit drugs.
  

Current ImpactThe opioid crisis has evolved over the years, with significant public health implications, including high rates of overdose deaths and the spread of addiction. It is now recognized as one of the most severe public health challenges in recent history.

I could be mistaken but we had democrat presidents for 20 years. Clinton 8, Obama 8, Biden 4, since 1990. You had GWB senior for 4, GWB Jr. for 8 and trump for 4. 

Now all of a sudden 36 years is condensed into 9 months.