RE: Vaccines are a good thing: refuting antivaxxer arguments

In his book "Bad Science" Ben Goldacre(who is not an anti-vaxxer) Author, journalist, physician, science writer and scientist speaks of the lack of scientific rigour applied to medical practices, here is a snippet from wikipedia

The book remarks on the relatively low percentage of conventional medical activity (50 to 80%) which could be called "evidence-based". The efforts of the medical profession to weed out bad treatments are seen to be hampered by the withholding or distortion of evidence by drug companies. The science and economics of drug development are outlined, with criticism of the lack of independence of industrial research and the neglect of Third World diseases. Some underhand tricks used by drug companies to engineer positive trial results for their products are explored. The publication bias produced by researchers not publishing negative results is illustrated with funnel plots. Examples are made of the SSRI antidepressants and Vioxx drugs. Reform of trials registers to prevent abuses is proposed. The ethics of drug advertising and manipulation of patient advocacy groups are questioned.

I've always wondered how you do a double-blind study on vaccines, do you know of any?
I think you should always be a careful consumer of medicine because of the history the medical profession getting things very wrong while claiming "science" the whole time.
Of course being careful doesn't only apply to western medicine as this book shows, he even "debunks" homeopathy(I used quotation marks to denote debunks as a verb as opposed to a fait accompli).

Sort:

Trending

[-]

openparadigm (57) 7 years ago

$0.00

garethnelsonuk (60) 7 years ago

You inject saline for placebo group.

Then you measure incidence of illness.

That might prove something if you then exposed them to infection.
Any actual double-blind studies following your methodology(with a large enough sample size of course)?