[quote]boldar wrote:
Why should I believe any information in an article written by someone with no expert training in a field that chooses to publish on the internet instead of a peer reviewed journal.[/quote]
Totally, only things in peer reviewed journals work. Oh better stop taking supps from this site (and really the majority of BB supps out there)[/quote]
at least this site offers journal articles to back up there supplements even if the supplements themselves aren’t tested.
your missing the point. how could you believe someone that doesn’t have the training in the field to even start to understand what they are really talking about. you wouldn’t read on article online about training or nutrition that says something totally different than what the leaders in the field are saying written by a lawyer with no background in training or nutrition and say he completely has the right idea and the experts in the field are totally wrong. why is advice from the CDC any different? [/quote]
Because there are doctors, experts in the field, who are presenting information to the contrary of the CDC or the “established” experts. You know what happens when they do? They get shit on, called quacks, harassed, professionally ostracized, etc. But make no mistake there are plenty of well qualified experts that have a quite different view of how we do vaccines and why and they’re not all asshats and quacks as many would have you believe.[/quote]
your inherent argument is still the same. you might have rephrased it and put different words in but its still the same argument as before. you haven’t given any reason why you shouldn’t believe them. besides maybe by implying a government conspiracy theory
[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
Why would they even bother? Vaccines are not money makers for pharma companies by any means
[/quote]
Totally brah, its like they basically just break even.
"Dr. Weidong Yin, Chairman, President and CEO of Sinovac, commented, “Our third quarter 2011 sales reflected the continued demand for our hepatitis vaccines, which represent about two-thirds of the sales this quarter.”
"Total sales as recorded by Merck of its cervical cancer vaccine, GARDASIL (human papillomavirus (HPV) quadrivalent (types 6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine, recombinant), were $221 million for the fourth quarter of 2010
Sales of other viral vaccines for the year were $1.4 billion, an increase of 1 percent over full year 2009.
ZOSTAVAX (zoster vaccine live), the company’s vaccine to help prevent shingles (herpes zoster), recorded sales of $107 million for the fourth quarter of 2010 compared with $76 million for the fourth quarter of 2009"
I’m not a doctor; I’m in finance. Sales does not equal profit. You have to subtract your costs. Furthermore, vaccines account for less than 3% of industry revenues. Most of their revenue and an even larger percentage of their profits come from innovation since they are protected from generics for a period of time to compensate them for all the R&D that doesn’t pan out.
[/quote]
Totally agree but thats not what the poster wrote, he said not a money maker by any means, I showed the means[/quote]
Ok, but I doubt your intent was to prove that vaccines account for a minuscule portion of their overall revenues, much less profits. Take the example of Gardasil and Merck you provided above. Their revenues last year were 48 billion. Assuming you annualized their quarterly numbers for Gardasil, they made .8 billion on revenue without accounting for what it cost them to make it. Furthermore, the sale price is based on 20 years of development and the fact that the US spends 5 billion every year on cervical cancer. SO, if it costs 3B annually to immunize people who end up not getting cervical cancer, they are actually saving people money. Oh, and death. They save them from that, too.[/quote]
Actually I agreed with your statement, not his so that should indicate what my intent was but while you’re on the subject. Here is a statement agreeing to the past/current “According to IMS Health, a pharmaceutical intelligence service, vaccines comprise only 1 to 2 percent of global pharmaceutical sales.”
Now on to the future, with their blockbuster drugs patents expiring…"
Critically, neither the vaccine nor Sandoz businesses will
be exposed to a directly comparable competitive threat, an
inherent factor that has both driven Novartisâ??s investment in
these market segments and which will dictate stronger sales
growth performances for these units over 2009-15.Having
long been regarded as a commercially unattractive commodity
market, vaccines have re-emerged as important sales growth
drivers for Big Pharma companies in recent years. The launch
and rapid uptake of novel, high-price products alongside
the emergence of novel vaccine technologies and favorable
legislation have brought vaccines back into the commercial
focus of pharmaceutical and biotech companies, with Novartis
well poised to benefit from expansion of this segment."
Who is back tracking now? You said “Totally brah, its like they basically just break even” and that “it’s hardly chump change”
But yet you agree its a miniscule amount for pharma? Weird. I already stated the intial post was worded poorly, yet other posters seem to know exactly what I meant by it.
your inherent argument is still the same. you might have rephrased it and put different words in but its still the same argument as before. you haven’t given any reason why you shouldn’t believe them. besides maybe by implying a government conspiracy theory [/quote]
Believe who? the CDC? I’m confused if I read what you’re saying correctly?
But yet you agree its a miniscule amount for pharma? Weird. I already stated the intial post was worded poorly, yet other posters seem to know exactly what I meant by it. [/quote]
for pharma, perhaps but not a miniscule amount by any other standard and certainly hardly worth their effort as was intimated, you did read the link previously provided about the course for vaccines for the future yeah?
H1N1 wasn’t a hoax, it was a miscall. We rely on agencies like the CDC to make the calls on emerging pathogens that can cross over to novel populations and cause high morbidity and mortality rates. They made the call on H1N1 and were wrong, but what if they decided not to make the call and it had turned into another spanish flu? Everyone would be crying that the CDC should have done something. I would rather they be more cautious on something like a possible pandemic…
[/quote]
Really? You clicked on the links I provided, read those articles, thought about what you’d read, did your own research on the claims in those articles, thought about what you found, formulated a response, and typed it in to T-Nation… all in 7 minutes?
your inherent argument is still the same. you might have rephrased it and put different words in but its still the same argument as before. you haven’t given any reason why you shouldn’t believe them. besides maybe by implying a government conspiracy theory [/quote]
Believe who? the CDC? I’m confused if I read what you’re saying correctly?[/quote]
why would you not believe the cdc? all that has been said is that you want to believe the ‘experts’ (that really aren’t experts) because they say something flowery that you want to agree with. no good reason has been given to not believe the cdc’s recommendations other than wanting to believe non experts in the field
H1N1 wasn’t a hoax, it was a miscall. We rely on agencies like the CDC to make the calls on emerging pathogens that can cross over to novel populations and cause high morbidity and mortality rates. They made the call on H1N1 and were wrong, but what if they decided not to make the call and it had turned into another spanish flu? Everyone would be crying that the CDC should have done something. I would rather they be more cautious on something like a possible pandemic…
[/quote]
Really? You clicked on the links I provided, read those articles, thought about what you’d read, did your own research on the claims in those articles, thought about what you found, formulated a response, and typed it in to T-Nation… all in 7 minutes?
WOW.[/quote]
I’ve discussed it in class and read articles on the topic. I’ve been civil in this thread and given countless counter points to your whole vaccine conspiracy theory and you choose to pick out this response and be a dick. Have you actually done your own research as opposed to taking the sweeping headlines that media and others give who aren’t qualified to weigh in on the issue? Going back to peer reviewed journals, their the best means for science to progress and share information that had been proven with current techniques to be true. Scientists love to find out new information that flies in the face of current beliefs in the community, so don’t you think if there was something to these claims someone would come out and do some actual research to back up their claims?
your inherent argument is still the same. you might have rephrased it and put different words in but its still the same argument as before. you haven’t given any reason why you shouldn’t believe them. besides maybe by implying a government conspiracy theory [/quote]
Believe who? the CDC? I’m confused if I read what you’re saying correctly?[/quote]
why would you not believe the cdc? all that has been said is that you want to believe the ‘experts’ (that really aren’t experts) because they say something flowery that you want to agree with. no good reason has been given to not believe the cdc’s recommendations other than wanting to believe non experts in the field [/quote]
I’m not saying I flat out don’t believe the CDC in all aspects, but they are a flawed entity and have put out mistakes plenty throughout the years. Remember the recanting on being overweight in 2005? “Oops our bad” Remember the MRSA under-reporting issue that surfaced in 2008? “Oops yeah”
My point is other DOCTORS and researchers who are indeed EXPERTS in the vaccine field are putting out info that perhaps, the CDC is mistaken or has bad guidelines. So yes I’m willing to listen to them. The CDC is not a shiny infallible white horse either. In case you’re too young or didn’t catch some of their previous mistakes:
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention consistently understate the size of the problem, and their lax guidelines give hospitals an excuse to do too little,” says Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., Chairman of the national Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths.
How many hospital infections? “The CDC claims that 1.7 million people contract infections in U.S. hospitals each year. The truth is many times that number. The proof is in the data,” explains McCaughey. 2.4% of all patients have MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) hospital infections. That means 880,000 victims a year from one superbug!
And if you really want to dig into some of its inefficiencies:
So, no, I dont take their word as the end all be all
I’ve discussed it in class and read articles on the topic. I’ve been civil in this thread and given countless counter points to your whole vaccine conspiracy theory and you choose to pick out this response and be a dick. Have you actually done your own research as opposed to taking the sweeping headlines that media and others give who aren’t qualified to weigh in on the issue? Going back to peer reviewed journals, their the best means for science to progress and share information that had been proven with current techniques to be true. Scientists love to find out new information that flies in the face of current beliefs in the community, so don’t you think if there was something to these claims someone would come out and do some actual research to back up their claims?
[/quote]
No, the peer-review process has nothing to do with science, and is inherently anti-science. Peer-review is about maintaining the status quo.
I’ve discussed it in class and read articles on the topic. I’ve been civil in this thread and given countless counter points to your whole vaccine conspiracy theory and you choose to pick out this response and be a dick. Have you actually done your own research as opposed to taking the sweeping headlines that media and others give who aren’t qualified to weigh in on the issue? Going back to peer reviewed journals, their the best means for science to progress and share information that had been proven with current techniques to be true. Scientists love to find out new information that flies in the face of current beliefs in the community, so don’t you think if there was something to these claims someone would come out and do some actual research to back up their claims?
[/quote]
No, the peer-review process has nothing to do with science, and is inherently anti-science. Peer-review is about maintaining the status quo.
[/quote]
That is completely incorrect. The peer-review process is to stop bad science being published.
In any case, there are plenty of journals around, would they all have the same agenda?
If I were to publish an article that goes against conventional thought and publishing to two different journals with different scopes, would it result in rejection for the same reasons?
Of course it wouldn’t.
I’ve discussed it in class and read articles on the topic. I’ve been civil in this thread and given countless counter points to your whole vaccine conspiracy theory and you choose to pick out this response and be a dick. Have you actually done your own research as opposed to taking the sweeping headlines that media and others give who aren’t qualified to weigh in on the issue? Going back to peer reviewed journals, their the best means for science to progress and share information that had been proven with current techniques to be true. Scientists love to find out new information that flies in the face of current beliefs in the community, so don’t you think if there was something to these claims someone would come out and do some actual research to back up their claims?
[/quote]
No, the peer-review process has nothing to do with science, and is inherently anti-science. Peer-review is about maintaining the status quo.
[/quote]
Have you ever conducted/submitted research or reviewed articles to determine validity for a publisher? Have you ever read an editorial about how the selection process is conducted? Do you now or have you ever worked in medicine or any sort of therapeutic/scientific field? You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Having just sat through a conference on K08 and K23 Awards/Grants on wednesday I again have no idea why you think you’re right about any of this.
I’ve discussed it in class and read articles on the topic. I’ve been civil in this thread and given countless counter points to your whole vaccine conspiracy theory and you choose to pick out this response and be a dick. Have you actually done your own research as opposed to taking the sweeping headlines that media and others give who aren’t qualified to weigh in on the issue? Going back to peer reviewed journals, their the best means for science to progress and share information that had been proven with current techniques to be true. Scientists love to find out new information that flies in the face of current beliefs in the community, so don’t you think if there was something to these claims someone would come out and do some actual research to back up their claims?
[/quote]
No, the peer-review process has nothing to do with science, and is inherently anti-science. Peer-review is about maintaining the status quo.
[/quote]
Ummm no. You aren’t helping your cause by posting things like this.
I’ve discussed it in class and read articles on the topic. I’ve been civil in this thread and given countless counter points to your whole vaccine conspiracy theory and you choose to pick out this response and be a dick. Have you actually done your own research as opposed to taking the sweeping headlines that media and others give who aren’t qualified to weigh in on the issue? Going back to peer reviewed journals, their the best means for science to progress and share information that had been proven with current techniques to be true. Scientists love to find out new information that flies in the face of current beliefs in the community, so don’t you think if there was something to these claims someone would come out and do some actual research to back up their claims?
[/quote]
No, the peer-review process has nothing to do with science, and is inherently anti-science. Peer-review is about maintaining the status quo.
[/quote]
Ummm no. You aren’t helping your cause by posting things like this.[/quote]
Consensus Science and the Peer Review
“Today, the methods for exacting consensus have changed but the result could be the same: The death of the spirit. The use and abuse of ‘consensus science’ is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system. Although peer review may be considered one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice, it has been under fire for some time now because peer review controls access to publications and funding, thus bringing the problem into sharp focus.”
I’ve discussed it in class and read articles on the topic. I’ve been civil in this thread and given countless counter points to your whole vaccine conspiracy theory and you choose to pick out this response and be a dick. Have you actually done your own research as opposed to taking the sweeping headlines that media and others give who aren’t qualified to weigh in on the issue? Going back to peer reviewed journals, their the best means for science to progress and share information that had been proven with current techniques to be true. Scientists love to find out new information that flies in the face of current beliefs in the community, so don’t you think if there was something to these claims someone would come out and do some actual research to back up their claims?
[/quote]
No, the peer-review process has nothing to do with science, and is inherently anti-science. Peer-review is about maintaining the status quo.
[/quote]
Ummm no. You aren’t helping your cause by posting things like this.[/quote]
Consensus Science and the Peer Review
“Today, the methods for exacting consensus have changed but the result could be the same: The death of the spirit. The use and abuse of ‘consensus science’ is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system. Although peer review may be considered one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice, it has been under fire for some time now because peer review controls access to publications and funding, thus bringing the problem into sharp focus.”
[/quote]
Is XMRV a New Paradigm for CFS? The Role of the Scientific Consensus Process in the XMRV Debate
Kurt Rowley, Ph.D.
Peer-reviewed material makes it so credible information is released to the scientific community, so the most up to date information on a topic is used when researching new data in order to determine the best means for go about pursuing new research. It makes it so studies aren’t continuously redone and there will be actual advancement in research. What would you do to advance research and our knowledge in various scientific fields? Is the peer-reviewed method perfect, of course not, but it’s the best that we have. Throughout my undergrad and masters, I was told over and over again to make sure to remove bias as best as I could from my research. Most every scientists that wants their material to be taken seriously will do the same. It’s just good science.
The problem with the Editorial you posted is that Barrio is he makes these claims about the Peer-reviewed system, doesn’t have any modern examples of where the peer-reviewed system was responsible for errors in science and finally doesn’t even suggest potential reform to make the system better. In essence he’s saying “Peer Review Bad McKay.” Again, if you can’t support your claims, its just baseless accusations (and please don’t say his examples were Capernicus and Galileo).
I’ve discussed it in class and read articles on the topic. I’ve been civil in this thread and given countless counter points to your whole vaccine conspiracy theory and you choose to pick out this response and be a dick. Have you actually done your own research as opposed to taking the sweeping headlines that media and others give who aren’t qualified to weigh in on the issue? Going back to peer reviewed journals, their the best means for science to progress and share information that had been proven with current techniques to be true. Scientists love to find out new information that flies in the face of current beliefs in the community, so don’t you think if there was something to these claims someone would come out and do some actual research to back up their claims?
[/quote]
No, the peer-review process has nothing to do with science, and is inherently anti-science. Peer-review is about maintaining the status quo.
[/quote]
Ummm no. You aren’t helping your cause by posting things like this.[/quote]
Consensus Science and the Peer Review
“Today, the methods for exacting consensus have changed but the result could be the same: The death of the spirit. The use and abuse of ‘consensus science’ is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system. Although peer review may be considered one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice, it has been under fire for some time now because peer review controls access to publications and funding, thus bringing the problem into sharp focus.”
[/quote]
Haha. Alright man, if all it takes for you to not believe in an entity’s validity is one dissenting voice found by searching the entire internet then you will never believe in anything.
It’s not worth continuing this back-and-forth. Continue to live your life in a world where you encounter the validity of that which you do not see as real every day, and continue to ignore it. Not a big deal