Incorrect. You previously mentioned the absence of "opinion" in making decisions in your field but we see evidence continually of "medical opinions" and scientists' conclusions (opinions) based on scientific results.
We also see plenty of evidence of fraud in the science world:
Schön scandal
---
Scientific fraud and the power structure of science - Brian Martin
---
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?
---
Even your beloved Brian Deer gets into the act:
Scientific fraud in the UK: The time has come for regulation
---
The medical establishment shielded Andrew Wakefield from fraud claims
---
As was pointed out by one of the other skeptics, you can confirm vaccine effectiveness through lab tests with control groups. (if (vaccine + exposure=no disease) AND (no vaccine + exposure=disease) then vaccine is effective) but it's only through extensive use over time that you find whether the vaccine was actually safe and providing a benefit (and then, only if you're paying attention and willing to consider the evidence.)
The true arbitrator of what is right and what is wrong is the results and from my viewpoint, the results of vaccine are some short term death and damage but a world full of long term health problems. If only governments would invest the same amount of money on feeding and sheltering their disadvantaged people, they would soon find the whole vaccine industry redundant.
You can deride whale.to as much as you want. Would you discount a science program seen on television due to the fact that most of the airtime is filled with rubbish? From what I've seen, whale.to contains a large amount of useful information for consideration. By referring to any one document, I'm not endorsing everything found there.
Holy crap, I can't believe you are using the Andrew Wakefield example.
Yes, there was an issue of the true nature of his fraudulent research, unethical practices with children and conflict of interest to make shed loads of money, but there were scientists and other doctors denouncing him almost immediately.
Notice that in all your cases of fraud, we know about them.
And how do we know about them?
Because it is in the nature of how science works that you critically examine other people's work and rip it apart if necessary.
Andrew Wakefield is a perfect example of how this works.
He was dismissed from the Royal Free Hospital as he did not take up their offer to take a year to actually investigate his initial pilot study a year after he published his paper.
That he was exposed within a decade of his fraudulent, evil research is and indication that science works.
A lot of the issue was that the media ran with the story based on a study of 12 children, which is not good scientific journalism.
I can't believe you want further studies.
As was pointed out by one of the other skeptics, you can confirm vaccine effectiveness through lab tests with control groups. (if (vaccine + exposure=no disease) AND (no vaccine + exposure=disease) then vaccine is effective) but it's only through extensive use over time that you find whether the vaccine was actually safe and providing a benefit (and then, only if you're paying attention and willing to consider the evidence.)
Go on, tell me how you would tell a vaccine would work based on a lab test.
I assert you have no flipping idea what you are talking about.
We have had vaccination for over 200 years, and if you consider variolation by the Chinese (also for small pox), then we have had 'innoculation' for over 1000 years.
The studies are in, vaccination works.
PS. Your suggestion for vaccinating and not vaccinating would not be done as it would be considered to be unethical, as we know vaccination prevents disease.
However, as you are a scientific cretin, I am not surprised.
This is also typical of the anti-vaxxers, they don't seem to really care about evidence, reality or the morbidity and mortality of people.
Seriously, get a proper education and then maybe we can have a discussion of issues with vaccination.
- When these factors were controlled for (sic), misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
