Tatyana
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,701
There's a difference between misguided science and outright changing of undisputed facts. Wakefield changed facts in his Lancet study; Deer's article in the BMJ has a table summarizing three aspects of the 12 cases of Wakefield's study and how they differ between what Wakefield reported and what was reality.
The BMJ was very generous in giving the unknowns or '?' to Wakefield as a yes answer in the table.
I read the BMJ on a regular basis.
They are not on the side of big pharma, in fact, there are typically at least two articles every single issue about some sort of questionable practice by pharmaceutical companies.
They have an entire issue in recent years dedicated to further separation of the drug reps and doctors.
Anyone who is interested in actually looking at the sources can easily see that the BMJ is not a 'shill' for big pharma, in fact, it is a very ethical, compassionate and scientifically rigorous journal.
I personally think reading one issue would challenge the ability of anyone who thinks that 'western medicine is bad and wrong'.
In fact, if anyone of the doubters requests it, I will send you one of the issues.