Or the current CDC is not exactly reliable when it comes to studies, vaccines and studies about vaccines:
Perhaps most notably, Kennedy removed all 17 members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee and replaced them with new members, many of whom have expressed vaccine-skeptic views. Earlier this year, a federal judge stayed all votes taken by the Kennedy-nominated members, which included the removal of the universal recommendation for the hepatitis B shot at birth and to narrow existing recommendations for the combined MMRV shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.
The judge also temporarily blocked changes to the childhood vaccine schedule that were made at the beginning of this year, in which Kennedy reduced the number of recommended shots from 17 to 11.
You're making my point for me. The 17 members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee that were replaced were basically nothing more than yes-men for the pharmaceutical companies, never daring to say anything that could be perceived as even remotely negative about vaccines.
Vaccines are an important public health intervention. But they come with real risks that need to be acknowledged and disclosed in the interested of informed consent. The problem with this debate is that there is no room for nuance. It is framed as you're either "for" or "against" vaccines. But I would wager that there is a much more nuanced spectrum of positions and opinions held by people.
The bottom line is, when you start digging beneath the headlines and "safe and effective" soundbites, what you'll find is shoddy data making broad claims that are not generalizable to the majority of the population. It feels very intentional. Like the studies are designed to find a desired outcome, based on the methodology and denominator selections.
If this all sounds conspiratorial, it's because it is. There is an astonishing amount of money involved here, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. It's no secret that our regulatory agencies have been captured for quite some time, and the best way to stay in the good graces of the pharmaceutical companies is to publish studies that help their bottom line. Then when you retire from public service, they'll reward you with a cushy executive-level position in their organization.
This is not a new problem In August 2005, John Ioannidis published an article entitled "
Why Most Published Research Findings are False".
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.
journals.plos.org
Specifically with regard to financial conflicts, he said this:
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].
These are real issues. I genuinely don't understand why more people aren't concerned about them.
