Epidemiological studies are the tool of choice for health authorities and pharma companies to maintain a façade of vaccine safety science.
They are cheap, relatively simple to conduct, and, above all, their results are easily manipulated.
The five studies reviewed in this chapter illustrate some of the many methods researchers use to manipulate the results of epidemiological studies:
✓ Using unsubstantiated data (Madsen 2002).
✓ Using irrelevant data (Fombonne 2006).
✓ Hiding the real source of the data (Fombonne 2006).
✓ Omitting essential data from the paper (Grimaldi 2014).
✓ Reversing the trend of raw data by means of undisclosed statistical adjustments (Madsen 2002).
✓ Using arbitrary, meaningless, and scientifically baseless calculations (DeStefano 2013).
✓ Dismissing inconvenient findings on a speculative or arbitrary pretext (McKeever 2004).
✓ Misrepresenting the subject of the study to the public (DeStefano 2013).
✓ Using a grossly inadequate research method (Fombonne 2006).
✓ Using a research method that facilitates easy manipulation (DeStefano 2013, Grimaldi 2014).
✓ Failing to address post-publication misconduct allegations (Fombonne 2006).
✓ Overstating the significance of study results (all).
Amazingly enough, this assortment of faults did not prevent any of these studies from being published in leading medical journals or lead to their retraction.
No mainstream scientist, academic, or journalist has directed a single critical word toward the studies or their authors.
The studies’ scientific reputations remain unblemished to this day, and they are frequently cited in the medical literature and publications of health authorities as evidence of vaccine safety.
None of those citing the studies ever mention their obvious flaws or the researchers’ conflicts of interest.
The blanket institutional immunity afforded to these purposely biased studies and their authors clearly shows that these studies conformed to the appalling ethical norms of vaccine safety research accepted by the scientific world.
This fundamentally flawed research is the direct consequence of the way science is currently funded, which ensures researchers’ dependency on their funding source, be it government or a pharmaceutical company.
The vaccine establishment relies on the fact that the public is unaware of this mechanism and its inherent flaws, which guarantees that vaccine safety science is almost never carried out objectively.
Therefore, in the spirit of the Mark Twain adage that appears at the beginning of this chapter, one should exercise extreme caution when reviewing the conclusions of vaccine safety epidemiological studies–those that have already been published and those that will be published in the future.
`Ask your doctor: • Do you know who funds most vaccine safety research? Are you familiar with the process used to allocate medical research grants? • Would you expect pharmaceutical companies and government agencies to fund vaccine safety studies that could potentially find serious faults in the vaccines they manufacture, license, and recommend to the public? • Are you aware that studies published in leading medical journals which ostensibly confirm the safety of vaccines suffer from serious methodological flaws and are fraught with authors’ conflicts of interest?”
— Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth by Anonymous
Published By Children’s Health Defence
1200 References Provided
Available on Kindle for $10.49`
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: brianpeckford
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://peckford42.wordpress.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.