>>There is nothing whatsoever 'scientific' about the process, if only half the trials are selectively published. >http://www.alltrials.net/find-out-more/why-this-matters/ …
-
-
-
@C7RKY That’s not referring specifically to vaccines tho, and it’s an average. If vaccines work (which they do), wld expect >50% published -
@MatSilk No, you miss the point completely Matt. Science demands transparency. You don't get to hide half the evidence & call it 'science'. -
@MatSilk And AllTrials doesn't exclude vaccines. That's just one of many pharma products caught up in those figures. Can change the result. -
@C7RKY Would be interested to see what proportion of vaccine trials were unpublished and what they said, certainly. -
@MatSilk So would I!! And I suspect we'd both be unpleasantly surprised by the results. Particularly for vaccines actually, by my reckoning. -
@C7RKY It is hard to argue against the correlation between introduction of vaccines and reduction in flu, smallpox etc... -
@MatSilk Actually some argue most diseases were dying off before vaccines arrived. I'm not against vaccines btw. I'm just against the damage - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.