Journalist Eva Bartlett DESTROYS mainstream journalist over Syria, Aleppo

ORIGINAL LINK

 Having spent a number of months on the ground in Syria, traveling all across the country and, specifically, Aleppo, journalist Eva Bartlett has finally returned to the Western world with yet another round of firsthand knowledge of the Syrian Crisis. Bartlett has traveled to Syria a number of times, each time carrying back a story widely different from that peddled on the mainstream corporate press of NATO countries.Bartlett has been regularly posting articles and videos regarding the truth in Syria on...

via IFTTT

The Conspiracy To Shut Down Truth, Donald Trump, & The American People

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

There is circumstantial evidence that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the rest of the presstitute media are part of a conspiracy with the oligarchs, the military/security complex, the Hillary Democrats, and neoconized Republicans to shut down the dissident Internet alternative media and to deny Donald Trump the presidency.

Consider the brand new website PropOrNot and its fake news list of 200 Internet Russian agents. PropOrNot is a website hidden behind multiple screens as would be an offshore tax avoidance scheme. In other words, no known, responsible entity is behind the site, which has libeled 200 other websites, or if it is, it is too ashamed of what it is doing to be associated with it publicly.

Consider the expertise and money required to shield the identity of an organization, whether tax avoidance or website. This is not something that just anyone can do. This type of Klingon cloaking requires real money or the CIA.

As long as it pretends to be a newspaper, the Washington Post is subject to journalistic ethics. But the PropOrNot story by Craig Timberg violated journalistic ethics. Unsupported accusations were leveled against 200 websites, a McCarthyism record.

How did a story, which would have been instantly quashed by editors in my day as a Wall Street Journal editor get past Timberg’s editor?

That is the question.

Here we have the Post committing libel against 200 websites, all of whom can sue for damages. There go Bezos’ billions.

Would a Washington Post editor of any intelligence have published such a libel-inviting story unless the owner, Bezos, gave the OK or the order?

How can the Washington Post feel secure in an act of libel?

Is it because Bezos is protected by his reported membership on a US government committee, along with the Google CEO, that is believed to conspire against the privacy of the American people?

PropOrNot would have amounted to nothing except for the Washington Post. Craig Timberg’s story was written as if PropOrNot was the real goods. Yet, Timberg does not reveal who is behind PropOrNot.

Add to this picture the hyping by the Washington Post, New York Times, and TV presstitutes of the unattributed CIA charge that Russia hacked the Hillary emails and used them to elect Trump with the help of Russian agent websites. This fake news charge is challenged by Wikileaks and by a number of experts who asked why unattributed allegations are accepted in the place of evidence, and the charge is not supported by the FBI. How do we know that the alleged unattributed CIA charges are actually made by the CIA or whether there is consensus within the agency?

How can the presstitutes, such as the NYT and Washington Post give us all these claims without a shred of evidence or any attribution to the CIA officials allegedly reporting the story? What kind of journalism is this?

The conspiracy against truth and against president-elect Trump is real. The oligarchs and their presstitutes, rogue elements of the CIA and the neocon establishment hope to drag alternative media before McCarthyite congressional hearings run by the American hegemonists who want power over the world.

Whatever you think of Trump, clearly the oligarchs who rule us fear him. The oligarchs are trying to keep Trump out of the presidency, and they are trying to associate truthful reporting with foreign influence.

Who wins this war determines the fate of America.

via IFTTT

Nadia Prupis – EPA Finally Concludes Fracking Pollutes Drinking Water

ORIGINAL LINK

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed on Tuesday that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, contaminates drinking water—but claimed a lack of information makes it impossible to determine how widespread the risks are. In a final report issued Tuesday, Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources, the EPA removed a finding included ...

Read More

The post Nadia Prupis – EPA Finally Concludes Fracking Pollutes Drinking Water appeared first on Progressive Radio Network.

via IFTTT

Big Pharma & An Army of Lobbyists Just Sidestepped the FDA

ORIGINAL LINK

The 21^st century cures act sounds very nice, the same way that the patriot act, or the affordable health care act sounded. The 21^st century cures act is supposed to accelerate the pace of cures in America, by streamlining the drug and device development process. Find out how big pharma just landed a big victory that may give a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘FDA Approved’.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

 **Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Show Notes

21^st Century Cures Act

Meet Robert M. Califf, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs

The FDA Now Officially Belongs to Big Pharma

FDA Mission Statement

21st Century Cures Act will distort the meaning of ‘FDA approved’

H.R. 6: 21st Century Cures Act

Destroying the FDA to save it? No, more like just destroying it.

Trump Team Said to Consider Thiel Associate O’Neill for FDA

H.R.34 - 21st Century Cures Act

Congress Prepares to Vote on Bill That Would Speed up Drug Approval

New stem cell legislation raises alarm

Vaccine Injury Table

The 21st Century Cures Act passes, potentially turning the FDA into a puppet of the pharmaceutical industry

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

The Energy and Commerce Committee

via IFTTT

Congresswoman Says US Is Arming ISIS, Introduces Bill To Stop It

ORIGINAL LINK

Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has broken free of the corporate media’s narrative by accusing the United States of funding and arming terror groups al-Qaeda and ISIS.

“If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail,” Gabbard tweeted on Saturday.

If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Why does our gov get a free pass on this?

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) December 10, 2016

Most importantly, however, is her introduction of the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act,” which she presented last Thursday. In her presentation of the bill, Gabbard cited prominent publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to show that the rebels the U.S. is supporting in Syria are aligned with al-Nusra (which is essentially al-Qaeda in Syria).

She is co-sponsoring the bill with Rep. Thomas Massie, who says the bill “would prohibit the U.S. government from using American taxpayer dollars to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups.”

These concerns are not conjectures — they can be verified by none other than suspected war criminal Tony Blair. A think tank founded by the former U.K. Prime Minister released a report in 2015 that concluded it was ultimately pointless to make a distinction between the various rebel groups on the ground since the majority of these groups share ISIS’s core belief system (and would impose Sharia law if they came into power).

“The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda,” Gabbard stated on the House floor last week.

She went into more detail:

“The CIA has long been supporting a group called Fursan al Haqq, providing them with salaries, weapons, and support, including surface to air missiles.  This group is cooperating with and fighting alongside an al-Qaeda affiliated group trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The Levant Front is another so-called moderate umbrella group of Syrian opposition fighters. Over the past year, the United States has been working with Turkey to give this group intelligence support and other forms of military assistance. This group has joined forces with al-Qaeda’s offshoot group in Syria.

 

“This madness must end. We must stop arming terrorists. The Government must end this hypocrisy and abide by the same laws that apply to its’ citizens.”

Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration are well aware of the support the Gulf states have provided to ISIS.

The bill would prohibit any federal agency from supporting a terrorist group or funneling support through other countries that directly or indirectly support terror groups. It is also co-sponsored by lawmakers Peter Welch, Barbara Lee, and Trump ally Dana Rohrabacher.

via IFTTT

Skating to Freedom

ORIGINAL LINK

My last Fox Business Network TV show airs Friday.

That news pleases some people, like internet trolls who write that they are happy to be "rid of that noted LIAR and falsifier of news" who produces "hit pieces." Another wrote, "Hopefully the cancer came back to finish him off."

To be clear, I'm not ending Stossel because I have cancer. I don't have cancer. I had a small tumor removed, and, best we can tell, it's gone. I didn't even have chemo or radiation.

I'm moving on because I want to create a new libertarian internet-based platform with Reason TV and become an educator with the Charles Koch Institute's new Media and Journalism Fellowship program. I will still make appearances on Fox News.

I had a good time hosting my own show for seven years, trying to find new ways to simplify economics and demonstrate the benefits of free markets.

Unfortunately, economic freedom can be hard to demonstrate. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is, well, invisible. How do I explain it on TV? Friedrich Hayek's phrase "spontaneous order" is clearer but still hard to show.

I was stumped until I read Rinkonomics: A Window on Spontaneous Order by George Mason University's Dan Klein. That inspired me to rent a skating rink.

Why? Well, imagine you've never seen a rink, and you are the government regulator who approves new businesses.

I tell you: I will flood that arena, freeze the water and then charge people money to strap sharp blades onto their feet and zip around on the ice. I will have few rules. Anyone can skate: young and old, skilled and unskilled.

Most any regulator would resist my bizarre skating idea. Hillary Clinton might say that for my rink to be approved it must have stoplights, skating police and barriers between skilled and unskilled skaters, adults and children. I must have someone with a megaphone direct the skaters to make sure they don't smash into each other.

So, I actually tried that. I rented a rink and bossed people around: "You, turn left, you slow down." Of course, the skaters hated that. And it didn't make skating safer. Some people, responding to my instructions, lost their balance and fell.

There is spontaneous order on a normal skating rink. Skaters make their own decisions. No regulator knows the wishes, skills and immediate intentions of individual skaters better than skaters themselves.

Regulators might say my attempts to direct skaters failed because I'm not a skating "expert." On my TV show, one guest said regulation must be done "by technocrats with expertise."

So I hired an expert, an Olympic skater. She did no better with the megaphone. No "technocrat" has enough expertise to direct the skaters on the ice.

For safety, rinks usually just have a few employees who police reckless skaters and simple rules like "skate counterclockwise." That's enough!

Good thing rinks were invented before the modern regulatory state took over.

Leave people free to make their own choices and a spontaneous order arises. Skaters find their own path. Buyers and sellers adjust to changing prices. Families raise kids. Musicians create jazz.

That's what I've tried to demonstrate on my show.

Control freaks have criticized such spontaneity for at least 2,400 years. Plato warned that music should be simple so that it does not stir up passion. In America, Ladies Home Journal once warned that jazz would lead "to a breaking away from all rules." Lucky America didn't have a Department of Music Safety then or jazz would have been banned.

Over seven years on the Stossel show, I've done all sorts of stunts, trying to explain the benefits of liberty. I've dressed as a Founder and Santa and Uncle Sam, begged for money on Manhattan streets, broken windows, collected signatures on petitions to ban "dangerous" chemicals like dihydrogen monoxide (that's water), stolen things from children, held a racist (that is, affirmative action) bake sale, smashed cars with a sledgehammer (inspired by the "cash for clunkers" government program) and cut the federal budget with a chain saw.

If it helps explain the benefits of freedom, I'll try it.

COPYRIGHT 2016 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

via IFTTT

Vaccine Failures Keep Mounting — When Will Studies Pointing Out Flaws Result in Healthy Changes?

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

Do routine vaccinations actually protect us from disease? The fact that repeated outbreaks among vaccinated populations keep occurring suggests that many vaccines are ineffective and do not work as advertised.

One of the most obvious vaccine failures is the mumps vaccine, which is part of the measles, mumps and rubella, otherwise known as the MMR vaccine.

In 2010, two virologists filed a federal lawsuit against Merck, their former employer, alleging the vaccine maker used improper testing methods and falsified data to artificially inflate the efficacy rating of their mumps vaccine.

For details on how they allegedly pulled this off, read Dr. Suzanne Humphries' excellent summary,¹ which explains in layman's terms how the tests were manipulated.

So why are people still surprised when mumps outbreaks occur? And why are most disease outbreaks still blamed on the unvaccinated minority when most of the infected are in fact often "fully" vaccinated majority?

Second Mumps Outbreak in Vaccinated Populations This Year Strengthens Questions About MMR Effectiveness

This past summer, more than 40 Harvard University students came down with mumps. According to the public health department in Cambridge, every single one of them had been vaccinated.² Arkansas is now battling an outbreak of mumps that began in August.

As of December 2, 1,824 people had contracted the disease,³ despite 90 to 95 percent of school aged children and 30 to 40 percent of adults involved in the outbreak having been "fully immunized," according to the Arkansas State Health Department (ADH).^4,5,6,7

On September 12, 40/29 News covering Fort Smith and Fayetteville, Arkansas, reported that:⁸ "The Arkansas Dept. of Health says they have seen no cases of the mumps in people who aren't immunized."

Two days later, on September 14, the ADH released an update to the news station showing 16 of the 100 cases in Little Rock, Arkansas, were unvaccinated; four had received one MMR shot and 67 had received two doses of the MMR vaccine. In 13 cases, immunization status was undetermined.⁹

In King County, where nine cases were reported, all were up-to-date on their MMR vaccine, none needed hospitalization and all recovered.¹⁰ Eight of the children were between the ages of 8 and 17. One was 23 years old.

But rather than admitting the mumps vaccine is a failure, the state health department is requiring children with non-medical vaccine exemptions for religious, conscientious or personal beliefs to be excluded from schools where mumps has been identified for 26 days from the date of exposure and until the outbreak has ended.

Students with exemptions who agree to get an MMR shot can return to school immediately — as if excluding unvaccinated children from school when vaccinated children are transmitting the infection is a solution, and that giving more of something that doesn't work well to begin with would fix the problem.

Is the Mumps Virus Mutating to Evade Vaccine?

According to Dr. Dirk Haselow, an epidemiologist with ADH, the attenuated mumps virus strain in the current MMR vaccine may not even match the disease they're now seeing in some patients:

"We are actually to the point that we are worried that this vaccine may indeed not be protecting against the strain of mumps that is circulating as well as it could. With the number of people we've seen infected, we'd expect three of 400 cases of orchitis, or swollen testicles in boys, and we've seen five."

What this suggests is that the mumps virus may be evolving in response to mass vaccination campaigns, much in the same way that bacteria have evolved in response to excessive use of antibiotics.

This is a scenario that deserves serious attention and reevaluation of how and when we use certain vaccines. We cannot simply shrug it off with a recommendation to add booster shots of a mismatched vaccine. Yet that is the route that has been chosen.

Granted, there's significant disagreement among scientists and health officials about whether the mumps virus is evolving to evade the vaccine or whether the issue is simply waning immunity. We may even be dealing with a combination of both.

The position of FDA and CDC officials is that there is no evidence for mutation of the mumps virus (like there is for B. pertussis), only waning immunity and the need for boosters to extend immunity.¹¹

There are a number of different mumps virus strains used by different vaccine manufacturers in different countries. The U.S. uses the Jeryl-Lynn strain in the MMR vaccine developed by Merck.

An interesting 2014 paper¹² published in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics suggests the resurgence in mumps outbreaks is not so much due to mutation of the mumps virus itself, but rather that people vaccinated with Merck's MMR are having altered immune responses when exposed to the wild type virus.

On the other hand, another 2014 paper¹³ written by U.S. researchers developing a new mumps vaccine does suggest that a possible cause of mumps outbreaks in vaccinated persons in the U.S. could be due to "... the antigenic differences between the genotype A vaccine strain and the genotype G circulating wild-type mumps viruses." These authors conclude that:

"Mumps viruses are classified into 12 genotypes based on genetic variability of the SH gene. Different subtypes of mumps viruses exhibit distinguished geographic distribution worldwide.

Although the driving force of such distribution remains unclear, emergence of new subclusters of circulating mumps viruses within a genotype indicates evolution of wild-type mumps viruses under various selection forces.

Failure to detect genotype A wild-type mumps viruses in countries/regions immunized with genotype A vaccine in recent studies may be due to a vaccine-based selection pressure.

This pressure may select for genotypes with increased virulence and heterogeneity compared to current vaccines."

Mumps Vaccine Has Been Failing for at Least a Decade

Mumps outbreaks have occurred in primarily vaccinated populations for at least a decade. In 2006, mumps infected more than 6,500 people in the U.S.^14,15 Most of those cases occurred among the vaccinated population, primarily among college students who had received two doses of MMR vaccine.

In 2009, more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York contracted the disease. At that time, 77 percent of those sickened were vaccinated.¹⁶ The official stance is that the MMR vaccine is 88 percent effective; in other words, it will protect 88 percent of those who get it.

However, if the mumps virus is indeed evolving in response to pressure from the vaccine, which it may well be doing, we could see more outbreaks as time goes on, no matter how many doses of MMR vaccine people get.

Risks Versus Benefits

If a vaccine is ineffective, and/or if the disease doesn't pose a great threat to begin with in terms of a high incidence of serious complications and death, then the benefit risk equation could well tip toward the vaccine posing an unacceptable risk for most people. This is particularly true if the vaccine has been linked to serious side effects.

Unfortunately, that is the case with the MMR vaccine, which has been linked to at least 98 deaths and 694 disabilities between 2003 and 2015. Considering the fact that only 1 to 10 percent of vaccine reactions are ever reported, those numbers could actually be closer to 980 deaths and 6,940 disabilities.¹⁷

Meanwhile, death from mumps is "exceedingly rare" according to the CDC,¹⁸ and no one has died from mumps during any of the recent outbreaks. So, statistically, which poses the greatest danger: the vaccine or the disease?

How can one say that the MMR vaccine is the best way to protect against the disease and leave it at that, without also disclosing these vaccine harm statistics?

The Myth of Vaccine-Generated Herd Immunity

Download Interview Transcript

Vaccine promoters typically stress the importance of compliance with the federally recommended vaccine schedule to create and maintain vaccine induced "herd immunity." This may require multiple doses of certain vaccines, the MMR included, because no vaccine is 100 percent effective.

However, they never seem to be able to explain why the majority of outbreaks occur in areas that are thought to HAVE herd immunity status already, i.e., where the majority of people are fully vaccinated and "should" therefore protect the entire community from infection and transmission of infection.

For example, health officials claim that if 70 percent of children are vaccinated against influenza, the entire community could be protected.¹⁹ Clearly, this is not the case. The problem stems from a convenient mix-up of terms. While natural herd immunity does exist, vaccine-induced herd immunity is a total misnomer.

Vaccine makers simply assumed that vaccines would work in the same way as natural immunity, but science has clearly refuted that notion. In fact, vaccination and exposure to a given disease produce two qualitatively different types of immune responses. To learn more, I urge you to listen to the video above, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity. As explained by Fisher:

"Vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that natural exposure to the disease does ... [V]accines only confer temporary protection … In most cases, natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting, more robust [and] qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity.

Humoral is the antibody production. The way you measure vaccine-induced immunity is by how high the antibody titers are (how many antibodies you have). The problem is the cell mediated immunity is very important as well. Most vaccines evade cell mediated immunity and go straight for the antibodies, which is only one part of immunity."

The Flu Vaccine — Another Miserable Failure

The annual influenza shot is a vaccine that has become fraught with failures. Curiously enough, its use continues to be strongly recommended and frequently mandated DESPITE the large number of published studies showing it fails to prevent influenza the majority of the time. For example, according to one recent study, flu vaccinations have no impact on absenteeism among children.

In other words, whether they're vaccinated or not, children miss about the same number of days of school due to the flu. As reported by the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy:²⁰

"The study contradicts previous research that showed lower absenteeism in vaccinated school-age children. Those studies looked at children suffering from any acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs). This is the first study to look at absentee rates among children with lab-confirmed flu, not just nonspecific respiratory illnesses …

[F]lu vaccination status had no effect on how many days, or if children missed school. Between 30 percent and 40 percent of the children testing positive for flu at the clinic had received a flu vaccine … 'Our study confirms that flu is a major contributor to absenteeism, and vaccination status did not reduce this,' said [lead author Huong] McLean [,Ph.D.]. Also, surprisingly, results did not change when the 2014 [to] '15 flu season (a mismatched year for the vaccine) was excluded."

How Effective Is the Flu Vaccine, Really?

Independent science reviews have concluded that flu shots do not appear to prevent influenza or complications of influenza, which are their stated intent.^21,22 The flu vaccine also does not appear to prevent influenza-like-illness (ILI) associated with other types of viruses responsible for about 80 percent of all respiratory or gastrointestinal infections during any given flu season.^23,24,25,26

Yet it seems no matter how poorly it performs, the call to vaccinate continues unabated. In all honesty, how can getting a poorly matched, poorly functioning vaccine really be "the best way" to protect yourself against influenza, especially when you consider that the flu vaccine is the one resulting in the most payouts from the vaccine injury compensation program (VICP)?

Moreover, as previously reported by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson,²⁷ there's been a sharp uptick in flu vaccine damage. Since January 2014, the number of flu vaccine injury claims conceded by the government is more than double the previous eight years combined. Clearly, the flu vaccine is not harmless. So why are people urged to take what may be a significant risk if the benefit is more or less inconsequential? Consider these statistics:

• In the 2004/2005 season, the flu vaccine was 10 percent effective. Put another way, in 90 percent of those who received it, the vaccine provided no protection.²⁸
• During the 2012/2013 flu season, the seasonal flu vaccine was 56 percent effective across all age groups, but only 9 percent effective in seniors.
• The 2014/2015 flu vaccine flopped with a mere 18 percent effectiveness rate, and as low as 15 percent among children aged 2 to 8. Fluzone — which delivers four times the normal dose of antigen — was found to lower seniors' risk of influenza by a mere 24 percent compared to the standard-dose vaccine.²⁹
• In January 2015, U.S. government officials admitted that, in most years, flu shots are, at best, 50 to 60 percent effective at preventing lab confirmed influenza requiring medical care.³⁰ Then, in December 2015, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analysis³¹ of flu vaccine effectiveness revealed that, between 2005 and 2015, the influenza vaccine was less than 50 percent effective more than half of the time.
• In the 2015/2016 season, the injectable flu vaccine ended up having a 63 percent effectiveness. However, the popular live virus nasal flu vaccine (FluMist) was officially pronounced a failure. Evidence showed it had not protected children from influenza, three years in a row.³² FluMist will not be available for the 2016/2017 season either, for the same reason.³³

Studies Suggest More Is Not Better When It Comes to Flu Vaccines

As if lack of protection is not enough, studies have also shown that seasonal flu shots may backfire and actually raise your risk of more severe infection, or other infections, either that same year or in subsequent years.

For example, data shows that people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 had twice the risk of getting the H1N1 "swine flu" compared to those who didn't receive a flu shot.³⁴ Another study³⁵ found that, compared to children who do not get an annual flu vaccine, those who receive influenza vaccinations have a 300 percent higher risk of hospitalization due to influenza.

The protection afforded by the vaccine, which is typically less than 50 percent more than half of the time to begin with, also appears to diminish further with each successive annual flu vaccination.^36,37 Research published in 2014 concluded that vaccine-induced protection against influenza was greatest among those who had NOT received a flu shot in the previous five years.³⁸

Statin users may be at a particular disadvantage, as researchers have warned statins may undermine your immune system's ability to respond to the flu vaccine.^39,40 After vaccination, antibody concentrations were 38 percent to 67 percent lower in statin users over the age of 65, compared to non-statin users of the same age.⁴¹

Antibody concentrations were also reduced, albeit slightly less, in younger people who took statins. Statin drugs are currently used by 25 percent of Americans over the age of 45, and this is yet another factor that undermines the blanket recommendation for all people to get a flu shot.

Underreporting of Negative Studies Undermines Medical Science

Scientific fraud is commonplace, as is shoddy methodology used to conduct clinical trials. Both undermine the integrity of medical science, but the most significant threat is the fact that a vast majority of studies showing negative findings are simply never published.

As a theoretical example, consider this scenario: 100 studies looking into the benefits of a drug are conducted. Seventy-five of them come to a negative conclusion, meaning they find the drug doesn't work, or works poorly, or has significant risks. Twenty-five manage to find a benefit, whether based on solid science or through manipulation of data. In either case, all of the 25 positive studies are published. Meanwhile, only five of the negative results studies ever see the light of day.

What you end up with is a situation where it appears the scientific evidence strongly supports use of the drug when, in fact, it's overwhelmingly against it. The problem is, no one knows about those 70 missing negative studies, so an argument cannot even be made that there is cause to doubt the results of the 25 positive studies. Instead, the five negative results studies that are published are viewed as being anomalous and not worthy of consideration.

According to a team of Dutch researchers looking at scientific misbehaviors that impact on truth and trust in science, this kind of selective reporting of results is a core problem plaguing modern science:^42,43

"[O]ur ranking results seem to suggest that selective reporting, selective citing and flaws in quality assurance and mentoring are the major evils of modern research. A picture emerges not of concern about wholesale fraud but of profound concerns that many scientists may be cutting corners and engage in sloppy science, possibly with a view to get more positive and more spectacular results that will be easier to publish in high-impact journals and will attract many citations."

Study Abstract Linking Vaccines to Autism Not Available Online Anymore

Astonishingly, 34 percent of scientists polled admit to cutting corners or engaging in questionable manipulation of their work in order to reach a certain conclusion — typically in order to augment their chances of publication.

A similar problem is that studies that come to uncomfortable conclusions and are actually published often are removed from public access in the wake of backlash — usually from lobbying by online trolls tied to pharmaceutical and medical trade industry interests or pressure from other scientists who have a vested stake in promoting a particular scientific "truth."

We've seen this happen with studies linking genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to serious health effects and those linking vaccines to serious harm, such as neurodevelopmental disorders that involve the diagnosis of autism, for example.

Most recently, the abstract of a study that discovered vaccinated children were nearly 300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders, including ADHD, learning disabilities and autism, than unvaccinated children was retracted within less than a week of being posted online. According to the study abstract, which is no longer available online but was copied by Retraction Watch:⁴⁴

"A total of 415 mothers provided data on 666 children, of which 261 (39 percent) were unvaccinated. Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and/or a learning disability) …

In this study based on mothers' reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors. However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD.

Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children's health."

Without Scientific Integrity, What Will Medical System Be Based On?

According to Retraction Watch, the publishing of the abstract of the study was immediately attacked on Twitter, which prompted the medical journal to remove the abstract from online access. How is it that Twitter comments can sway a scientific journal to remove public access to the abstract of a study accepted for publication? That's quite remarkable, if you ask me.

Regardless of the merits of this particular piece of research, the fact remains that it is part of a very clear trend to limit publication of negative, uncomfortable findings when it comes to vaccine safety, and/or eliminate published studies that don't conform to the generally accepted "status quo," even though that status quo may have been generated by false or misleading research in the first place!

This is a frustrating and complex problem that have few immediate solutions, since industry-funded research dominates the scientific field, and companies do not want to publish studies that do not support their product. A number of changes need to be made, and I believe scientists are the ones who will have to start pushing for transparency and honesty, no matter what the cost.

Because as it stands, the public trust in science is quickly disintegrating, and without scientific integrity, what kind of scientific evidence will our medical system claim to be based on?

Related Articles:

  Merck Accused of Lying about Vaccine Effectiveness

  What Whistleblowers Tell Us About Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness

  Vaccines — Are They Still Contributing to the Greater Good?

 Comments (6)


via IFTTT

Did Russia Really ‘Hack the Election’?

ORIGINAL LINK

When it comes to Russia's role in America's presidential election this year, I am in a somewhat unusual position. Like Scott Shackford and scores of millions of Americans, I have no particular dog in the hunt for which major-party candidate wins the presidency (my/our preferences can be found here, because Reason is a transparent journalistic institution, unlike 99 percent of our competitors). But unlike most libertarians, my loathing of Putin and of the Russian values he feeds on, as well as my bias-forging experience of living in post-Warsaw Pact states from 1990-97, leads to qualified support for things like NATO expansion (yay Baltics, nay Georgia), and to a lifetime of perhaps-irrational antipathy toward, say, Mikhail Gorbachev.

This background, plus the advent of a Russophiliac president-elect I opposed when I first laid eyes on him, should make me the ideal customer for the Russians-hacked-our-elections theory currently taking the left-half of the mediasphere by storm. Yet my brain cannot quite go where the heart so fervently wants to lead, for reasons summed up by Nick Gillespie this morning when looking at articles by the Washington Post and New York Times based on nameless leaks from the CIA: "neither story actually presents even anonymously sourced information that shows Russian (or even Wikileaks) activity tipped the election."

This is not a small point. You can hate Vladimir Putin's guts (though likely not more than I do), but until there is evidence of him or anyone else changing the results between the moment Americans voted and the moment those votes were tabulated, just what in hell are we talking about here? Unless you see Americans as hapless vessels swayed against their own voting inclinations by leaks of true information (along with whatever fake news was percolating from teenage Macedonians), it's awfully hard to conclude that Russia's one-sided interventions, real and imagined, were anything remotely close to the deciding factor here. Propaganda, from every angle, has always existed; the key is to safeguard the integrity of the voting process. Without evidence of that latter point being degraded, any conclusion involving the recalibrating of this election strikes me as desperate, wishful, and not particularly helpful thinking.

Anyhoo, I talk about this on tonight's Kennedy (Fox Business Network 8 p.m. ET, with a repeat at midnight), along with co-Party Panelists Harris Faulkner and Anthony Cumia. The program will also include interviews with John Bolton and Judge Andrew Napolitano, so do watch the whole damn thing!

Then later in the 3 a.m. hour on Fox News I'll be on Red Eye w/ Tom Shillue, talking the same subject and more with co-panelists Tammy Pescatelli, Tim Dillon, and the libertarian comic Dave Smith.

via IFTTT

Less Than Transparent: Journalists Fault Obama

ORIGINAL LINK

The following is based on a letter to the Obama White House from the Society of Professional Journalists

When President Obama took office, he gave journalists great hope by promising unprecedented transparency. The reality has proven to be eight years of slippage in nearly every facet of openness. As the president prepares to leave office, the Society of Professional Journalists have noted the disappointing shortfalls.

Forty journalism and open-government groups sent a letter to White House press secretary Josh Earnest* in September after he called for journalists to give the president credit for improvements in government transparency. The Society of Professional Journalists and other groups have “repeatedly outlined to the administration various ways in which transparency has gotten worse” including:

• Officials’ blocking reporters’ requests to talk to specific people
• Excessive delays in answering interview requests, stretching past reporters’ deadlines
• Refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who’s speaking
• Federal agencies’ blackballing of reporters who write critically of them
• Lack of meaning visual access to the pressmen try an independent press pool

“We were hoping we could point to this White House as a shining example of how it should be done,” writes the Society of Professional Journalists. “Unfortunately, we can’t do that and will have to start over with the next administration.”

*Earnest is the same administration official who has, without explanation, blocked the release of White House photos taken the night of the September 11, 2012 Islamic extremist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya. These White House photos were taken by a photographer paid with tax dollars to chronicle events of elected and public officials. The photographs depict officials conducting the public’s business. Since President Obama will not disclose his actions or whereabouts throughout that night, as commander-in-chief, while Americans were under attack on foreign soil, the photos could shed light on events that went horribly wrong.

Preorder The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote

 

via IFTTT

Former UK Ambassador Blasts "CIA's Blatant Lies", Shows "A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims"

ORIGINAL LINK

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

via IFTTT