Vaccination Programs Under Scrutiny (Part 3)

Banty wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Feb 11, 9:58=A0am, Banty wrote:

In article tLYrj.2477$ip3.2469@trnddc07, Jeff says...








Carole wrote:

"Beth Kevles" wrote in message
...

The amount of false "information" (otherwise known as "lies") in the
preceding post is very impressive. =A0While one should be as informed =

as

possible about the risks of vaccines, it's better to be aware of the
*real* risks, not the imaginary ones.

Are there lies?

It's also important to be aware of the benefits of vaccines. =A0The we=

b

site for the Centers for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov) has high-qualit=

y

information available which can help you make an informed decision.

But isn't CDC a government organisation?

Of course it is. It is one of the organizations that has done the most
to decrease infectious diseases in the US and other parts of the world.

If the FDA is anything to go by it has been well and truly infiltrated =

and

pushing pharmaceutical disinformation.

You mean like the Russian government is infiltrated by the American spies=

?

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

Thanks for the laugh at cellsalts.net. That is a site for clueless
suckers. It is clear that anyone who would associate herself with that
site (as you have done) has no clue about science or medicine.

No evidence that the cell salts work at all is offered on that site.

Nope. =A0But of course there are links to *buy* cell salts and books, and =

links to

(amazingly) expert cites from websites admittedly discontinued. =A0Experts=

have

track records of published articles, notably in refereed scientific journa=

ls,

which are available through scientific literature search engines. =A0They =

would

never be (oopsie...) discontinued.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Experts have track records of published articles,etc, etc." How
naive. The so-called experts are allowed to be experts only in their
work agrees with main line medical thought and big pharma. Otherwise,
the experts are not funded, not allowed to publish, and many journals
not agreeing with big pharma are not indexed. Even many indexed
journals have been "cleansed" of offending articles and authors.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly or big pharma.


So, you roll out the well worn hack excuse that the 'establishment' is
suppressing research and publication. This isn't about "indexing" (where do you
even get that term) -

I would assume this means indexing as used by search services like
PubMed, Dialog, STN; i.e., articles and abstracts are indexed by topic,
author, etc.

Clisby



this is about publishing in archival sccientific journals
with peer review. Journals even allow submitting authors to list possible peers
they do *not* want review by if they suspect bias or overarching competition.

Follow the scientific process, including reproducing results at independant
laboratories and presenting at conferences to scientific peers, and you'd be
able to show your case. That is what science is designed for.

It is *not* designed for fringe groups with sales interests in products to play
on luddite fears.

DrBanty

In article , Clisby says...



Banty wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Feb 11, 9:58=A0am, Banty wrote:

In article tLYrj.2477$ip3.2469@trnddc07, Jeff says...








Carole wrote:

"Beth Kevles" wrote in message
...

The amount of false "information" (otherwise known as "lies") in the
preceding post is very impressive. =A0While one should be as informed =

as

possible about the risks of vaccines, it's better to be aware of the
*real* risks, not the imaginary ones.

Are there lies?

It's also important to be aware of the benefits of vaccines. =A0The we=

b

site for the Centers for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov) has high-qualit=

y

information available which can help you make an informed decision.

But isn't CDC a government organisation?

Of course it is. It is one of the organizations that has done the most
to decrease infectious diseases in the US and other parts of the world.

If the FDA is anything to go by it has been well and truly infiltrated =

and

pushing pharmaceutical disinformation.

You mean like the Russian government is infiltrated by the American spies=

?

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

Thanks for the laugh at cellsalts.net. That is a site for clueless
suckers. It is clear that anyone who would associate herself with that
site (as you have done) has no clue about science or medicine.

No evidence that the cell salts work at all is offered on that site.

Nope. =A0But of course there are links to *buy* cell salts and books, and =

links to

(amazingly) expert cites from websites admittedly discontinued. =A0Experts=

have

track records of published articles, notably in refereed scientific journa=

ls,

which are available through scientific literature search engines. =A0They =

would

never be (oopsie...) discontinued.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Experts have track records of published articles,etc, etc." How
naive. The so-called experts are allowed to be experts only in their
work agrees with main line medical thought and big pharma. Otherwise,
the experts are not funded, not allowed to publish, and many journals
not agreeing with big pharma are not indexed. Even many indexed
journals have been "cleansed" of offending articles and authors.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly or big pharma.


So, you roll out the well worn hack excuse that the 'establishment' is
suppressing research and publication. This isn't about "indexing" (where do you
even get that term) -

I would assume this means indexing as used by search services like
PubMed, Dialog, STN; i.e., articles and abstracts are indexed by topic,
author, etc.

Those are the scientific literature search engines I'm referring to. If they're
published, they're "indexed". Normally the publication is the more important
event than the listing in the search services. Nobody says 'indexed' we say
"published". Makes my wonder if "DrCree" has seen this process much beyond what
she can see in websearch lists.

Banty

Banty wrote:

In article , Clisby says...



Banty wrote:

In article ,
says...


On Feb 11, 9:58=A0am, Banty wrote:


In article tLYrj.2477$ip3.2469@trnddc07, Jeff says...









Carole wrote:


"Beth Kevles" wrote in message
...


The amount of false "information" (otherwise known as "lies") in the
preceding post is very impressive. =A0While one should be as informed =

as


possible about the risks of vaccines, it's better to be aware of the
*real* risks, not the imaginary ones.

Are there lies?


It's also important to be aware of the benefits of vaccines. =A0The we=

b


site for the Centers for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov) has high-qualit=

y


information available which can help you make an informed decision.

But isn't CDC a government organisation?

Of course it is. It is one of the organizations that has done the most
to decrease infectious diseases in the US and other parts of the world.

If the FDA is anything to go by it has been well and truly infiltrated =

and


pushing pharmaceutical disinformation.

You mean like the Russian government is infiltrated by the American spies=

?


Carole
www.cellsalts.net

Thanks for the laugh at cellsalts.net. That is a site for clueless
suckers. It is clear that anyone who would associate herself with that
site (as you have done) has no clue about science or medicine.

No evidence that the cell salts work at all is offered on that site.

Nope. =A0But of course there are links to *buy* cell salts and books, and =

links to


(amazingly) expert cites from websites admittedly discontinued. =A0Experts=

have


track records of published articles, notably in refereed scientific journa=

ls,


which are available through scientific literature search engines. =A0They =

would


never be (oopsie...) discontinued.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Experts have track records of published articles,etc, etc." How
naive. The so-called experts are allowed to be experts only in their
work agrees with main line medical thought and big pharma. Otherwise,
the experts are not funded, not allowed to publish, and many journals
not agreeing with big pharma are not indexed. Even many indexed
journals have been "cleansed" of offending articles and authors.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly or big pharma.


So, you roll out the well worn hack excuse that the 'establishment' is
suppressing research and publication. This isn't about "indexing" (where do you
even get that term) -

I would assume this means indexing as used by search services like
PubMed, Dialog, STN; i.e., articles and abstracts are indexed by topic,
author, etc.


Those are the scientific literature search engines I'm referring to. If they're
published, they're "indexed".

No, the New England Journal of Medicine is published, regardless of
whether any of its articles is indexed.

Normally the publication is the more important
event than the listing in the search services. Nobody says 'indexed' we say
"published".

Are you referring to journals? Or to journal articles? I don't know
that I've ever heard anyone refer to a journal as being "indexed" - a
journal is "covered". Certainly the articles are indexed - that's a
common use of term.

From PubMed:

"MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) is NLM's controlled vocabulary
thesaurus used for indexing MEDLINE articles. The MeSH Database is
available from the Search menu or the sidebar."

and

"The Humans or Animals limit restricts your search to a human or animal
study.

With this limit, PubMed retrieval will be limited to MEDLINE citations.
The "in process" and "supplied by publisher" citations will be excluded
because they have not yet completed the indexing process and do not
carry these data.top link"

From STN Basics - Training Module I:

"Indexing terms are "consistent" terminology used by a database producer
for topics that might otherwise be referred to by several different
terms or phrases (e.g., "Human immunodeficiency virus 1" might be the
consistent terminology used as an indexing term when important
information is reported on the AIDS virus, AIDS-associated virus, HIV,
HIV-1, or Human immunodeficiency virus 1). The assignment of uniform
indexing terms allows searchers to more accurately locate records on a
particular topic."

On Dialog:

Pick any database in http://library.dialog.com/bluesheets/
and look at the information labeled "indexing".


Clisby


Makes my wonder if "DrCree" has seen this process much beyond what
she can see in websearch lists.

Banty

In article , Clisby says...



Banty wrote:

In article , Clisby says...



Banty wrote:

In article ,
says...


On Feb 11, 9:58=A0am, Banty wrote:


In article tLYrj.2477$ip3.2469@trnddc07, Jeff says...









Carole wrote:


"Beth Kevles" wrote in message
...


The amount of false "information" (otherwise known as "lies") in the
preceding post is very impressive. =A0While one should be as informed =

as


possible about the risks of vaccines, it's better to be aware of the
*real* risks, not the imaginary ones.

Are there lies?


It's also important to be aware of the benefits of vaccines. =A0The we=

b


site for the Centers for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov) has high-qualit=

y


information available which can help you make an informed decision.

But isn't CDC a government organisation?

Of course it is. It is one of the organizations that has done the most
to decrease infectious diseases in the US and other parts of the world.

If the FDA is anything to go by it has been well and truly infiltrated =

and


pushing pharmaceutical disinformation.

You mean like the Russian government is infiltrated by the American spies=

?


Carole
www.cellsalts.net

Thanks for the laugh at cellsalts.net. That is a site for clueless
suckers. It is clear that anyone who would associate herself with that
site (as you have done) has no clue about science or medicine.

No evidence that the cell salts work at all is offered on that site.

Nope. =A0But of course there are links to *buy* cell salts and books, and =

links to


(amazingly) expert cites from websites admittedly discontinued. =A0Experts=

have


track records of published articles, notably in refereed scientific journa=

ls,


which are available through scientific literature search engines. =A0They =

would


never be (oopsie...) discontinued.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Experts have track records of published articles,etc, etc." How
naive. The so-called experts are allowed to be experts only in their
work agrees with main line medical thought and big pharma. Otherwise,
the experts are not funded, not allowed to publish, and many journals
not agreeing with big pharma are not indexed. Even many indexed
journals have been "cleansed" of offending articles and authors.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly or big pharma.


So, you roll out the well worn hack excuse that the 'establishment' is
suppressing research and publication. This isn't about "indexing" (where do you
even get that term) -

I would assume this means indexing as used by search services like
PubMed, Dialog, STN; i.e., articles and abstracts are indexed by topic,
author, etc.


Those are the scientific literature search engines I'm referring to. If they're
published, they're "indexed".

No, the New England Journal of Medicine is published, regardless of
whether any of its articles is indexed.

Normally the publication is the more important
event than the listing in the search services. Nobody says 'indexed' we say
"published".

Are you referring to journals? Or to journal articles? I don't know
that I've ever heard anyone refer to a journal as being "indexed" - a
journal is "covered". Certainly the articles are indexed - that's a
common use of term.

From PubMed:

"MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) is NLM's controlled vocabulary
thesaurus used for indexing MEDLINE articles. The MeSH Database is
available from the Search menu or the sidebar."

and

"The Humans or Animals limit restricts your search to a human or animal
study.

With this limit, PubMed retrieval will be limited to MEDLINE citations.
The "in process" and "supplied by publisher" citations will be excluded
because they have not yet completed the indexing process and do not
carry these data.top link"

From STN Basics - Training Module I:

"Indexing terms are "consistent" terminology used by a database producer
for topics that might otherwise be referred to by several different
terms or phrases (e.g., "Human immunodeficiency virus 1" might be the
consistent terminology used as an indexing term when important
information is reported on the AIDS virus, AIDS-associated virus, HIV,
HIV-1, or Human immunodeficiency virus 1). The assignment of uniform
indexing terms allows searchers to more accurately locate records on a
particular topic."

On Dialog:

Pick any database in http://library.dialog.com/bluesheets/
and look at the information labeled "indexing".


Well, sure, to all of the above. But I think the question would be more about
what is *published*, and where, vs. what got indexed. If she's only talking
about what can be found through certain search engines, she's not familiar with,
or using, the literature. Or attending conferences, university seminars, where
research work is brought before the wider scientific community for criticism and
scrutiny, and made open to be verified by reproducing the work, or not.

Banty

In message , Carole wrote:

But isn't CDC a government organisation?
If the FDA is anything to go by it has been well and truly infiltrated and
pushing pharmaceutical disinformation.

Carole, by definition anyone who disagrees with you is lying.
Any organization (e.g. the Deming Institute) that might raise
doubts about your current belief set is "infiltrated." Etc.

Why bother asking?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

In message , wrote:

Even many indexed
journals have been "cleansed" of offending articles and authors.

You know, I always wondered what the guys in black suits and sunglasses
were doing in the archives of the University periodical section late
at night. Now you've explained it.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

In message , Clisby wrote:

I would assume this means indexing as used by search services like
PubMed, Dialog, STN; i.e., articles and abstracts are indexed by topic,
author, etc.

Journals have been publishing hardcopy indices since long before
search engines. Libraries have them.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+