This article is a reaction to the media lynching of Ms Olivia Steer, in consequence of his Lordship's participation in a discussion of vaccines with a pediatrician, Mihai Craiu.
I mention from the beginning that I did not just participate in a pro-vaccination campaign, more, the possible link between vaccines and autism would be harmful to my hypothesis about autism, related to human evolution. I don't think the vaccines, at least not alone, have a determining causal link with autism. But I can't help but be outraged when I see how a private person who tries to report medical fraud is treated, which tries to show that people, the citizens, they may be subject to abuses of authority, collusion between pharmaceutical companies, authorities etc. It would be the first time in history? After all, it's about someone trying to defend our rights, nine, to everyone. He may or may not be right. It is so bad to have a position related to possible abuse?
I didn't see the show live. I didn't know about her. As a result of the backlash on social media, I tried to see what enormities were said on both sides. I am not an immunologist, I have not done any experience related to this field (not that I didn't want to). My experience is limited to what I learned in college, what I read next (and that's what I'm good at) and to the analyzes we did in the laboratory. But I will use the same peer review mechanisms (that's what i did, being on both sides).
First, Olivia Steer tries to analyze the data she knows, not being a specialist, and pretending not to. A logical analysis, looking for contradictions, being skeptical of authority, looking for fraud. A true watchdog, not? Olivia Steer is a former investigative journalist, this is how his career began, her investigations propelled her to a television like ProTv from a local television station. Not beauty, which indeed gave him advantages afterwards, as often happens (there are studies in this sense, how they are also related to the fact that beautiful people are not considered very intelligent, which is completely false). Investigative journalists are often not from the field they are investigating. Sure, any conclusion can be flawed, scientific or journalistic, therefore there must be a right of reply, therefore competing sources are taken, and above all that is why the opinion of experts matters, and must be consulted. But we cannot deny their great role in maintaining democracy, defense of citizens' rights, just because they are just journalists or not even. Ms. Erin Brokovich was just a single mother looking for work, no education and no experience in the field. We can deny her discovery of Procter's abuses & Gamble?
I had heard a few years ago of Olivia Steer, I thought she was some kind of irrational buffoon who kept her around with the anti-vaccine fight. I knew the type, not anti-vaccinationists, but people in love with an idea, with whom you cannot hold a logical dialogue. Fans of parties or politicians are in this category. Only….surprise! That lady said logical things, although it was clear that he lacked some knowledge.
The one moment dat, Ms. Steer asks who funded the study on 20 years of vaccinated children in Denmark, related to autism, if I understood correctly. Dl doctor, characterized as titled and full of studies (if I didn't know how to get those titles, as one who has achieved such for others) did not answer the question. The question was pertinent, if we think that only a few decades before, a second on a historical scale, smoking was considered safe, really healthy, because the studies were funded, guess who? The tobacco industry. And, it matters who funded the study. And about how the values can be styled to get what you want, this is not just a statistician, but even an accountant who worked under communism can tell you. With a doctor who works in the pharmaceutical industry, a potential collaborator (precisely for the purpose of producing new drugs) we discuss this phenomenon, described in numerous articles. And, if you want to release a new drug, you go through all the legal hurdles, with enormous costs of money and time, that's why only big pharma can afford it, not to mention other aspects. And, dle doctor, it matters who funded the study, especially since recently there have been scandals related to pharmaceutical company financing of doctors, participation in congresses, etc.
Dl. doctor says he sees cases, and that he hasn't read that book. And, few know that doctors in general are not interested in mechanisms. I don't read books (even researchers don't do that, as a publisher told me, not that i didn't know that), I don't really read articles either, although the system tries to force them to continue training. But most of the time this is something of a facade. Congresses and conferences are something from which degrees are obtained, to show that they participated, to check continuous training. mechanisms? Something useless, for researchers. As a doctor colleague told me; "leave me with the mechanisms, give me something to make my patients feel better! This is what I need, not mechanisms!” Which is fair, very correct, you don't have time to do real research (most flee research, even if it's a clinic), to also deal with patients. And lastly, with the bureaucracy pressing down on them…
The point is that a doctor should not have been called, but an immunology researcher. The simple line related to what cases he sees, that he doesn't need to read, it's disqualifying. I remember a collaboration with the Institute of Endocrinology. When we are waiting for a colleague, a patience comes to me. I ask her nicely and totally rudely: “You have acromegaly?” She looks at me and says: "Or, if you knew how many I've been to before he discovered what I have!"Yes, I had seen cases in the books, ware, and about two or three on the street...
Cherry picking observation, related to data selection, to give what the author wants, it's an extra point for the doctor, when he disqualified that card. This is really happening. But we must not reject everything that our knowledge and theories make cabbage. Although this really happens, and it is proven, as Kuhn says in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Until serious crises occur, the paradigm does not change.
But when the doctor starts saying that God made us good...at least me, involved in evolution, lost me. How the hell can it do us any good? It brought us to our knees like hell, otherwise we wouldn't get so many diseases, some only in us or rarer in our furry relatives! We would grow old if we were well made? Then what did he say about aluminum, whose involvement in Alzheimer's is long advanced, again I'm not arguing. It's a long story about what Al does, which has a pro-oxidant role (I don't pass a reaction here), but also similar to estrogen. But the doctor is right, quoting from Brătianu "measure, minister!"I mean, it's about quantity. But Al is on the suspect list for certain diseases, and could, somehow related to autism, if he has Alzheimer's (between which there might be certain similarities of mechanism, at the biochemical level, advanced by me, then supported by data obtained by others). But my opinion is that it is not important. Sure, my opinion! Which can be wrong... So we don't fear Al from vaccines, in the amount it's there….good to know. I wasn't afraid anyway, Let's think about Al cutlery fashion, extremely expensive in the 19th century, engraved it seductively for Napoleon in the III-lea. The incidence of Alzheimer's disease has increased, but also of autism in people who used those cutlery? There is a higher incidence of autism in Slatina, where when you enter you see the Al plant? Here again we are talking about measure, but probably also of individual differences.
But Ms. Steer pushes the issue further. And, agree, but one is something angelic, another injected. AND he is right. He then asks if there has been a single study that shows that injecting Al, in that quantity, it is safe for children. Dl. Doctor squeezes her silly. repeat, a researcher was good, who eats the domain on bread. I would not have known how to answer this question. But a year or two ago I would have made a fool of myself by saying what the pediatrician said: studies are done related to any medicine, for him to go into production. Damn it! I thought so too! AND they really do! And they're damn expensive and time-consuming, that you need 5, even 10 years to get from idea to production. But when I was doing a longevity study, both my collaborator, veterinary, as well as a professor of human physiology, they were very frustrated, that I wasn't following them, to a lifelong study, the action of those substances at the toxicological level, pathological (it was about mice). I actually did, but not as it should be. We did NOT sacrifice a number of mice, still alive, to see what long-term effects those substances have. For me the fear that I am too little, that if I sacrifice them it affects my stats, and anyway, what does it matter when the substances are already in human and veterinary use? Damn it, no long-term studies are done. Mice live two years in the laboratory, but a human study of 5 years, 10 years, as much as necessary for the approval of a medicine, it means nothing. Since then I have thought that any substance should be studied at the level of effects on longevity. So we don't really know what the drugs do long term, we know what to do to avoid lawsuits and not pay millions in damages, possibly even worse. And there are medications that are taken for life.
But returning to what the Danish longitudinal study with vaccinated children, watch on 20 years, if it's serious and well done (how do you find out???), suspicions should be ruled out.
The discussion continues. Ms. Steer's arguments are valid. And further, the example with the syrup that causes arrhythmias, which stayed I don't know how long on the market, without the relevant bodies notifying themselves. Logic, touch! But Olivia Steer doesn't know how toxic the many drugs are . that's the situation, it's at the beginning, medical sciences at the beginning. Only someone's place that new drugs don't be!
We're going far, Mrs. Steer's arguments mystified. She claims the vaccines don't say anything , but only vaccines should not be mandatory, read the leaflets. , leaflets must be read, some vaccines are given to those who don't need them, leaflets are not read. I wanted to get vaccinated for B (because I was professional) I saw the prospectus. I didn't do it, but not m- under no circumstances go without vaccines. When I posted what the prospectus said on Facebook, some have come out saying it's irrational! , citing what there! For others my situation! Says Olivia Steer, read the prospectus. And the vaccine may not , as they say popularly. It was known from Jenner's time, deny , supporting the vaccine is for . Not, not always. Write on vaccines, the one for B, which is less likely in smokers. Among vaccines, autoimmune diseases should be investigated, but that was not discussed.
Further on, to the question of whether she is vaccinated, she and her children, Olivia Steer doesn't answer, medical information is confidential. Which is correct. Most likely she is, like her parents and grandparents. It was hard not to be vaccinated under communism, and here people have been getting vaccinated for a long time. Now there are unvaccinated children. I do not agree with compulsory vaccination for democratic reasons, especially since they come from a country where medical abuse has been notorious. Political prisoners hospitalized in psychiatry, but also the mandatory control of women of reproductive age, the body of women belonging to the state, this must never happen again! No medical treatment should be mandatory! But what do you do when it comes to a child?? Leave the decision up to the uninformed parent? I fundamentally disagree that a human being belongs to anyone, including when it comes to parents. It's a very hard question, what do you do in the case of a child...what do you do in serious cases, when you have a treatment up your sleeve and the patient refuses it for various reasons. It's very hard...
My guess is that Ms. Steer doesn't know how many problems there are with medication, with all that means treatment, with the biological. People who end up in medical research are generally obsessed with disease. This is how it is selected. But then I arrive, when he learns how many dangers there are, to eat in the laboratory, to lay hands on blood products. Sure, it's an absolutely incorrect attitude. This is probably how war veterans end up dying in stupid accidents, after they get used to great dangers. The thing is, there are so many dangers, so many uncertainties, that it's hard to avoid. But that's exactly why it doesn't hurt to be reminded. And for those who don't take it, someone has to sound the alarm.
But returning to the discussions about vaccines, I do not discuss here what I think about this subject. I did it elsewhere, exists on the site. What arguments do I have in their favor?, trying to abstract from data that might be controversial (or false). Let's not forget, the pharmaceutical industry is considered very immoral, and forgeries in science are not rare. After the scandal of the Korean who claimed to have cloned human stem cells, several articles appeared estimating the level of forgeries in , published, the 40%!!! It's downright awful when you need real data, which helps you build something solid! Sometimes I thought maybe I'm basing my ideas on the lies of some who want nothing more than grants!
handling , numerous articles, studies that have become mass media. We are lied to and manipulated around the clock, we have no information we are inundated with erroneous information. For two years I believed lies about the situation in Syria! it's just an example... What's disturbing about media lynching, then on Olivia Steer's social networks the fact some, who rationalize, they offended all kinds , she at least discusses these aspects. She at least the system, something that affects us all, with the investigative journalist's means. She on the side of the man on , that with mud. She was having problems about what happened to us. One wonders who is on the patient's side? Someone on the patient? We like people depend on one medical system? It isn't? Are the mechanisms that protect us from medical abuse sufficient??
I don't believe that. And if you want to report an irregularity, where are you going? To an investigative journalist! I know what I'm talking about when I talk about vaccines, but those who criticize Olivia Steer on what basis do they do so? Other than the authority, of the desire to believe in science, after all a social phenomenon? What does it mean to be rational under these conditions? Join the camp with the label that sounds good?
And if some drugs, TREATMENTS, therapeutic strategies, like some data, raises problems, the truly rational arguments, but also redoing some experiments, when possible, it would help, not the insults. Considering how many fakes there are in science, and also knowing the history of science, including something about the history of vaccines, with numerous forgeries on both sides, mystifications and the rest, you can't help but think that sometimes the fake could escalate to huge proportions. It is a superstition that science cleans itself forever and always. But in the end, this dust of science is all we have, I pray, maybe the safest thing we have. And that's exactly why, we must preserve and develop this. And if some critics are wrong, then we can prove them through experiments. If only everything were more transparent, if only people had access to experiments and their results much more easily, maybe there would be less suspicion and more trust. And anyway, personal attacks, insults do not help science or society.
In the links below you can see who is rational and who is not, not:
