Measles Resurgence Tied To Parents' Vaccine Fears

[Xon]

Also, it's just healthier to eat more fresh food rather than processed,

Hilariously, it is often healthier to eat flash frozen food than "fresh" vegetables from a store because the freezing occurs hours after picking compared to the "fresh" produce which can take days even weeks or months to get to the store. But there is a big difference between frozen vegetables and highly processed foods.

[Broomstick]

Anyone have firm details on the price difference between corn syrup and cane sugar? My Google-Fu is weak today.

Does everyone forget about beet sugar? I believe its cheaper than cane, but still more expensive than corn syrup. When I buy sugar I buy beet sugar because, first of all, it's grown more locally than cane sugar, and it's cheaper than the much ballyhooed "pure cane sugar".

I wonder if corn syrup would be so damn cheap if corn wasn't so heavily subsidized?

[Liberty]

Back when the poverty level was developed in the U.S., in the 1950s or thereabout (I think) the measure used assumed that the poor would spend a third of their income on food. Do we really want to go back to that? Won't that increase hunger and even starvation in even first world countries?

[Glass Pearl Player]

Anyone have firm details on the price difference between corn syrup and cane sugar? My Google-Fu is weak today.

Link in german stating 16 US-cent per pound for trading, but note the high of 30 cent earlier this year.
Link in english stating 16.40 cent per pound for raw and 481 $ per tonne for white, or 21.8 cents per pound (google calculator).
I do not recall the retail price for sugar here in Austria at the moment, but it's somewhere around 1€/kg or 60 US-cent per pound (haven't bought any lately, so take it with a grain of salt).

American Sugar Alliance gives a chart for average retail prices. *passes the salt shaker*

Some more googling brought up a retail price for corn syrup: 37$/60lbs, or 61 US-cent per pound.
This looks promising, stating 58.60 cent/pound for white sugar, retail.

[Broomstick]

Back when the poverty level was developed in the U.S., in the 1950s or thereabout (I think) the measure used assumed that the poor would spend a third of their income on food. Do we really want to go back to that? Won't that increase hunger and even starvation in even first world countries?

1/3 of your income for food isn't intolerable (it may not be fun, but it's bearable) IF your housing isn't costing you more than 20-30%! This generation has become toughed to the idea of housing costing 50% or even more of income, but that's a new phenomena.

If 1/3 of your income goes to housing and 1/3 to food that leaves 1/3 for everything else... and even for most poor people that would be enough for survival... except that the cost of housing has been driven up and up and up in the US.

[Liberty]

Back when the poverty level was developed in the U.S., in the 1950s or thereabout (I think) the measure used assumed that the poor would spend a third of their income on food. Do we really want to go back to that? Won't that increase hunger and even starvation in even first world countries?

1/3 of your income for food isn't intolerable (it may not be fun, but it's bearable) IF your housing isn't costing you more than 20-30%! This generation has become toughed to the idea of housing costing 50% or even more of income, but that's a new phenomena.

If 1/3 of your income goes to housing and 1/3 to food that leaves 1/3 for everything else... and even for most poor people that would be enough for survival... except that the cost of housing has been driven up and up and up in the US.

Also, though, back in the olden days you didn't have to buy or maintain cars, gas, etc, and more importantly you didn't have astronomical health care costs, such as simply paying for health insurance. According to my father in law, who is a doctor, the average cost for health insurance for a family of four today is $12,000 per year. And that's only the insurance, not deductibles or copays.

I just did the math, and we currently spend around 7% of our income on food. And remember, we're somewhere right around the poverty level. If we had to pay 30% for food, we literally couldn't put money in savings at all, and we'd be screwed if we had a health problem because we wouldn't have money to pay the high deductible we have. Can't Americans just try to have self control instead?

[Rogue 9]

I wonder if corn syrup would be so damn cheap if corn wasn't so heavily subsidized?

No, it wouldn't be. I don't have the numbers on hand at the moment, but I've seen them and could probably find them again.

[General Brock]

Well, I'm not surprised. The pharmaceutical companies are so irresponsible its difficult to trust them to make a safe vaccine if they can cut corners. A few kids get a bad shot and suddenly no-one wants to play that lottery.

Its telling that people don't trust the system to the point of endangering their own children.

[Questor]

Well, I'm not surprised. The pharmaceutical companies are so irresponsible its difficult to trust them to make a safe vaccine if they can cut corners. A few kids get a bad shot and suddenly no-one wants to play that lottery.

Its telling that people don't trust the system to the point of endangering their own children.

Right, and exactly what "bad shot" started this idiotic Vaccine=Autism association?

This one has almost ZERO to do with Big Pharma, other than the distrust of big business that so many people seem to believe exists. It seems to me that the "distrust" is mostly a justification for flower children to do whatever the hell they want and "go back to nature" without appearing to be asshole fucktards who are willing to kill their kids to avoid taking them to the doctor for a shot.

[Samuel]

It isn't bad shots- vaccines are made using neutralized virus or bacteria. Amazingly enough the human body reacts badly to something like that (almost as if it is considered a threat) and sometimes over reacts. I had that problem with whopping cough- I had to take multiple doses because a single dose caused to much of a problem. Of course it was completely ineffective and I got the disease later.

The pharmaceutical companies are so irresponsible its difficult to trust them to make a safe vaccine if they can cut corners.

I'm pretty sure they aren't that evil- at the least their children have to take the vaccines as well.

[General Brock]

Right, and exactly what "bad shot" started this idiotic Vaccine=Autism association?

Something about thimerosol mercury being used as a preservative. Its no longer used in children's shots.

This one has almost ZERO to do with Big Pharma, other than the distrust of big business that so many people seem to believe exists. It seems to me that the "distrust" is mostly a justification for flower children to do whatever the hell they want and "go back to nature" without appearing to be asshole fucktards who are willing to kill their kids to avoid taking them to the doctor for a shot.

It has everything to do with 'big pharma'. If they can market unsafe drugs that are only recalled years after harm is inflicted on a regular basis, people will be receptive to alternatives. Public trust has been destroyed, both in the companies, government regulators, and even the science itself.

'Back to nature' is the least innocuous of those schemes since alternative medicine is pretty much the same system repackaged and even more poorly regulated.

[Questor]

Right, and exactly what "bad shot" started this idiotic Vaccine=Autism association?

Something about thimerosol mercury being used as a preservative. Its no longer used in children's shots.

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

It has everything to do with 'big pharma'. If they can market unsafe drugs that are only recalled years after harm is inflicted on a regular basis, people will be receptive to alternatives. Public trust has been destroyed, both in the companies, government regulators, and even the science itself.

Please provide any acceptable alternatives to vaccines.

'Back to nature' is the least innocuous of those schemes since alternative medicine is pretty much the same system repackaged and even more poorly regulated.

What?!?!?

Are you an idiot?

[General Brock]

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

Uh huh. So, unlike the tobacco industry they backed off thimerosrol.

Please provide any acceptable alternatives to vaccines.

Alternatives to vaccinations usually include herbal remedies of varying reliability.

During the swine flu outbreak, some people advocated increased vitamin D intake.

What?!?!?

Are you an idiot?

Not so much of an idiot as to believe just because a science in sound, those applying it for profit can't make it unsound. To be honest, it seems like a sick game to them to get away with dishonest behavior.

[Questor]

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

Uh huh. So, unlike the tobacco industry they backed off thimerosrol.

Right, that has nothing to do with EVERY SINGLE RELIABLE STUDY SHOWING NO CONNECTION at all.

Please provide any acceptable alternatives to vaccines.

Alternatives to vaccinations usually include herbal remedies of varying reliability.

That page has ads for: A Medical Intuitive & Energist, The Secret History of Vampires, Shamanic Soul Healing, Reconnective Healing, and Astrology, and is essentially an ad for a book.

For further reference, peer reviewed medical journals are better evidence that wackos.

During the swine flu outbreak, some people advocated increased vitamin D intake.

Yeah, and the smelly guy with a two-foot beard that lives under the local bridge said that to avoid infection I should block the government's mind control rays. That doesn't mean he's right.

What?!?!?

Are you an idiot?

Not so much of an idiot as to believe just because a science in sound, those applying it for profit can't make it unsound. To be honest, it seems like a sick game to them to get away with dishonest behavior.

Right, and killing children because you want to perpetuate an anti-intellectual agenda is honest behavior.

[Molyneux]

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

Uh huh. So, unlike the tobacco industry they backed off thimerosrol.

Find one reliable study that shows ill effects of thimerosal. Just one. You don't need to get the whole text - an abstract should be enough. Come on, I'll wait.

[Spoonist]

Uh huh. So, unlike the tobacco industry they backed off thimerosrol.

Just a small point here, you'd get more mercury from traffic in a big city or eating fish or visiting an industrial area than you do getting a vaccine with thimerosal.
The average consumption in uncontaminated areas are 20-80 ug of mercury per day. (WHO) Double that if you eat fish regularly, triple that if you live close to heavy traffic. Accumulated if you do both.
The dose you get from a vaccine is 2.5-10 ug per dose. Half or quartered if its a light weight child.

So the reason they "backed off" was not scientific but rather political, you see enough nuts thought that thimerosrol was more dangerous than it is, so to prevent the stupid from endangering the rest of the population we selected to reduce thimerosrol in vaccines. Guess what happened? The stupid where less intelligent than predicted; the removal of thimerosrol in vaccines where seen by them as an admission that vaccines in general are bad for you. So even after we removed the ingredient they blamed for the bad stuff they still refused to take the stuff. Thereby killing innocent babies and children.

[PainRack]

Please provide any acceptable alternatives to vaccines.

Handwashing

Ok, its not so much an alternative as a much badly needed hygiene practice.


Let's be fair, it seems General Brock is playing devil advocate more than anything else. The basic mistrust people have of Big Pharma, government and everything else is a major reason for popular conspiracy theories.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, its that time again...

Well, I'm not surprised. The pharmaceutical companies are so irresponsible its difficult to trust them to make a safe vaccine if they can cut corners. A few kids get a bad shot and suddenly no-one wants to play that lottery.

Its telling that people don't trust the system to the point of endangering their own children.

You have once again demonstrated that you are a fucking idiot.

If they can market unsafe drugs that are only recalled years after harm is inflicted on a regular basis, people will be receptive to alternatives.

Do you have any idea how much testing drugs go through? Human biochemistry is not some simple thing like being able to put a drop of liquid on litmus paper to determine if it is acidic or basic. Clinical trials are done on thousands of patients before the drugs are available for public purchase, and that is after they go through round after round of animal trials. However, the population is huge, and it does a lot of stupid shit. Stupid shit like taking more than the recommended dose, or taking a medication for longer than is necessary, or too short a time. There are also adverse drug interactions, and medical conditions which create side effects that cannot easily be tested for in the human trials.

'Back to nature' is the least innocuous of those schemes since alternative medicine is pretty much the same system repackaged and even more poorly regulated.

And with absolutely no science involved anywhere in the fucking process. Alternative medicine is based around mysticism of various sorts.

Alternatives to vaccinations usually include herbal remedies of varying reliability.

And the ones that are reliable have already been bioprospected and subjected to clinical tests.

During the swine flu outbreak, some people advocated increased vitamin D intake.

\\

The D complex vitamins are involved in one process. Calcium uptake and absorption. As far as I know it has no immune function. Great if you want to avoid rickets or bone density loss though.

Not so much of an idiot as to believe just because a science in sound, those applying it for profit can't make it unsound. To be honest, it seems like a sick game to them to get away with dishonest behavior.

I have my gripes about the pharmaceutical industry. Price gouging, publishing the results of their tests (which had a history of being rigged before contracts got rewritten to keep them from having editorial control) in peer review free in house "journals". But guess what, they also get the shit sued out of them and get taken to criminal courts if they knowingly send out unsafe drugs. Independent labs also do the testing these days, and universities do the drug discovery.

People like you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[PainRack]

The D complex vitamins are involved in one process. Calcium uptake and absorption. As far as I know it has no immune function. Great if you want to avoid rickets or bone density loss though.

Ah, no. Biochemistry wise, it is involved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1784003/
Whether it actually has a clinical effect is another question altogether.

And even if so, more is not better.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The D complex vitamins are involved in one process. Calcium uptake and absorption. As far as I know it has no immune function. Great if you want to avoid rickets or bone density loss though.

Ah, no. Biochemistry wise, it is involved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1784003/
Whether it actually has a clinical effect is another question altogether.

And even if so, more is not better.

Cool. It has been a while since I took human phys. Learn something new every day.

yeah... that whole water soluble thing...

[General Brock]

Right, that has nothing to do with EVERY SINGLE RELIABLE STUDY SHOWING NO CONNECTION at all.

There was similar difficulty making the connection between second hand smoke and illness. The studies tended to dance around the question and it took a massive stat analysis of many studies to make the connection.

For further reference, peer reviewed medical journals are better evidence that wackos.

Sure. Whatever.

Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck

Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, February 18th, 2010

It’s being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.

It wasn’t the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.

As a result of Dr. Reuben’s faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 “scientific” papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.

After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (http://www.theday.com/article/20100…)
Business as usual in Big Pharma

What’s notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the fact that so-called “scientific” medical journals published his fabricated studies. It’s not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.

The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Reuben’s actions really aren’t that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.

Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn’t operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.

Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben’s faked studies even though this journal claims to be a “scientific” medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn’t it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.

Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on “good science.” It’s all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being “woo woo” wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that’s based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.

You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is “scientific” while natural medicine is “unproven.” Sure it’s scientific — about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a “let’s play doctor” gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers.

For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on “scientific evidence,” just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben.
Drug companies support fraudulent research

Don’t forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben’s research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.

The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben’s research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to “prove” that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). “Here’s another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink).”

And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to “prove” exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don’t believe in magic, but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician’s wand and chanting, “Abra cadabra… let there be RESEARCH DATA!”

Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a “scientific” paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud.

I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little “research magic” conveniently fills the void.

The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever “scientific evidence” they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people.
What is “Evidence-Based Medicine?”

The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what’s really behind “evidence-based medicine.”

The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as “fact!”

When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting “evidence-based medicine” as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated. When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on “real science,” what they really mean is that it’s based on fraudulent science but they’ve all secretly agreed to call it “real science.” When they claim to have “scientific facts” supporting their position, what they really mean is that those “facts” were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies.

“Evidence-based medicine,” it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals — without getting caught by his peers — then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process?

Here’s what is says: “Scientific medicine” is a total fraud.

And this fraud isn’t limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven’t yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in “scientific” medical journals. They’ve been quoted in the popular press. They’ve been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as “safe and effective” for widespread use.

And yet underneath all this, there’s nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference?

How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud?
Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben

Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable “scientific” journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on NaturalNews.com ever could.

Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I’m sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more “scientific” studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals.

You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you’re a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry!

Because if there’s one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it’s in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth.

Right, and killing children because you want to perpetuate an anti-intellectual agenda is honest behavior.

Who is more anti-intellectual, people who question intellectuals, or people who hire intellectuals to lie for them? If an intellectual questions the intellectual status quo, it that intellectual anti-intellectual? If an intellectual uses powers of intellect to lie for idiots, is that anti intellectual?

Its unfortunate that so many lives are put at risk by an intellectually compromised medical system.

[PainRack]

There was similar difficulty making the connection between second hand smoke and illness. The studies tended to dance around the question and it took a massive stat analysis of many studies to make the connection.

Rule 1 first. Is there a chemical and an animal model test that shows harm?
The mercury used is not as relatively absorbed as those found in fish due to chemistry. Extant levels don't show levels of change.

That's not to say there isn't a potential correlation waiting to be discovered, but the point still remains, it HASN"T been done.

Who is more anti-intellectual, people who question intellectuals, or people who hire intellectuals to lie for them? If an intellectual questions the intellectual status quo, it that intellectual anti-intellectual? If an intellectual uses powers of intellect to lie for idiots, is that anti intellectual?

Its unfortunate that so many lives are put at risk by an intellectually compromised medical system.

And like everyone else, the issue isn't that you can't question anyone. Its that you need to actually support and come up with a good enough argument to criticise something.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There was similar difficulty making the connection between second hand smoke and illness. The studies tended to dance around the question and it took a massive stat analysis of many studies to make the connection.

Do you have evidence that this is the case for vaccines? If not, shut the fuck up and stop talking out of your ass.

Sure. Whatever.

Do you have evidence that this was done with vaccines? If not, shut the fuck up.

You will note that the journals have retracted the papers in question, this doctor will lose his liscence and be black-listed in the scientific community forever. Moreover, the way things are done has changed. It used to be that drug companies would pay on recipt of positive results and would use "independent" testing labs. Now they contract people at universities who are already doing drug research academically to do the study and retain no rights to the work or guarantee of results. They pay in advance.

Who is more anti-intellectual, people who question intellectuals, or people who hire intellectuals to lie for them? If an intellectual questions the intellectual status quo, it that intellectual anti-intellectual? If an intellectual uses powers of intellect to lie for idiots, is that anti intellectual?

Its unfortunate that so many lives are put at risk by an intellectually compromised medical system.

And what intellectuals are these? Have you seen what happens to an unvaccinated population? I suggest you go to places where the polio vaccine is insufficiently available to provide herd immunity.

What’s notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the fact that so-called “scientific” medical journals published his fabricated studies.

What a lovely luddite anti-science website you have quoted. Wow. Are you fucking retarded? Do you think the journals published these fake studies intentionally? No. They trust when the manuscript is submitted that the individual submitted actually did the fucking study. You will not that the guy got audited. I wonder why that happened? Could it that someone suspected him of wrongdoing?

Dr. Reuben’s actions really aren’t that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter

I see a trend being created with a sample size of 1. Do you understand why this is bad?

Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben’s faked studies even though this journal claims to be a “scientific” medical journal based on peer review.

Yes. Because they can read his mind through his submitted manuscript

Who is more anti-intellectual, people who question intellectuals, or people who hire intellectuals to lie for them? If an intellectual questions the intellectual status quo, it that intellectual anti-intellectual? If an intellectual uses powers of intellect to lie for idiots, is that anti intellectual?

No. Your luddism is anti-intellectual. Do you know how many were killed in the last century by smallpox before it was eradicated by vaccine?

More than every war in human history. Combined.