– ” that kind of testing” [with placebo] “would NOT require the testers to lie to parents”
Sorry, that’s unlikely to work. The parents on the anti-vax side are going to want to know that their children aren’t getting vaccine, and those on the more conventional side are going to want to know that they are. You’re going to end up with a tiny subset that aren’t representative of the population at large because of other quirky behavioural differences they have from the two major groups.
– “But even Cochrane admits the MSM testing is inadequate, […] why do they say the testing is inadequate?”
Cochrane don’t admit that; Cochrane was set up specifically to examine and criticise medical science.
I don’t know what you mean by “MSM testing”; typo?
The paper doesn’t say the testing is inadequate, it says that “the design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre‐ and post‐marketing, are largely inadequate.” That is not the same as “a staggering lack of scientific testing on vaccines”.
To discover the difference it would help to read the paper, plus probably several of the papers it reviews, to find what the criticisms actually consists of. You would presumably need to learn some epidemiology, statistics and some technical terms.
But instead you turn to a smattering of political hopefuls, entrepreneurs , “nutritionists”, “naturopaths”, ex-newspaper men and film producers, and treat their word literally like gospel, like a message that will save its believers. This bunch share some striking similarities. Firstly, hardly any of them are scientists or academics, or have any scientific background. But more importantly none of them are active in the scientific literature, they all communicate directly with the public or even market directly to them, and they all act as if the scientific literature is so hopelessly corrupted that it’s worse than useless. This is anti-science, popular among US Republicans.
We see this enthusiasm for directly swaying the public and disdain for debate in the scientific and academic literature in other subjects – most notably in climate change denial, but also militaristic “security consultants” with their objectionable views on “terrorists”, and politicians’ advocacy for economic policies that benefit only the rich.
– “…you assume Del’s statement to be untrue, whereas I believe it is Big Pharma, the government and their ‘Regulatory Agents’ and the media and other propagandists who are lying and/or covering up. That the PTB and the Corporations have no compunction in killing or poisoning us…”
I din’t assume Bigtree’s statement to be untrue; I cited evidence that it’s untrue. And just because a government does something doesn’t automatically make it evil. Governments fund education, benefits, the NHS and road safety campaigns. You already know this, because you compare EU regulation against more lax and corporate-friendly US regulation eg. food standards and pesticides. In the US, pharmaceuticals can be marketed directly to the public whereas in the EU this is very much against the law. Pharma respond in the EU by funding and influencing patient lobby groups, to get their message into the corporate media by the back door.
But we are going over point after point that are covered much better by Goldacre; you’re using up oodles of my time by refusing to read his books.