Skip to main content

View Diary: Baby dies from whooping cough in Orange Co. (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems pretty well respected to me. (0+ / 0-)

    8 years as a researcher at the CDC, a reviewer at JAMA yada, yada, yada.

    http://www.whale.to/...

    Your source of analysis seems to be a blog that focus's on " anti-vacciner's".

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature.

    by ZenTrainer on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 12:05:03 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Since you referenced his work... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, Hopeful Skeptic

      I took the trouble to read some of it. I'm not impressed. His primary hobby-horse is claiming that the chickenpox vaccine increases the likelihood of shingles later in life and since CDC debunked that paper he's been purely in the camp of anti-vax CT, albeit shrouding his CT of "CDC censorship" in impressive-sounding language and claiming to be some kind of "whistleblower" when he is simply another scientist whose conclusions were shown to be incorrect by subsequent studies.

      This guy is another Wakefield, deciding on the results of his "research" before he performs it.

      Oh, and on the subject of being a "reviewer" for any reputable scientific journal, the editorial board will select more than one scientist who may be considered "peers" of a papers author(s) to review it, and they try to include at least one who has published contrary  findings or findings that do not truly align with the conclusions of the paper they review.

      That "medical veritas" outlet of his is crammed with dangerous errors and CT and frankly, were I still active in the field I would quit any research team that submitted a paper to them and disavow my authorship if I had any hand in preparing it.

    •  Gary S Goldman is not trained in any medical field (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LimeyExpatDave, Hopeful Skeptic
      He served eight years as Research Analyst on a population-based vaccine study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
          That is not "8 years as a researcher at the CDC." That means he worked on a long-term study funded in part by the CDC. He is an AIDS denier and a long-term vaccination opponent with a special fixation on the chicken pox/shingles vaccine. He is a trained computer software engineer. He is possibly qualified to do statistical analyses; he has no medical or science training at all. Medical Veritas is a journal devoted to medical conspiracy theories. Irrespective of his software design prowess, in the medical field, he is respected only by the anti-vaxxers.
           And, for what it's worth, his PhD was awarded by Pacific Western University. PWU was formerly a "diploma mill" which awarded unaccredited doctoral degrees on a distance-learning basis. It was acquired by a new owner in 2005, moved from LA to San Diego, and changed it's name to California Miramar University. It is now a reasonably respectible for-profit distance-learning institution which offers degrees in business and no longer offers a PhD degree.

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 04:10:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You confirm my suspicions. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, Hopeful Skeptic

        I was thinking "rentadoc" when I read his work and extrapolated his conclusions to get an idea of his analytical path to reach them. Peel back only a few layers and it truly stank, man. I went the other way, from hard bioscience into IT and anyone with that little ability in true analytical though on any of MY IT teams would be looking at a pink slip if they were employed as an "analyst".

        It's perfectly ok to stand by your results in the face of other scientists claiming you are incorrect. What one should do in that situation is perform new and different experiments to resolve the apparent conflict, while being perfectly prepared to put your hand up and say "Yeah, I goofed" if the results bear out the opposing opinion rather than the one you put forward. That enhances a scientific reputation rather than diminishing it. As soon as I see anyone, from however a lofty initial standpoint, retreating into "You're suppressing my work because the establishment doesnt like it!" conspiracy theories I start to get a little suspicious, because the scientific establishment is set up the way it is explicitly to make that kinda stuff almost impossible and as soon as anyone claims to be a victim of that I start to see that as the last stand of a faker trying to preserve his rep so he can still peddle his crackpot theories.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site