I mostly agree with what you said. Perhaps I wasn't accurate in describing the "peer review process" as *the* method of censorship. By all means, its part of the censorship program, but it doesn't make up the whole. To me, Wakefield's findings were borderline. He supports vaccines in general, but believed the double/triple dosing for MMR could be harmful, I understand. My point was that if such a censorship program was launched for such a minor challenge to establishment doctrines, how much more a major challenge - say the Earth is still?
i think it's clear you're alleging that outside interests at that point, worried of a financial fallout resulting from his findings, launched a public smear campaign that cost him his license to practice in the UK. that would be something separate from the "peer review" process, wouldn't it?
True. But others have been alleging vaccine harm for years, yet many haven't paid them heed because they weren't suitably qualified, or if they were, the data for their claims hadn't gone through peer review.
here's where i see evidence of bias, since you're at this point using the example to declare "peer review" to be a suspect process. in Wakefield's case "peer review" isn't finished taking place. as late as this year studies in Venezuela, Wake Forest and New York have been published confirming Wakefield's initial findings. Where is the massive cover-up?
Wakefield has suffered seriously financial penalty, and has been demonised as a liar. As stated above, this part of the truth censorship might not be directly attributed to peer review. However, how many others have said similar things in the past and been ignored, simply because they lacked Wakefield's qualifications or peer review? Suppose some doctors know the harm vaccines can cause, but don't want to lose their livelihoods, so inform their patients, but never in a documented way. How would this be any less a source of truth than Wakefield's peer-reviewed article?
how do you know if Wakefield is 'someone who got something wrong' or not?
Anyone who says vaccines can cause harm, is someone who got something right. Not necessarily everything.
do you look to see if other scientists replicate the study and confirm the findings?
I suppose I now take the view that every man-made intervention in life should be treated as dangerous, until proven safe. I'm not aware of any study proving vaccines safe.
then that's peer review that you're depending on too.
Agreed. There probably is some truth that makes it through the peer-review process. But this would be a very limited sample of truth, compared to the whole available.
or do you just pick some scientists and put them in the "OK" box because their findings fit your worldview, but if other science raises questions for your understanding of the universe, you just put them in the "obvious conspiratorial frauds because they are wearing lab coats" box?
There is a 3rd box - the undecided one. But essentially, yeah (note it's the findings that go in the boxes, not the scientists). Either the findings will support or attempt to disprove what I know is true, or will be outside of my knowledge. Just because one's conclusion is false doesn't mean he is in on the conspiracy. His results may be true, he may just have interpreted them incorrectly due to his indoctrination. On the other hand, those consistently presenting misleading ideas may be higher up on the conspiratorial agenda.
if that's the case, then i guess you're not really depending on "peer review" -- well precisely, "a peer of one" review.
Agreed. God gave us all a mind. On judgement day, He will be asking me why I did what I did, and my saying "But everyone else did it, or a lot of scientists said it was true etc." will not be valid excuses. The same applies to all, although Christians will be judged for their works, not salvation.
that jives with your attitude towards it, but it's a logically suspect way to go about reasoning.
I don't think so. If everyone critically questioned what they were told, irregardless of who told them, I think we'd weed out a lot more of the lies.
if you're calling scientists liars and frauds on principal, not on the basis of demonstrable & coherent evidence, that's not much different from a person with an atheistic worldview questioning the integrity of all creationist scientists purely on the basis of their belief system.
Its bigger than the scientists. These are just workers in a matrix that is much bigger than them. Some are in on the game, I'm sure (like Darwin), but the bulk just do what they do because they're good at it (i.e. good at the results side, not usually the interpretation side) and it enables them to support their families.