Given the fact that the CDC isn’t a government agency, it’s funded in large part by the pharmaceutical companies, and the fact that the science is corrupted by the fact that the pharmaceutical companies pay for the research, I don’t have a problem with this. When the pharmaceutical companies get out of the research business, and when the revolving door between the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies gets permanently shut, I’ll believe what they publish. I realized about half way through my bachelor’s program that if I wanted to know the results of a study all I had to do was look at who funded it.
When the CDC is sets the guidelines for the vaccination schedule – and states use the vaccination schedule to make not only policy, but law – and the CDC makes money from every vaccine sold, there is a captive market of tens of millions of people that are at risk. The pharmaceutical companies have ZERO liability for the safety of their product in this particular case. How is that evidence based? Show me the double blind studies? You can’t. Because there aren’t any.
It’s the same for pharmaceuticals. LDL for instance has NEVER. EVER. Been shown to have any link with heart attack or stroke risk. NONE. People with high LDL, people with low LDL, and people with normal LDL all have heart attacks at about the same rate, as far as I can tell. Yet statins are pushed on everyone with an LDL over 100. Why? Why would you push a drug on someone that’s been shown, over time, to raise your risk for type II diabetes? for dementia? For sexual problems? For osteoporosis? Because pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money from statins. And because they fund their own research. And they fund the CDC. And they make the guidelines.
Triglycerides have a LOT to do with heart disease risk. And stroke risk. And type II diabetes risk. But if they treat triglycerides at all (which BTW are best treated with diet and lifestyle, not drugs) – if they even had drugs for that which they don’t, not really – they would lose out on drug sales for that same diabetes. Why would you treat triglycerides when you can treat something that doesn’t have any effect on the problem and in 5 years that same patient will now have two diseases you can sell them drugs for?
No, I’m totally good with this. When pharmaceutical companies quit funding nursing schools, medical schools, the agencies that make the guidelines (which aren’t voluntary at all, I might add) and quit gaming the system in their favor, I think we can go back to discussing evidence based.