Yeah, mankind has gone from the vinyl record to the MP4 player the size of a watch that will hold entire record collections, from computers the size of houses to small laptops, black and white TV's to giant high definiition color plasma screens and from a wobbly Sputnik to Mars Rovers and what has medicine done for us in that same period of time? More drugs and more managed illness that only treats symptoms and cures nothing and has side effects leading to still more drugs.
I suppose you are telling me that the the fact that studies funded by mainstream companies are five times more likely to return positive results than independent ones is just a statistical aberration? It was a mainstream study that reported the discrepancy, btw. You really need to put aside the brainwashing and blinders and take a good objective look into the history of mainstream medicine and the world pharmceutical empire. It is evil and corrupt and it has chosen profit over humanity right down the line.
Look at the corrupt early head of the AMA Morris Fishbein and what he did to bury alternative treatments that could have saved millions of lives - after first trying to blackmail them into taking him on as a partner or selling out to him. Look at what the Carnegies and Rockefellers did to destroy naturopathic and homeopathic medicine, look at the history of FDA raids where they come in like storm troopers with guns drawn to take down harmless competition to their lords and masters, look at the formation of the IG Farben cartel and their stated purpose to control the world drug market and replace all natural medicatios with their own lab created onew around the turn of last century and then what happened to the upper managers of that group at Nuremburg.
What will advance medical science and knowledge is when the scientists and doctors are freed from the yokes of those who think they own our bodies so that they can pull their heads out of Big Pharma's arses and take a look at what nature has provided all along.
Let's take a real good look at the latest study promoting flu shots for the elderly - the one just published in the NEJM and which is being used to dispute the one in the Lancet. It claims a whopping 27% reduction in hospitialiaztion for those who are vaccinated with flu shots and an even larger 48% reduction in deaths for those who are hospitialized. Now look at how the mainstream magicians worked their magic:
"The per-season hospitalization rates for unvaccinated and vaccinated people were 0.7% and 0.6%, and the corresponding death rates were 1.6% and 1.0%. The figures translated into a 27% reduction in hospitalization rate for pneumonia and flu among the vaccinated (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.77) and a 48% reduction in mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.55)."
So what they have done is take the difference between .0.7 and 0.6 percent and get a 27% reduction for hospitializations and take the difference betwee 1.6% and 1.0% and get a 48% reduction in death rates - which is true in and of itself
But look at what the figures really mean: you have a 99.3% chance of not being hospitalized without having a flu shot and risking all of it's possible side effects and a 99.4% chance of not being hospitialized if you do take the shot. A difference of 1/10th of 1 percent. And if you ARE hospitalized for the flu you have a 98.4% chance of not dying if you have not been vaccinated versus a 99% chance of not dying if you do. A difference of 4/10th of 1 percent.
The chemical cocktail that makes up the flu vaccines began life as collected mucous from sick people in three cities (this year those are Wellington, New Caledonia and Shanghia) and then was propagated in chicken eggs that may or may not have been screened for avian leucosis (bird leukemia), and then ultimately came to include mercury, formaldehyde, a spermicide from Union Carbide and anti-freeze (Polyethylene Glycol).
Is it worth subjecting yourself to that for an actual benefit of between 0.1 and 0.4%? I think not!