|
Monday, 15 March 2010 13:37 |
|
Kathryn, your faith in 'peer review' is touching. Did you bother to read the link I provided in my previous comment (response to Jon) to Frank Furedi’s article on peer review? http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/378/
Here’s a link to another article that might help broaden your outlook: From Evidence-based Medicine to Marketing-based Medicine: Evidence from Internal Industry Documents: http://www.springerlink.com/content/b674622731k4850q/?p=780854c9fdb64f988dd69a0651085be7&pi=10
This quote from Furedi’s article is pertinent:
“Increasingly, peer review has been turned into a quasi-holy institution, which apparently signifies that a certain claim is legitimate or sacred. And from this perspective, voices which lack the authority of peer review are, by definition, illegitimate. Peer review provides a warrant to be heard – those who speak without this warrant deserve only our scorn. You can almost visualise peer-review dogmatists waving their warrant and demanding that their opponents be silenced.”
I am challenging veterinary dogmatists, i.e. those veterinarians who dictate that pet owners have their pets unnecessarily, and possibly harmfully, revaccinated with MLV vaccines over and over again. And there are no ‘peer reviewed’ papers to support this non-evidence based vaccination practice.
My research papers (accessible via links in my response to Jon) are now ‘on the record’ with various authorities. They include discussion on international dog and cat vaccination guidelines, duration of immunity, unproven MLV vaccine label revaccination recommendations, adverse reactions to vaccination, and professional, ethical and legal considerations.
My fully-referenced research speaks for itself, and is freely available to be critiqued by anybody who has the wit to understand it.
|
