[back] Clifford G. Miller [back] The Cochrane Collaboration
Questions on the Independence and Reliability of Cochrane Reviews, with a Focus on Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine by Clifford G. Miller, Esq.
[Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 11 Number 4 Winter 2006] Questions on the Independence and Reliability of Cochrane Reviews, with a Focus on Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine by Clifford G. Miller, Esq.
Here is the contents page of the journal
"The independence of The Cochrane Collaboration, which had been called into question previously, has been further compromised by recent funding changes.Extract of the Abstract:-
The conclusions of the Cochrane review on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine violate the standards of evidence-based medicine and are not supported by the body of the review. There are material concerns that the conclusions were influenced by efforts of the British government to avoid liability in claims brought on behalf of allegedly vaccine-injured children."
"The conclusions of the Cochrane MMR review are not supported by, and contradict, the evidence presented in the review. Having found inadequate evidence of safety in the papers studied, the review's conclusion that the millions of doses of MMR vaccine administered worldwide are safe is not science based. It is based on the circular assertion without cited evidence that the vaccine is safe because millions of doses are administered.
The review also shows that studies into the extent of the adverse effects are too limited to say how extensive these adverse effects may be, and consequently to say whether the vaccine is "safe." The review provides no comparative evaluation of MMR vaccine safety and effectiveness against other measures, such as single vaccines, placebo, no vaccine, or modern treatment options. It provides no evidence to refute the Wakefield hypothesis of an association between MMR vaccine, regressive autism following previously normal development, and a novel form of inflammatory bowel disease.
The Cochrane review duplicates an almost identical paper published in 2003 by members of the same team, yet contains no reference to the earlier paper. According to a separate publication by one of the authors, duplicated publication can be considered unethical or fraudulent when the authors attempt to conceal the existence of duplicated publication from editors and readers."