Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[husaberg]

If you really believe I have ever said that then I challenge you to quote one post of mine which shows me saying it.
The fact is that I don't know for certain whether it does or not..


Yeah Stevo that's the issue here rather than you not being able to provide a credible link that backs up your assertions of a link between autism and vaccination.:facepalm:
So now you claim to understand the question just where are the credable papers providing proof of a link?
#I note you edit every single one of my posts.

They've been posted previously in this thread.
Fuck off and re-read them.


Perhaps it's time that you just accept there is plenty of evidence that supports the questioning of vaccine safety and efficacy.

I'm forever amazed by the number of fuckwits who will happily crow that "autism has nothing to do with vaccines, it's a genetic issue" - all the while steadfastly refusing to consider the possibility that some people may have a genetic predisposition that prevents their body expelling the toxins contained in vaccines in the normal manner.

The condition called autism has been known for about 100 years.
The increase in numbers of diagnosed cases since the 70's is not down to an increase in 'awareness'.

There's countless doctors who will confirm that there's no link between immunisation and autism. Are you saying they're lying?

Are they basing their confirmation on their own research or just voicing their opinion based on what they've been told?
'Cos I'm pretty sure you'll find that Dr. William Thompson's claim is based on what he saw with his very own eyes.


All I have ever said is that there appears to be evidence that suggests there may well be a connection between vaccines and neurological disorders and that a) there needs to be far more testing done, b) a degree of caution should be exercised in the manner in which vaccines are administered and c) that if there is any question that any ingredients in vaccines are actually doing harm then we need to demand safer vaccines.
Show us all the evidence that suggests there may well be a connection between vaccines and neurological disorders then.
Because as we have pointed out to you all the evidence suggests the exact opposite.....

So lets see what you are saying now today in your Wednesday version is you don't know if you actually believe the evidence that you claim proves vaccination causes Autism that you claim was posted as evidence..... :tugger:
This evidence that you have said exists and has been posted on this thread, but you wont now post it for us all to see, in spite of repeated requests.

[Katman]

So lets see what you are saying is you don't know if you believe the evidence that you claim proves vaccination causes Autism that you claim was posted as evidence..... :tugger:

I've never claimed that any of the studies I've linked "proves vaccination causes Autism".

They raise plenty of questions though.

[husaberg]

I've never claimed that any of the studies I've linked "proves vaccination causes Autism".

They raise plenty of questions though.
No the only questions raised are regarding your intelligence and integrity and general gullibility regarding any conspiracy theory.

Yeah Stevo that's the issue here rather than you not being able to provide a credible link that backs up your assertions of a link between autism and vaccination.:facepalm:
So now you claim to understand the question just where are the credible papers providing proof of a link?
#I note you edit every single one of my posts.

They've been posted previously in this thread.
Fuck off and re-read them.

The credible links have been scientific studies.
Fuck off and re-read them.
You were asked for credible links as per normal you came up short.
Could it be your reticence to post what you have claimed is "scientific studies that provide a credible links" is because that you don't believe anything you have posted is credible at all.......

The condition called autism has been known for about 100 years.
The increase in numbers of diagnosed cases since the 70's is not down to an increase in 'awareness'.
So what are the increase numbers down to then stevo....

[Katman]

So what are the increase numbers down to then stevo....

I suspect it's a genetic issue in some people that results in toxin retention and the progression of those toxins into the brain.

But that's just my suspicion.

[Katman]

Remember how they Chemically Castrated Children?

Speaking of which.....

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/OALibJ_2018011811381800.pdf

[husaberg]

I suspect it's a genetic issue in some people that results in toxin retention and the progression of those toxins into the brain.

But that's just my suspicion.
So you have no medical degree or training and no actual credble scientific link, despite you saying there was a credible scientific proven link, But what you do have is a suspicion........WOW..................

[Graystone]

I suspect it's a genetic issue in some people that results in toxin retention and the progression of those toxins into the brain.

But that's just my suspicion.

How about more doctors being able to diagnose it? Remember, things are not always as they seem at first glance!

[husaberg]

How about more doctors being able to diagnose it? Remember, things are not always as they seem at first glance!
he already denied that one, must have been due to another one of his strong suspicions.:weird:




Not these 'they' I guess...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927813/

but what would a peer reviewed article based on observed trends and published by a national health institute know :rolleyes:

Clearly, there is survey/diagnosis bias; as we become more aware of the condition, it is more often checked for, and more often identified.


The condition called autism has been known for about 100 years.

The increase in numbers of diagnosed cases since the 70's is not down to an increase in 'awareness'.


It is at least partially due to that; as per the study I posted, but you cut out of the quote (you often ignore evidence like this I've noted). It was known about ages ago, but the rate of testing for it has been increasing over the years. To expect no correlation between how often it is looked for, and how often it is found, is blatant buffoonery.

Don't expect him to answer in a hurry though as hes logged in as Cassina at the moment.

[TheDemonLord]

Speaking of which.....

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/OALibJ_2018011811381800.pdf

Interesting tale....


While none of us can verify the chain of custody of the tested aliquots handled by the various laboratories and their employees, however, we hold the opinion based on data in hand, that at least half of the vaccine samples actually obtained from vials being used in the March and October rounds in 2014 tested positive for βhCG.

There's some other holes - namely that the Labs that supposedly identified the prescence of HCG don't have the equipment to make an accurate determination

And also of interest - There's some familiar names in the author list: Tomljenovic and Shaw

Remember when I mocked you that it is the same people, submitting the same sad tripe....

[Katman]

There's some other holes - namely that the Labs that supposedly identified the prescence of HCG don't have the equipment to make an accurate determination

And where exactly did you find that little gem?


And also of interest - There's some familiar names in the author list: Tomljenovic and Shaw

Well that's hardly surprising considering they run a research lab that specialises in studying neurological disorders.

[Katman]

And here's another little interesting snippet from that study I linked.

In a presentation given in 2010, Bill Gates (the man who donated 10 billion dollars towards achieving a reduction in population growth) said......


The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent∙∙∙

Now one could ask, if vaccines were all about the honourable task of saving lives, how do they fit in with an agenda to reduce population growth?

[husaberg]

And where exactly did you find that little gem?



Well that's hardly surprising considering they run a research lab that specialises in studying neurological disorders.
The lack of expertise and equipment was pointed out to you previously, the real question should be why you never realised that this was significant and completely nullified the results they claimed.

[TheDemonLord]

And where exactly did you find that little gem?

Reading critiques on the paper.


Well that's hardly surprising considering they run a research lab that specialises in studying neurological disorders.

And then why is it that there are many labs that share that same specialization, that publish good, sound research? And yet these 2 clowns consistently publish crap?

I mean - they admit they can't verify the chain of evidence - that right there should have been a show stopper. I also remember one of their papers - about the toxicity of Aluminium if memory serves was retracted - something to do with fabricating results (namely digitally editing some of the images of their results).

[TheDemonLord]

And here's another little interesting snippet from that study I linked.

In a presentation given in 2010, Bill Gates (the man who donated 10 billion dollars towards achieving a reduction in population growth) said......

Now one could ask, if vaccines were all about the honourable task of saving lives, how do they fit in with an agenda to reduce population growth?

It's really simple:

If your infant mortality rate is something like 50% - you have lots of children, to make sure that some of them survive to adulthood.
If your infant mortality rate is non-existent - you have fewer children, that you can invest more time and resources into.

[Graystone]

Now one could ask, if vaccines were all about the honourable task of saving lives, how do they fit in with an agenda to reduce population growth?

Not everything is as it seems Katman! Learn to look deeper!

Counter-intuitively perhaps, this does fit the reduction of population growth theory, lower mortality rates, longer lives, more time to put off having kids and get shit done instead. Not to mention no third child as an insurance policy...

[Katman]

Reading critiques on the paper.

Then perhaps you should read the actual study rather than relying on biased critiques of it.

The study states that while one of the six accredited laboratories had equipment that wasn't able to measure amounts down to international standards, it was still able to detect the presence of something that shouldn't have been there.

[Katman]

Not everything is as it seems Katman! Learn to look deeper!

Counter-intuitively perhaps, this does fit the reduction of population growth theory, lower mortality rates, longer lives, more time to put off having kids and get shit done instead. Not to mention no third child as an insurance policy...

Let me guess - you're another one who didn't read the study.

[husaberg]

Then perhaps you should read the actual study rather than relying on biased critiques of it.

The study states that while one of the six accredited laboratories had equipment that wasn't able to measure amounts down to international standards, it was still able to detect the presence of something that shouldn't have been there.

Now just for a laugh, why don't you separate out your opinion, from what it actually says "in the study".
I am sure a lot of people would find it interesting to see you do that.:laugh:

[Katman]

Now just for a laugh, why don't you separate out your opinion, from what it actually says "in the study".
I am sure a lot of people would find it interesting to see you do that.:laugh:

Why would you be more interested in my opinion of the study than the study itself?

[Graystone]

Let me guess - you're another one who didn't read the study.

Why read the study? That quote is from Bill Gates, so why not go to him for context? Dig deeper Katman, the study may not be what it seems...

[Katman]

Why read the study?

I suppose that shouldn't come as any surprise.

You don't even bother to watch videos that you yourself post - thinking they support your argument.

Remember the 'Can We Trust Science' fiasco?

[Katman]

That quote is from Bill Gates, so why not go to him for context?

There's no shortage of references at the end of the study which give context.

[Katman]

Dig deeper Katman, the study may not be what it seems...

I would recommend you look deeper into the reasoning behind Henry Kissinger's plan to reduce population growth in lesser developed countries.

[husaberg]

Then perhaps you should read the actual study rather than relying on biased critiques of it.

The study states that while one of the six accredited laboratories had equipment that wasn't able to measure amounts down to international standards, it was still able to detect the presence of something that shouldn't have been there.


Now just for a laugh, why don't you separate out your opinion, from what it actually says "in the study".
I am sure a lot of people would find it interesting to see you do that.:laugh:


Why would you be more interested in my opinion of the study than the study itself?

No generally your opinion is misplaced and ill informed
WHat i wanted to know is the statement you made

The study states that while one of the six accredited laboratories had equipment that wasn't able to measure amounts down to international standards, it was still able to detect the presence of something that shouldn't have been there

What parts of that statement you made is your opinion rather than being an actual part of the study.
So where does the study state they are able to detect the presence of something they are neither accredited to test for or even have the correct methodology and equipment and training to test for it then.
its a pretty simple question so its rather odd that you cant actually answer it really unless you a bit reticent to admit its pretty much all your ill considered and paranoid opinion

[Katman]

What parts of that statement you made is your opinion rather than being an actual part of the study.


It's not my opinion - it's written in the study.

You could always read it and find out for yourself.

[Graystone]

There's no shortage of references at the end of the study which give context.

No shit, is one of them (by some miraculous coincidence) referring to bill gates saying the thing that he said?

https://youtu.be/E7NdrkKD8Vk

[Katman]

No shit, is one of them (by some miraculous coincidence) referring to bill gates saying the thing that he said?

It even gives a link to the video of the presentation he was giving when he said it.

[TheDemonLord]

Then perhaps you should read the actual study rather than relying on biased critiques of it.

The study states that while one of the six accredited laboratories had equipment that wasn't able to measure amounts down to international standards, it was still able to detect the presence of something that shouldn't have been there.

I did - remember the bit where I pointed out that there was no chain of evidence by the papers own admission - which means any results 'gathered' are useless anyway (since there can be no proof against contamination or tampering)

But furthermore - why do we have Standards? They are there for a reason. And to use ANY result from equipment that is not rated for that particular aspect is to show how utterly disingenuous and laughable this "Research" is.

However, it does fall rather neatly into a trend of those 2 fuckwits fabricating evidence to back an agenda....

[Katman]

But furthermore - why do we have Standards? They are there for a reason. And to use ANY result from equipment that is not rated for that particular aspect is to show how utterly disingenuous and laughable this "Research" is.

Dude, it was one laboratory out of six - and it (along with the others) still found the presence of HCG.

[Katman]

But furthermore - why do we have Standards?

To give the Autistic something to obsess over?

[husaberg]

However, it does fall rather neatly into a trend of those 2 fuckwits fabricating evidence to back an agenda....
Hadn't we pointed that out last time Stevo posted this same crap.
Was this just a katman ploy of gish galloping away on another tangent to again avoid the questions of so where is this credible data showing a link between vaccination and autism that he claims actually exists in scientific papers.:msn-wink:



I'd suggest the trouble is you can't suggest a paper that provides a credible link between the two.

They've been posted previously in this thread.
Fuck off and re-read them.

Yeah Stevo that's the issue here rather than you not being able to provide a credible link that backs up your assertions of a link between autism and vaccination.:facepalm:
So now you claim to understand the question just where are the crediable papers providing proof of a link?
.

The credible links have been scientific studies.
Fuck off and re-read them.

[Graystone]

It even gives a link to the video of the presentation he was giving when he said it.

Goodness me, if only there was some way in which such a thing could also be found by simply typing the thing he said into some sort of search bar...

...then getting the actual context for why he said it. And if only that context could have been brought up for discussion 15 posts ago in #4015, that would be thing now wouldn't it!

[TheDemonLord]

To give the Autistic something to obsess over?

Funnily enough, no...

But nice try....

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, it was one laboratory out of six - and it (along with the others) still found the presence of HCG.

From samples that could have been tampered with or contaminated because there was no chain of evidence?

But furthermore - lets assume for the minute that the researchers are genuine (and not desperately trying to reach a a priori conclusion) - They know the standards (after all, it should be part of their methodology) so why include a measurement from a Lab that cannot be used?

Any honest scientist would simply disregard that result.

Now, a Dishonest scientist who was trying to stack the deck with as much 'evidence' as they can fabricate to justify their forgone conclusion....

[Katman]

Goodness me, if only there was some way in which such a thing could also be found by simply typing the thing he said into some sort of search bar...

...then getting the actual context for why he said it. And if only that context could have been brought up for discussion 15 posts ago in #4015, that would be thing now wouldn't it!

How are you going with the Henry Kissinger research?

[Katman]

From samples that could have been tampered with or contaminated because there was no chain of evidence?

They openly explain all of those possibilities in the paper.

It's left to the reader to form their own opinion.

[Katman]

From samples that could have been tampered with or contaminated because there was no chain of evidence?

Let's not forget about the chain of evidence showing the World Health Organisation's obsession with producing a 'vaccine' that could be used to achieve a reduction in population growth.

[Katman]

But furthermore - lets assume for the minute that the researchers are genuine (and not desperately trying to reach a a priori conclusion) - They know the standards (after all, it should be part of their methodology) so why include a measurement from a Lab that cannot be used?

Because it showed yet another independent laboratory finding the presence of HCG in the supposed Tetanus vaccine - regardless of the fact that the laboratory couldn't measure it down to an international standard.

[Katman]

Funnily enough, no...

But nice try....

What you really need to understand is that I really don't give a fuck that you love vaccines.

You're welcome to vaccinate your child as often as you like.

It's when I start hearing calls for mandatory vaccination that my libertarian piss starts to boil.

[TheDemonLord]

What you really need to understand is that I really don't give a fuck that you love vaccines.

You're welcome to vaccinate your child as often as you like.

It's when I start hearing calls for mandatory vaccination that my libertarian piss starts to boil.

When you've got kids, your opinions might have some weight.

But nice deflection - It's a rather nice way of proving your supposed "Research" is as full as shit as a bag of Manure.

[Katman]

When you've got kids, your opinions might have some weight.

Me not having kids has nothing to do with it.

At the end of the day, you have absolutely no right to demand that someone else must vaccinate their child against their will.

[Graystone]

How are you going with the Henry Kissinger research?

How are you going with intelligence? Seems like you two don't get along :laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

They openly explain all of those possibilities in the paper.

It's left to the reader to form their own opinion.


Let's not forget about the chain of evidence showing the World Health Organisation's obsession with producing a 'vaccine' that could be used to achieve a reduction in population growth.


Because it showed yet another independent laboratory finding the presence of HCG in the supposed Tetanus vaccine - regardless of the fact that the laboratory couldn't measure it down to an international standard.

The amount of Apologia for Bad Science is hilarious - if the roles were reversed you'd be claiming all sorts of "Holes" in "The official Story"

Everything about that paper screams piss poor research to reach a conclusion.

[husaberg]

Let's not forget
You haven't produced what you claim exists....

How are you getting on with your claims below....


I'd suggest the trouble is you can't suggest a paper that provides a credible link between the two.

They've been posted previously in this thread.
Fuck off and re-read them.

Yeah Stevo that's the issue here rather than you not being able to provide a credible link that backs up your assertions of a link between autism and vaccination.:facepalm:
So now you claim to understand the question just where are the crediable papers providing proof of a link?
.

The credible links have been scientific studies.
Fuck off and re-read them.
So where are they, or were you just talking shit again?

Dude, it was one laboratory out of six - and it (along with the others) still found the presence of HCG.


Because it showed yet another independent laboratory finding the presence of HCG in the supposed Tetanus vaccine - regardless of the fact that the laboratory couldn't measure it down to an international standard.
in regards to your latest claims its debunked.

The WHO has investigated already and found nothing wrong. Ngare’s claims are, to put it bluntly, completely without merit (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_HCti7H55OzVXpMc2xDWGFaUE0/edit). As it pointed out:
There is a situation where ant- β-HCG antibodies can be produced by the body and that can act as a contraceptive, however, this requires the administration of at-least 100 to 500 micrograms of HCG bound to tetanus vaccine (about 11,904,000 to 59,520,000 mIU/ml of the same hormone where currently less than 1 mIU-ml has been reported from the lab results.

As UNICEF also points out (http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/tetanus.asp), there is no laboratory in Kenya capable of accurately making these sorts of measurements on non-human samples (such as vaccines):
The tests were done in hospital laboratories in Kenya. The staff in these laboratories could not however tell whether the samples were vaccines or not, as this was not declared to the testing laboratories . The laboratories tested the samples for hCG using analyzers used for testing human samples like blood and urine for pregnancy. There is no laboratory in Kenya with the capacity to test non-human samples like vaccine for hCG.

It’s also been noted (http://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/does-the-kenyan-unicef-tetanus-vaccine-contain-hcg-and-make-women-infertile/) that these values might have been the results of a reaction between the preservatives in a standard tetanus toxoid vaccine and a serum/urine HCG test kit. Also, the vaccine in which hCG was linked to the tetanus toxoid is 20 years out of date (http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/health/article/2000107961/minister-meets-church-leaders-over-tetanus-vaccine-fears). Indeed, in an e-mail interview, the original scientist who developed the hCG-tetanus toxoid vaccine even said that a different carrier, LTB, has been used, to avoid the very misinformation that has been associated with the valuable tetanus vaccination. Also, as the WHO and others responding to this rumor have noted, contraceptive vaccines based on hCG don’t last very long. Antibody titers against hCG decline rapidly after around three months.
Shaw has been a controversial figure in the scientific niche of vaccine safety studies (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-220-1.2957497/a-ubc-prof-his-anti-vaccine-backers-and-studies-slammed-by-the-who-1.2957499). He and colleague Tomljenovic, who is also of the Neural Dynamics Research Group in Vancouver, had published a paper in the journal Vaccine that reported side-effect concerns with certain inoculations. That paper was retracted, and then republished in a journal called Immunologic Research several months later (http://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/09/journal-retract-paper-called-anti-vaccine-pseudoscience/). Another paper they and other authors published last year, which linked aluminum adjuvants in vaccines to autism in mice, was retracted from the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry “due to evidence of incorrect data.” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013417300417)

[Katman]

How are you going with intelligence?

I'll give you a hand since you seem reluctant to educate yourself.

One of the major driving factors in Henry Kissinger's report on reducing population growth in lesser developed countries was the vast mineral wealth and oil reserves that many of those countries have and how if their population growth was left unchecked it could adversely affect America's ability to get their hands on that wealth.

[Katman]

It's really simple:

If your infant mortality rate is something like 50% - you have lots of children, to make sure that some of them survive to adulthood.
If your infant mortality rate is non-existent - you have fewer children, that you can invest more time and resources into.

And reducing infant mortality rates could just as easily (in fact, more likely) result in a significant increase in population growth.

[TheDemonLord]

And reducing infant mortality rates could just as easily (in fact, more likely) result in a significant increase in population growth.

If only we had multiple countries, that in the last 100 years experienced a massive drop in Infant Mortality rates.
If only we could compare the average number of Children before the drop and after.
If only we had the data that definitively shows a decrease over time (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/)

[Katman]

If only we had multiple countries, that in the last 100 years experienced a massive drop in Infant Mortality rates.
If only we could compare the average number of Children before the drop and after.
If only we had the data that definitively shows a decrease over time (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/)

You should probably look more closely at the figures from Third World countries - since those are the demographics we're talking about.

http://auth.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-world-population.aspx

[TheDemonLord]

You should probably look more closely at the figures from Third World countries - since those are the demographics we're talking about.

http://auth.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-world-population.aspx

You should probably stop missing the point.

[husaberg]

You should probably stop missing the point.
I think the trouble is that you are aiming to high with katspam
Because all of what you fire back at him is clearly way above his head.;)

[Graystone]

I'll give you a hand since you seem reluctant to educate yourself.

One of the major driving factors in Henry Kissinger's report on reducing population growth in lesser developed countries was the vast mineral wealth and oil reserves that many of those countries have and how if their population growth was left unchecked it could adversely affect America's ability to get their hands on that wealth.

and is Henry Kissinger aka Bill Gates?

Or are you trying to change the subject?

[Graystone]

You should probably look more closely at the figures from Third World countries - since those are the demographics we're talking about.

http://auth.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-world-population.aspx

Aren't infant mortality rates one of the traits the defines what is a 3rd world country? Ie, if the problem is 3rd world countries, and not 1st world ones, simply make the 3rd into 1st, and problemo solvedo!

[TheDemonLord]

Aren't infant mortality rates one of the traits the defines what is a 3rd world country? Ie, if the problem is 3rd world countries, and not 1st world ones, simply make the 3rd into 1st, and problemo solvedo!

^^^

High 5!

[Katman]

https://www.voanews.com/a/dengue-fever-vaccine-causing-panic-political-strife-in-philippines/4274046.html

[oldrider]

The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc.

It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. - :rolleyes:

[Katman]

The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc.

It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. - :rolleyes:

Yes, in the context of this thread it would be more correct to refer to them as 'developing countries'.

[Katman]

And a few myths about Andrew Wakefield dispelled.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/discerning-journalist-8-wakefield-myths-deconstructed/

[TheDemonLord]

And a few myths about Andrew Wakefield dispelled.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/discerning-journalist-8-wakefield-myths-deconstructed/

Myth #9: Andrew Wakefield dindu Nuffin, he a good boy.

[Katman]

Myth #9: Andrew Wakefield dindu Nuffin, he a good boy.

Is that really all you can come up with in response?

[TheDemonLord]

Is that really all you can come up with in response?

It's all I care to come back with, in regards to that particular con artist.

[Katman]

It's all I care to come back with, in regards to that particular con artist.

The article refutes the claim that he's a 'con artist'.

I thought you'd jump at the opportunity to argue your case.

[TheDemonLord]

The article refutes the claim that he's a 'con artist'.

I thought you'd jump at the opportunity to argue your case.

The article isn't worth the Zeros and Ones that it's transmitted in.

It's a textbook example of misdirection, re-framing, anecdotal evidence, out-of-context misrepresentation and general horse-shit. It's the same type of article you'd see on a Creationist website Just like this, and all the other conspiracy tripe you're fond of pedalling (https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/top-ten-myths-about-evolution/)

And let me be clear - My opinion of Andrew Wakefield - is that he's a con artist. Nothing in that article refuted my opinion.

[Katman]

Nothing in that article refuted my opinion.

Yet you're not game to pick any point from the article and argue why it's wrong.

Interesting.

[TheDemonLord]

Yet you're not game to pick any point from the article and argue why it's wrong.

Interesting.

It's really simple - see the button at the top of this thread with numbers on it - click on any one of them, see the posts that I've made - that's why the article is wrong.

You're trying to make it out that I'm not arguing against it because it's so logically robust and exceptionally sourced that I can't refute it - that isn't the case.

I'm pointing out that I'm not arguing against it, in the same way I don't argue against what is in the bottom of the toilet bowl after a particularly heavy night out.

Although to be fair, the Shit in the toilet makes a more compelling argument that what is in that article...

[Katman]

You're trying to make it out that I'm not arguing against it because it's so logically robust and exceptionally sourced that I can't refute it

Exactly.

If there was anything in it that you could refute, you'd be all over it.

[TheDemonLord]

Exactly.

If there was anything in it that you could refute, you'd be all over it.

Everything from Myth 1 to Myth 8 is refutable. And has already been done so. See previous responses.

[Katman]

Everything from Myth 1 to Myth 8 is refutable. And has already been done so. See previous responses.

And for every response you've given in the past regarding Andrew Wakefield, I've given a countering argument - just like this article does.

The fact that you refuse to readdress any of those points speaks volumes though.

[TheDemonLord]

And for every response you've given in the past regarding Andrew Wakefield, I've given a countering argument - just like this article does.

The fact that you refuse to readdress any of those points speaks volumes though.

It does, just not the volumes you think.

Here's how it will go:

I'll pick one of the myths - point out why it's a load of horseshit, you'll argue the point for a couple of pages and then claim that it's not the only thing and refer to one of the other Myths, I'll point out the cherry picked, misrepresented and out-of-context BS used in that Myth, you'll argue the point - reference some conspiratorial drivel, written by someone who wouldn't know the difference between a Virus and Bacterium - I'll refute that AND the Myth, then you'll change the subject again.

So on and so forth.

But if it makes you happy - in the 5 seconds I skim read the 'refutation' I counted at least 4 different glaring logical fallacies and 1 blatant omission - I couldn't be bothered after that.

So let's try this - since you are so Skeptical and are always totally not biased - let's see if you can spot them.

[Katman]

But if it makes you happy - in the 5 seconds I skim read the 'refutation' I counted at least 4 different glaring logical fallacies and 1 blatant omission - I couldn't be bothered after that.

So let's try this - since you are so Skeptical and are always totally not biased - let's see if you can spot them.

Or you could point them out and we could discuss them.

But then again, we both know your current filibustering is just your standard operating procedure when you've backed yourself into a corner.

[TheDemonLord]

Or you could point them out and we could discuss them.

But then again, we both know your current filibustering is just your standard operating procedure when you've backed yourself into a corner.

Do you even know what a filibuster is? Considering the borderline Novels I'm happy to type out, my replies thus far have been positively minuscule.

But you don't see any fallacies or ommissions or misleading statements in those Myths?

[Katman]

Do you even know what a filibuster is?

Lots of words that say nothing and which serve no purpose other than to waste time.

Like I said - your standard operating procedure.

[husaberg]

And a few myths about Andrew Wakefield dispelled.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/discerning-journalist-8-wakefield-myths-deconstructed/

RATFLMAO........
Seeing as you claim it dispels myths about Wakefield
How about you show proof regarding any of the claims made in the article.

Lots of words that say nothing and which serve no purpose other than to waste time.
That's your link in a nutshell:clap:

[Katman]

Seeing as you claim it dispels myths about Wakefield
How about you show proof regarding any of the claims made in the article.

There are plenty of links provided in the article that support their claims.

People are free to read them and make up their own minds.

[husaberg]

There are plenty of links provided in the article that support their claims.

People are free to read them and make up their own minds.

But you are the one stating how it dispels myths about Wakefeild being a court proven scientific fraud.
So either you post the proof or you admit any defence of Wakefield's claims are blatant horse poo.

[TheDemonLord]

Lots of words that say nothing and which serve no purpose other than to waste time.

Like I said - your standard operating procedure.

Except it really isn't. I've kept my retorts deliberately brief, however nice to see you are up to your usual tricks of misrepresenting Reality to suit your warped delusions.

BTW - have you found the fallacies in your link yet?

[Katman]

BTW - have you found the fallacies in your link yet?

By your own admission you skim read the article for 5 seconds.

You wouldn't have a fucking clue what's in it.

[TheDemonLord]

By your own admission you skim read the article for 5 seconds.

You wouldn't have a fucking clue what's in it.

And in that 5 seconds, I spotted so many glarring errors and fallacies that it confirmed that it was full of shit.

Interesting how you've not been able to spot them.

[Katman]

And in that 5 seconds, I spotted so many glarring errors and fallacies that it confirmed that it was full of shit.

Interesting how you've not been able to spot them.

Why do you continue with this pretense of knowledge when you persist in arguing from a position of complete ignorance?

[TheDemonLord]

Why do you continue with this pretense of knowledge when you persist in arguing from a position of complete ignorance?

Because that isn't what I'm doing at all.

Let me put it another way - if someone brought a bike to you, with the engine missing, the forks bent and the frame visibly twisted, you took one 5 second glance at it and replied "Nope, it's fucked - get another bike" - would it be fair to say that you were arguing from a position of complete ignorance if you didn't run a full diagnostic on every aspect of the Bike?

Cause that's what you are saying.

I looked at the article and all it took to pick up multiple obvious errors was 5 seconds. Errors that anyone with an ounce of either skepticism or knowledge would pick up on. That told me all I needed to know about the article, that it was a steaming pile of shit and should be discarded as such.

[Katman]

That told me all I needed to know about the article, that it was a steaming pile of shit and should be discarded as such.

Dude, that is the epitomal position of ignorance.

[Katman]

If you read nothing else on that page, go to the page linked that is written by Mary Holland.

As a Director at the New York University of Law she would not only have a very analytical mind but would also be perfectly well aware of the dangers of making unsubstantiated claims.

In it she outlines the charges brought against Andrew Wakefield by the GMC.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, that is the epitomal position of ignorance.

What is this epitomal you speak of?

But no, it's not the epitome of Ignorance - since I looked at it and based on the problems I found within, dismissed it. There's a big difference between what you are accusing and what I'm doing.

[Katman]

What is this epitomal you speak of?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/epitomal

[TheDemonLord]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/epitomal

Yes, but incorrect usage.


If you read nothing else on that page, go to the page linked that is written by Mary Holland.

As a Director at the New York University of Law she would not only have a very analytical mind but would also be perfectly well aware of the dangers of making unsubstantiated claims.

In it she outlines the charges brought against Andrew Wakefield by the GMC.

So you are referring to this document? http://vaccineepidemic.com/pdf/vech25.pdf or is it this one: http://vaxxedthemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Who-is-Dr.-Andrew-Wakefield-by-Mary-Holland-JD.pdf

Cause now I have multiple documents, ostensibly written by the same person with different content - so now I cannot be sure which is Mary Holland's original piece.

That said -

Let's get to the 4 claims and her 4 refutations:

The GMC alleged:

• Dr. Wakefield was paid 55,000 British pound sterling (about US $90,000) by litigators for the study published in The Lancet, and he failed to disclose this conflict of interest;
• He and his colleagues performed medically unnecessary tests on the children in the 1998 study and lacked appropriate ethical clearances
• The children in the 1998 study were selected for litigation purposes (as described in the Sunday Times article) and not referred by local physicians; and
• He drew blood from children at his son’s birthday party for control samples in the 1998 study with callous disregard for the distress that this might cause children.

In her rebuttal - the first statement:


Dr. Wakefield accepted 55,000 pounds to conduct a study for the class action suit regarding vaccines and autism.

Now, she tries to hand waive about this by asserting what the Lancet must have known:


Dr. Horton, editor of The Lancet, had been informed and should have been well aware of Dr. Wakefield’s role in the vaccine-related litigation before the publication of the 1998 article.

She submits no proof that Dr Horton had been informed, there's a citation number at the end of that statement, but no citation list - see above about the Anti-Vaxxers have been editing the original statement. Oh Dear. Furthermore - her choice of wording is interesting - someone should have known something? That's hearsay - you can't attest to what someone should have known.

The fact that this conflict of interest was not disclosed in the original paper is a big red-flag. It's why conflicts of interest HAVE to be declared.

Next - the Medically invasive tests:

The last statement is particularly interesting:


Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues reject the GMC’s ruling that the tests for the Lancet 12 were unnecessary.

That's like a convicted murdered rejecting a juries ruling that he's guilty - some reaaaaaally solid proof there...

Her actual argument can be boiled down to that Prof. Walker-Smith deemed the tests necessary as part of treatment for the children and then the results were subsequently used as part of the Study. You'll probably point to Prof. Walker-Smith's quashed sanction as proof - but reading the judgement on the appeal is rather interesting:


"It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure."
"If not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician."
"Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination. The panel's decision cannot stand. I therefore quash it."

There is a scenario (and the circumstantial evidence is tightly aligned with said scenario) that is inline with the first statement - doing research in the guise of treatment. You will note that the judge said that this question was not addressed and decided. You will no doubt take the opposite view (as is your want and whim) but it's not as cut-and-dry as Mary Holland makes it out to be.

Next point is that the Children were cherry-picked, ostensibly for litigation purposes. Again, with access to the Citations, it's kinda hard to evaluate - she asserts that parents were in contact with Wakefield prior to his attempt at a litigation suit. Without any proof of timings, I'll take that with a grain of salt. It's certainly not unreasonable that parents would seek out an expert in a field, but it's also not unreasonable for financially struggling parents, with special needs children to seek out someone who (as per Mary herself) advertised in a national newspaper a full year before the paper was published about the intent to litigate, on the promise of a big, fat, financial reward.

Last point is about taking Blood at a Birthday party.

Mary states:


admittedly an unconventional method of collecting control blood samples it hardly amounts to “serious professional misconduct” or an ethical breach warranting delicensure.

Whilst, I'll agree with her assessment that it was being done by professionals using a standard technique - it wasn't done at a location with medical facilities. Was the environment fully Sterile - well, considering what happens with Childrens parties, I think you can categorically say it wasn't.

For myself, as a parent, I'd have some serious reservations at letting my child get blood taken anywhere that wasn't appropriate (Nurses station, hospital, doctors office, ambulance etc.) which to me raises the question - he was a Doctor, with easy access to such facilities - why wouldn't he get it done in a more appropriate venue? That to me smells a bit odd.

Also reading through it - she states that each child was paid £5 - one might conjecture that this was compensation for the distress that the GMC spoke of (Children are so easily bribed).

[Katman]

So you are referring to this document? http://vaccineepidemic.com/pdf/vech25.pdf or is it this one: http://vaxxedthemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Who-is-Dr.-Andrew-Wakefield-by-Mary-Holland-JD.pdf

Cause now I have multiple documents, ostensibly written by the same person with different content - so now I cannot be sure which is Mary Holland's original piece.

Seriously???

The second link is presumably from a revised edition of her book. It says the same things but adds in a table.


Next - the Medically invasive tests:

The last statement is particularly interesting:



That's like a convicted murdered rejecting a juries ruling that he's guilty - some reaaaaaally solid proof there...



If that convicted murderer was later acquitted of his conviction then he would be quite within his rights to reject the jury's ruling. Wouldn't you?

Therefore, the fact that a Court chose to overturn Dr Walker-Smith's ruling, more than likely indicates that they would overturn that ruling with regards to Andrew Wakefield as well.

[TheDemonLord]

If that convicted murderer was later acquitted of his conviction then he would be quite within his rights to reject the jury's ruling.

Therefore, the fact that a Court chose to overturn Dr Walker-Smith's ruling, more than likely indicates that they would overturn that ruling with regards to Andrew Wakefield as well.

And there is one of the word games that the original article plays.

Prof. Walker-Smith has had his ruling overturned.
Andrew Wakefield has not.

Any claim that tries to imply anything about Andrew Wakefield, based on the appeal of Prof. Walker-Smith is trying to do a good ol' fashioned Bait and switch fallacy.

Plus, don't you find it curious that Prof. Walker-Smith appealed almost immediately and had his judgement quashed within 2 years, yet in 8 years, Andrew Wakefield has not?

[TheDemonLord]

Seriously???

The second link is presumably from a revised edition of her book. It says the same things but adds in a table.

Presumably?

Adds in a Table? or removes a Table? It's been altered. Which one is the original? And there's still no citations.

[Katman]

Prof. Walker-Smith has had his ruling overturned.
Andrew Wakefield has not.

Andrew Wakefield's insurance wouldn't cover the cost of an appeal process.

[Katman]

Presumably?

Adds in a Table? or removes a Table? It's been altered. Which one is the original? And there's still no citations.

Do you understand the fact that later editions of a book can have revisions in it and yet still be by the same author?

And if you can happily use the word 'ostensibly' then I will happily use the word 'presumably'.

[TheDemonLord]

Andrew Wakefield's insurance wouldn't cover the cost of an appeal process.

And?

Plenty of people don't have insurance that cover appeals, yet they still manage. And if the implication that both articles makes is to be believed (that since Prof. Walker-Smith had his judgement squashed, Andrew will also get his quashed) then it shouldn't be an expensive process.

Unless...

That Implication is a load of crap in which case, he wouldn't have appealed in 8 years... Oh wait...

[TheDemonLord]

Do you understand the fact that later editions of a book can have revisions in it and yet still be by the same author?

And if you can happily use the word 'ostensibly' then I will happily use the word 'presumably'.

Yes - which one is which?

Both have removed the citations, we have no way to be certain that one or either is the original, in full and intact.

If both articles were identical - I'd just complain about the lack of citations, but now we've got different versions, I can't trust any of them.

[Katman]

Yes - which one is which?

Both have removed the citations, we have no way to be certain that one or either is the original, in full and intact.

If both articles were identical - I'd just complain about the lack of citations, but now we've got different versions, I can't trust any of them.

I've looked through the two versions side by side. As well as the Table added to the second one there is also a sentence that references the 2012 High Court Appeal of Walker-Smith.

Since Mary Holland's book was originally published in 2011 we can assume the one with the Table is a revised edition.

And the two versions haven't "removed the citations". The citation numbers are still clearly there. Citations are usually listed and detailed at the end of a book.

[TheDemonLord]

I've looked through the two versions side by side. As well as the Table added to the second one there is also a sentence that references the 2012 High Court Appeal of Walker-Smith.

Since Mary Holland's book was originally published in 2011 we can assume the one with the Table is a revised edition.

And the two versions haven't "removed the citations". The citation numbers are still clearly there. Citations are usually listed and detailed at the end of a book.

So, by not including them in the online version - they've removed the Citations?

Glad you agree with me.

It would be nice to be able to back-check what was being cited, and whether it means what the author is claiming.

As for the assumption - can we? It's not like either version links back to the source and we can check - there is no way to validate it. Do we know it's Mary that added the Table and the sentence? This is the problem when you start using half-assed sources.

[Katman]

It would be nice to be able to back-check what was being cited, and whether it means what the author is claiming.

As for the assumption - can we? It's not like either version links back to the source and we can check - there is no way to validate it. Do we know it's Mary that added the Table and the sentence? This is the problem when you start using half-assed sources.

I imagine your local library might have a copy of the book if you were sufficiently interested - which I'm sure you're not.

[Katman]

Well look at that. You could have your own copy if you were sufficiently interested.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/books/nonfiction/other/auction-1649505640.htm?rsqid=a0f5b1ff248240038ef12cfd6995c 42b

(But like I said, for all the fact that you state "it would be nice to be able to back-check what was being cited", we both know that you're not prepared to expose yourself to any information that might run contrary to your ingrained beliefs).

[Katman]

Do we know it's Mary that added the Table and the sentence?

Your desperation is hilarious. :killingme

[TheDemonLord]

Well look at that. You could have your own copy if you were sufficiently interested.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/books/nonfiction/other/auction-1649505640.htm?rsqid=a0f5b1ff248240038ef12cfd6995c 42b

(But like I said, for all the fact that you state "it would be nice to be able to back-check what was being cited", we both know that you're not prepared to expose yourself to any information that might run contrary to your ingrained beliefs).

So you'll be buying the book and posting up the relevant citations then?

Remember - you put it forward, burden of proof is on you.

[TheDemonLord]

Your desperation is hilarious. :killingme

Not at all. Someone (other than the original author) has already edited the excerpt. We've got multiple excerpts that do not match. This is why Chain of Evidence is a thing.

[Katman]

Remember - you put it forward, burden of proof is on you.

Like I said, you'll find the proof if you're sufficiently interested.

[husaberg]

Like I said, you'll find the proof if you're sufficiently interested.


And a few myths about Andrew Wakefield dispelled.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/discerning-journalist-8-wakefield-myths-deconstructed/

It is up to you to tell everyone exactly what that is contained in your link that dispels and myths about the total medical fraud that is Wakefeild
Especially as you are forgetting what the 36 charges he was found guilty of.
Which include four counts of dishonesty.
12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally delayed children.
The Medical panel also ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.
But what would they know aye.
Not to mention Wakefeilds media releases where Wakefield made statements before the release of his paper where at a press conference, he called calling for the suspension of the triple MMR vaccine due to his findings.
Or his own vaccine patent application that stated

It has now also been shown that use of the MMR vaccine (which is taken to include live attenuated measles vaccine virus, measles virus, mumps vaccine virus and rubella vaccine virus, and wild strains of the aforementioned viruses) results in ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, chronic colitis and pervasive developmental disorder including autism (RBD), in some infants.

Or the libel court case that Wakefeild himself initiated then dropped days after the details of his fraud were released to the media
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/legal-aid.htm
Where he was ordered to pay all defendants' legal costs.

[Katman]

It is up to you to tell everyone exactly what that is contained in your link that dispels and myths about the total medical fraud that is Wakefeild
Especially as you are forgetting what the 36 charges he was found guilty of.
Which include four counts of dishonesty.
12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally delayed children.
The Medical panel also ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.
But what would they know aye.

Professor Walker-Smith was found guilty of virtually identical charges - and was later exonerated.

[husaberg]

Professor Walker-Smith was on trial for virtuality identical charges - and was later exonerated.
Yet Wakefield was clearly not.
You also clearly do not realise that walker smith asked for his name to be removed from the paper otherwise you would not mention him in relation to the wakefeild fraud
He did so as he said Andrew Wakefield had fraudulently misinterpreted his data

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15715-2/abstract

[Katman]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15715-2/abstract

That's the retraction of an 'interpretation' - not the entire study.

[TheDemonLord]

Like I said, you'll manufacture the proof if you're sufficiently ideologically possessed.

I've fixed it for you.

Now that we've dealt with one of the glaring fallacies in that turd of a link (bait and switch), I wonder if you are skeptical enough to find the others.


Professor Walker-Smith was found guilty of virtually identical charges - and was later exonerated.

Virtually =/= actually

And that is precisely the Bait and Switch tactic employed by the article:

Person A and Person B committed similar but not identical actions
Person A and Person B received the same sanction for said actions
Person B had the sanction expunged, (this is the bait)
Therefore Person A must also be innocent (this it the switch)

[Katman]

Virtually =/= actually

And that is precisely the Bait and Switch tactic employed by the article:

Person A and Person B committed similar but not identical actions
Person A and Person B received the same sanction for said actions
Person B had the sanction expunged, (this is the bait)
Therefore Person A must also be innocent (this it the switch)

Would you care to point out the differences between the charges laid against Wakefield and Walker-Smith?

Because one would expect that there would have to be massive differences between the charges laid against each of them - if one was later exonerated while the other was still seen as the Anti-Christ.

[husaberg]

That's the retraction of an 'interpretation' - not the entire study.
You really are a fool.
You mean ten of the 12 authors removing their names of Wakefield's fraudulent interpretation of their data.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15715-2/abstract

Now Why would they do that.
Or the children involved in the study 12 of their parents said Wakefeild had misrepresented what they said or their children's symptoms or notes.

not one case was free of critical mismatches between the paper which launched the vaccine crisis and the kids’ contemporaneous records. Some children were a cause for concern before vaccination. Some were deemed normal months afterwards. Some did not have autism at all.



unreported, molecular tests (http://briandeer.com/wakefield/nick-chadwick.htm) carried out in Wakefield’s own lab had found no trace of measles in the children’s guts and blood. Those tests were among a string which found no evidence of the virus.



In the Lancet, the 12 children (11 boys and one girl) had been held out as merely a routine series of kids with developmental disorders and digestive symptoms, needing care from the London hospital. That so many of their parents blamed problems on one common vaccine, understandably, caused public concern. But Deer discovered that nearly all the children (aged between 2½ and 9½) had been pre-selected through MMR campaign groups, and that, at the time of their admission, most of their parents were clients and contacts of the lawyer, Barr. None of the 12 lived in London. Two were brothers. Two attended the same doctor’s office, 280 miles from the Royal Free. Three were patients at another clinic. One was flown in from the United States.

[Katman]

You really are a fool.
You mean ten of the 12 authors removing their names of Wakefield's fraudulent interpretation of their data.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15715-2/abstract

Now Why would they do that.
Or the children involved in the study 12 of their parents said Wakefeild had misrepresented what they said or their children's symptoms or notes.

Let's see if TDL has a cry about your lack of citations.

[TheDemonLord]

Would you care to point out the differences between the charges laid against Wakefield and Walker-Smith?

Because one would expect that there would have to be massive differences between the charges laid against each of them - if one was later exonerated while the other was still seen as the Anti-Christ.

Would one?

Even by your own articles, they NEVER use the word identical - and as you said:


Director at the New York University of Law she would not only have a very analytical mind but would also be perfectly well aware of the dangers of making unsubstantiated claims.

So, from that we can infer that since a person, who by your own assertion, wouldn't make unsubstantiated claims - does not refer to the charges as identical - that they are in fact different.

From there, we can make a second inference that since Andrew Wakefield has not appealed his ruling, the differences between his and Prof. Walker-Smith are great enough that it would require a significant investment of Time (and therefore money) to dispel.

So, it's still a bait and switch fallacy, and still horseshit.

[Katman]

So, from that we can infer that since a person, who by your own assertion, wouldn't make unsubstantiated claims - does not refer to the charges as identical - that they are in fact different.

From there, we can make a second inference that since Andrew Wakefield has not appealed his ruling, the differences between his and Prof. Walker-Smith are great enough that it would require a significant investment of Time (and therefore money) to dispel.

So, it's still a bait and switch fallacy, and still horseshit.

Dude, that's a lot of guessing going on there.

(But then again, you may just have inadvertently invented the Autism Fallacy).

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, that's a lot of guessing going on there.

(But then again, you may just have inadvertently invented the Autism Fallacy).

Not at all, it's deductive reasoning, you should give it a try some time.

You're now in a predicament - either you have to retract your statement about the good Mary Holland and her careful wording or you have to concede that your article was full of shit (like I said it was, after a quick skim read).

What's it going to be?

The odds are:

3:1 Change of subject
2.2:1 Generic Abuse
1.8:1 Offer of homosexual fellatio

[Katman]

You're now in a predicament - either you have to retract your statement about the good Mary Holland and her careful wording or you have to concede that your article was full of shit (like I said it was, after a quick skim read).

Don't be ridiculous. I don't have to do either.

Give your autism a rest and stop sounding like such a petulant child.

[husaberg]

Let's see if TDL has a cry about your lack of citations.

Unlikely because he can clearly see the embedded link I attached you however are not that smart.
Isn't it about time you showed us these facts that prove that its wasn't a myth that Andrew wakefeild is a not a total fraud.
Because everything you posted thus far just further points to the inevitable conclusion that he is a fraud

[TheDemonLord]

Don't be ridiculous. I don't have to do either.

Well this is you we are talking about, so it's to be expected that you are logically inconsistent and a massive Hypocrite.

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate it.


Give your autism a rest and stop sounding like such a petulant child.

Says the person accusing others of Autism....

[Katman]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2683952

The next step should probably be to investigate the possibility of an association between vaccinations and allergies, and guess what......

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-foodallergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-2329-6631-1000137.pdf

[jasonu]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2683952

The next step should probably be to investigate the possibility of an association between vaccinations and allergies, and guess what......

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-foodallergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-2329-6631-1000137.pdf

You make retards look smart.

[Katman]

You make retards look smart.

Did you struggle with the big words in those studies?

[jasonu]

Did you struggle with the big words in those studies?

I didn't open your links.

[husaberg]

I didn't open your links.

I would not bother to either, one is a non peer reviewed piece from a website that only requires payment to post anything.
The other is a junk science study that doesn't include the easily explained genuine statistical analysis to put it into context. To put the two together relies on the non peer reviewed piece being plausible and for someone to exclude common sense from the other unrelated paper.
Its just Katmans ilk continuing to go about grasping at straws.
Its well known that vaccines can cause allergic reactions, but they are in people that already have an allergy.
Attempting to go about Using that data to attempt to prove that the vaccination is the cause of the allergy is non logical even for a antivaxer loony.

here is a quote From

vinu arumugham December 23, 2016 (https://respectfulinsolence.com/2016/12/22/the-crank-medical-organization-to-which-hhs-nominee-dr-tom-price-belongs-lays-down-a-heaping-helping-of-antivaccine-pseudoscience/#comment-18072)
Repeated bee stings cause bee sting allergy.
Repeated milk containing vaccinations cause milk allergy.



Anyone interested in a giggle at vinu arumugham should read this.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qpPrfQft4iYJ:https://respectfulinsolence.com/2016/12/22/the-crank-medical-organization-to-which-hhs-nominee-dr-tom-price-belongs-lays-down-a-heaping-helping-of-antivaccine-pseudoscience/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

[Woodman]

I didn't open your links.

Why would you?

[jasonu]

Why would anyone?

Fixed it for you.

[Katman]

Why would you?

So you could comment from an informed position - rather than just aimlessly flapping your gums.

[husaberg]

So you could comment from an informed position - rather than just aimlessly flapping your gums.
The informed opinion is 99.96% what you link is utter garbage.
#Margin or error .04%

[Woodman]

So you could comment from an informed position - rather than just aimlessly flapping your gums.

So then why didn't you / don't you post the opposing view to to yours show us that you just aren't soapboxing?

[Katman]

So then why didn't you / don't you post the opposing view to to yours show us that you just aren't soapboxing?

Perhaps you could post the opposing view to mine.

[Woodman]

Perhaps you could post the opposing view to mine.


I don't know what your view is because i didn't read the links.

[Katman]

I don't know what your view is because i didn't read the links.

Then what are you here for - other than to follow me around.

Haven't I been giving you enough attention lately?

[Woodman]

Then what are you here for - other than to follow me around.

Haven't I been giving you enough attention lately?


I find you amusing......

[GazzaH]

Like a cat with a mouse?

[Katman]

Like a kat with a mouse?

Fixed it for you.

[husaberg]

Then what are you here for - other than to follow me around.

Haven't I been giving you enough attention lately?
Sounds like another conspiracy theory we will have to wait for give us the jewish angle on it though.

https://i.imgur.com/Z39BP00.jpg

[Katman]

Sanity prevails.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/world/europe/italy-vaccines.html

[Katman]

It begs the question, who would say no when there's massive financial incentive to say yes?

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6397/16.full

[FlangMasterJ]

Sanity prevails.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/world/europe/italy-vaccines.html

Yep, risking the health and lives of many because a little paperwork has become a hindrance is a sure sign of sanity.

[Katman]

Yep, risking the health and lives of many because a little paperwork has become a hindrance is a sure sign of sanity.

Real risk or imagined risk?

[Ocean1]

Real risk or imagined risk?

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Man, that's ironing of the highest order. :rolleyes:

[Katman]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Man, that's ironing of the highest order. :rolleyes:

You're welcome Chicken Little.

[Katman]

I've already pointed out that back in the 60's measles parties were commonplace, whereby a child with measles invited all their friends around so they could all contract the illness - and in doing so, gain natural (lifetime) immunity.

Then someone discovered vast sums of money could be made from a vaccine.

[Ocean1]

I've already pointed out that back in the 60's measles parties were commonplace, whereby a child with measles invited all their friends around so they could all contract the illness - and in doing so, gain natural (lifetime) immunity.

Then someone discovered vast sums of money could be made from a vaccine.

And I'm sure it's been pointed out to you by almost everyone involved that proposing the elimination of risk from diseases by deliberately infecting as many people as possible is exactly what defines you as a fuckwit.



Fuckwit.

[Honest Andy]

Have you seen a kid with measles?

You're a miserable cunt if you want to put a kid through that.

[Katman]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12086295

[Honest Andy]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12086295

Read it you wanker

[husaberg]

Have you seen a kid with measles?

You're a miserable cunt if you want to put a kid through that.
He has no kids. Apparently he was to narcissistic to consider not being the center of attention.

I've already pointed out that back in the 60's measles parties were commonplace, whereby a child with measles invited all their friends around so they could all contract the illness - and in doing so, gain natural (lifetime) immunity.

Then someone discovered vast sums of money could be made from a vaccine.
Deaths from easily prevented diseases were also comonplace then.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12086295
That would be the second thing that defines you as one.
Note how its news .
If there was a cover up or it was common place it would not be Headline News

[Katman]

Deaths from easily prevented diseases were also comonplace then.

The number of deaths from measles had fallen dramatically over a 40 year period prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine.

[husaberg]

The number of deaths from measles had fallen dramatically over a 40 year period prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine.

We have been through this all before, So what happened in Japan when they stopped vaccination again due to a scare by wakefeilds FOS claims


n 2011, the WHO estimated that 158,000 deaths were caused by measles. This is down from 630,000 deaths in 1990. As of 2013, measles remains the leading cause of vaccine-preventable deaths in the world. In developed countries, death occurs in one to two cases out of every 1,000 (0.1–0.2%).


Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963 and widespread vaccination, major epidemics occurred approximately every 2–3 years and measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.
The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 89 780 people died from measles in 2016 – mostly children under the age of 5 years.

Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the respiratory tract , then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.

Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000–2016, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 20.4 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 84% from an estimated 550 100 in 2000* to 89 780 in 2016.
Most measles-related deaths are caused by complications associated with the disease. Serious complications are more common in children under the age of 5, or adults over the age of 30. The most serious complications include blindness, encephalitis (an infection that causes brain swelling), severe diarrhoea and related dehydration, ear infections, or severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia. Severe measles is more likely among poorly nourished young children, especially those with insufficient vitamin A, or whose immune systems have been weakened by HIV/AIDS or other diseases.

In populations with high levels of malnutrition, particularly vitamin A deficiency, and a lack of adequate health care, about 3–6%, of measles cases result in death, and in displaced groups, up to 30% of cases result in death. Women infected while pregnant are also at risk of severe complications and the pregnancy may end in miscarriage or preterm delivery. People who recover from measles are immune for the rest of their lives.

[Katman]

We have been through this all before

You're right, we've been through this before.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=death+rate+from+measles&client=safari&channel=ipad_bm&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZo4OGm5TcAhXLJpQKHVSfDQ4Q_AUIESgB&biw=1024&bih=672#imgrc=Uv_JRPk7iJzrHM:

[husaberg]

You're right, we've been through this before.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=death+rate+from+measles&client=safari&channel=ipad_bm&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZo4OGm5TcAhXLJpQKHVSfDQ4Q_AUIESgB&biw=1024&bih=672#imgrc=Uv_JRPk7iJzrHM:
You looked like an idiot then as well.

[Katman]

You looked like an idiot then as well.

:facepalm:

[husaberg]

:facepalm:
Everytime you post the same old out of context data proves you are an idiot.
lets look at real data in context and not averages in the developed world and with actual numbers. Note your linked graphs don't take into account population growth which is another reason why you are an idiot
337503337504

If you are so smart maybe you would like to explain how you claim to know more the the WHO does

During 2000–2016, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 20.4 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 84% from an estimated 550 100 in 2000* to 89 780 in 2016.

[Katman]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2683949?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=2686728

[Katman]

And it turns out a further two Samoan babies have died over the last couple of years after receiving the MMR vaccine. (Not that the media thought it important enough to report on).

And yet there are still fuckwits out there who will happily call for mandatory vaccinations.

[Woodman]

And it turns out a further two Samoan babies have died over the last couple of years after receiving the MMR vaccine. (Not that the media thought it important enough to report on).

And yet there are still fuckwits out there who will happily call for mandatory vaccinations.

Was it stored correctly, was it administered correctly? Do the same fuckwits who call for mandatory vaccinations also want the vaccines stored and administered correctly? probably.

[Katman]

Was it stored correctly, was it administered correctly? Do the same fuckwits who call for mandatory vaccinations also want the vaccines stored and administered correctly? probably.

Here's some homework for you.

In the last two years four children in Samoa have died after being given the MMR vaccine.

How many children in Samoa died of measles in the last two years?

[Woodman]

Here's some homework for you.

In the last two years four children in Samoa have died after being given the MMR vaccine.

How many children in Samoa died of measles in the last two years?

Wouldn't it be best to find out if it was administered correctly first? and any other relevant information before using a tabloid style statistic.

[Katman]

Wouldn't it be best to find out if it was administered correctly first?

Whether it was administered correctly or not doesn't make the slightest change to my opinion on mandatory vaccination.

[Woodman]

Whether it was administered correctly or not doesn't make the slightest change to my opinion on mandatory vaccination.

Then why did you reference the four deaths in Samoa? surely it wasn't to use ambiguous information to sway opinion in favour of your agenda.

[husaberg]

Whether it was administered correctly or not doesn't make the slightest change to my opinion on mandatory vaccination.
Who said it was mandatory to vaccinate children in Samoa?
But that doesn't stop you trying to gain maximum milage exploiting the situation from what was likely a procedural error than a fault of the vaccine either does it.

[Katman]

Then why did you reference the four deaths in Samoa? surely it wasn't to use ambiguous information to sway opinion in favour of your agenda.

I'll spell it out again in case anyone missed it the previous times I've said it.

I am not 'anti-vaccine'. I believe there are serious concerns surrounding vaccines that people should be questioning but if a parent chooses to vaccinate their child, that is entirely their right. I would never stand in the way of a parent taking whatever steps they believe will best protect their child.

What I will never accept is the idea that people should be forced to impose a medical procedure on their child against their will. (And that includes for the reason that all medical procedures carry a degree of risk of procedural error).

That is a breach of fundamental human rights.

I'm merely using this latest information as a means to convey that opinion.

[Honest Andy]

Yay Kat gave me red rep. That means he knows he's wrong and has tossed his toys and will go away now... :bleh:

[Katman]

Yay Kat gave me red rep. That means he knows he's wrong and has tossed his toys and will go away now... :bleh:

Dude, go back and have another read of the post you got it for.

Now I don't know what your beef is with me since I don't remember ever clashing with you over any subject in the past.

But to me, you come across as the standard KB fuckwit who simply likes to jump on the bandwagon of faux outrage.

So get used to the rep or fuck off and find a hobby that isn't me.

[husaberg]

So get used to the rep or fuck off.
You are behaving like a petulent child Steve.
Whilst you can red rep anyone one you like, the fact that you fell inclined to red rep so many different people is rather telling.
Also as you are aware you are not allowed to send abusive messages in the red rep. You are well aware this is a KB rule. If any of the 5 or so seperate people you have red reped with abuse in the last week were to to send these messages to a Mod I would think you would be back in the sin bin again.

[F5 Dave]

Then why did you reference the four deaths in Samoa? surely it wasn't to use ambiguous information to sway opinion in favour of your agenda.

I don't know what his agenda is but I'm pretty sure mine now includes not getting a haircut in Samoa, let alone any medical procedure.

[husaberg]

Here's some homework for you.

In the last two years four children in Samoa have died after being given the MMR vaccine.

How many children in Samoa died of measles in the last two years?

NOTE
What you claim as being a two additional deaths releated to MMR is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
It appears the two children (a brother and sister)shared a undiagnosed extremely rare genetic disorder that effects only 1 in a million children in which they had no effective imune system.
If they had been exposed to measles or mumps or any common diease they would have likely to died regardless. If they grew up in NZ and were diagnosed they would likely have done so in a plastic bubble.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/samoan-family-heartbroken-after-losing-two-babies-rare-genetic-condition-following-mmr-jabs-living-nightmare-all-over-again
Also we dont yet know exactly what the cause for the samoan deaths are but its highly likely a procedural error no fault of the vaccine.
Nor is it likely related to the other deaths unless they also share the same rare genetic disorder.

Meanwhile, New Zealand's Ministry of Health has contacted health authorities in Samoa to ask whether any help is required of them in regards to the investigation.
Dr Stewart Jessamine told the Herald the MoH did not know where Samoa sourced its MMR vaccine from, but confirmed it was not supplied from New Zealand.
"New Zealand currently uses a brand of MMR vaccine called Priorix. It's made mostly in France and Belgium and tested there before it's sent to New Zealand.
"It's monitored along the way to make sure it's kept at a constant safe temperature until it's administered to patients.''
Jessamine stressed that the MMR vaccine in New Zealand (http://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/available-vaccines/m-m-r-ii) had an excellent safety profile and had been used without significant problem for several decades.
University of Auckland vaccinologist Dr Helen Petousis-Harris said one death, let alone two, was extremely rare, and there had never been a death associated with the MMR vaccine in New Zealand.
She said although investigations were still continuing into what went wrong, there were two reasons that could have been factors in the deaths.
"One is that there's been an error where the vaccine is prepared for the injection incorrectly and ultimately results in the wrong substance being injected.
"Or there's been some sort of contamination due to the vaccine having been reconstituted and left at a room temperature for a really long period of time."
Petousis-Harris acknowledged that there could now be fears from parents about the safety of vaccines and immunisations.
But she said it was important for people to understand that the vaccine programme was a very safe one in New Zealand.
"The last thing you want is for people to be fearful of something that we know is actually incredibly safe.
"But right now, we have to try and understand what happened and then work out what can be done to ensure it doesn't happen again.
"It's exceptionally rare at the global level and will be taken extremely seriously."



if a parent chooses to vaccinate their child, that is entirely their right. I would never stand in the way of a parent taking whatever steps they believe will best protect their child.
That is a breach of fundamental human rights.



Its a breach of the childrens human rights to deny them access to medical procedures that could save their life stevo.
The child right to life overides the parents right for choice.

University of Auckland medical ethics theorist Monique Jonas says, "In New Zealand, a parental refusal of a blood transfusion or blood products for a child can be overridden if it is considered that the refusal imperils the life or health of the child.Doctors are bound by the principle of best interests – they need to ensure that children's interests are served," says Jonas.
As a final resort, doctors may seek a court order declaring that treatment will be lawful, if parents do not agree with medical advice and the child's best interests will otherwise be compromised.
However, the vaccination dilemma has provided a good framework in which doctors can apply a methodology based around building trust with parents.
"Parents are not legally obliged to vaccinate their children," says Jonas. "An example of the preferred approach in New Zealand is to inform, explain and work with parents, rather than force certain treatment decisions."



I believe there are serious concerns surrounding vaccines that people should be questioning

<strike></strike>

Note the serious concerns expressed about vaccinations are all based on faked data by Andrew Wakefeild who was trying to get a patent for another vaccine.

There is not a single scientific study that has found an association with MMR vaccine annd Autism. The study below pooled the results from multiple studies in the U.S., U.K., Europe and Japan assessed for any risk in more than one million children.
<strike></strike> » Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367%20

<strike></strike><strike></strike>

[Banditbandit]

I've already pointed out that back in the 60's measles parties were commonplace, whereby a child with measles invited all their friends around so they could all contract the illness - and in doing so, gain natural (lifetime) immunity.

Then someone discovered vast sums of money could be made from a vaccine.

Wow - the consequences of measles are horrendous - much more of a risk than you believe the risk of vaccination .. up to and including 1 in every thousand cases results in child death ..

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-long-term-effects-of-measles

[husaberg]

Wow - the consequences of measles are horrendous - much more of a risk than you believe the risk of vaccination .. up to and including 1 in every thousand cases results in child death ..

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-long-term-effects-of-measles

Not only that even in the developed world

Rates of Measles Severity and Complications in the U.S.*
Hospitalization 1 out of 4 cases
Ear infections occur in about one out of every 10 children with measles and can result in permanent hearing loss.
As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children.
• About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability.
Measles during pregnancy increases the risk of miscarriage or premature birth
• For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.

US figures pre vaccination scheme

U.S. Measles Burden: Before 1963 Vaccine Development*
 Each year, measles caused an estimated 3 to 4 million cases
• Close to 500,000 cases were reported annually to CDC, resulting in:
48,000 hospitalizations
4,000 cases with encephalitis (brain swelling)
450 to 500 deaths



Since 2000, the annual number of reported measles cases ranged from 37 people in 2004 to 667 people in 2014.
 The last measles death in the United States occurred in 2015.


Two doses of measles vaccine protect 98% of those who catch the virus from becoming ill and one dose protects over 90%. Protection is likely to be lifelong.
Even in NZ

In New Zealand in 1991, seven people with no other conditions died from measles

[Katman]

Wow - the consequences of measles are horrendous

Well they didn't seem to think so back in the 60's. And the fact that they held such 'parties' suggests they didn't even seem to consider isolating the patient as a particularly important issue.

By the 60's the death rate from measles had plummeted - and this was before the vaccine even existed.

[Ocean1]

Well they didn't seem to think so back in the 60's. And the fact that they held such 'parties' suggests they didn't even seem to consider isolating the patient as a particularly important issue.

By the 60's the death rate from measles had plummeted - and this was before the vaccine even existed.

Aye, modern medicine, fuckin wonderful stuff eh?



Fuckwit.

[Katman]

Aye, modern medicine, fuckin wonderful stuff eh?

Don't forget the money.

It's all about the money.

[husaberg]

Well they didn't seem to think so back in the 60's. And the fact that they held such 'parties' suggests they didn't even seem to consider isolating the patient as a particularly important issue.

By the 60's the death rate from measles had plummeted - and this was before the vaccine even existed.


U.S. Measles Burden: Before 1963 Vaccine Development*
 Each year, measles caused an estimated 3 to 4 million cases
• Close to 500,000 cases were reported annually to CDC, resulting in:
48,000 hospitalizations
4,000 cases with encephalitis (brain swelling)
450 to 500 deaths .


Idiot..........

Last time SHatman tried the same arguement relating to the measles rate was droping anyway.

And furthermore, statements like "thousands of dead school children from measles outbreaks" is nothing but ridiculous scare-mongering.

The reality is that dying from measles is an extremely uncommon occurrence these days.

Perhaps ... measles were identified as a virus ... and treated as a dangerous infectious disease (which it then was) and sufferers with the known symptoms ... were kept in isolation. Thus reducing the spread. Only later was the vaccine discovered.

As as a side note ... the measles vaccine is seldom given as an individual vaccine ... and is often/usually given in combination with a mumps and rubella vaccine.



Due to a good vaccination program?


No, due to vastly improved sanitation and nutrition.

(Although the nutrition side could probably be questioned these days).


And it was vastly reduced again. Don't confuse the rate of death, with the rate of death per incident.


I'm not ignoring the incident rate.
I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.<strike></strike>


The death rate on the graph is per incident. Ie, how many people die out of every thousand cases of measels. So to convert that figure to a population based death rate (the standard measure), you have to take into account the incident rate. Do you understand there is a difference between the death rate per incident, and the actual death rate (population based) from the disease?

[Banditbandit]

Well they didn't seem to think so back in the 60's. And the fact that they held such 'parties' suggests they didn't even seem to consider isolating the patient as a particularly important issue.

By the 60's the death rate from measles had plummeted - and this was before the vaccine even existed.

1963 .. it was created in 1963 ...



In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html

[Katman]

1963 .. it was created in 1963....

I know perfectly well when the vaccine was created.

The rate of deaths from measles had been plummeting for 30-40 years before then.

And by the 60's measles was treated that lightly that parties were being organised to share them around.

Then the vaccine came along and someone discovered they could make a fortune by creating hysteria.

[husaberg]

Then the vaccine came along and someone discovered they could make a fortune by creating hysteria.
Funny because The person who attempted to create hysteria was Andrew Wakefeild. You continue to spread it and feed of it.


While Wakefield held himself out to be a dispassionate scientist, two years before the Lancet paper was published – and before any of the 12 children were even referred to the hospital – he had been hired to attack MMR by a lawyer, Richard Barr: a jobbing solicitor in the small eastern English town of King’s Lynn, who hoped to raise a speculative class action lawsuit against drug companies which manufactured the triple shot.


Unlike expert witnesses, who give professional advice and opinions, Wakefield had negotiated an unprecedented contract with Barr, then aged 48, to conduct clinical and scientific research. The goal was to find evidence of what the two men claimed to be a “new syndrome”, intended to be the centrepiece of (later failed) litigation on behalf of an eventual 1,600 British families, recruited through media stories. This publicly undisclosed role for Wakefield created the grossest conflict of interest
Barr [audio] paid the doctor with money from the UK legal aid fund: run by the government to give poorer people access to justice. Wakefield charged at the extraordinary rate of £150 an hour – billed through a company of his wife’s – eventually totalling, for generic work alone, what the UK Legal Services Commission, pressed by Deer under the freedom of information act, said was £435,643.

In addition to the personal payments, Wakefield was awarded an initial £55,000, which he had applied for in June 1996, but which, like the hourly fees, he never declared to the Lancet as he should have done, for the express purpose of conducting the research later submitted to the journal. This start-up funding was part of a staggering £26.2m of taxpayers’ money (more than $56m US at 2014 prices) eventually shared among a small group of doctors and lawyers, working under Barr’s and Wakefield’s direction, trying to prove that MMR caused the previously unheard-of “syndrome”. Yet more surprising, Wakefield had asserted the existence of such a syndrome – which allegedly included what he would dub “autistic enterocolitis” – before he performed the research which purportedly discovered it.

One Wakefield business was awarded £800,000 from the legal aid fund on the strength of (later discredited) data which he had co-authored. And, even as the Lancet paper was being prepared, behind the scenes he was negotiating extraordinary plans to exploit the public alarm with secret schemes that would line his pockets. “Disgraced doctor Andrew Wakefield plotted to make £28 million a year from the MMR jab panic he triggered,” was how the British tabloid newspaper The Sun, for example, reported in January 2011 on this disclosure from Deer.
A key finding of Deer’s Channel 4 investigation was that, even as the public alarm caused by Andrew Wakefield and the Royal Free medical school gathered pace, he had filed a patent claiming to have discovered his own, allegedly safer, measles vaccine.
Following the programme, Wakefield published a statement denying this – a denial he repeated often. The secret 1997 document below was obtained exclusively by Deer and, with a 1998 published application, conclusively prove not only this shocking conflict of interest, but that Wakefield has lied about it ever since.

A thorough discussion of the patent history can be found on Brian Deer’s website. Brian Deer is the journalist who uncovered much of what the GMC was later to pronounce as ethical violations.
The patent is very clear in that it covers both the use of the transfer factor as a therapeutic agent and as a prophylaxis. In other words, Mr. Wakefield patented a treatment and a vaccine. Even though this is painfully clear, Mr. Wakefield has continually denied that the invention was a vaccine.
Day 31 of the hearing went into great detail about the patent. I was surprised to read (or had forgotten had I read before) that Mr. Wakefield applied for the patent without his hospital’s knowledge. This is very odd since the Royal Free was named as the applicant.Emphasis added.
Recally, Mr. Wakefield contended that the MMR was causing inflammatory bowel disease. He had plans to test his transfer factor to prevent IBD, not just to treat it.
<strike></strike>http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm


337522337519337520337521

[F5 Dave]

I know perfectly well when the vaccine was created.

The rate of deaths from measles had been plummeting for 30-40 years before then.

And by the 60's measles was treated that lightly that parties were being organised to share them around.
.

. a.
In the 60s and 70s Drinking a shit ton was treated so lightly we used to arrange parties and then everyone would drive home.

I'd like to think we've learnt , admittedly stupidly slowly, from our cultural mistakes.
(Takes a sip of beer from the safety of my kitchen stool. )

[Ocean1]

Then the vaccine came along and someone discovered they could make a fortune by creating hysteria.

Aye, we've sorta heard enough from you about your aversion for money and those who earn more of it than you do.

It's tolerably clear that's what really drives your dislike of "Big Pharma"



You're a a jealous, bitter wee fuckwit.

[F5 Dave]

Talking of bitter I'm not sure Grapefruit was the right thing to put into an IPA.

I mean I finished it but. . .
Their citrus is much better.

Oh look! Ironing. There's heaps of money in the pic.

[Katman]

It's tolerably clear that's what really drives your dislike of "Big Pharma".

Dude, it goes a lot further than that.

It drives my dislike of society in general.

[Ocean1]

Talking of bitter I'm not sure Grapefruit was the right thing to put into an IPA.

I mean I finished it but. . .
Their citrus is much better.

Oh look! Ironing. There's heaps of money in the pic.

Sounds hideous.

There's a shittone of money in the craft beer industry in general though, so it'll be even more hideous to katflap.

[Ocean1]

Dude, it goes a lot further than that.

It drives my dislike of society in general.

That's what I said.


You're a a jealous, bitter wee fuckwit.

Misanthropic fuckwits are always jealous and bitter.

And pathologically predisposed to believe whatever they need to in order to maintain their perverted opinions.

Now fuck off you pathetic wee fuckwit.

[Katman]

Misanthropic fuckwits are always jealous and bitter.

And pathologically predisposed to believe whatever they need to in order to maintain their perverted opinions.

Now fuck off you pathetic wee fuckwit.

I'm under no illusion that we will ever share a similar view of humanity.

And I'm perfectly comfortable with mine.

[Ocean1]

I'm under no illusion that we will ever share a similar view of humanity.

Aye, that's about the only illusion you haven't shared though.

[F5 Dave]

Now that's the good stuff.



Oops. Don't operate camera under the influence.

[carbonhed]

Aye, that's about the only illusion you haven't shared though.

I trust the fuckwits gun license was revoked aeons ago. Textbook psychopath.

[Katman]

I trust the fuckwits gun license was revoked aeons ago. Textbook psychopath.

That you seem to think I have the slightest interest in a gun license shows how little you know.

[Katman]

https://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(17)30046-4/fulltext

[Katman]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-44920193

[Katman]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oZsKZpMsZfQBN5IMQyyaH8NlYcvctvEH/view

[Katman]

https://www.mctlawyers.com/101-million-dollar-vaccine-injury-mmr/

[Katman]

http://vaccinesafetycommission.org/pdfs/Wang%20Yao%202018%20Cytokine%20IL-4%20Hep%20B%20Hippocampus.pdf

[Katman]

http://www.journal-news.net/news/local-news/2018/07/lawmakers-voice-concern-over-state-vaccine-safety/

[Katman]

https://medium.com/@WorldMercury/aluminum-and-mercury-synergy-a-perfect-storm-aea3bcc3012d

[oldrider]

I don't know if this has been on this thread before - I found it to be very interesting so I have posted it here - no other reason simply interesting. :yes: . :shifty:

<iframe width="922" height="519" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4N2dej8uqS4" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Katman]

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/07/27/bmjebm-2018-111012

[pritch]

Mind if I park this here?

https://trib.al/Wstlo39

[F5 Dave]

Are you saying? . . All this time. . .Katman is a Ruskin Bot?:shit:

Mind blown.

I thought he was just a gullible dork. But yeah. Makes sense now.

[pritch]

By a truly remarkable coincidence Trump posted an angry tweet about the dangers of vaccination this morning US time. Just in case anybody still thought there wasn't a Russian connection?

Actually he was tweeting later than usual and into it again early. It's almost as if he isn't getting much sleep. Worry will do that though. :Police:

[Katman]

https://neonnettle.com/features/1483-anti-vaccine-japaPerfect

[Katman]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/15/health-regulator-withholding-vaccines-results-making-impossible/

[matt.of.the.ingh]

Vaccines aren't harmful you idiots.

Just get vaccinated.

Seriously how does this same stuff shit keep getting used around?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Laava]

Vaccines aren't harmful you idiots.

Just get vaccinated.

Seriously how does this same stuff shit keep getting used around?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

:corn::corn::corn:

[Katman]

Vaccines aren't harmful you idiots.

Just get vaccinated.

Seriously how does this same stuff shit keep getting used around?

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

I'll let everyone know.

[SaferRides]

Immunologist slams anti-vaccine billboard as 'almost organised terrorism' https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018665071/immunologist-slams-anti-vaccine-billboard-as-almost-organised-terrorism

I'm not an anti vaxxer, but this sort of reaction is ridiculous. Shades of McCarthyism - Google if you're too young to know what this means.

[Katman]

Immunologist slams anti-vaccine billboard as 'almost organised terrorism' https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018665071/immunologist-slams-anti-vaccine-billboard-as-almost-organised-terrorism

I'm not an anti vaxxer, but this sort of reaction is ridiculous. Shades of McCarthyism - Google if you're too young to know what this means.

And anyone who supports this type of reaction clearly doesn't support the concept of 'informed consent'.

[Katman]

And furthermore, he's a pretty fucking stupid immunologist if he believes that vaccinations have never produced "any problem".


"Vaccination and immunisation is a perfectly safe procedure. It's been in place for many decades without any problem," Prof Fraser said.

Seriously, can the cunt get any dumber?


"The ingredients of vaccines are just bits of the virus, bits of the bacteria. So it's like getting the infection without actually getting sick. That's all that's in a vaccine."

[sidecar bob]

And furthermore, he's a pretty fucking stupid immunologist if he believes that vaccinations have never produced "any problem".



Seriously, can the cunt get any dumber?

Hmm, immunologist, or googling bike shop proprietor? I can't decide who to listen too:(

[Katman]

Hmm, immunologist, or googling bike shop proprietor? I can't decide who to listen too:(

You could always look up what the actual ingredients of a vaccine are and see whether the 'immunologist' is correct.

(Rather than simply relying on listening to someone).

[Katman]

Here, I'll even help you.

http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+are+the+ingredients+in+vaccines

[Katman]

And the list of 'ingredients' doesn't even include the 'contaminants' that have been found in vaccines.

[Katman]

And anyone who actually believes the immunologist when he says there hasn't been "any problem" associated with vaccines, should probably let the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program know.

They could have saved themselves almost $4 billion dollars by now.

[matt.of.the.ingh]

Of course it didn't. Contaminants aren't ingredients. They are things that have accidentally contaminated the ingredients.

Because they aren't supposed to be there, it's impossible to list them.
And the list of 'ingredients' doesn't even include the 'contaminants' that have been found in vaccines.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[matt.of.the.ingh]

No they couldn't.

The are tiny numbers of people who have allergic reactions to some vaccine ingredients.

The VICP helps them with compensation. It doesn't mean there is a problem with the vaccine. Some people are allergic to dust mites, doesn't mean that carpets are in the pay of big pharma.

You get vaccinated against childhood diseases to protect the tiny number of people with immunosuppressive conditions. Those are the people who could be seriously at risk from those diseases.
Your fine. Your kids are fine. Vaccinations are safe. Stop being a idiot and do something obviously sensible to protect genuinely I'll people in your community.
And anyone who actually believes the immunologist when he says there hasn't been "any problem" associated with vaccines, should probably let the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program know.

They could have saved themselves almost $4 billion dollars by now.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[matt.of.the.ingh]

What's not to understand? The are mountains of evidence that vaccines are safe.
There is a vague feeling that needles are scary on your side.

Go with evidence based research everytime.
(That's the stuff from universities, government agencies, anyone who isn't just writing what other people they agree with, but doing actual science, because governments don't want to pay for hospital beds when there are really cheap vaccines that simply don't cause health problems.)

(Because otherwise, you know, they'd be sued cos of all the health problems and it wouldn't make financial sense.)
And anyone who supports this type of reaction clearly doesn't support the concept of 'informed consent'.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[matt.of.the.ingh]

I'll go one better and post a link.

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dear-parents-you-are-being-lied/

Vaccines are safe. They just are.
Now stop feeling guilty about point your child with a needle, it really does make you a better parent.

Xx

Here, I'll even help you.

http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+are+the+ingredients+in+vaccines

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Grumph]

Vaccines are safe. They just are.
Now stop feeling guilty about point your child with a needle, it really does make you a better parent.


Good effort that man. But you're wasting your time with katflap - he wouldn't risk having a kid.

I note your red rep. We can guess where that came from.

[Katman]

Xx

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk




Did you just send me a couple of kisses?

[Katman]

The Chinese sure don't fuck around.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/business/china-vaccine-fine.html?fbclid=IwAR2-iBsMPe4O-tRaCA6wHwXowRGuCnAq92zxW7OMgmfcm_FwngHe5jIdHLU

[Katman]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/spider-bites-cdc-ethics-c_b_12525012.html

[Katman]

http://www.jpands.org/vol23no4/hooker.pdf

[Katman]

Hang on to your hats - things are about to get bumpy again.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ASRRv_MZp2w" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[husaberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0OeM6UUAoI
I guess you will never figure out the difference anyway

Wakefeilds been in the News in the states

It has ultimately proved very lucrative for the disgraced doctor, who now lives in a large house in Austin and works for numerous non-profit groups.
One of those groups spent over 40 per cent of its donations on his salary by paying him more than $300,000 over five years.
In a Mail on Sunday article published last year, a source told the paper that Wakefield had been paid $10,000 for a single appearance in the state - but the former doctor denied the claim.
One said that he gets 'perhaps $1,000 maximum' for his talks.
Another source claimed he had given $50,000 to Donald Trump during his presidential campaign.


ut in 2010 the General Medical Council revoked Wakefield's medical licence after ruling his conduct 'dishonest and irresponsible'.
At the hearing, he was accused of being paid to conduct his study by lawyers representing parents who thought their children had been affected by MMR vaccinations.
He was also accused of buying blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them each £5.
The council ruled against Wakefield on both points - as well as several others.
The British Medical Journal said his work was fraudulent and that his data had been manipulated.
In 2004, the paper was attacked by ten of its 12 authors. the other two had their medical licences revoked
They wrote: 'We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised,' the scientists said in the retraction.
'Consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed on these findings in the paper.'

[Katman]

I guess you will never figure out the difference anyway.

I guess you won't either.

But anyone who can completely dismiss the myriad of testimonies from people who have vaccine injured children as nothing more than 'fake orgasms' deserves nothing but utter contempt.

So go fuck yourself.

[husaberg]

I guess you won't either.

But anyone who can completely dismiss the myriad of testimonies from people who have vaccine injured children as nothing more than 'fake orgasms' deserves nothing but utter contempt.

So go fuck yourself.

Funny you do the same with the holocaust.
The difference is the holocaust survivors were well qualified to judge what they seen ie the gas chambers etc
PS Wakefeild's research has been proven to be 100% fake numerous times.
But hes doing pretty well peddling it to people ill equipped to know any better
Or narcissistic trolls that kick a kick out of spreading fake crap that kills children or actually exposes them to needless suffering

[Berries]

I doubt either of you have kids so your views are irrelevant to a parent.

[husaberg]

I doubt either of you have kids so your views are irrelevant to a parent.

i have two katman doesnt have any.
both have just had chicken pox which is ripping through ther coast like wildfire.
youngest is due her vacinations now to prevent any of her potential children getting rubella

[Katman]

both have just had chicken pox


Were they vaccinated for it?

[husaberg]

Were they vaccinated for it?

I think you missed the point about how quickly a infectious diseases spreads in a population of Children.
Chickenpox is not generally needed or done in NZ. although i think it is now recently part of the schedule.
Out of interest are you vaccinated for tetanus? and do you vaccinate your pets for disease.
Or do you not trust these vaccinations and would rather take your chances on yourself?

[Katman]

I think you missed the point about how quickly a infectious diseases spreads in a population of Children.


So were they vaccinated for it?

[husaberg]

So were they vaccinated for it?

As i said i do not believe it was part of the schedule although i think it maybe now is.

2017 Chickenpox (varicella) added to schedule (from July) and HPV vaccination for boys.
Considering they are to be vaccinating for Chickenpox at 15 months age i would say no. But to be 100% i would have to ask their Doctor.
http://nursingreview.co.nz/history-of-nzs-childhood-immunisation-schedule/
https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/immunisation/new-zealand-immunisation-schedule
My children received all there NZ Health Scheme recommended vaccinations at the recommended times.
But as i pointed out twice now you refuse to aknlowedge the point why the comment was made in how quicly an infectious disease can sdpread within a population of Children.
So i notice you expect others to answer questions but don't answer them yourself. Its a common theme with your trolling. you seek to constantly change the subject.

[Katman]

Out of interest are you vaccinated for tetanus?

No.


and do you vaccinate your pets for disease?

Only the dog for kennel cough - and only because we couldn't book her into the kennels if she wasn't.

[husaberg]

No.



Only the dog for kennel cough - and only because we couldn't book her into the kennels if she wasn't.

So you are saying your parents never vaccinated you as a Child at all for Tetenus or anything else such as polio or TB.
Even though its pretty much always fatal.
I guess you have never seen an animal die of a clostridial infection such as tetanus
So your dog hasnt been vaccinated for
Parvo.
Distemper.
Hepatitis.
Leptospirosis.

[Katman]

So you are saying your parents never vaccinated you as a Child at all for Tetenus or anything else such as polio or TB.

I most probably was vaccinated as a child for the usual diseases. (I certainly remember the TB vaccination at High School).

I doubt very much that those vaccinations are much use to me 40 years later though.

[husaberg]

I most probably was vaccinated as a child for the usual diseases. (I certainly remember the TB vaccination at High School).

I doubt very much that those vaccinations are much use to me 40 years later though.

Really, So given your age are you 100% sure you would lived to have reached adulthood without them?
You do realise there is a reason we managed to get rid of a lot of diseases around that time and just before it and it wasn't through hygiene.
Its was through Vaccination of whole communities that diseases that formally killed and maimed children were virtually eliminated
Maybe you should talk to a vet and ask them what its like to witness an animal with blacks disease Blackleg pulp and kidney malignant edema or Tetanus for the sake of a few cents vaccination cost.
Or speak to someone who has had Lepto.
None of which i suspect will change your opinion given that you think you know better than 99.99% of Medical professionals do about the safety of Vaccinations anyway.

ps the normal range of diseases you would have been vaccinated for given your age include at least 2 doses of tetanus

[Katman]

Really, So given your age are you 100% sure you would lived to have reached adulthood without them?

I have no reason to suspect I wouldn't have.

[husaberg]

I have no reason to suspect I wouldn't have.

Thats only because you lack the ability to rationalise facts.
Maybe you should ask you mother why she had you vaccinated, she would have seen the results of the diseases you were vaccinated growing up that you ignore.
ps i see you as normal pick and choose what you respond to.

[Katman]

Thats only because you lack the ability to rationalise facts.
Maybe you should ask you mother why she had you vaccinated, she would have seen the results of the diseases you were vaccinated growing up that you ignore.

You seem to forget that the vaccination schedule back when I was a child was considerably less than the schedule that today's children are subjected to.

[husaberg]

You seem to forget that the vaccination schedule back when I was a child was considerably less than the schedule that today's children are subjected to.

i dont care about the schedule when you were born,
You seem to know buggar all about vaccinations quite a few things have also been removed over time as well as added.As diseases are eliminated they get removed
But of course you claim to know better what is safe than 99.99% of medical professionals to vaccinate a child for.
Also the safety of vaccines also improve over time.
I note ealier you claimed you were not vaccinated for Tetanus are you still so sure

http://nursingreview.co.nz/history-of-nzs-childhood-immunisation-schedule/

[Katman]

You seem to know buggar all about vaccinations quite a few things have also been removed over time as well as added.As diseases are eliminated they get removed
But of course you claim to know better what is safe than 99.99% of medical professionals to vaccinate a child for.
Also the safety of vaccines also improve over time

http://nursingreview.co.nz/history-of-nzs-childhood-immunisation-schedule/

So how about you show what the vaccination schedule was back in the 60's compared to that of today.

[husaberg]

So how about you show what the vaccination schedule was back in the 60's compared to that of today.

As i said i dont care about your latest attempt to shift tacks.
I posted the schedules, Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you know better what is safe than 99.99% of what medical profeesionals recomend as being safe and what the side effects are for vaccination.
All your claimed objections are due to a study totally discredited by a discredited doctor who wanted to make a quick buck off his own vaccine.
Until you start posting some facts its all just your narcissistic conspiracy driven opinion drivel against all known verified medical science.

[matt.of.the.ingh]

Until you start posting some facts its all just your narcissistic conspiracy driven opinion drivel against all known verified medical science.

Now that's not fair.
He can't post any facts because his opinion is based on bollocks.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Katman]

Now that's not fair.
He can't post any facts because his opinion is based on bollocks.

Dude, your total contribution to this thread has been 6 posts - none of which contain anything resembling 'facts'.

[Graystone]

Dude, your total contribution to this thread has been 6 posts - none of which contain anything resembling 'facts'.

To be fair, that's still better than 378 posts of untruths and dangerous misinformation...

[husaberg]

Dude, your total contribution to this thread has been 6 posts - none of which contain anything resembling 'facts'.

These are facts

In 2010 the General Medical Council revoked Wakefield's medical licence after ruling his conduct 'dishonest and irresponsible'.
At the hearing, he was accused of being paid to conduct his study by lawyers representing parents who thought their children had been affected by MMR vaccinations.
He was also accused of buying blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them each £5.
The council ruled against Wakefield on both points - as well as several others.
The British Medical Journal said his work was fraudulent and that his data had been manipulated.
In 2004, the paper was attacked by ten of its 12 authors. the other two had their medical licences revoked
They wrote: 'We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised,' the scientists said in the retraction.
'Consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed on these findings in the paper.'



Their misconduct arose out of a fishing expedition, in which Malcolm ward was the pond for the measles theory. Since February 1996, seven months before child 2’s admission, Wakefield had been engaged by a lawyer named Richard Barr, who hoped to bring a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.arr was a high street solicitor, and an expert in home conveyancing,9 but also acted for an anti-vaccine group, JABS. And, through this connection, the man nowadays popularly dubbed the “MMR doctor” had found a supply of research patients for Walker-Smith.
“The following are signs to look for,” Barr wrote in a newsletter to his vaccine claim clients, mostly media enlisted parents of children with brain disorders, giving a list of common Crohn’s disease symptoms. “If your child has suffered from all or any of these symptoms could you please contact us, and it may be appropriate to put you in touch with Dr Wakefield.”


Feature Secrets of the MMR scare
How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money
B
In the second part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer reveals a secret scheme to raise huge sums from a campaign, launched at a London medical school, that claimed links between MMR, autism, and bowel disease

“You used to hear Wakefield’s people talking about how they would win the Nobel Prize for this,” remembers Brent Taylor, the Royal Free’s head of community child health, who frequently clashed with the pair. “The atmosphere here was extraordinary.”

But instead of honours, the two men reaped disgrace. In January and May 2010, the UK’s General Medical Council found them guilty of a raft of charges over a project involving child 2.4 Wakefield, now 54, was judged by a five member panel to be guilty of some 30 charges, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 of causing children to be subjected to invasive procedures that were clinically unjustified; Walker-Smith, 74, was deemed irresponsible and unethical.4 Both were struck off the medical register5 6 and have since filed High Court appeals.

Working on a lawsuit
Their misconduct arose out of a fishing expedition, in which Malcolm ward was the pond for the measles theory. Since February 1996, seven months before child 2’s admission, Wakefield had been engaged by a lawyer named Richard Barr, who hoped to bring a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.7 8 Barr was a high street solicitor, and an expert in home conveyancing,9 but also acted for an anti-vaccine group, JABS. And, through this connection, the man nowadays popularly dubbed the “MMR doctor” had found a supply of research patients for Walker-Smith.

“The following are signs to look for,” Barr wrote in a newsletter to his vaccine claim clients, mostly media enlisted parents of children with brain disorders, giving a list of common Crohn’s disease symptoms. “If your child has suffered from all or any of these symptoms could you please contact us, and it may be appropriate to put you in touch with Dr Wakefield.”

A viral diagnostic
The following day, Monday, child 2 had an ileocolonoscopy, which, in common with seven other children reported in the paper, the GMC panel would find was not clinically warranted. Tuesday was Wakefield’s 40th birthday. And on Wednesday, with the news that the boy—still on the ward—might have Crohn’s disease, the doctor produced a remarkable document. It was an 11 page draft of a scheme behind the vaccine scare, now revealed for the first time in full.

The document was headed “Inventor/school/investor meeting 1.”15 Based on a patent Wakefield had filed in March 1995 claiming that “Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis may be diagnosed by detecting measles virus in bowel tissue, bowel products or body fluids,”it proposed starting a company that could reap huge returns from molecular viral diagnostic tests. It predicted a turnover from Britain and America of up to £72.5m a year.

“In view of the unique services offered by the Company and its technology, particularly for the molecular diagnostic,” the document noted, “the assays can command premium prices.”

To help finance the scheme, Wakefield looked to the government’s legal aid fund—meant to give poorer people access to justice. For the previous seven months, child 2 had been enrolled with Barr’s firm,17 which since February 1996— two years before the paper’s publication— had been paying the researcher undisclosed fees of £150 an hour, plus expenses.8

“The ability of the Company to commercialise its candidate products,” the draft plan continued, “depends upon the extent to which reimbursement for the cost of such products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health providers and, in the context of the molecular diagnostic, the Legal Aid Board.”


Money from the lawyer
Discussions about the business continued over the following years, but Wakefield’s involvement with Barr was quickly noted. In October 1996, the medical school’s dean, Arie Zuckerman, a virologist, was told that the lawyer had offered to pay the school for a “clinical and scientific study,”18 19 and had sent a first instalment of £25 000.20 21 This was held in suspense while Zuckerman sought confidential ethical advice from the British Medical Association, although Wakefield had already started spending it.

“Arising from recent widespread publicity given to this research,” Zuckerman (who told me he does not want to discuss these matters) wrote of Wakefield’s already televised claims about Crohn’s disease, “the Legal Aid Board has provided funding through a firm of solicitors representing Crohn’s disease sufferers and we have been asked to make an appointment to the staff of the Medical School, specifically to undertake a pilot study of selected patients.”

The BMA answered fully the following March, after its ethics committee had considered the issue. It said that money could be accepted provided there was proper research oversight and transparency over funding and patient sources.

“Further to our conversation regarding the establishment of a fund with the Special Trustees for your income and expenditure associated with the MMR research,” Else wrote to Wakefield, “I can confirm that a grant will be established for the purpose, given your written confirmation that there is no conflict of interest involved.”


Behind the press conference
Neither school nor hospital stood on the sidelines. They threw their weight behind Wakefield. In the build-up to the press conference, they installed extra phone lines and answering machines to field the expected panic, and distributed to broadcasters a 23 minute video news release showcasing Wakefield’s claims. “There is sufficient anxiety in my own mind for the long term safety of the polyvalent vaccine—that is, the MMR vaccination in combination—that I think it should be suspended in favour of the single vaccines,” he said, in one of four similar formulations on the videotape.28

Figure2
Single vaccine patent filed by Wakefield

Given the previous week’s publicity drive, the vaccine plans were sensitive. But the school had long known of this ambition. First surfacing in Wakefield’s 1995 patent for a diagnostic test for Crohn’s disease, it had been fleshed out in 1997, eight months before the press conference, in a patent for a “safer” single measles shot.30

The revised business plan was ambitious and detailed, aiming to raise £2.1m from investors. It spanned the detection of Crohn’s disease, the treatment of autism, and “a replacement for attenuated viral vaccines.”
ensued. Even as the vaccine scare escalated, triggering a deluge of referrals to Walker-Smith, staff at Freemedic, the commercial arm of what was now the merged Royal Free and University College Medical School, poured over contracts and plans.

Trading was to be fronted by Carmel Healthcare Ltd—named after Wakefield’s wife. Firmly rooted in Barr’s lawsuit, which eventually paid Wakefield £435 643, plus expenses,32 the business was to be launched off the back of the vaccine scare, diagnosing a purported—and still unsubstantiated33—“new syndrome.” This, Wakefield claimed, comprised both brain and bowel diseases, which, after Crohn’s disease was not found in any of the Lancet children, he dubbed “autistic enterocolitis.”34

“It is estimated that the initial market for the diagnostic will be litigation driven testing of patients with AE [autistic enterocolitis] from both the UK and the USA,” said a 35 page “private and confidential” prospectus, which was passed to me by a recipient. It aimed at raising an initial £700 000 from investors and forecast extraordinary revenues. “It is estimated that by year 3, income from this testing could be about £3 300 000 rising to about £28 000 000 as diagnostic testing in support of therapeutic regimes come on stream.”35

Carmel was registered in the Irish Republic, where Wakefield would also become a director of another business. This was Unigenetics Ltd, incorporated in February 1999 with a Dublin pathologist, John O’Leary. After Wakefield submitted a confidential report to the Legal Aid Board,36 Unigenetics was awarded—without checks—£800 000 of taxpayers’ money 28 to perform polymerase chain reaction tests on bowel tissue and blood samples from children passing through Malcolm ward.
The key players in Carmel were the same as in the first company, Immunospecifics, with their planned equity now set out. Wakefield would get 37%, and the father of child 10 22.2%. The venture capitalist would get 18%, Pounder 11.7%, and O’Leary 11.1%.
Some would also be awarded extra money in advance, in proposed “executive and non-executive staff costs.” Wakefield was set to get £40 000 a year,37 in addition to his legal earnings and medical school salary, with an annual travel budget of £50 000 for the business.


Patent for a Single Vaccine:

Wakefield also denied that he had a patent for a single vaccine. he claimed that:

What we had at the time was a patent, the medical school owned the patent, not me. It was a patent on a thing called Transfer Factor. It’s a naturally occurring nutritional supplement that occurs in breast milk, for example, that boosts the immune response. Whether it worked or not is another question. That’s what we sought to try and find out. It boosts the immune response to an infection like measles. This could not prevent children from getting measles, so it didn’t act like MMR at all. What it did was to help them clear the virus once they became infected. It could never have competed with MMR vaccine. Never, because it did not work in the right way.

The problem is that the patents in questions refer to this as a measles vaccine. For example, in a 1997 patent, before the publication of the paper, it says, “what is needed now is a safer vaccine …. I have now discovered a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer…”

In another place, Wakefield said: “such a composition may be used as a measles virus vaccine.”

Here is a friendly suggestion to Andrew Wakefield. If you want to claim your patent was not for a single measles virus vaccine, it should not say that it can be used as a single measles virus vaccine.

Andrew Wakefield had a patent for a substance that he claimed could serve as a single measles virus vaccine before the publication of the Lancet paper and before he went to the media and claimed the MMR was unsafe. He did not disclose it. When he says otherwise, it’s a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

[Katman]

These are facts

Nah, that's just Brian Deer's hatchet job.

[husaberg]

Nah, that's just Brian Deer's hatchet job.

Really what are not facts.
Did the Medical council remove wakefeilds medical credentials and throw out his paper due to a reporters story?
Or because they conducted a long tribunal process where wakefeild was found to be a self serving opportunist not fit to be a doctor.
or because of a seies of facts as outlined above that wakefeild made up information so he could try and sell his diagnostic kits for a disease he made up and sell his patent for a "safe vaccine"

Wakefeid tried to sue Deer and the British medical journal for libel four times as a gagging ploy all four times they thrown out as it impossible to libel someone with facts.
https://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-amended-declaration.pdf
https://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-introduction.htm

in case you never knew the British libel laws say the person accused has to prove he didn't libel the victim.

[Katman]

or because of a seies of facts as outlined above that wakefeild made up information so he could try and sell his diagnostic kits for a disease he made up and sell his patent for a "safe vaccine"

Really?

You're criticising Andrew Wakefield because he wanted to develop a 'safer' vaccine?

[TheDemonLord]

Really?

You're criticising Andrew Wakefield because he wanted to develop a 'safer' vaccine?

No, we are Criticising the people who follow him, who rail against 'Big Pharma' with howls of 'profiteering', but support someone who invented a condition, so that same person could profit from selling the Cure.

Criticising MR. Wakefield is just an added bonus.

[husaberg]

Really?

You're criticising Andrew Wakefield because he wanted to develop a 'safer' vaccine?
Interesting you pick and choose what you resond to you seek to twist information as you have no basis to defend him otherwise
i am critizing wakefeild for being a total fraud willing to put 1000's of children's life at risk so he might line his own pockets.All based on his fraudulent claims.
H tried to hide his motives for doing so but was found out and exposed for being a lying scumbag fraud.
i believe the Same as the rest of the medical profession believe about him and his self serving motives thats why he was struck off and has been proven to be a total fraud time and time again


No, we are Criticising the people who follow him, who rail against 'Big Pharma' with howls of 'profiteering', but support someone who invented a condition, so that same person could profit from selling the Cure.

Criticising MR. Wakefield is just an added bonus.

it should be added he also invented the cure and the test before he "discovered" the condition, But by discover i mean totally made up.
when asked about the test and the patent he tried to claim he had nothing to do with it when it was proven he did he tried to claim the patent was not for a vaccine only problem was the patent application clearly stated what it was and who had made it and when. Anyone that follows him or attempts to use him or is information is an idiot detached from reality.
Thus enter stage right Taupo Steve. Someone who needs no evidence only the word conspiracy

[Katman]

Criticising MR. Wakefield is just an added bonus.

Oh well, 20 years later and the controversy shows no signs of abating. In fact it appears to be gathering support.

I suspect one day Andrew Wakefield will have the last laugh - although I also suspect he won't actually be laughing about it.

[husaberg]

Oh well, 20 years later and the controversy shows no signs of abating. In fact it appears to be gathering support.

I suspect one day Andrew Wakefield will have the last laugh - although I also suspect he won't actually be laughing about it.
Considering the vaccination levels are again rising that claim is total crap.

Good news: more than nine out of ten parents in the UK now choose to have their children vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR).’
Measles-vaccination-rates-in-UK-recover-after-14-yearsHowever, this recovery just puts efforts to eliminate measles back where they were before the dramatic decline which began in the late 1990s.
The UK was ground zero for one of the most damaging vaccine scares in history: an epidemic of fear that the MMR vaccine was linked in some way to autism. The scare was sparked by a small and thoroughly debunked study by Andrew Wakefield, a medical doctor branded as “dishonest and irresponsible” by his peers.
14 years later, vaccination rates have recovered in the UK, with 91% of children now vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella. This is the highest rate of MMR uptake since the publication of Wakefield’s paper in The Lancet in 1998. The paper has since been withdrawn by the journal with an admission that its central thesis was “utterly false”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9705374/MMR-uptake-rates-finally-recovered-from-Wakefield-scandal-figures-show.html

I wonder how long it is before the parents of all those children who needlessly died or contracted preventable diseases figure out how much money hes making out of his fraud and organise a class action lawsuit against him based on his fraudulent work and claims see how much he will be laughing then.

[Katman]

I wonder how long it is before the parents of all those children who needlessly died or contracted preventable diseases figure out how much money hes making out of his fraud and organise a class action lawsuit against him based on his fraudulent work and claims see how much he will be laughing then.

The thing is though, Andrew Wakefield isn't forcing anyone to not vaccinate their child.

He can't be held liable in the little fantasy you're indulging in.

[husaberg]

The thing is though, Andrew Wakefield isn't forcing anyone to not vaccinate their child.

He can't be held liable in the little fantasy you're indulging in.

That's entirely incorrect considering The parents made decisions based on his proven fraudulent claims about Vaccination safety

Hes wide open for massive litigation suits to be brought against him especially given he now resides in the states and is by all accounts living a high life.
Making money from moviess and giving talks at $10,000 a pop
He would have to prove his claims were not fraudulent and he never attempted to profit from spreading false information which is a tough ask considering its been proven the claims were false and he did try and profit out of his false claims.
https://www.badgut.org/information-centre/a-z-digestive-topics/andrew-wakefield-vaccine-myth/
https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/01/surprise-surprise-andrew-wakefield-was-p
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/2/7965885/vaccine-autism-link-false-evidence-wakefield
His recently ditched wife is also now available to give evidence against him now also.

[Katman]

That's entirely incorrect considering The parents made decisions based on his proven fraudulent claims about Vaccination safety

Hes wide open for massive litigation suits to be brought against him especially given he now resides in the states and is by all accounts living a high life.
He would have to prove his claims were not fraudulent and he never attempted to profit from spreading false information which is a tough ask considering its been proven the claims were false and he did try and profit out of his false claims.
https://www.badgut.org/information-centre/a-z-digestive-topics/andrew-wakefield-vaccine-myth/
https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/01/surprise-surprise-andrew-wakefield-was-p
His recently ditched wife is also now available to give evidence against him also.

That's quite a fertile* imagination you've got going there.

*(Fertilised with shit).