Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[TheDemonLord]

I'm simply of the opinion that it would be wiser to err on the side of caution and revert to the three individual shots administered over a period of time.

Based on what evidence?

Your extensive medical training?

Even by that Logic - the erring would STILL be on mandatory vaccination. Autism is a better prospect than Death.


You know, sort of like Andrew Wakefield recommends.

Yes, I always follow the recommended actions of proven fraudsters.

[TheDemonLord]

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... a beat up piece, priceless. A man who has overseen decades of research is now a nutter coz he's changed his story :killingme. Your arse is a dark place... but doesn't look out of place on your shoulders.

It may be a Beat up peice, it may even be a Gish-Gallop for me to post it, however it does link to actual research (that I know you will ignore) to make it's point.

And of course, it's not a possibility that someone would change their story because the Anti-Vaccine community would pay them to do it.....

Also of interesting to note is that Dr. William Thompson's doctorate isn't in Immunology or Eipidemiology or Virulogy (you know - fields relevant to Vaccination) - but in Psychology.

[Katman]

Even by that Logic - the erring would STILL be on mandatory vaccination. Autism is a better prospect than Death.

Have vaccinations suddenly become mandatory in New Zealand?

Or is that just your Autie logic on display again?

[TheDemonLord]

Have vaccinations suddenly become mandatory in New Zealand?

Or is that just your Autie logic on display again?

Here is how Logic works:

You suggest that we should err on the side of Caution
I take your suggestion and then use the following principles:

Even if your position is true and vaccines cause autism, Death is a worse outcome than autism.
Using your logic then, since Autism is preferable to Death - Vaccines should be enforced (erring on the side of caution)

[Katman]

Vaccines should be enforced

<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TiLd0l4J7Wc/TzGIuhnk4FI/AAAAAAAAAyA/Zp0BNsVQNA8/s1600/nazi-sheep.gif"/>

[TheDemonLord]

A Picture of Katman's Mistress

I'd like to draw everyones attention to the person who calls everyone Autistic when they disagree with him, comaplains about Autistic logic - but when presented with a simple explanation of said logic - he can't refute it, and so posts pictures of Sheep.

[idb]

<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TiLd0l4J7Wc/TzGIuhnk4FI/AAAAAAAAAyA/Zp0BNsVQNA8/s1600/nazi-sheep.gif"/>

I'm still wondering how vaccines reduce the body's 'external protection'.
You said it...and I know you're a thoughtful poster who wouldn't post anything without good research.

[Swoop]

We should start our own local register of paranoid delusional morons!

Suckmycock can be it's founding entry!
Careful. Widdle pwecious is a bit sensitive to being called that. After all the chimpanzee shit-throwing that Stephen has done, he doesn't like it being returned to him...


I'd like to try and simplify this discussion.

If you choose not to be vaccinated against diseases that can be vaccinated against, and you contract a preventable disease and come into contact with people with depressed immunity such as transplant patients and people on chemotherapy, and you pass that preventable disease onto them, they usually die. Even 'healthy' children and adults can die or get seriously damaged - see, measles encephalitis.

Not all vaccines are 100% effective, but when enough people are vaccinated then through herd immunity we avoid circulation of the most likely preventable pathogens. People who decide not to take the individual risk of vaccination but nevertheless take advantage of herd immunity, are more than usually selfish.
An interesting point.

In legal terms, "accidental", "manslaughter" and "deliberate homicide" could be used in those situations.
Choosing not to immunise and then knowingly exposing...


Seriously, if "I can't remember the details and can't be arsed looking it up" is the best you've got to offer, what the fuck are you even doing in this thread?
Here's a concept. Actually answer questions which are posed of you.
Don't avoid the difficult questions, or the simple questions either.

Basically - you believe and trust Corrupt Big Pharma 'research' when it suits your agenda, and discount Big Pharma research as corrupt when it doesn't.
No surprises there. Steve only believes in what suits his agenda. Completely the opposite of what intelligent, academic research looks for. (should I even mention "Peer Reviewed" here?)


So it wouldn't be fair to say you decide to trust the view of sources based on whether you think they support your view or not? ie: you trust sources that support your view, but distrust those that conflict with it?

That's not hypocrisy, but it is confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.
This is why Steve will not answer a question put to him.
The only response is in the form of a link (to a site of little credibility like "the superdupertruthstuff.com) that jokingly supports his drivel.

[Katman]

I'm still wondering how vaccines reduce the body's 'external protection'.
You said it...and I know you're a thoughtful poster who wouldn't post anything without good research.

You should probably go back and read post #1223 a little more carefully - paying particular attention to the use of the word 'could'.

[Virago]

My understanding of how immunisation works is that a weakened or dead pathogen is introduced into your body and your body naturally develops an immune response.
Isn't that natural?


Except that the defences on the outside of the body have been rendered redundant.

Which external defenses are rendered redundant by immunisation?

[Woodman]

I'd like to draw everyones attention to the person who calls everyone Autistic when they disagree with him, comaplains about Autistic logic - but when presented with a simple explanation of said logic - he can't refute it, and so posts pictures of Sheep.

Thats what she does. Sheep pictures are Katman speak for "I don't know the answer" or "stop being a meanie by disagreeing with me"

What I do now is read every Katman post like a spoiled 4 year old building up to a tantrum. Otherwise its boring as fuck.

[Ocean1]

Have vaccinations suddenly become mandatory in New Zealand?

No, no, that'd be a definite attack on personal choice.

You should have the freedom of the vaccination of your choice: the regular version or the completely unmodified virus.

The second choice being followed closely by confinement to the research facility of your choice for the duration of your painfully fucked up life.

[Ocean1]

Oh yeah, too late for Katflap, but...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2090925-vaccines-might-be-able-to-stop-alzheimers-plaques-from-forming/

[Katman]

Oh yeah, too late for Katflap, but...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2090925-vaccines-might-be-able-to-stop-alzheimers-plaques-from-forming/

<img src="http://the-thud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/sheep1.jpg"/>

[Virago]

...You know, sort of like Andrew Wakefield recommends.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Lleyn_sheep.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

Katmans definition of an orgy


I'd like to draw everyones attention to the person who calls everyone Autistic when they disagree with him, comaplains about Autistic logic - but when presented with a simple explanation of said logic - he can't refute it, and so posts pictures of Sheep.

Lol. Called it

[mashman]

It may be a Beat up peice, it may even be a Gish-Gallop for me to post it, however it does link to actual research (that I know you will ignore) to make it's point.

And of course, it's not a possibility that someone would change their story because the Anti-Vaccine community would pay them to do it.....

Also of interesting to note is that Dr. William Thompson's doctorate isn't in Immunology or Eipidemiology or Virulogy (you know - fields relevant to Vaccination) - but in Psychology.

:killingme

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa@paid to get results.

:killingme

[Ocean1]

:killingme

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa@paid to get results.

:killingme

It was obvious years ago that you didn't want any part of getting paid for results.

Lazy cunt.

[mashman]

It was obvious years ago that you didn't want any part of getting paid for results.

Lazy cunt.

It was? Glad you can remember that far back.

[Katman]

I also find it highly interesting how quick people are to dismiss the testimony of parents who report major behavioural changes in their child within days after being vaccinated.

It's almost like those people think they know that child better than the parents do.

[TheDemonLord]

I also find it highly interesting how quick people are to dismiss the testimony of parents who report major behavioural changes in their child within days after being vaccinated.

It's almost like those people think they know that child better than the parents do.

I was going to reply with a rebuttal to that. But since I know how you will react, I'll simply play the parent card and say (like all our debates) you don't know what you are taking about and I have more experience (and probably more recent experience than the other posters) in this area.

So hah. You're wrong.

[TheDemonLord]

:killingme

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa@paid to get results.

:killingme

Cause there is no money to be made in conning gullible twits is there...

Homeopathy
Naturopathy
Astrology
Reflexology
Etc.

[Drew]

I also find it highly interesting how quick people are to dismiss the testimony of parents who report major behavioural changes in their child within days after being vaccinated.

It's almost like those people think they know that child better than the parents do.
It's been conclusively proven that children's behaviour doesn't change after sugar loaded drinks, try and tell that to most parents though.

[Katman]

It's been conclusively proven that children's behaviour doesn't change after sugar loaded drinks, try and tell that to most parents though.

So a sudden onset of seizures is just the parents imagination?

[Jin]

Tetanus shot gave my first born eczema. NZ health system doesn't know about this bit lots of research being done in australia.

And i have suspicion the other injections gave him very mild autism. Hes very high functioning and you'd never know it or pick him out. In the plus side he's a math wizz.

I'd still do the vaccs though mild aut is easier than dying. Id skip the tetanus shot though.

[Akzle]

It's been conclusively proven that children's behaviour doesn't change after sugar loaded drinks, try and tell that to most parents though.

i would be interested to see how they managed that.

Sugar acts on the brains of children just like morphine. (is why it can be used as an analgesic for infants)

[Katman]

i would be interested to see how they managed that.

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html#.V1ctRPl96M9

[Drew]

So a sudden onset of seizures is just the parents imagination?

I said behaviour, I used it to point out parents not knowing as much as they think they do. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but it's not related at all. Let alone an argument.

[Drew]

Tetanus shot gave my first born eczema. NZ health system doesn't know about this bit lots of research being done in australia.

And i have suspicion the other injections gave him very mild autism. Hes very high functioning and you'd never know it or pick him out. In the plus side he's a math wizz.

I'd still do the vaccs though mild aut is easier than dying. Id skip the tetanus shot though.

Being good at maths makes him autistic? You're a fucken idiot.

[Drew]

i would be interested to see how they managed that.

Sugar acts on the brains of children just like morphine. (is why it can be used as an analgesic for infants)

The study was quoted on a telle show I watch called QI. So I got on the Google and read a bit.

[Crasherfromwayback]

It's been conclusively proven that children's behaviour doesn't change after sugar loaded drinks,

I find that hard to believe. I can feel the diff between big sugar loads. I have no doubt whatsoever children even more so.

[Katman]

See it all depends which study you read.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/15/us/study-sees-a-sugar-adrenaline-link-in-children.html

[Jin]

Being good at maths makes him autistic? You're a fucken idiot.
I didnt say that you fucken retard.

In the meantime and as usual. go fuck yourself.

[TheDemonLord]

See it all depends which study you read.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/15/us/study-sees-a-sugar-adrenaline-link-in-children.html

You mean like ignoring the ones you don't like and believing the ones that agree with you....

Now, why doesn't that surprise me.....

[Katman]

You mean like ignoring the ones you don't like and believing the ones that agree with you....

Now, why doesn't that surprise me.....

And you don't think you do the same?

[TheDemonLord]

And you don't think you do the same?

I ignore the ones that don't have sufficient evidence to back up their conclusions.

There's a big difference.

But I'm glad you admit that you Cherry Pick and have Confirmation Bias - it just further proves what we have said about you all along.

[mashman]

Cause there is no money to be made in conning gullible twits is there...

Homeopathy
Naturopathy
Astrology
Reflexology
Etc.

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme... the gifted that just keeps on giving.

[Katman]

But I'm glad you admit that you Cherry Pick and have Confirmation Bias - it just further proves what we have said about you all along.

I haven't admitted to anything of the sort.

I've merely pointed out that you do the same as you accuse others of.

[Maha]

I didnt say that you fucken retard.

In the meantime and as usual. go fuck yourself.

Surely you are aware by now that some members will interpret in their minds without understanding in a vain attempt to bolster their failing argument.

[TheDemonLord]

I haven't admitted to anything of the sort.

Except you did:


See it all depends which study you read.

(In before you start calling me either a) Autistic, b) a Sheep (or posting pictures of sheep) or, c) complaining about my language comprehension)


I've merely pointed out that you do the same as you accuse others of.

And you'd merely be wrong, but it's not like you to break with tradition.

[TheDemonLord]

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme... the gifted that just keeps on giving.

I find your lack of logical rebuttal amusing (and very telling)

[Akzle]

The study was quoted on a telle show I watch called QI. So I got on the Google and read a bit.

you'll believe anything the msm tell you, wontya :bleh:

[idb]

So a sudden onset of seizures is just the parents imagination?

I wonder how many people have vaccinations worldwide?
Probably lots and lots.
I also wonder what are the statistical chances of someone, somewhere among those lots and lots of people developing a completely unrelated condition soon after being vaccinated.

[mashman]

I find your lack of logical rebuttal amusing (and very telling)

It was a perfectly logical response... you're simply too stupid.

[TheDemonLord]

It was a perfectly logical response... you're simply too stupid.

Logical is a bit of a stretch - I'd agree with predictable. I do love however that the person who brays like an Ass is the one calling people Stupid...

[mashman]

Logical is a bit of a stretch - I'd agree with predictable. I do love however that the person who brays like an Ass is the one calling people Stupid...

Not from where I'm sitting. Braying like an Ass is required when all the audience is capable of handling is shit. You can't shift position = you don't got no logic nor capacity for logic son... hence you get shit. You're welcome.

[mashman]

Scientists fear MMR link to autism (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html). I hope you've got a massive humble pie to hand out Katman. You might well need it by the sounds of things :facepalm:

[idb]

Scientists fear MMR link to autism (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html). I hope you've got a massive humble pie to hand out Katman. You might well need it by the sounds of things :facepalm:

By SALLY BECK, Mail on Sunday

28/05/2006

[TheDemonLord]

Not from where I'm sitting. Braying like an Ass is required when all the audience is capable of handling is shit. You can't shift position = you don't got no logic nor capacity for logic son... hence you get shit. You're welcome.

I'll shift any position when there is sufficient evidence for it. The problem you have here is that half of your beliefs are just that Beliefs without evidence. I prefer to look up the evidence for the claims and let the weight of the evidence determine what I hold to be true.

The follow on from this is that when Snakeoil salesmen come peddling their shit, I have the weight of evidence to backup my position, thus my position goes unchanged. whereas the Asses are only able to go:


bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa

[Katman]

By SALLY BECK, Mail on Sunday

28/05/2006

It does tend to call into question the claim that no-one has ever been able to replicate Andrew Wakefield's findings though, doesn't it?

[mashman]

By SALLY BECK, Mail on Sunday

28/05/2006

It's a report. Reporters are often known to make reports ;)


I'll shift any position when there is sufficient evidence for it. The problem you have here is that half of your beliefs are just that Beliefs without evidence. I prefer to look up the evidence for the claims and let the weight of the evidence determine what I hold to be true.

The follow on from this is that when Snakeoil salesmen come peddling their shit, I have the weight of evidence to backup my position, thus my position goes unchanged. whereas the Asses are only able to go:

My beliefs are entirely with evidence. That you actually think that you know what my beliefs are show that you haven't shifted position 1 iota :killingme

No, you have the weight of what other people say is valid evidence. You simply ignore, with lashings of irony, the evidence that doesn't fit with your diatribe... even when one guy, Thompson, steps up and claims that they ditched valid evidence on purpose. In fact the same guy goes on further to state that he's seen things that make his toes curl. Not only that, you've even got: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” - Editor in Chief of the Lancet.

:stupid:

My heart goes out to all of the scientists whose motive is the science, both good and bad. Shame that bad doesn't sell pills/vaccines etc... eh.

[Swoop]

I find that hard to believe. I can feel the diff between big sugar loads. I have no doubt whatsoever children even more so.

Especially once "Little Johnny" has had a jab of a needle and felt "a bit unhappy". Luckily, mummy provides a nice Monster fizzy drink to help and "reward" the kiddy-wink after the jab. (Then wonders what the fuck has happened and creates a link to the "jab").

[mashman]

It does tend to call into question the claim that no-one has ever been able to replicate Andrew Wakefield's findings though, doesn't it?

Even when they're not looking for it ;)

[TheDemonLord]

Scientists fear MMR link to autism (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html). I hope you've got a massive humble pie to hand out Katman. You might well need it by the sounds of things :facepalm:

Oh look.

An Article that supports your view that doesn't cite sources!

How Compelling!

(you were saying something about not being able to Logic and Stupidity?)

Just for you, though here is some additional info:

The researcher mentioned in the article says research does not prove any connection (http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2006/Wake_Forest_Researcher_Warns_Against_Making_Connec tion_Between_Presence_of_Measles_Virus_and_Autism. htm)

Starting Page 148, under the title 'The preliminary findings of the Walker Study (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Campbell-Smith_Hazlehurst_Decision.pdf)

Key points to note:

1: The study was not published nor peer reviewed
2: They did not have negative controls required for such an experiment

So well done - You've managed to fail epically on 5 counts:

- Original article had no citations
- Original researcher has correct claims that his research shows a causal link
- Research was not published
- Research was not Peer Reviewed
- No negative controls in the study

I like my Pie Apple, with Cream and Ice Cream - you and Katman had better get Baking.

[TheDemonLord]

It does tend to call into question the claim that no-one has ever been able to replicate Andrew Wakefield's findings though, doesn't it?

Cause it doesn't - see above.

[mashman]

Oh look.

An Article that supports your view that doesn't cite sources!


It doesn't :facepalm:

[TheDemonLord]

My beliefs are entirely with evidence.

Then why do you need to use such weak and flimsy evidence to support them? If the Evidence is strong, lets see you present this strong evidence.


That you actually think that you know what my beliefs are show that you haven't shifted position 1 iota :killingme

I don't need to shift my position to see the Snakeoil in your sales pitch.


No, you have the weight of what other people say is valid evidence.

It's called Peer Reviewed - and if we are going to play that game - you are as guilty, if not more so than I - so do you want to play?


You simply ignore, with lashings of irony, the evidence that doesn't fit with your diatribe... even when one guy, Thompson, steps up and claims that they ditched valid evidence on purpose. In fact the same guy goes on further to state that he's seen things that make his toes curl.

Cool - Let him present the evidence that what he says is true - thus far, it's just his word - and afterall, you are so often fond of telling us that Scientists lie for ulterior motives


Not only that, you've even got: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” - Editor in Chief of the Lancet.

Lets for the sake of argument take that at face value - He's saying that people do bad science, it doesn't prove that MMR causes Autism. It also doesn't invalidate Science itself - what he is saying is that we should do Better science. And the cool thing is, when something is published that may simply be untrue (so not definitely untrue) it's not Playboy Bunnies that discover its untrue - it's other scientists going 'that sounds like BS, I'm going to try it'

And you will note - that he doesn't say we should pack in this science malarky and start again


My heart goes out to all of the scientists whose motive is the science, both good and bad. Shame that bad doesn't sell pills/vaccines etc... eh.

So, all Physicists are bad Scientists then? cause they don't sell pills and Vaccines (and according to you, Bad scientists don't sell pills and Vaccines)

(you see, this is how stupid your attempts at 'logic' are)

[Katman]

He's saying that people do bad science, it doesn't prove that MMR causes Autism. It also doesn't invalidate Science itself - what he is saying is that we should do Better science.

Exactly. Let's have better science. (And let's have better reporting of that science).

And fuck whether a pharmaceutical company faces thousands of lawsuits because of it.

[mashman]

Then why do you need to use such weak and flimsy evidence to support them? If the Evidence is strong, lets see you present this strong evidence.

I don't need to shift my position to see the Snakeoil in your sales pitch.

And other assorted subjective baseless and illogical assumptions

What position have I taken? "neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one or the only correct one".

EDIT: In regards to good and bad scientists... I was actually referring to the results of the science being good/bad. Fuckin moron.

[Drew]

Exactly. Let's have better science. (And let's have better reporting of that science).

I gotta agree with this really. This wouldn't even be a five post thread if things were as described.

[TheDemonLord]

Exactly. Let's have better science. (And let's have better reporting of that science).

And fuck whether a pharmaceutical company faces thousands of lawsuits because of it.

Fuck.

We agree on something in a Conspiracy thread.

BRB, I think I hear 7 trumpets sounding and a beast rising from the sea.

[Katman]

While medical journals make their livelihood from the advertising revenue gathered from pharmaceutical companies and research institutes receive a large portion of their funding from the companies whose concoctions they're researching we will not get better/unbiased science.

The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted science.

[Ocean1]

While medical journals make their livelihood from the advertising revenue gathered from pharmaceutical companies and research institutes receive a large portion of their funding from the companies whose concoctions they're researching we will not get better/unbiased science.

The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted science.

The very same logic tells us that anything you have to say about motorbikes is pretty much a crock of shit.

And that's something you supposedly know something about. What does that say about your "insights" into medicine?

[TheDemonLord]

While medical journals make their livelihood from the advertising revenue gathered from pharmaceutical companies and research institutes receive a large portion of their funding from the companies whose concoctions they're researching we will not get better/unbiased science.

The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted science.

Okay then, serious question, I don't fully agree with parts of that statement (but whatevs, that doesn't lead to interesting discussion) - how would you go about fulfilling both the funding requirement for research and creating better science/research?

[Katman]

- how would you go about fulfilling both the funding requirement for research and creating better science/research?

Who died and made me Finance Minister?

[Katman]

The pharmaceutical industry has even bought it's way into educational institutions.

[TheDemonLord]

Who died and made me Finance Minister?

Hypothetically - how would you attempt to address this issue that would satisfy you that Science was no longer corrupt?

[Katman]

Hypothetically - how would you attempt to address this issue that would satisfy you that Science was no longer corrupt?

Abolish money.

[TheDemonLord]

Abolish money.

And that is your only solution?

[RDJ]

And that is your only solution?

Yeah, best not to debate with idiotarians like K'man. They drag you down to their level then beat you with their 'experience' at that level.

[Katman]

And that is your only solution?

I don't have a solution.

But someone better come up with one, otherwise we're stuck with the corrupt system we currently have.

[Woodman]

Scientists fear MMR link to autism (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html). I hope you've got a massive humble pie to hand out Katman. You might well need it by the sounds of things :facepalm:

So you say katman should be handing out humble pie based on a report from the main stream media?

Pretty sure Katman will believe that the Daily Mail is probarbly controlled by jews, governments and corporations inc big pharma so won't trust its legitamacy or impartiality. Unless of course it suits him (and you) to overlook it just this once.

[mashman]

So you say katman should be handing out humble pie based on a report from the main stream media?

Pretty sure Katman will believe that the Daily Mail is probarbly controlled by jews, governments and corporations inc big pharma so won't trust its legitamacy or impartiality. Unless of course it suits him (and you) to overlook it just this once.

'What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.'

"The paper - and the confused interpretation of its findings - caused uproar and led to many parents withdrawing their co-operation for the triple jab. Ten of the paper's authors also signed retractions on the interpretation but stood by the science.".

Based on what the science is pointing to and the scientists have said. Something so many seem to want to ignore... I guess it suits them (and you) to overlook it just this once.

[mashman]

Abolish money.

Fuckin excellent solution btw big man. Logic, reason and common sense approach to stopping corruption. Likely why people want the influence of money out of politics too.

[mashman]

Yeah, best not to debate with idiotarians like K'man. They drag you down to their level then beat you with their 'experience' at that level.

http://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/man-ironing-on-M1.jpg

[Woodman]

'What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.'

"The paper - and the confused interpretation of its findings - caused uproar and led to many parents withdrawing their co-operation for the triple jab. Ten of the paper's authors also signed retractions on the interpretation but stood by the science.".

Based on what the science is pointing to and the scientists have said. Something so many seem to want to ignore... I guess it suits them (and you) to overlook it just this once.

Cool, so you do support the msm. Good to know.

[TheDemonLord]

Fuckin excellent solution btw big man. Logic, reason and common sense approach to stopping corruption. Likely why people want the influence of money out of politics too.

And what about non-monetary forms of corruption?

Cause I can think of various forms of that...

At which point you might have to concede that it isn't money that was the problem: humans are the biggest corrupting influence.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't have a solution.

But someone better come up with one, otherwise we're stuck with the corrupt system we currently have.

Well, that's no fun. But as a tangent - does the prescence of money always result in corruption? And if so - at what level of corruption do you deem there to be a problem?

[mashman]

Cool, so you do support the msm. Good to know.

What's msm?

[mashman]

And what about non-monetary forms of corruption?

Cause I can think of various forms of that...

At which point you might have to concede that it isn't money that was the problem: humans are the biggest corrupting influence.

You are truly stupid.

[Ocean1]

Abolish money.


I don't have a solution.

Perfectly correct.

You don't.

[Ocean1]

Well, that's no fun. But as a tangent - does the prescence of money always result in corruption? And if so - at what level of corruption do you deem there to be a problem?

The point where everyone else isn't doing what he wants them to.

Fuksache, pay attention!

[mada]

'What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.'

"The paper - and the confused interpretation of its findings - caused uproar and led to many parents withdrawing their co-operation for the triple jab. Ten of the paper's authors also signed retractions on the interpretation but stood by the science.".

Based on what the science is pointing to and the scientists have said. Something so many seem to want to ignore... I guess it suits them (and you) to overlook it just this once.

From the scientists and their institute themselves.... rather than the beat up media

http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2006/Wake_Forest_Researcher_Warns_Against_Making_Connec tion_Between_Presence_of_Measles_Virus_and_Autism. htm



"WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – An American scientist whose research replicates a connection published in England in 2002 between the measles virus and bowel disease in autistic children strongly warns against making the “leap” to suggesting that the measles vaccine might actually cause autism.

“That is not what our research is showing,” said Stephen J. Walker, Ph.D., an assistant professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. Walker and colleagues have issued an abstract to be presented at this week’s International Meeting for Autism Research, indicating that a high percentage of autistic children that they have tested with chronic bowel disease show evidence of measles virus in their intestines.

Some observers have said that the presence of the measles virus indicates a strong possibility that the measles vaccine, a possible source of the virus, could have caused the children’s autism. That possible connection has caused a major controversy in the United Kingdom, where the connection was first made in 2002. The vaccine is first given as part of a triple vaccine called MMR – for measles, mumps and rubella – at ages 12-18 months. That is shortly before a particular type of autism (regressive) begins to appear in children afflicted with the condition, which has fueled the speculation about a connection.

Walker says the new research does not support the connection, and he notes that the results have not even been published in a peer-reviewed journal. “Even if we showed association (between measles virus and bowel disease) and we published it in a peer-reviewed journal, the conclusion will be simply that there is measles virus in the gut of a large number of children who have regressive autism and bowel disease. End of story.

“We haven’t done anything to demonstrate that the measles virus is causing autism or even causing bowel disease.”"

:yawn:

[Katman]

From the scientists and their institute themselves.... rather than the beat up media

Andrew Wakefield never stated as fact that the vaccine causes autism either.

He merely suggested that there was a possibility of a link between them.

Much the same as the Wake Forest study says.

[mada]

Andrew Wakefield never stated as fact that the vaccine causes autism either.

He merely suggested that there was a possibility of a link between them.

Much the same as the Wake Forest study says.


"Over 20 subsequent studies and many expert reviews that have shown no association between MMR and these diseases."

"What studies show that autism and IBD are not related to the MMR vaccine?

A large number of independent researchers from around the world, using many different techniques ranging from molecular
biology studies to population based epidemiology, have now shown that there is no evidence of a link between MMR
vaccine and autism or IBD. Many of these studies compare the rates of autism and IBS in large groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The following are summaries of some of the studies performed.
• In 1999, a large population-based study in England looked at the vaccination status of 498 children with autism and control
subjects without autism and found no link between the timing of vaccination with MMR and the onset of autism.
• In 2004 another English study looked at the rates of autism A study of more than 440,000 Danish children vaccinated in the 1990’s compared with 96,000 unvaccinated children
provided strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR causes autism or autistic spectrum disorder.
• A large study in Finland followed almost 600,000 children for 20 years after MMR vaccination and found no evidence
for MMR vaccine-associated autism or other neurological disorders.
• A study of the rates of IBD and autism among 6100 French school- aged children found no association between MMR
and these diseases.
• A study in Sweden in 1998 looking at the prevalence of autism over 10 years found no change after the introduction of
MMR vaccine.
• Two independent groups of researchers in the UK performed epidemiologic studies to determine if there was an
association between bowel symptoms, autism and MMR. Both studies found no evidence for gastrointestinal
problems being linked to developmental regression or to MMR vaccination.
• Additional studies in the US and UK found no correlation between trends in early childhood MMR immunisation rates
and trends in autism diagnosis. For example, a study done in California, showed that although rates of autism have gone
up by 373% over 15 years, the increase in the number of children immunised with MMR has only increased by 14% in
that time.
• A study in the United States looked at patients with IBD born over a 32 year period, found that vaccination with MMR or
other measles-containing vaccines, or the timing of vaccination early in life, did not increase the risk for IBD.
• At least 3 laboratory-based studies by different research groups using technical methods similar to those in the Uhlmann
study, found no evidence of measles virus in the bowel specimens of patients with IBD.

What have expert reviews concluded?

A review by the World Health Organization concluded that current scientific data do not permit a causal link to be drawn
between the measles virus and autism or IBD. An extensive review published in 2004 by the Institute of Medicine, an
independent expert body in the United States, has concluded that there is no association between the MMR vaccine and
the development of autism. Reviews by the American Academy of Pediatrics, The British Chief Medical Officer, the UK
Medical Research Council, Canadian experts, and numerous other scientific experts have stated that there is there is no
link between autism or IBD and the measles vaccine in 5,500 children who attended GPs and were immunised with MMR, and found no evidence to suggest a link between the vaccine and autism."

A potential link that has been explored and found not to have evidence.

http://www.immune.org.nz/sites/default/files/resources/ConcernAutismIbdMmrImac200908V02Final.pdf

[Katman]

A potential link that has been explored and found not to have evidence.

http://www.vaccinationnews.org/content/when-finding-nothing-wonderful

[mashman]

From the scientists and their institute themselves.... rather than the beat up media

http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2006/Wake_Forest_Researcher_Warns_Against_Making_Connec tion_Between_Presence_of_Measles_Virus_and_Autism. htm

:yawn:

As I said to Katman earlier


Even when they're not looking for it ;)

What is it they say about Occam :whistle:

[Berries]

What is it they say about Occam :whistle:
Is it where you stand to throw your darts?

[mashman]

Is it where you stand to throw your darts?

Och aye...

[Banditbandit]

What is it they say about Occam :whistle:

That he didn't shave often ???

[Katman]

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/25/mercks-former-doctor-predicts-gardasil-to-become-the-greatest-medical-scandal-of-all-time/

[Drew]

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/25/mercks-former-doctor-predicts-gardasil-to-become-the-greatest-medical-scandal-of-all-time/

That's a bit of a change in direction for ya. But ok.

Near as I can tell from that piece (which is fucken disjointed and hard to figure out what part of the vaccine is the problem), is its a reach to join the initial infections with the later development of cancer.

At least, I think that's what they're saying. The article is (in my opinion for the purpose of padding without saying anything solid) deliberately written badly.

[TheDemonLord]

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/25/mercks-former-doctor-predicts-gardasil-to-become-the-greatest-medical-scandal-of-all-time/

So the first source for the bold claim is just a letter that cites another book as its source, and the link to the excerpt in the book has no mention of Marica Angell.

Failed at the First hurdle.

However - something different which might provoke some interesting discussion.

What are your thoughts on the drug Addyi?

In particular:

Do you think this drugs side effects are dangerous?
This is a drug that was initially declined by the FDA, only to be allowed after a combination of Corporate and Public pressure (the latter as a result of a clever marketing campaign by the company).
My thoughts are this appears to be a case where Corporate greed and slick marketing have overruled the Scientific evidence, something that I find worrying, and I dare say that you will too (although perhaps from a different angle)

[Katman]

What are your thoughts on the drug Addyi?

In particular:

Do you think this drugs side effects are dangerous?
This is a drug that was initially declined by the FDA, only to be allowed after a combination of Corporate and Public pressure (the latter as a result of a clever marketing campaign by the company).
My thoughts are this appears to be a case where Corporate greed and slick marketing have overruled the Scientific evidence, something that I find worrying, and I dare say that you will too (although perhaps from a different angle)

I've never heard of it.

But do you think it's the only case where corporate greed and slick marketing have overruled scientific evidence?

[Drew]

I've never heard of it.

But do you think it's the only case where corporate greed and slick marketing have overruled scientific evidence?
I Googled it. It's meant to be a drug to make women hornier.

[TheDemonLord]

I've never heard of it.

But do you think it's the only case where corporate greed and slick marketing have overruled scientific evidence?

Nope, Thalidomide springs to mind - Tell you what - go research it and the controversy around it - then let me know your opinion - I am interested to see your take on the situation.

Normally I would provide sources - but that would defeat the purpose in this case.

[Katman]

Nope, Thalidomide springs to mind - Tell you what - go research it and the controversy around it - then let me know your opinion - I am interested to see your take on the situation.

Normally I would provide sources - but that would defeat the purpose in this case.

I'd suggest it's just another example of pharmaceutical drug addiction.

[Drew]

Nope, Thalidomide springs to mind - Tell you what - go research it and the controversy around it - then let me know your opinion - I am interested to see your take on the situation.

Normally I would provide sources - but that would defeat the purpose in this case.Thalidomide worked exactly as it was meant to. Women got pregnant. It was the unexpected deformities that were the problem.

[Katman]

Nope, Thalidomide springs to mind

Selling unsterilised Dalkon Shields (after they were ordered off the American market) to Third World countries is another.

[Swoop]

It's meant to be a drug to make women hornier.

It's a VISA card?

:rolleyes:

[Drew]

It's a VISA card?

:rolleyes:
No. Those work.

[Katman]

So the first source for the bold claim is just a letter that cites another book as its source, and the link to the excerpt in the book has no mention of Marica Angell.

Failed at the First hurdle.

You really struggle with English, don't you?

The first 'source' link takes you to an article on the National Center for Biotechnology site which mentions the quote attributed to Marica Angell and then goes on to provide the source of the quote as Marica Angell's book.

[TheDemonLord]

You really struggle with English, don't you?

The first 'source' link takes you to an article on the National Center for Biotechnology site which mentions the quote attributed to Marica Angell and then goes on to provide the source of the quote as Marica Angell's book.

Is it? Look again.

You will no doubt call me pedantic and splitting hairs (because that is exactly what I'm doing) But the lady is Marcia Angell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Angell) - If they can't be bothered to get the persons name right (and it took me all of 5 seconds) then how can I trust anything they say? Especially when the Quotation is pivotal to their entire Article - if they are that sloppy and half-arsed about the leading quote of their article, then how much more careless are they going to be in the body?

[Katman]

If they can't be bothered to get the persons name right (and it took me all of 5 seconds) then how can I trust anything they say?

Well instead of trusting what the author of the article says (simply because they made a spelling mistake) perhaps you could just trust what Marcia Angell says.

Or should we disregard everything you ever say simply because you don't know the rules regarding the use of capital letters?

[TheDemonLord]

Well instead of trusting what the author of the article says (simply because they made a spelling mistake) perhaps you could just trust what Marcia Angell says.

Well, I might do that - I noticed she had some interesting views.


Or should we disregard everything you ever say simply because you don't know the rules regarding the use of capital letters?

Wait, are you saying that you don't?

[Katman]

Well, I might do that - I noticed she had some interesting views.

So why do you think she might have become so disillusioned about the medical/scientific/pharmaceutical establishment?

[TheDemonLord]

So why do you think she might have become so disillusioned about the medical/scientific/pharmaceutical establishment?

Dunno yet - Haven't read up on what she has to say, I'll let you know when I have.

[Katman]

Dunno yet - Haven't read up on what she has to say, I'll let you know when I have.

Please don't just come back with "well she's clearly just a conspiracy theorist".

[TheDemonLord]

Please don't just come back with "well she's clearly just a conspiracy theorist".

Thus Far, its an interesting read - I don't agree with some of her points (Efficiency of Public vs Private enterprise), Others I very much agree with (her stance on alternative Medicine for example).

But I haven't read enough yet to fully form an opinion.

[Katman]

Thus Far, its an interesting read - I don't agree with some of her points (Efficiency of Public vs Private enterprise), Others I very much agree with (her stance on alternative Medicine for example).

Bearing in mind, of course, that she doesn't dismiss alternative medicine out of hand.

[TheDemonLord]

Bearing in mind, of course, that she doesn't dismiss alternative medicine out of hand.

From where I am up to, she does and she doesn't

She has echoed my sentiments that it should be tested by Science and if validated by Science, should be considered good ol' Medicine. She also says though that there should be no such thing as Alternative Medicine (which is somewhat dismissive out of hand).

[Katman]

From where I am up to, she does and she doesn't

She has echoed my sentiments that it should be tested by Science and if validated by Science, should be considered good ol' Medicine. She also says though that there should be no such thing as Alternative Medicine (which is somewhat dismissive out of hand).

She dismisses alternative medicine when it comes to serious illness (cancer, AIDS etc) but is certainly not adverse to the idea of alternative therapies to enhance good health.

[YellowDog]

OMG - Too much to read here.

My view on vaccination is that society should exclude those whom refuse to come to the party. Kids die every year and you see the grieving partents saying, "we should have had our child vaccinated", after it has died from an, supposedly irradicated, deasease, such as Whooping Cough. Very sad and those spreading misinformation about the risks are contributing towards such unnecssary deaths.

New Zealand has serious epedemics every year, as a direct result of those "we don't believe in vaccinations" people. I know this because my wife works for Healthline and they are advised of such issues, as and when they occur, so she can advise callers accordingly.

Anyone whom is able to understand the facts and actual risks would have to be pretty dumb not to accinate their kids.

There is a great deal of evidence to support significant changes to the way in which vaccinations are managed and the super duper cost saving MMR is too much for some kids to take, without impact on their welbeing. My view is that, if the nay sayers were to focus on the facts, rather than willfully endangering the lives of their children, our country would be safer for everyone.

[Katman]

There is a great deal of evidence to support significant changes to the way in which vaccinations are managed and the super duper cost saving MMR is too much for some kids to take, without impact on their welbeing.

Just so I can't be accused of mis-interpreting your post could you expand on that sentence a little please?

Are you saying that the MMR vaccine can pose a risk to a child's well-being but they should be given it regardless?

And are you then suggesting that they should be given the MMR vaccine in preference to the previous three separate injections given over a period of time (which doesn't seem to have posed as great a risk) simply because the MMR version is a super duper cost saver?

[YellowDog]

Just so I can't be accused of mis-interpreting your post could you expand on that sentence a little please?

Are you saying that the MMR vaccine can pose a risk to a child's well-being but they should be given it regardless?

And are you then suggesting that they should be given the MMR vaccine in preference to the previous three separate injections given over a period of time (which doesn't seem to have posed as great a risk) simply because the MMR version is a super duper cost saver?

There are many aspects to this debate, including more advanced vaccines, however I am agreeing with your last interpretation: that the previous three separate injections, given over a period of time, would be preferrable. You know, like those in the know or with lots of cash, tend to go for. The Americans have done a lot of good work in this respect.

I have two kids on the autistic spectrum. I'm not blaming MMR or anything else. There were autistic kids around in the 60s, when I went to school. Lots of them and that was pre MMR. We didn't label them in those days or treat them like they were made of glass. They usually learnt to change their behaviour, from their regular beatings. And I don't just mean the teachers.

My kids both have photographic memories and could tell the time comprehensively, since they were 3 years old.

"Hey Harry, shall we do some drawing?"
3 year old Harry responds, in an overly loud shouting voice, "Don't be silly, it's 11:52. In 8 minutes, it will be lunch time. There's no time to do drawing - Fatty!"

Teacher to parents: "Can your son tell them time?"
Me: "yes, on the 12 hour clock, the 24 hour clock, annalogue and Chronograph"
Teacher: "Your son called me Fatty"
Me: "It's home time Harry, get you bag."

Lots of positives, but also so many tough issues to contend with. Have been on many courses on how to effectively cope with behavioural abnormalities. Met lots of shit parents, with normal kids just seeking attention.

Of course others would argue that MMR is just a mind controlliing drug to make you see the UN's world governance politics as a positve way forward :no:

[Katman]

There are many aspects to this debate, including more advanced vaccines, however I am agreeing with your last interpretation: that the previous three separate injections, given over a period of time, would be preferrable. You know, like those in the know or with lots of cash, tend to go for. The Americans have done a lot of good work in this respect.

Yes, just like Andrew Wakefield says.

So I'm struggling to figure out why AW (or anyone else who questions the safety of the MMR vaccine for that matter) should be seen as the new anti-christ.

I certainly don't believe pharmaceutical drug choice should be based on the degree of super duper cost saving profit margin it offers.

[YellowDog]

Yes, just like Andrew Wakefield says.

So I'm struggling to figure out why AW (or anyone else who questions the safety of the MMR vaccine for that matter) should be seen as the new anti-christ.

I certainly don't believe pharmaceutical drug choice should be based on the degree of super duper cost saving profit margin it offers.

East one to answer: If you don't vaccinate your kids, you are putting them and others at risk. They could die becuase of your negligence. Why risk it? I would want you banned from bringing your kids to the school my kids attend.

It is very unusual for people in alledgedly developed countries to experience epedemics with such regularity as they do in New Zealand.

[mashman]

East one to answer: If you don't vaccinate your kids, you are putting them and others at risk. They could die becuase of your negligence. Why risk it? I would want you banned from bringing your kids to the school my kids attend.

It is very unusual for people in alledgedly developed countries to experience epedemics with such regularity as they do in New Zealand.

What about the kids that are "resistant" to the vaccination, but not immune to measles? Should they be banned too? And how are you going to test that they're immune to the vaccination? Also, why should I put my kids in harms way for the sake of a minority of kids that have a bad reaction to measles? I'm not anti-vaccination... but you're sounding awful Nazi like.

[RDJ]

What about the kids that are "resistant" to the vaccination, but not immune to measles? Should they be banned too? And how are you going to test that they're immune to the vaccination? Also, why should I put my kids in harms way for the sake of a minority of kids that have a bad reaction to measles? I'm not anti-vaccination... but you're sounding awful Nazi like.

You can test for antibodies.

If the person has the vaccination and does not develop testable immunity, no reason to ban them - note that immunity is hardly ever tested for, only proof of vaccination is requested.

Why should other people who cannot develop immunity or are immunosuppressed be put in harm's way because you don't wish to assume your share of responsibility for suppressing dangerous diseases by reducing the pool of unvaccinated (which is where the virus 'hides out') to the absolute irreducible minimum.

If there had been many more people with your approach Hepatitis B would still be a common danger to NZers; the reason you don't see the illness and deaths from Hep B that we used to routinely see in the 80s is because of the uptake of the Hep B vaccine.

[mashman]

You can test for antibodies.

If the person has the vaccination and does not develop testable immunity, no reason to ban them - note that immunity is hardly ever tested for, only proof of vaccination is requested.

Why should other people who cannot develop immunity or are immunosuppressed be put in harm's way because you don't wish to assume your share of responsibility for suppressing dangerous diseases by reducing the pool of unvaccinated (which is where the virus 'hides out') to the absolute irreducible minimum.

If there had been many more people with your approach Hepatitis B would still be a common danger to NZers; the reason you don't see the illness and deaths from Hep B that we used to routinely see in the 80s is because of the uptake of the Hep B vaccine.

So why not test for antibodies before giving MMR?

I thought the idea was to ban anyone that could communicate measles? If that's going to be the case, then you'll need to come up with a pre-MMR test before you convince me that you're actually doing everything possible to safeguard people. Until then, I'm happy to accept that some simply don't want to run the risk of having their kids vaccinated.

If you can't build up the immunity, stay out of the way, else you're still putting them in harms way from those who are naturally "resistant" to the vaccine irrespective of immunity uptake.

You grossly misrepresent what my approach would be. As outlined above, prove that the vaccine is appropriate for the individual before hammering their immune system with something it either can't handle or simply doesn't need.

[Akzle]

air is good for humans.

i think everyone in town should be injected with it.

[oldrider]

air is good for humans.

i think everyone in town should be injected with it.

Deprivation of air is quite a worry-some experience - it certainly helps to sort ones priorities out! :blip:

[husaberg]

Yes, just like Andrew Wakefield says.

.
Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children’s blood samples.
But Dr Wakefield told the GMC panel that he had made up these details to amuse his listeners. “It was the end of a long and rather exacting talk for the parents, and it was an attempt to introduce a little bit of levity,” he said. “It was a quip, just a story.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323045/

[Katman]

Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children’s blood samples.
But Dr Wakefield told the GMC panel that he had made up these details to amuse his listeners. “It was the end of a long and rather exacting talk for the parents, and it was an attempt to introduce a little bit of levity,” he said. “It was a quip, just a story.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323045/

Did you actually read the article?

If so, what's your point?

[husaberg]

Did you actually read the article?

If so, what's your point?

I read it, he finally admits to fabricating stuff, don't worry that will not change your opinion of him, it certainly doesn't change the scientific worlds opinion of him as a total fraud either.
You are just too inept and too buried in your "there has to be a conspiracy" too actually figure out that bit.

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.

In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud". In a follow-up article,Deer said that Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing". In November 2011, yet another report in BMJ revealed original raw data indicating that, contrary to Wakefield's claims in The Lancet, children in his research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.

Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths, and his continued warnings against the vaccine have contributed to a climate of distrust of all vaccines and the re-emergence of other previously controlled diseases. Wakefield has continued to defend his research and conclusions, saying there was no fraud, hoax or profit motive. In February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions, even though—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked

[Katman]

I read it, he finally admits to fabricating stuff, don't worry that will not change your opinion of him, it certainly doesn't change the scientific worlds opinion of him as a total fraud either.


He admitted embellishing the story about taking the blood samples at his son's birthday party.

Again - what's your point?

[YellowDog]

What about the kids that are "resistant" to the vaccination, but not immune to measles? Should they be banned too? And how are you going to test that they're immune to the vaccination? Also, why should I put my kids in harms way for the sake of a minority of kids that have a bad reaction to measles? I'm not anti-vaccination... but you're sounding awful Nazi like.

I think we are on the same page, however you don't seem to realise it.

If all the kids whom can be safely vaccinated, are vaccinated, then those with special needs will be in a far safer environment and less likely to die needlessly.

[husaberg]

He admitted embellishing the story about taking the blood samples at his son's birthday party.

Again - what's your point?
Embellishing stories is not what exactly respected researchers would do now, is it......
But no one in the scientific community respects Andrew Wakefield so no harm done:lol::killingme:2thumbsup.

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.

In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud". In a follow-up article,Deer said that Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing". In November 2011, yet another report in BMJ revealed original raw data indicating that, contrary to Wakefield's claims in The Lancet, children in his research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.

Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths, and his continued warnings against the vaccine have contributed to a climate of distrust of all vaccines and the re-emergence of other previously controlled diseases. Wakefield has continued to defend his research and conclusions, saying there was no fraud, hoax or profit motive. In February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions, even though—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked

[mashman]

I think we are on the same page, however you don't seem to realise it.

If all the kids whom can be safely vaccinated, are vaccinated, then those with special needs will be in a far safer environment and less likely to die needlessly.

We seem to be, but like I said, it's the mandatory thing that gets me.

Fo shizzle, but how many kids are you prepared to potentially break in order to protect a few kids that may eventually come into contact with those who are immune to the vaccine and that are carrying measles? That there's no pre-test for vaccination is my only real reason for questioning the mandatory thing.

[Katman]

Embellishing stories is not what exactly respected researchers would do now, is it......


It was a light-hearted recounting of an insignificant event.

[YellowDog]

We seem to be, but like I said, it's the mandatory thing that gets me.

Fo shizzle, but how many kids are you prepared to potentially break in order to protect a few kids that may eventually come into contact with those who are immune to the vaccine and that are carrying measles? That there's no pre-test for vaccination is my only real reason for questioning the mandatory thing.

Understood.

Unlike the flag, I guess it ain't yet a big enough issue wothy of some serious investment to address properly :no:

[mashman]

Understood.

Unlike the flag, I guess it ain't yet a big enough issue wothy of some serious investment to address properly :no:

lol... so long as people simply accept the official line, why would anyone need to invest in anything to address any issue that is officially deemed not an issue lol. We are witnessing the slow death of R&D coz it's too expensive :rofl:

[husaberg]

It was a light-hearted recounting of an insignificant event.
Yeah right.........Its not like he had any credibility to lose is it.:weird:

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.
On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.

In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud". In a follow-up article,Deer said that Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing". In November 2011, yet another report in BMJ revealed original raw data indicating that, contrary to Wakefield's claims in The Lancet, children in his research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.

Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths, and his continued warnings against the vaccine have contributed to a climate of distrust of all vaccines and the re-emergence of other previously controlled diseases. Wakefield has continued to defend his research and conclusions, saying there was no fraud, hoax or profit motive. In February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions, even though—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked


But Deer's investigation - nominated in February 2011 for two British Press Awards - discovered that, 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, and the exposure of it by Deer, in February 2004, led to public uproar in Britain, the retraction of the Lancet report's conclusions section, and, from July 2007 to May 2010, the longest-ever professional misconduct hearing by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC).

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 (then about $750,000 US), plus expenses. These hourly fees - revealed in The Sunday Times in December 2006 - gave the doctor a direct personal, but undeclared, financial interest in his research claims: totalling more than eight times his reported annual salary and creating an incentive not only for him to launch the alarm, but to keep it going for as long as possible.

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.





The Sunday Times investigation unearthed another shocking conflict of interest. In June 1997 - nearly nine months before the press conference at which Wakefield called for single vaccines - he had filed a patent on products, including his own supposedly "safer" single measles vaccine, which only stood any prospect of success if confidence in MMR was damaged. Although Wakefield denied any such plans, his proposed shot, and a network of companies intended to raise venture capital for purported inventions - including "a replacement for attenuated viral vaccines", commercial testing kits and what he claimed to be a possible "complete cure" for autism - were set out in confidential documents.


As with the researcher, so too with his subjects. They also were not what they appeared to be. 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.


But on 28 January 2010 - after 197 days of evidence, submissions and deliberations - a panel of three doctors and two lay members hearing the GMC case handed down verdicts which wholly vindicated Deer. Branding Wakefield "dishonest", "unethical" and "callous", they found him guilty (against a criminal standard of proof) of some three dozen charges, including four of counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally-challenged children. His research was found to be dishonest and performed without ethical approval. Five days later, the Lancet fully retracted the paper from the scientific literature as "utterly false", prompting international media interest and further retractions.

"What is indisputable is that vaccines protect children from dangerous diseases," said The New York Times, in one of a string of editorials in leading newspapers. "We hope that The Lancet’s belated retraction will finally lay this damaging myth about autism and vaccines to rest."

Three weeks later, on 17 February 2010, Wakefield was ousted by the directors of his Texas business, and on 24 May - day 217 of the GMC hearing - he was ordered to be erased from the UK doctors' register, ending his career in medicine. On 21 December 2010, that erasure was confirmed after he abandoned a court appeal against the verdicts.


Medical journal calls the fraud

Finally, in January 2011, BMJ, the British Medical Journal, concluded the investigation with a three-week package of disclosures and editorials, including three major reports by Deer: How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money and The Lancet's two days to bury bad news. The package (which involved peer-review and separate editorial checking of key evidence and documents) also included an introduction by Deer, Piltdown medicine, explaining the fraud and comparing it with Britain's most notorious scientific forgery. In editorials, the BMJ called Wakefield's research "an elaborate fraud" and accused the Royal Free medical school and the Lancet of "institutional and editorial misconduct".

http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-deer-mmr-tables.pdf
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

[Ocean1]

lol... so long as people simply accept the official line, why would anyone need to invest in anything to address any issue that is officially deemed not an issue lol. We are witnessing the slow death of R&D coz it's too expensive :rofl:

Um, so long as the vaccination represents less risk than not having it?

Or is "can't tell me what to do" principle more important than the kid's safety?

[mashman]

Um, so long as the vaccination is represents less risk than not having it?

Or is "can't tell me what to do" principle more important than the kid's safety?

I rest my case.

It's, unfortunately in ways, just as important.

[Ocean1]

I rest my case.

It's, unfortunately in ways, just as important.

That's not rested, dude, that's dead.

And you're effectively telling every other parent to get fucked, that their kids aren't that important. And maybe they should be having words with you about that. Or maybe they're a bit more grown up than you...

[husaberg]

That's not rested, dude, that's dead.

And you're effectively telling every other parent to get fucked, that their kids aren't that important. And maybe they should be having words with you about that. Or maybe they're a bit more grown up than you...

I think he should protest by refusing tetanus shots.
Anyone that has watched the excruciating agony of which an animal dies of any of the numerous Clostridium infections, Will agree that would be putting your mantra where your mouth is.

[TheDemonLord]

She dismisses alternative medicine when it comes to serious illness (cancer, AIDS etc) but is certainly not adverse to the idea of alternative therapies to enhance good health.

So I've mostly finished reading her work - interesting Woman.

The general points that I felt she raised are:

1: Everything should be subject to the Scientific Method (alternative Medicine and negative Clinical Trials) and there should be greater transparency behind this

I agree - it's interesting to note that she endorses the Scientific Method and peer review, even if in the same breath she says most of what is peer reviewed atm is biased. Which I note is in contrast with some of the views you have espoused.

2: The Pharmaceutical companies have got too much financial access to the end users and even with declared conflicts of interest, these remain.

I agree in part - In much the same way that I feel that Lobbying is really just a legal form of Corruption, however I am also a realist and accept that there is and will always be a level of Corruption, the discussion point then becomes whether it is too high.

3: R&D shouldn't be done by private institutions, it should be done by neutral parties

I disagree - Private industry (when properly regulated) is more efficient at developing innovation - this is true not just for Pharmaceuticals, but almost all industries.

4: Drugs are prescribed first for an increasing number of conditions.

This is an interesting point on 2 counts - She mentions ED and Social Anxiety - two conditions that traditionally would have been dismissed as 'can't get it up' and Extreme shyness - the way she mentions them I think is a disservice to those afflicted by them. I'll concede that she is probably talking about borderline cases or mild cases - but I feel it is a safe assumption that if someone feels that they are afflicted enough to warrant a Dr's visit, then they feel that there is an impact on their quality of life.

The second interesting point is IMO not though any manipulation of the Drug companies per se, but more a reflection of our societal move to instant gratification - consider Social Anxiety - someone says that you can attend classes, work hard and perhaps after 6 months - a year, you may be able to overcome it, another person says you can take a pill and be fine tomorrow - which would you choose? Things such as the Internet have made Instant Gratification the norm - 20 years ago a Mail order delivery might take months to arrive, Today an Internet Order can be shipped overnight, some sites even being able to do same-day delivery if ordered before a certain time period.

Are the Drug companies leveraging this fact, undoubtedly - but they are simply responding to the Market's desires - I don't think the full blame can be levelled at the Pharmaceutical company here.

[mashman]

That's not rested, dude, that's dead.

And you're effectively telling every other parent to get fucked, that their kids aren't that important. And maybe they should be having words with you about that. Or maybe they're a bit more grown up than you...

Ok.

No I'm not. By all means come and force vaccinate my kids. Makes you nothing more than a Nazi... and as such you will die where you stand

[TheDemonLord]

Ok.

No I'm not. By all means come and force vaccinate my kids. Makes you nothing more than a Nazi... and as such you will die where you stand

Are the Police also Nazis by forcing you to force your kids to wear their seatbelt?

[Katman]

4: Drugs are prescribed first for an increasing number of conditions.

This is an interesting point on 2 counts - She mentions ED and Social Anxiety - two conditions that traditionally would have been dismissed as 'can't get it up' and Extreme shyness - the way she mentions them I think is a disservice to those afflicted by them. I'll concede that she is probably talking about borderline cases or mild cases - but I feel it is a safe assumption that if someone feels that they are afflicted enough to warrant a Dr's visit, then they feel that there is an impact on their quality of life.

The second interesting point is IMO not though any manipulation of the Drug companies per se, but more a reflection of our societal move to instant gratification - consider Social Anxiety - someone says that you can attend classes, work hard and perhaps after 6 months - a year, you may be able to overcome it, another person says you can take a pill and be fine tomorrow - which would you choose? Things such as the Internet have made Instant Gratification the norm - 20 years ago a Mail order delivery might take months to arrive, Today an Internet Order can be shipped overnight, some sites even being able to do same-day delivery if ordered before a certain time period.

Are the Drug companies leveraging this fact, undoubtedly - but they are simply responding to the Market's desires - I don't think the full blame can be levelled at the Pharmaceutical company here.

https://www.asipp.org/documents/PrescriptiondrugabuseWhatisbeing.pdf

[Akzle]

Are the Police also Nazis by forcing you to force your kids to wear their seatbelt?

wait!

Are you saying seatbelts cause autism??

Certainly explains some of the driving i see.

(yes, to answer your question. Seatbelts are gay)

[mashman]

wait!

Are you saying seatbelts cause autism??

Certainly explains some of the driving i see.

(yes, to answer your question. Seatbelts are gay)

If you could stop quoting him I'd appreciate it.

[RDJ]

Ok.

No I'm not. By all means come and force vaccinate my kids. Makes you nothing more than a Nazi... and as such you will die where you stand

Straw Man. I don't know and have not heard of anyone who will forcibly vaccinate children. The consequence of you not wishing to vaccinate your children however should be that they are therefore restricted in their activities so they cannot act as potential reservoirs and / or vectors of infection in e.g. a public facility such as a school.

Same as, you can drink. But then you cannot legally get behind the handlebars or the wheel and drive. QED.

[TheDemonLord]

wait!

Are you saying seatbelts cause autism??

Certainly explains some of the driving i see.

(yes, to answer your question. Seatbelts are gay)

Well, I think that incorrectly worn Seatbelts by pregnant women can cause weird issues if they are involved in a crash.

[mashman]

Straw Man. I don't know and have not heard of anyone who will forcibly vaccinate children. The consequence of you not wishing to vaccinate your children however should be that they are therefore restricted in their activities so they cannot act as potential reservoirs and / or vectors of infection in e.g. a public facility such as a school.

Same as, you can drink. But then you cannot legally get behind the handlebars or the wheel and drive. QED.

I never said anyone had. Strawman indeed. Are you also going to restrict the activities of those who the vaccine doesn't work for too? No, you're not, even though they pose exactly the same risk... much better to punish a child for the decisions of the parent. Nazi Strawman indeed.

Not even remotely close to being the same. Strawman indeed.

I note you didn't reply to the post directed to you. Strawman indeed.

[mashman]

Did they reclassify polio in order to claim vaccine success?

Did Dr Maurice Ralph Hilleman intentionally add a cancer virus to vaccines?

Are there some medical professionals who believe that the best way to fight polio is to stop vaccinating?

Do the medical fraternity know all of these things, and keep it from the public because they believe that it's in the best interest not to inform the public?

Seems like there's a history of lies and deception when it comes to polio. (https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/the-real-history-behind-the-polio-vaccine/)

[Ocean1]

Ok.

No I'm not. By all means come and force vaccinate my kids. Makes you nothing more than a Nazi... and as such you will die where you stand

And yet you are.

:laugh: And, of course you and yours would likewise remove yourselves from the gene pool should any of you be found to be the source of a contagen causing others harm?

It'd almost be worth it.

[mashman]

And yet you are.

:laugh: And, of course you and yours would likewise remove yourselves from the gene pool should any of you be found to be the source of a contagen causing others harm?

I'd almost be worth it.

Nope, I'm not, as my family are vaccinated. I ain't enough of a Nazi to force anyone out of any employment because they aren't vaccinated though.

[Ocean1]

Nope, I'm not, as my family are vaccinated. I ain't enough of a Nazi to force anyone out of any employment because they aren't vaccinated though.

Which is all righteous and high horse and shit. And is the option that would cause the most damage. Potentially huge loss of life.

But no doubt you'd explain your choice to all those dead people, eh?

[russd7]

the reason to get vaccinated is so that one will either not get infected or will be less affected by said infection, therefore banishing those who are not vaccinated is counter productive. By banishing those that are not vaccinated you are therefore making it unnecessary to be vaccinated in the first place.

point 2 being that if the vaccinated person is not exposed to those who are not vaccinated (and therefore by common logic riddled with said diseases) then how do you know that the vaccination even works.

i personally am pro vaccination, but there is still one that i do not agree with, having said that i don't ask everyone i meet whether or not they or their kids are fully vaccinated so that i can banish them from my life.

[mashman]

Which is all righteous and high horse and shit. And is the option that would cause the most damage. Potentially huge loss of life.

But no doubt you'd explain your choice to all those dead people, eh?

No, it's basic respect for the wishes of another.

C'est la vie, potentially.

[yokel]

Which is all righteous and high horse and shit. And is the option that would cause the most damage. Potentially huge loss of life.

But no doubt you'd explain your choice to all those dead people, eh?

The herd needs a good cull.


the reason to get vaccinated is so that one will either not get infected or will be less affected by said infection, therefore banishing those who are not vaccinated is counter productive. By banishing those that are not vaccinated you are therefore making it unnecessary to be vaccinated in the first place.

point 2 being that if the vaccinated person is not exposed to those who are not vaccinated (and therefore by common logic riddled with said diseases) then how do you know that the vaccination even works.

i personally am pro vaccination, but there is still one that i do not agree with, having said that i don't ask everyone i meet whether or not they or their kids are fully vaccinated so that i can banish them from my life.

Wow someone with a rational brain, how very odd.

Do these neurotic pro vaxxers allow their kids to travel in a motor vehicle on the open road or even let them out of the house?

[husaberg]

Do these neurotic pro vaxxers allow their kids to travel in a motor vehicle on the open road or even let them out of the house?

Reminds us all again how long you have been a parent for Scott:rolleyes:
Or even better if you are not one yet, douche...........
http://www.stepfordwife.com/images/mob.jpg
https://www.rosebrides.com/cambodian-brides.html

[Woodman]

Do these neurotic pro vaxxers allow their kids to travel in a motor vehicle on the open road or even let them out of the house?


Drawing a loooooong bow there china.

[Ocean1]

The herd needs a good cull.

And it's good to see you put your hand up there dude, minimal loss to the gene pool an' all.

[Grumph]

i personally am pro vaccination, but there is still one that i do not agree with, having said that i don't ask everyone i meet whether or not they or their kids are fully vaccinated so that i can banish them from my life.

I don't ask either - but if it comes up in conversation that either their kids are not vaccinated or they're anti - I then know I'm dealing with a fuckwit and act accordingly....

[Virago]

Nazi...Nazi...Nazi...Yadda...Yadda...

Have we invoked Godwin's Law yet?

[Akzle]

No, it's basic respect for the wishes of another.

C'est la vie, potentially.

or rather, c'est la mort

[Akzle]

Drawing a loooooong bow there china.

nooooooooooooooot really, dog.
Most people die from cars. Shits all fact-tastical.
(well, most people die from heart disease, but cars are a close second.
Hey.... Vaccines cause heart disease!)

[mada]

The plot thickens....

I searched on bing.com and found the anti-vacc campaign is founded by big pharma/medico as more money is made from someone being on medications costing hundreds of dollars and expensive medical equipment up to hundreds of thousands per patient than injecting someone with a cheap vaccine that costs a couple of dollars per person + 1 or 2 needles.

:rolleyes:

[mashman]

Have we invoked Godwin's Law yet?

Nope, it's all yours. Have a chocolate starfish.

[Oscar]

No, it's basic respect for the wishes of another.

C'est la vie, potentially.

So if I wished to send my unvaccinated kids to a creche with your kids?

Or if I wished not to bother getting a licence to drive?

Or if I wished to drive pissed off my face in your neighbourhood?

Or wished to import some assault weapons and the a copy "ISIS Terror Manual for Big Boys"?

You'd respect my wishes?

[Akzle]

So if I wished to send my unvaccinated kids to a creche with your kids?

Or if I wished not to bother getting a licence to drive?

Or if I wished to drive pissed off my face in your neighbourhood?

Or wished to import some assault weapons and the a copy "ISIS Terror Manual for Big Boys"?

You'd respect my wishes?

yes.but as soon as you fuck up someone elses day i'd non-consensually bumsex you.

[mashman]

So if I wished to send my unvaccinated kids to a creche with your kids?

Or if I wished not to bother getting a licence to drive?

Or if I wished to drive pissed off my face in your neighbourhood?

Or wished to import some assault weapons and the a copy "ISIS Terror Manual for Big Boys"?

You'd respect my wishes?

No problem. There's no guarantee that my vaccinated kids are immune to measles. If they get measles, I'm gonna have to deal with it like my parents did when I had the measles. If my kids die and an investigation pins the blame on your kids, why would I hate you or your kids for it? Like I said, c'est la vie.

No problem. If you're a shit driver you're a shit driver. A license ain't gonna change that. Even if you're the best driver in the world you could still kill someone either through you inattention or someone else's.

No problem. You made your choice. If you kill my kid then yes, I'd be seriously pissed off at you... but it'll change nothing. Wotcha gonna do, ban alcohol? They could just as easily be killed by a non-pissed driver.

No problem. The government seems to be allowed to do it.

Apparently yes.

[mashman]

yes.but as soon as you fuck up someone elses day i'd non-consensually bumsex you.

WTF is wrong with a bullet? Are you a conspiracy theorist :eek5:

[Akzle]

WTF is wrong with a bullet? Are you a conspiracy theorist :eek5:

i never said i wouldnt.
But death penalty has proven to be an ineffective deterrent.
Ass rape on the other hand...

[mashman]

i never said i wouldnt.
But death penalty has proven to be an ineffective deterrent.
Ass rape on the other hand...

... can also be an ineffective deterrent in some circumstances. And I'm guessing this is one of those instances and that you'll receive flowers instead of a visit from the plod.

[Woodman]

yes.but as soon as you fuck up someone elses day i'd non-consensually bumsex you.

How many times a day does your goat fuck up your day? I bet that poor goat can't do anything right.

[Akzle]

How many times a day does your goat fuck up your day? I bet that poor goat can't do anything right.

dunno about that,,, she fucks like an animal :rockon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppOu3ogzL-M

[mashman]

"Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a former British gastro-enterologist and vaccine researcher has been fully exonerated of the charges that he, together with a world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist, Prof. John Walker-Smith, conducted fraudulent tests with children that raised the possibility of a link between the popular MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and onset of autism and other severe symptoms." (http://journal-neo.org/2016/06/08/what-media-hid-in-de-niro-autism-film-affair/)

[mada]

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/refuting-tropes-andrew-wakefield-wronged/


On March 7, 2012 Judge Mitting of the British High Court of Justice quashed the British General Medical Council (GMC)’s finding that Professor John Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct. On November 21, 2014, for the umpteenth time, an anti-vaccine activist linked to the decision regarding Walker-Smith as evidence that Andrew Wakefield was wronged when the GMC found him, too, guilty of serious ethical violations.

The problem is that that’s incorrect. While others have examined the issue, it might be worth examining the decision closely yet again, since several tropes that Andrew Wakefield was wronged continue to come back to life.


Even a cursory look at this list shows that while there is some overlap, the allegations against Andrew Wakefield were more extensive and more serious. In other words, he was charged with actions not imputed to Walker-Smith, and hence not addressed in the appeal by the latter. The most serious ones were probably not disclosing his litigation-related conflicts of interests. Those were actually addressed in Walker-Smith’s appeal – in ways that emphasize the problematic behavior of Andrew Wakefield.


Does Walker-Smith’s decision exonerate Andrew Wakefield? The decision, if read generously, can cast doubt on one set of findings against Wakefield–that he subjected some of the children to invasive tests that were not clinically indicated. It leaves untouched, however, the rest of the charges found proved against Wakefield, and in fact, reinforces several of the allegations–for example,that Wakefield conducted research without ethics committee approval, that Wakefield included misrepresentations in the paper, and that Wakefield did not disclose conflicts of interests. It’s anything but an exoneration, and the charges against Wakefield, as the GMC concluded, amount to serious ethical violations.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in December 2014. It has been revised and re-published in light of the current kerfuffle regarding the Tribeca Film Festival. The zombie trope that Andrew Wakefield was actually innocent has arisen again.


Meanwhile a possible potential link vs. real countless children deaths and morbidities from the epidemics due to non-vaccination that have resulted from his scare-mongering.

[mashman]

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/refuting-tropes-andrew-wakefield-wronged/

Meanwhile a possible potential link vs. real countless children deaths and morbidities from the epidemics due to non-vaccination that have resulted from his scare-mongering.

"In a series of phone discussions in 2015 with US Congressman Bill Posey, Thompson described (all on tape) that while he was a senior scientist at CDC, he and his colleagues, after making a study of the link between vaccines and incidence of autism in small black boys, “scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, and reviewed and went through all the hardcopy documents that we had thought we should discard, and put them into a huge garbage can.” Thompson is quoted declaring, “Oh my God! I cannot believe we did what we did. But we did.”"

[Akzle]

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/refuting-tropes-andrew-wakefield-wronged/





Meanwhile a possible potential link vs. real countless children deaths and morbidities from the epidemics due to non-vaccination that have resulted from his scare-mongering.

your right. Vaccination has improved the gene pool and cured all the//

o, wait on.

[Katman]

Meanwhile a possible potential link vs. real countless children deaths and morbidities from the epidemics due to non-vaccination that have resulted from his scare-mongering.

Countless?

Really?

[husaberg]

The plot thickens....

I searched on bing.com and found the anti-vacc campaign is founded by big pharma/medico as more money is made from someone being on medications costing hundreds of dollars and expensive medical equipment up to hundreds of thousands per patient than injecting someone with a cheap vaccine that costs a couple of dollars per person + 1 or 2 needles.

:rolleyes:

None of the vaccination conspiracy theorists are smart enough to figure out any plots though, novels....... movies or otherwise.............:doctor:

[mada]

None of the vaccination conspiracy theorists are smart enough to figure out any plots though, novels....... movies or otherwise.............:doctor:

:weep::weep: would have thought "big pharma" would have been a drawcard for consensus.

Need to blame the government and "authorities" more I guess - they been suppressing Wakefield theories for generations.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/edward-wakefield


"Wakefield developed his theories of colonisation while serving a term at Newgate Prison for abducting and marrying a teenage heiress. Though he remained on the outer in British society, he had influential backers. In the 1830s he set up the New Zealand Company, a major commercial enterprise designed to organise settlement in New Zealand (and to turn a profit for investors). For the Company, his brother William, in late 1839, made large and dubious land purchases covering most of central New Zealand, just ahead of the settlers it sent out to colonise Port Nicholson (Wellington).


However, most of the land purchases were disallowed when investigated by the colonial authorities.

[husaberg]

:weep::weep: would have thought "big pharma" would have been a drawcard for consensus.

Need to blame the government and "authorities" more I guess - they been suppressing Wakefield theories for generations.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/edward-wakefield

Yeah they used to leave those Wakefield settlers to stave to death even back then.
http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/nelson_city_history.html
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/west-coast-places/page-1

I wonder if there is an vaccination to stop you coming down with conspiracy theories?

[Katman]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_KrpK0rbl9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mada]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_KrpK0rbl9w

Totally agree

[Katman]

Totally agree

So did you watch the video?

Or was your earlier statement that "members of the medical profession should be open to dialogue" simply an exercise in flapping your gums?

[Banditbandit]

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/edward-wakefield

yes - what you think of as your country was founded by thieves, rogues, murderers and pedophiles ....

[Oscar]

yes - what you think of as your country was founded by thieves, rogues, murderers and pedophiles ....

Name a country that wasn't.

[Akzle]

yes - what you think of as your country was founded by thieves, rogues, murderers and pedophiles ....

and still run by them, in fact...

[Katman]

yes - what you think of as your country was founded by thieves, rogues, murderers and pedophiles ....

Careful, this is how rumours start.

Next we'll have fuckwits on here accusing Andrew Wakefield of being a thieving, murdering, pedophile.

(And someone, please, watch the fucking video. We have much more to discuss.)

[TheDemonLord]

(And someone, please, watch the fucking video. We have much more to discuss.)

Sure - right after you summerise the key points from it, with time stamps.

[Katman]

Sure - right after you summerise the key points from it, with time stamps.

Stop asking to be spoon fed - like an autistic child.

Just watch the video.

[Banditbandit]

Name a country that wasn't.

Shangri-La ... :innocent:

[Drew]

I watched the first minute. The interviewer arse licking the film maker made me queezy.

[Katman]

I watched the first minute. The interviewer arse licking the film maker made me queezy.

I agree that the interviewer is a little hard to listen to (thankfully he does very little talking throughout the video) but the two people being interviewed are certainly worth listening to.

[TheDemonLord]

Stop asking to be spoon fed - like an autistic child.

Just watch the video.

I'll watch it when you summarize it, otherwise based on previous experience it will be a waste of my time watching woefully bad Propaganda that doesn't pass basic fact checking.

So to retort - if you can't summarize it, then stop asking me to watch your Propaganda.

[Katman]

I'll watch it when you summarize it, otherwise based on previous experience it will be a waste of my time watching woefully bad Propaganda that doesn't pass basic fact checking.

So to retort - if you can't summarize it, then stop asking me to watch your Propaganda.

<img src="https://www.sayanythingblog.com/files/2014/02/head-in-the-sand.jpg"/>

[TheDemonLord]

...

I really wish I had a 3 hour long video about why Conspiracy theorists are stupid, problem is - that it only takes about 5 minutes to prove.

[oldrider]

I really wish I had a 3 hour long video about why Conspiracy theorists are stupid, problem is - that it only takes about 5 minutes to prove.

Seriously!

With respect, your attitude appears to be part of the problem rather than the solution - are you so obsessed with your Katman thing that you no longer be objective?

[mashman]

Das Video

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/e6/59/aee6596458d1e3cfe0b87b12fab754b3.jpg

[mada]

I'll watch it when you summarize it, otherwise based on previous experience it will be a waste of my time watching woefully bad Propaganda that doesn't pass basic fact checking.

So to retort - if you can't summarize it, then stop asking me to watch your Propaganda.

Summarised in 1 min 58 seconds.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OInj25O3oiE

[Katman]

Summarised in 1 min 58 seconds.

Is that video making fun of autistic children?

:scratch:

[Woodman]

Seriously!

With respect, your attitude appears to be part of the problem rather than the solution - are you so obsessed with your Katman thing that you no longer be objective?

His attitude to katman is identical to katmans attitude to him. That is also part of the problem.

[Katman]

His attitude to katman is identical to katmans attitude to him. That is also part of the problem.

Pretty much.

Except I'm not autistic.

[Woodman]

Pretty much.

Except I'm not autistic.

And he isn't obsessed with sheep.

[husaberg]

I watched the first minute. The interviewer arse licking the film maker made me queezy.

Yeah Drew now you know why people avoid Katman videos.
Ps its not the first time Steve has posted Gay Porn either............:whistle:


His attitude to katman is identical to katmans attitude to him. That is also part of the problem.

Pretty much.
Except I'm not authentic.

And he isn't obsessed with sheep.
Or other guys penis's

Not that it bothers me in the slightest because at least I have a far nicer looking cock than all you dick cheese farmers).

Do you like getting to see other guy's cocks.

Perhaps instead of just sucking his cock .

Have you ever tried dripping Dandelion juice down the eye of your cock?

Are you sucking bogan's cock?

(Bogan must be almost gagging for some moderator cock by now though).

There's that tongue firmly embedded in MT's lower colon again.

Suck my cock John.

I wondered how long it would be before someone started stroking their cock..

[mashman]

Is that video making fun of autistic children?

:scratch:

No. That's the CDC's job.

[mashman]

His attitude to katman is identical to katmans attitude to him. That is also part of the problem.

Yeah, but one can be reasoned with... trolling aside.

[Woodman]

Yeah, but one can be reasoned with... trolling aside.

Really? which one?

[mashman]

Really? which one?

The one that gives a fuck. Pretty simple really.

[Woodman]

The one that gives a fuck. Pretty simple really.

Oh ok, now I know.

[mashman]

Oh ok, now I know.

Which one? ;)

[Woodman]

Which one? ;)

You weren't supposed to ask that..

[mashman]

You weren't supposed to ask that..

I'm not supposed to ask a lot of things :wari:

[TheDemonLord]

Seriously!

With respect, your attitude appears to be part of the problem rather than the solution - are you so obsessed with your Katman thing that you no longer be objective?

Interesting question - there are a couple of things to address:

Firstly is the pattern of Behavior - when discussing a point, there will be some back and forth until typically, I paint Katman into a corner that he can't defend - At which he'll probably do one or all of the following:

1: Call me Autistic
2: Go on a Red Rep spree
3: Tell someone to go suck someones Cock
4: some time later, post an hour (or 2 or 3) long video as if it is a rebuttal to the point(s) I have made

Now - for the sake of argument, lets assume that the video DOES address one or several of the points I have made - There would be no need for behaviors 1-3, secondly there wouldn't be the blind posting of the video - a little text along the lines of 'regarding point xyz, this video discusses it from about 8 minutes in' - This never happens - I'll elaborate why later. Now on this point you could call me Prejudiced, however this is a pattern of behavior that I see repeated time and time again - to the point where I can usually predict when it will occur. There is an Old Fable about the Boy who cried wolf - If you change it to the Katman who posts overly long Youtube videos, the message of the fable is the same.

Secondly (and this will tie in to parts later) is why do I need to watch an entire 3 hour video? - If there is factual content, then we can watch that, determine its validity and then argue on its merits. The only reason that I would be required to watch the entire video would be if it was telling a story - where by the skipping of the beginning would mean the middle lost meaning etc. If it is telling a Story, then the phrases 'Propaganda', 'Preaching to the Choir' and 'Sermon' would be an apt description - which I am not interested in - if there is hard data to be discussed, then we can discuss that on its own. As a further consideration to this point - has it ever occurred that should one of these videos have decent factual content that you could point me to, and I watch that, back check it and find it valid, then that would significantly influence my decision whether to watch the entire video?

Thirdly - this is a piss poor arguing technique (proof by Intimidation) - if the only way you can defend your ideas is by parroting other peoples work, then what makes you better than the so-called sheeple that you deride?

There are a million and one anti-conspiracy videos on Youtube, probably one for every conspiracy video - and if I wanted to, I could simply post them up. And yet I don't. I look at the data presented, argue as best I can on that, when required - go out and find additional data to support my claims. Sometimes that will include a video - but I try to make them short, or at least copy the URL at the relevant timestamp for brevity. There are times (such as Bazant's forumla and calculation of particulate sizes) where I must defer, but on these occassions, no credible counterpoint is made.

Lastly - and this is perhaps the most Katman Specific:

Assume he has watched the Video in full, then he should be able to summerize the key points made in the video, and if he's feeling adventurous, why these are counters to whatever point(s) I am making.
Assume that he's not only watched the video, but has understood it's content and processed it, he should be able to relay that content, and then if need be, point to the relevant parts of the Video.

This is why I challenge him to Summarize - to show that he has both watched it AND understood it. Numerous times he posts, claiming the video as a good source of information, but how can one tell if it is actually a good source of information if one has not fully understood it?

If he has done neither, then he won't be able to - and his refusal suggests that this is the case - I suspect he has watched the video and goes 'yup this agrees with me' and then turns off his critical faculties (if they exist at all) - in effect, the video is preaching to the faithful. This is also why I suspect that he is unable to relay the content, because his brain was semi-off for the video.

And so it's a net win for me - I don't think he fully understands it, I prove my point that he is just parroting someone nonsense, and my time goes un-wasted.

If you say my attitude is part of the problem - then good. Calling out BS ideas and exposing them for the repeated BS that they are is a great thing. If you want to talk about Solutions, then perhaps being prepared to argue a point based on facts and not propaganda might be a start.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh ok, now I know.

Well, I know I don't give much of a Fuck - although I suppose the community service I provide to make sure that BS doesn't go unchallenged could be interpreted as giving a fuck.

I just enjoy the Argument. Sometimes they even come up with semi-credible sounding points that requires investigation and effort to disprove, but that is rare. For the most part, I just enjoy showing that when you strip away all the layers, all Zealots look and sound the same - that there is a big evil (Satan, Pharma, US Government, NWO, Money etc.) and that they have the sacred knowledge to protect against it etc. etc. It's even funnier when they mock the other religious people on the site, and then in the next post, they follow the same playbook.

[Akzle]

I'm not supposed to ask a lot of things :wari:

why ?

[oldrider]

Interesting question - there are a couple of things to address:

Well I asked you the question and received a comprehensive reply as to how you see things from your perspective - fair enough - your perspective is your reality!

[Woodman]

Well, I know I don't give much of a Fuck - although I suppose the community service I provide to make sure that BS doesn't go unchallenged could be interpreted as giving a fuck.

I just enjoy the Argument. Sometimes they even come up with semi-credible sounding points that requires investigation and effort to disprove, but that is rare. For the most part, I just enjoy showing that when you strip away all the layers, all Zealots look and sound the same - that there is a big evil (Satan, Pharma, US Government, NWO, Money etc.) and that they have the sacred knowledge to protect against it etc. etc. It's even funnier when they mock the other religious people on the site, and then in the next post, they follow the same playbook.

Yup, same here. Couldn't give a fat rats about the topic. Its the irony that amuses me.

[Katman]

I just enjoy the Argument.

Bingo.

You're not here to further your knowledge of any particular issue - you're simply here to argue.

Sort of like an autistic child.

Now fuck off and watch the video.

[Woodman]

Bingo.

You're not here to further your knowledge of any particular issue - you're simply here to argue.

Sort of like an autistic child.



Pretty sure he intimated that he was quite happy to further his knowledge. Would be a lot easier if you weren't such a princess though.

[TheDemonLord]

Bingo.

You're not here to further your knowledge of any particular issue - you're simply here to argue.

Sort of like an autistic child.

Now fuck off and watch the video.

Do we Further our knowledge by agreeing with each other in an Echo Chamber or do we further our knowledge by arguing ideas and discarding the ones that don't stand up to scrutiny?

I may simply enjoy the argument - but that does not mean that I am not furthering mine or anyone elses knowledge as a secondary result.

[Katman]

Do we Further our knowledge by agreeing with each other in an Echo Chamber or do we further our knowledge by arguing ideas and discarding the ones that don't stand up to scrutiny?

I may simply enjoy the argument - but that does not mean that I am not furthering mine or anyone elses knowledge as a secondary result.

Fine. Watch the video and let's argue about it.

[TheDemonLord]

Well I asked you the question and received a comprehensive reply as to how you see things from your perspective - fair enough - your perspective is your reality!

I know right - my reality is pretty awesome.

[mashman]

why ?

Ha.


Yup, same here. Couldn't give a fat rats about the topic. Its the irony that amuses me.

What? Millions of kids potentially being mentally impaired by a vaccine? Sounds a little psychotic.

[Drew]

Ha.



What? Millions of kids potentially being mentally impaired by a vaccine? Sounds a little psychotic.There is no link between autism and vaccines, you fucking moron.

[mashman]

There is no link between autism and vaccines, you fucking moron.

lol... mentally impaired. Easy to get the wrong end of the stick innit. Now what did Wakefield actually state again? Without the, oh but he was acting unethically wank? He was looking into something that may well have been important for the wellbeing of the kids. And I think the other guy actually help to treat some of the kids too... but no, pitchforks at dawn coz authority, establishment, media, hook line and sinker. But that's just my take.

[Katman]

There is no link between autism and vaccines, you fucking moron.

Have you watched the video yet?

[Katman]

See, this is what amuses me so much.

Those of you who are so very quick to throw the words 'conspiracy theorist' around (claiming that "conspiracy theorists refuse to consider anything that disagrees with their beliefs") are the worst offenders for steadfastly refusing to view anything that might cause you to reconsider your own viewpoint.

Seriously, can you not see the fucking irony?

[Oscar]

lol... mentally impaired. Easy to get the wrong end of the stick innit. Now what did Wakefield actually state again? Without the, oh but he was acting unethically wank? He was looking into something that may well have been important for the wellbeing of the kids. And I think the other guy actually help to treat some of the kids too... but no, pitchforks at dawn coz authority, establishment, media, hook line and sinker. But that's just my take.

Who is mentally impaired?

"Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK National Health Service, and the Cochrane Library,all found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism."

As for the "well being of children" Wakefield was not only struck off as a Doctor for fraud, he was also found guilty on 12 counts of abusing developmentally challenged children.

And as far as the loony conspiracy theorists are concerned, the most damning bit:
The Washington Post reported that Deer said that Wakefield predicted he "could make more than $43 million a year from diagnostic kits" for the new condition, autistic enterocolitis.

So you hero is a fraudster, child abuser and profiteer.

[mashman]

Who is mentally impaired?

"Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK National Health Service, and the Cochrane Library,all found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism."

As for the "well being of children" Wakefield was not only struck off as a Doctor for fraud, he was also found guilty on 12 counts of abusing developmentally challenged children.

And as far as the loony conspiracy theorists are concerned, the most damning bit:
The Washington Post reported that Deer said that Wakefield predicted he "could make more than $43 million a year from diagnostic kits" for the new condition, autistic enterocolitis.

So you hero is a fraudster, child abuser and profiteer.

:yawn: You've got nothing but a nice sinker there honey.

[Drew]

I'm just being a cock for its own sake.

I will watch the video this afternoon Steve. I'll make more dumb comments after that.

[Woodman]

See, this is what amuses me so much.

Those of you who are so very quick to throw the words 'conspiracy theorist' around (claiming that "conspiracy theorists refuse to consider anything that disagrees with their beliefs") are the worst offenders for steadfastly refusing to view anything that might cause you to reconsider your own viewpoint.

Seriously, can you not see the fucking irony?

And what amuses me is that mashman thinks you give a fuck but in reality you only give a fuck about conspiracies because it gives you some sort of selfish high because you think you are standing up against "the man".


Can you make the sheep picture of lambs please ? I like lambs.

[Katman]

....he was also found guilty on 12 counts of abusing developmentally challenged children.

Dude, he took blood samples from the 12 children (with the parents permission) without first gaining approval from the Ethics Committee.

Stop being such a fucking drama queen.

[Oscar]

:yawn: You've got nothing but a nice sinker there honey.

...and you've got less than nothing.

A serious question - why do you appear to be defending someone who is totally discredited?

[Oscar]

Dude, he took blood samples from the 12 children (with the parents permission) without first gaining approval from the Ethics Committee.

Stop being such a fucking drama queen.


He took samples using colonoscopies and lumbar punctures.

And what about the money?
Isn't that the behaviour you usually expect from "the man"?

[bogan]

See, this is what amuses me so much.

Those of you who are so very quick to throw the words 'conspiracy theorist' around (claiming that "conspiracy theorists refuse to consider anything that disagrees with their beliefs") are the worst offenders for steadfastly refusing to view anything that might cause you to reconsider your own viewpoint.

Seriously, can you not see the fucking irony?

Given the frequency with which you tout the conspiracy theorist strawman excuse instead of discussing the point; the irony becomes inescapable :laugh:

[Katman]

Given the frequency with which you tout the conspiracy theorist strawman excuse instead of discussing the point; the irony becomes inescapable :laugh:

What the fuck is "the conspiracy theorist strawman excuse"?

[TheDemonLord]

See, this is what amuses me so much.

Those of you who are so very quick to throw the words 'conspiracy theorist' around (claiming that "conspiracy theorists refuse to consider anything that disagrees with their beliefs") are the worst offenders for steadfastly refusing to view anything that might cause you to reconsider your own viewpoint.

Seriously, can you not see the fucking irony?

Have you considered that it is not the view but the evidence used to support said view that causes us to reject it?

[bogan]

What the fuck is "the conspiracy theorist strawman excuse"?

The strawman bit (off topic argument you'd rather address) where you blab on about how the conspiracy theorist label offends you, excusing you from discussing the actual points raised. I shouldn't need to point that out, but I guess some things never change... :bleh:

[Katman]

Have you considered that it is not the view but the evidence used to support said view that causes us to reject it?

How can it be, when you refuse to view the evidence?

You stupid fuck.

[Katman]

The strawman bit (off topic argument you'd rather address) where you blab on about how the conspiracy theorist label offends you

Dude seriously, if you really think being called a conspiracy theorist offends me you're dumber than I thought.

In the 10+ years I've been on here I've been called all manner of things.

Conspiracy theorist is probably one of the more polite ones.

[TheDemonLord]

How can it be, when you refuse to view the evidence?

You stupid fuck.

No, I refuse to watch overly long propaganda. Theres a difference.

If there are relevant points/evidence in the video, then by all means, make a short summary of them and the relevant time stamp and I will watch.

If there are peer reviewed studies mentioned in the video, then surely we can just look them up and discuss them without the need of the video.

If there's an interview - then lets read the un-edited transcript and then discuss in what was said, again without the need of the video.

However if there is a story being told, in order to dupe the gullible twits that lap this kind of thing up, then we would definitely need the video.

Oh Wait.....

[bogan]

Dude seriously, if you really think being called a conspiracy theorist offends me you're dumber than I thought.

In the 10+ years I've been on here I've been called all manner of things.

Conspiracy theorist is probably one of the more polite ones.

Strawman

How the fuck do you still struggle with this notion? It matters not whether the offense is genuine or not, just that you derail the discussion to be about a point in which you judge yourself to be better equipped to refute. In fact, mock offense is used in many forms of strawmannery.

[Drew]

I've watched half of the interview now. That's half an hour I'll never get back.

[Katman]

No, I refuse to watch overly long propaganda. Theres a difference.


Ok, start watching at 28:35 and we'll discuss that topic first off.

There's plenty else before that - but we'll get back to that.

[Drew]

Ok, start watching at 28:35 and we'll discuss that topic first off.
God dammit. I watched to 27 minutes before giving up. They just sit there talking about how the CDC covered it up and how some stuff got snuck out. Why don't we ever actually get to see the material that got leaked?

[Katman]

Why don't we ever actually get to see the material that got leaked?

Dude, it's an interview about the documentary.

The information is supposedly in the documentary. (You would have learnt that if you'd actually watched the interview).

I expect they didn't imagine they would have to bring actual documentation to the interview.

[RDJ]

God dammit. I watched to 27 minutes before giving up. They just sit there talking about how the CDC covered it up and how some stuff got snuck out. Why don't we ever actually get to see the material that got leaked?

Thanks for doing this so we know there is no point in watching it ourselves, time saved.

[mashman]

...and you've got less than nothing.

A serious question - why do you appear to be defending someone who is totally discredited?

Nice.

The scientists involved in the study signed the paper off based on the science. Apparently the science isn't in question, it's the way it has been framed, pun intended. I'd like to know the truth, coz science says truth and human say, yeah but bro... stabby stabby injecty injecty

[Oscar]

Nice.

The scientists involved in the study signed the paper off based on the science. Apparently the science isn't in question, it's the way it has been framed, pun intended. I'd like to know the truth, coz science says truth and human say, yeah but bro... stabby stabby injecty injecty

The science is in question.
The results couldn't be replicated.

The guy seemed to be doing it for the money.

[Drew]

Dude, it's an interview about the documentary.

The information is supposedly in the documentary. (You would have learnt that if you'd actually watched the interview).

I expect they didn't imagine they would have to bring actual documentation to the interview.

Then why the fuck did we have to watch it? It adds nothing to this.

[Katman]

Then why the fuck did we have to watch it? It adds nothing to this.

Maybe you just didn't understand the words they used.

[Katman]

The results couldn't be replicated.

Actually, they have.

It was talked about a few pages ago.

Do pay attention.

[Drew]

Maybe you just didn't understand the words they used.

Easy tiger, I understood the words. But you are trying to use it as proof, when what it proves is that three old white dudes sat around for an hour. Fuck all else.