Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Oscar]

Actually, they have.

It was talked about a few pages ago.

Do pay attention.

So Dr Wakefield has been exonerated then?

[husaberg]

So Dr Wakefield has been exonerated then?

He likely got a time machine and declared the fact he was on the payroll of a rival drug company, Also that he hand selected the 9 random test subjects.


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

[mashman]

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

The guy seemed to be doing it for the money.

Yeah, all of it. CDC destroyed evidence that potentially supported Wakefield. The guy who destroyed the evidence has admitted it, but only because he wanted a cut eh. Choice.

[Oscar]

Yeah, all of it. CDC destroyed evidence that potentially supported Wakefield. The guy who destroyed the evidence has admitted it, but only because he wanted a cut eh. Choice.

<Yawn>

Much what I expected you'd say.



So if Wakefield thought he could make $43m from it, why isn't someone at "Big Pharma" doing it.

[F5 Dave]

12 kids. Tell me why anyone would put any faith in any study with such an absolutely tiny group? Tell me that.
Go on.

[TheDemonLord]

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.

Right - I'm 3 minutes in and already rolling my eyes like a washing machine and have stopped the video.

This is Bad.

I had an idea of how bad it was going to be, its considerably worse.

I think what has tipped me off is the monumental Strawman just setup by the guy in the middle in Vaccines vs Drugs. He's either a complete fucking idiot (who has no clue in the difference of operation) or what I suspect to be the case - he knows what the difference is and is spouting deliberate misinformation. I mean its a master class in deception. He may have well be saying something like this:

"Well if you look a Hayabusa and a BMW M5, the M5 has side curtain Airbags, when I found that the Hayabusa didn't even have a Drivers Airbag - I was Shocked! How could they sell a Motor Vehicle without even an Airbag?!? How could the NZTA approve a vehicle for use on the road without Airbags?!?"

The Guy on the left wasn't much better either 'Oh there are studies being done, but we can't tell you about them' - The ol' 'we have proof, but can't show it you' trick - and you know how much I love 'that which is submitted without evidence....'

Sorry Katman - If this is the standard of 'good information' that you accept, It's fucking terrible!

[Katman]

"Well if you look a Hayabusa and a BMW M5, the M5 has side curtain Airbags, when I found that the Hayabusa didn't even have a Drivers Airbag - I was Shocked! How could they sell a Motor Vehicle without even an Airbag?!? How could the NZTA approve a vehicle for use on the road without Airbags?!?"

And this is why I will continue to view you as a fucking idiot.

[mashman]

So if Wakefield thought he could make $43m from it, why isn't someone at "Big Pharma" doing it.

There's not as much money to be made if you cure people.


12 kids. Tell me why anyone would put any faith in any study with such an absolutely tiny group? Tell me that.
Go on.

Because it helped at least one of them identify and treat gut issues in some of those kids. That in itself is not a bad thing. That treatment could be given to help some of those kids, surely that warrants more funding instead of vilification? I see smoke and am wondering where the fire is. You may not. But destroying data seems like an awful lot of fuss to go to if there isn't a potential issue in my book.

[TheDemonLord]

And this is why I will continue to view you as a fucking idiot.

So - no rebuttal then?

I mean FFS Katman - you were the one that championed this video - yet within 3 minutes, you have someone who is effectively comparing a Motorbike with a Car, and then complaining that the Bike doesn't have Airbags.

[Katman]

I mean FFS Katman - you were the one that championed this video - yet within 3 minutes, you have someone who is effectively comparing a Motorbike with a Car, and then complaining that the Bike doesn't have Airbags.

Maybe that's just how your autistic mind views it.

[Oscar]

There's not as much money to be made if you cure people.





Wakefield had no intention of curing people.
Not only did he invent a new syndrome to treat, he had applied for a patent on a single shot vaccine system.

Are you being deliberately evasive or just monumentally misinformed and stupid?

[TheDemonLord]

Maybe that's just how your autistic mind views it.

No, its how anyone with an understanding of the difference between a drug and a Vaccine would view it.

They are completely different, they have different modes and frequency of application, they have completely different methods of operation. They are not, in any way, shape or form the same - and his entire argument is that they aren't tested the same. Well of course they fucking aren't, Because they aren't even remotely similar.

I mean the guy is talking about the Placebo effect in regards to a Vaccine - As I said, he's either a complete Moron who has no clue what he is talking about, or he is being deliberately manipulative.

[Katman]

Not only did he invent a new syndrome to treat, he had applied for a patent on a single shot vaccine system.

Have you read his response to that claim?

[scumdog]

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

More fool them.:facepalm:

So they expected their word alone was all they needed?:shifty:

(Let me tell you how I converted water into petrol - no documentation to back it up though...)

[mashman]

Wakefield had no intention of curing people.
Not only did he invent a new syndrome to treat, he had applied for a patent on a single shot vaccine system.

Are you being deliberately evasive or just monumentally misinformed and stupid?

What do you know of his intentions? What? He just brought kids in to experiment so he could get his name in the paper and some money in his pocket? Then why did he bother with a machine when, as every dumb fucker on here keeps pointing out, he coulda just been paid by the anti-vaccination lobby? Yet Wakefield maintains that he is not anti-vaccination, but as the kangaroo court of public opinion says otherwise, then he must be lying.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't say Wakefield was treating the kids. I said that that was the other fella. Eat some cake you moron.

[Ocean1]

Are you being deliberately evasive or just monumentally misinformed and stupid?

Since when have they been mutually exclusive?

[Katman]

More fool them.:facepalm:

So they expected their word alone was all they needed?:shifty:

You do understand that the interview and the documentary are two separate things, don't you?

[scumdog]

You do understand that the interview and the documentary are two separate things, don't you?

Yup:niceone:

[Katman]

Yup:niceone:

So in other words, they're not asking us to accept it just on their word alone.

The documentary supposedly supplies the documentation.

(As I pointed out to Drew yesterday).

[TheDemonLord]

The documentary supposedly supplies the documentation.


supposedly
səˈpəʊzɪdli/
adverb
adverb: supposedly

according to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement).

Truer words were never spoken :msn-wink:

[Katman]

Truer words were never spoken :msn-wink:

I say supposedly because I haven't seen the documentary yet.

[Oscar]

Since when have they been mutually exclusive?

Good point.
The equation seems to be that the more outlandish the theorem and the further from the mainstream that it emanates, the less supporting evidence is required.

[Oscar]

What do you know of his intentions? What? He just brought kids in to experiment so he could get his name in the paper and some money in his pocket? Then why did he bother with a machine when, as every dumb fucker on here keeps pointing out, he coulda just been paid by the anti-vaccination lobby? Yet Wakefield maintains that he is not anti-vaccination, but as the kangaroo court of public opinion says otherwise, then he must be lying.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't say Wakefield was treating the kids. I said that that was the other fella. Eat some cake you moron.

I know about his intentions because he discussed them with the press, and in fact anyone that would listen.

However, in fact you are right (for the first time), he is not anti-vax.
He had his own replacement for the MMR ready to go, a fact that he failed to mention when publishing his results.
I didn't say he was treating the kids either, I said he was inventing a new syndrome that he could get rich treating.
He tested those kids (which he pre-selected to support his theory) and then told the NY Times how much money he was going to make.

As far as moronic goes - a exhaustive hearing by the UK General Medical Council, a retraction by Lancet and various other publications is not a kangaroo court.

[Woodman]

I say supposedly because I haven't seen the documentary yet.

So let me get this straight.... The last umpteen pages are you asking someone to watch an interview about a documentary that may or may not have some evidence to back your claims, but you haven't even seen the documentary the interview is about. Am I missing something here?

[Katman]

Am I missing something here?

No, that sounds about right.

(Not entirely sure what 'claims' you're referring to that I've supposedly made though).

[Woodman]

No, that sounds about right.

(Not entirely sure what 'claims' you're referring to that I've supposedly made though).

Thought you may have claimed there was some evidence or something. Could be wrong, can't be assed checking.

[Katman]

Thought you may have claimed there was some evidence or something. Could be wrong, can't be assed checking.

So are you asking if there's any evidence of evidence in the documentary?

If I ever figure out where I can watch the documentary I'll let you know.

[mashman]

I know about his intentions because he discussed them with the press, and in fact anyone that would listen.

However, in fact you are right (for the first time), he is not anti-vax.
He had his own replacement for the MMR ready to go, a fact that he failed to mention when publishing his results.
I didn't say he was treating the kids either, I said he was inventing a new syndrome that he could get rich treating.
He tested those kids (which he pre-selected to support his theory) and then told the NY Times how much money he was going to make.

As far as moronic goes - a exhaustive hearing by the UK General Medical Council, a retraction by Lancet and various other publications is not a kangaroo court.

He had his own ready to go :killingme. I'm sure he was going to be able to produce it without having it passed by trials. As for inventing a syndrome... your ironical level just peaked. Nice sinker bro. Like I said, have some cake.

[Oscar]

He had his own ready to go :killingme. I'm sure he was going to be able to produce it without having it passed by trials. As for inventing a syndrome... your ironical level just peaked. Nice sinker bro. Like I said, have some cake.



I suggest that you search "autistic enterocolitis".
Once you've done that we'll discuss his proposal for a vaccine...

[mashman]

I suggest that you search "autistic enterocolitis".
Once you've done that we'll discuss his proposal for a vaccine...

I suggest that you stop throwing up strawmen... but it won't stop you. It wasn't just Wakefield. There was a team theat signed the science off. There is a high ranking member of the CDC claiming he destroyed data that would have proven the link that the three ringed circus said that Wakefield had stated, but didn't.

That's why I :yawn:. You got shares in a vaccination company?

[mada]

Summary of 102 pages so far:

Mass conspiracy on global scale involving all health organisation from UN World Health Org, CDC, Ministry of Health, down to your local GP, all the media, who are controlled by big pharma (not to be confused with "big farmer" - please refer to "Thinking of drinking pasteurized milk thread?").

The evidence has been suppressed with the evidence of the suppression of evidence being clear with a clear lack of evidence.

The logic behind the conspiracy is that big pharma and their henchmen make a lot of money out of their triple in one vaccine...

They would make less money if the vaccines were separate as there would be 3 x amount of consults, 3 x amount of needles used, 3 x amount of separate vaccination preparations, 3 x amount of storage required, 3 x a young child might cry and be upset after being jabbed rather than once, and so on, more likelihood of a child contracting one of viruses that they are not yet immunised against = hospital admission + drugs.

Clearly big pharma or someone would have a lot to gain from supporting anti-vacc, sorry I mean vaccination with MMR.

Which begs the question. If our local clinicians are henchmen puppets in the pockets of zionist big pharma can we really trust them if we come off our bikes? Surely we would be safer looking on youtube and getting Mr Wakefields help.....

[Katman]

It's very interesting what you find when you start digging deeper.

Anyone heard of Trivirix? It's a vaccine that was used in Canada in 1988, which was withdrawn after it was discovered that there was a link between the vaccine and meningitis outbreaks.

It was then introduced in the UK under the new name of Pluserix and only withdrawn 4 years later after (you guessed it) it was linked to meningitis outbreaks.

But it didn't stop there. Five years after it was withdrawn from the UK it was sold to Brazil where (you guessed it again) it was once again linked to meningitis outbreaks.

But hey, at least SmithKline Beecham made a killing out of it. (Pun intended).

[TheDemonLord]

It's very interesting what you find when you start digging deeper.

Anyone heard of Trivirix? It's a vaccine that was used in Canada in 1988, which was withdrawn after it was discovered that there was a link between the vaccine and meningitis outbreaks.

It was then introduced in the UK under the new name of Pluserix and only withdrawn 4 years later after (you guessed it) it was linked to meningitis outbreaks.

But it didn't stop there. Five years after it was withdrawn from the UK it was sold to Brazil where (you guessed it again) it was once again linked to meningitis outbreaks.

But hey, at least SmithKline Beecham made a killing out of it. (Pun intended).

Yes, it really is interesting when you dig deeper... (http://vaccineswork.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/urabe-mmr-in-uk-1988-1992.html)

The Key points being - There are 2 strains of the Mumps virus used - one (Urabe) had a higher chance of causing aseptic Meningitis - (which is not the Full blown Bacterial Meningitis - which is commonly referred to as 'Meningitis' and the one that kills people) - it had an incidence of this minor side effect of about 1 in 10,000. Children who get Mumps naturally (without vaccination) have a 1 in 10 chance of getting Aseptic Meningitis. In the west, we use the other strain as opposed to Urabe.

Something to note - How many people died or suffered serious complications as a result? I couldn't find any numbers.

[Katman]

Yes, it really is interesting when you dig deeper... (http://vaccineswork.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/urabe-mmr-in-uk-1988-1992.html)

The Key points being - There are 2 strains of the Mumps virus used - one (Urabe) had a higher chance of causing aseptic Meningitis - (which is not the Full blown Bacterial Meningitis - which is commonly referred to as 'Meningitis' and the one that kills people) - it had an incidence of this minor side effect of about 1 in 10,000. Children who get Mumps naturally (without vaccination) have a 1 in 10 chance of getting Aseptic Meningitis. In the west, we use the other strain as opposed to Urabe.

Something to note - How many people died or suffered serious complications as a result? I couldn't find any numbers.

My key point being - if a vaccine is withdrawn from a market because it is shown to cause a significant health risk, is it ethical to change it's name and then continue to market it to other countries around the world?

[mada]

It's very interesting what you find when you start digging deeper.

Anyone heard of Trivirix? It's a vaccine that was used in Canada in 1988, which was withdrawn after it was discovered that there was a link between the vaccine and meningitis outbreaks.

It was then introduced in the UK under the new name of Pluserix and only withdrawn 4 years later after (you guessed it) it was linked to meningitis outbreaks.

But it didn't stop there. Five years after it was withdrawn from the UK it was sold to Brazil where (you guessed it again) it was once again linked to meningitis outbreaks.

But hey, at least SmithKline Beecham made a killing out of it. (Pun intended).

So I'm guessing you are using this to support the argument we cannot trust big pharma and the "system".....

On the flip side what you do think was the cause of the vaccine being withdrawn? Most likely research by those same government agencies and researchers that are supposedly covering things up.:facepalm: What happened to big pharma calling the shots?

How about Japan?

They withdrew their own version of MMR after meningitis cases too. Since then their research has shown that there has been a rise in the diagnosis rate of autism despite MMR no longer being used.

[TheDemonLord]

My key point being - if a vaccine is withdrawn from a market because it is shown to cause a significant health risk, is it ethical to change it's name and then continue to market it to other countries around the world?

The key point is whether it was a significant health risk - And from what I've read, both on that article and on these 2 articles on the outbreaks:

UK Outbreak (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8096942)
Brazil Outbreak (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10707922)

Remembering that they did not cause bacterial Meningitis (which is the bad one that kills people/causes major complications) but a lesser condition with no long term implications.

I'll agree its pretty cheeky on the companies part, but after reading exactly what the complication was and the rate of incidence (about 1:10,000) I don't think you can call it a significant health risk.

[Woodman]

So are you asking if there's any evidence of evidence in the documentary?

If I ever figure out where I can watch the documentary I'll let you know.

So what is the point of watching a discussion about a documentary when you can't even watch the documentary that the discussion is about?

its a bit flowery..............

[Oscar]

I suggest that you stop throwing up strawmen... but it won't stop you. It wasn't just Wakefield. There was a team theat signed the science off. There is a high ranking member of the CDC claiming he destroyed data that would have proven the link that the three ringed circus said that Wakefield had stated, but didn't.

That's why I :yawn:. You got shares in a vaccination company?

Strawmen?
Are you saying Wakefield did not coin the phrase "autistic enterocolitis" as a way of describing his "discovery"?
Speaking of straws, this would be the Hooker/Wakefield straw that you're clutching, whereby William W Thompson refuted the statement though his lawyer, describing it as a scientific argument?

The propensity of the conspiracy looney movement to make up whistleblowers or studies or little green men to explain the holes in their stories is laughable (and so are you).

[mada]

My key point being - if a vaccine is withdrawn from a market because it is shown to cause a significant health risk, is it ethical to change it's name and then continue to market it to other countries around the world?

Strains of viruses and bacteria vary from country to country. If the vaccine was working in other markets, should they withdraw it from everywhere?

[Katman]

Strains of viruses and bacteria vary from country to country. If the vaccine was working in other markets, should they withdraw it from everywhere?

Was Trivirix/Pluserix used anywhere that didn't show an increase in the cases of aseptic meningitis?

[mada]

Was Trivirix/Pluserix used anywhere that didn't show an increase in the cases of aseptic meningitis?

Why deflect from the question? You can go look up the evidence that it caused aseptic meningitis in every country used if you want.

[Katman]

I'll agree its pretty cheeky on the companies part....

Yes, very 'cheeky' - much like selling Dalkon Shields (unsterilised) to Third World countries after it was known of the extensive harm they caused.

The pharmaceutical industry seems to make rather a habit of being 'cheeky' like that.

[mada]

Yes, very 'cheeky' - much like selling Dalkon Shields (unsterilised) to Third World countries after it was known of the extensive harm they caused.

The pharmaceutical industry seems to make rather a habit of being 'cheeky' like that.

Rebranding products doesn't change the ingredients or hide the research. The Brazilian govt. would have known what it was purchasing and would have had sound reasons for it - such as assessing what MMR vaccine (3 different ones available) was the most effective for their own population.


"Objective. To compare the incidence of adverse events following the administration of three commercially available measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) combination vaccines.

Methods. A randomized double-blind clinical trial was performed in 1996 that involved a total of 10 142 students 6-12 years of age in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, in Brazil. An MMR vaccine containing the Edmonston-Zagreb, Leningrad-Zagreb, and RA 27/3 strains ("vaccine A") was administered to 2 226 students (21.9% of the total); an MMR vaccine with the Moraten, Jeryl Lynn, and Wistar 27/3 strains ("vaccine B") was administered to 2 216 children (21.8%); and an MMR vaccine containing the Schwartz, Urabe AM-9, and Wistar 27/3 strains ("vaccine C") was given to 2 179 students (21.5%). A control group of 3 521 students (34.7%) was not vaccinated. Both the vaccinated subjects and the control subjects were followed daily for 30 days to detect any clinical manifestations.

Results. Adverse events were more frequent in the vaccinated children than in the control group (P < 0.01). In terms of causing parotitis, vaccine A had a relative risk (RR) of 5.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.11-10.54) when compared with vaccine B, and an RR of 2.33 (95% CI = 1.52-3.58) when compared with vaccine C. Vaccine A was also associated with an increased risk of lymphadenopathy when compared with vaccine B (RR = 3.11; 95% CI = 1.78-5.45) and with vaccine C (RR = 2.22; 95% CI = 1.35-3.66). Vaccine C was associated with an increased risk of parotitis when compared with vaccine B (RR = 2.46; 95% CI = 1.26-4.80). Three cases of aseptic meningitis were detected among the children in the study group, but only one case of vaccine-related aseptic meningitis was identified, among the children receiving vaccine A.

Conclusions. The three MMR vaccines that we studied are associated with different risks of adverse events. We found vaccine A to cause more reactions than the two other vaccines, especially vaccine B. In addition, vaccine A presented both a temporal and a cause-and-effect association with one case of aseptic meningitis. We hope that this study will contribute information that can be used in choosing MMR vaccines with safe and effective strains, especially for mass vaccination strategies."

Biology is not black and white. There are no quick fixes unfortunately.

[mashman]

Strawmen?
Are you saying Wakefield did not coin the phrase "autistic enterocolitis" as a way of describing his "discovery"?
Speaking of straws, this would be the Hooker/Wakefield straw that you're clutching, whereby William W Thompson refuted the statement though his lawyer, describing it as a scientific argument?

The propensity of the conspiracy looney movement to make up whistleblowers or studies or little green men to explain the holes in their stories is laughable (and so are you).

And McBride calls hers GAPS :yawn:
No, that would be the admission of one of the CDC's top scientists in regards to destroying evidence. If you knew who Thompson was, you wouldn't need to ask.

There are no holes in the story. The science has proven that inflammation of the gut, and the known link between gut health and mental health is common in people with ASD conditions.

And so, to summarise your posts whilst you're eating cake :yawn:. You have my pity.

[scumdog]

OK, time to find another conspiracy.<_<

[Drew]

You do understand that the interview and the documentary are two separate things, don't you?Hang on man. You gave everyone shit about not watching the bloody interview, like your argument was gonna be the only possible view having seen it. Now it's just an interview about the thing that makes you right...that you don't even know how to see.


So are you asking if there's any evidence of evidence in the documentary?

If I ever figure out where I can watch the documentary I'll let you know.
You've got nothing here, choose some new evidence and move on.

[Katman]

Hang on man. You gave everyone shit about not watching the bloody interview, like your argument was gonna be the only possible view having seen it. Now it's just an interview about the thing that makes you right...that you don't even know how to see.

Sorry Drew, but you'll have to try to make a bit more sense than that if you want me to understand what you're getting at.

[Woodman]

Sorry Drew, you'll have to make a bit more sense than that if you want me to understand what you're getting at.

Give us a break, the video is an interview about a documentary that can't be found.

Tell us what is the point of watching it.

[Drew]

Sorry Drew, but you'll have to try to make a bit more sense than that if you want me to understand what you're getting at.

You know what I'm saying. There was nothing in the interview to back up what they're saying. Or what you're saying.

Let me pose this differently. Is it more likely that a convicted fraudster is lying to try and make money, or tens of thousands of people are covering up for a company so it can make money?

[husaberg]

Hang on man. You gave everyone shit about not watching the bloody interview, like your argument was gonna be the only possible view having seen it. Now it's just an interview about the thing that makes you right...that you don't even know how to see.


You've got nothing here, choose some new evidence and move on.

Drew you are trying to bring logic into a discussion with Katman
Just try and remember what scummy said.



Katman 'evidence' = vague generalisations and obscure physical estimates, often gleened from agenda-focussed internet sites.
Some people would call it gossip. But I'm not that nasty

[Drew]

Drew you are trying to bring logic into a discussion with Katman
Just try and remember what scummy said.

Honestly man, I'm just trying to keep up with the discussion. I'm probably scraping the bottom of the average on an IQ chart, and it makes it harder when I gotta think about redundant shit to boot.

[Katman]

Give us a break, the video is an interview about a documentary that can't be found.

Tell us what is the point of watching it.

It's an interview with the producer and director that gives an outline of the information the documentary contains.

What's hard to understand about that?

[Drew]

It's an interview with the producer and director that gives an outline of the information the documentary contains.

What's hard to understand about that?

"There were 12 other doctors doing this research". They say that roughly 1.73million times in the interview. Where the fuck are those dudes? Why aren't they telling us how sound the whole thing was, and that there is a link between autism and the MMR vaccine?

[Woodman]

It's an interview with the producer and director that gives an outline of the information the documentary contains.

What's hard to understand about that?


I'll just leave this here........:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::la ugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Katman]

I'll just leave this here........:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::la ugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Are you and Drew trying to out-stupid each other tonight?

[Drew]

It's an interview with the producer and director that gives an outline of the information the documentary contains.

What's hard to understand about that?
Tell ya what though. The director believes what he's saying, there's not much doubt about that. Wakefield sits there and let's the other cunt sell the story, every time he can avoid a question.

[TheDemonLord]

It's an interview with the producer and director that gives an outline of the information the documentary contains.

What's hard to understand about that?

So based on what I watched and your statement above I can rest assured that the documentary will be either cataclysmicly wrong or deliberately deceptive propaganda.

I suppose in that sense - it was worth watching - if only to provide an objective yardstick by which to show how delusionally retarded the anti-vaccination crowd is.

[Drew]

Are you and Drew trying to out-stupid each other tonight?

I'm asking questions, and getting fuck all in the way of answers. If that makes me more stupid than normal, so fucken be it.

[Woodman]

Are you and Drew trying to out-stupid each other tonight?

Yes its me and Drew that are the stupid ones......

[Katman]

Tell ya what though. The director believes what he's saying, there's not much doubt about that. Wakefield sits there and let's the other cunt sell the story, every time he can avoid a question.

Dude, have you even looked for any of the videos of Andrew Wakefield presenting lectures on this issue?

The guy can talk for an hour and a half by himself and every second display a belief in what he's saying that can't be shaken.

The fact that you think you know his character without listening to him shows you up as an idiot.

Stop and think before you hit the post button.

[Katman]

.... the anti-vaccination crowd is.

Why do you keep saying that?

You know full well this isn't an 'anti-vaccination' issue.

Andrew Wakefield has made that perfectly clear right from the start.

[husaberg]

Honestly man, I'm just trying to keep up with the discussion. I'm probably scraping the bottom of the average on an IQ chart, and it makes it harder when I gotta think about redundant shit to boot.

All you need to know about Wakefield is he is a proven fraud, his data has been proven time and again to fraudulent.

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

All you need to know about Katman is he's a Pidgeon.

322445

[Drew]

Dude, have you even looked for any of the videos of Andrew Wakefield presenting lectures on this issue?

The guy can talk for an hour and a half by himself and every second display a belief in what he's saying that can't be shaken.

The fact that you think you know his character without listening to him shows you up as an idiot.

Stop and think before you hit the post button.
No, I haven't found occasion to listen to a conman sell his story.

What I was pointing out ya thick cunt, is that Wakefield has done a fucking grand job of pulling convincing the other dude. He has completely forgotten that Wakefield
Is a convicted fraud.

That's the man you're praising as the second fucken coming. Do you get that? He's as credible as snake in the hen house with a rubber glove atop it's head.

[Woodman]

The guy can talk for an hour and a half by himself and every second display a belief in what he's saying that can't be shaken.

Handy gift when lecturing to the gullible.

[Katman]

No, I haven't found occasion to listen to a conman sell his story.

What I was pointing out ya thick cunt, is that Wakefield has done a fucking grand job of pulling convincing the other dude. He has completely forgotten that Wakefield
Is a convicted fraud.

That's the man you're praising as the second fucken coming. Do you get that? He's as credible as snake in the hen house with a rubber glove atop it's head.

Drew, you're embarrassing yourself.

[husaberg]

Why do you keep saying that?

You know full well this isn't an 'anti-vaccination' issue.

Andrew Wakefield has made that perfectly clear right from the start.
Odd he never mentioned any of this then, you know for the sake of clarity..........

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.

[Drew]

Drew, you're embarrassing yourself.

Actually, I'm just trying to fuck you off. Since for some reason your only reply to anything I say or ask is to call me thick. It's getting a bit old now, so I'll revert to similar in the hope that this pointless peace of shit you're stroking your ego with is put in PD.

Now answer questions with something we can actually give some thought to, or fuck right off cunt!

[Katman]

Actually, I'm just trying to fuck you off. Since for some reason your only reply to anything I say or ask is to call me thick. It's getting a bit old now, so I'll revert to similar in the hope that this pointless peace of shit you're stroking your ego with is put in PD.

Now answer questions with something we can actually give some thought to, or fuck right off cunt!

Do you really think the fact that Andrew Wakefields 'trial' before the GMC was the longest in UK medical history indicates a simple "he's a fraudster" verdict?

He was struck off for a perceived conflict of interest and for not obtaining approval from the Ethics Committee.

He was not struck off for fraud.

[husaberg]

Do you really think the fact that Andrew Wakefields 'trial' before the GMC was the longest in UK medical history indicates a simple "he's a fraudster" verdict?

He was struck off for a perceived conflict of interest and for not obtaining approval from the Ethics Committee.

He was not struck off for fraud.

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.

The General Medical Council ruled he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in doing his research.


The Panel is satisfied that your conduct at paragraph 32.a would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest.


The verdict, read out by panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar, criticised Dr Wakefield for the invasive tests, such as spinal taps, that were carried out on children and which were found to be against their best clinical interests.


The panel said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London’s Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests.


He also said Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.



In reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected
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.

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

[bogan]

He's as credible as snake in the hen house with a rubber glove atop it's head.

Now how the fuck would that stay on there? no ears or neck to keep it from sliding around.

Maybe if it were one of those fancy snakes with the beards you could tie it around that though.

Better yet, get an ouroborus (sp) one, can't slide off either end that way. In fact, the self consumption is a good metaphor for the morons who think their desire to believe something or conviction in its belief somehow negates the need to provide evidence for it.

[Drew]

Do you really think the fact that Andrew Wakefields 'trial' before the GMC was the longest in UK medical history indicates a simple "he's a fraudster" verdict?

He was struck off for a perceived conflict of interest and for not obtaining approval from the Ethics Committee.

He was not struck off for fraud.
Longest trial ya say? Interesting. Stands to reason that he was struck off by a panel of the best ever informed then.

You can argue against that till you're blue in the fucken face, but that's the bottom line no matter how ya spin it.

So tell me again why can I not doubt everything he says. Why must I swallow his story whole, when the ENTIRE FUCKING MEDICAL PROFESSION discounts him.

[Katman]

So tell me again why can I not doubt everything he says. Why must I swallow his story whole, when the ENTIRE FUCKING MEDICAL PROFESSION discounts him.

Drew, you can do anything you like.

You're only answerable to yourself.

[Drew]

Now how the fuck would that stay on there? no ears or neck to keep it from sliding around.

Maybe if it were one of those fancy snakes with the beards you could tie it around that though.

Better yet, get an ouroborus (sp) one, can't slide off either end that way. In fact, the self consumption is a good metaphor for the morons who think their desire to believe something or conviction in its belief somehow negates the need to provide evidence for it.
Don't focus on the wrong part of the story. The aliens glued the glove on for him.

[bogan]

Don't focus on the wrong part of the story. The aliens glued the glove on for him.

That makes sense, I think I even seen part of an interview about a documentary on it. So it must be true :killingme

[Ocean1]

Better yet, get an ouroborus (sp) one, can't slide off either end that way. In fact, the self consumption is a good metaphor for the morons who think their desire to believe something or conviction in its belief somehow negates the need to provide evidence for it.

Explains a lot. Like the continuous references to sucking cock. And the petulant demeanor from eating shit all day. The rampant narcissism...

[mada]

Dude, have you even looked for any of the videos of Adolf Hitler presenting lectures on this issue?

The guy can talk for an hour and a half by himself and every second display a belief in what he's saying that can't be shaken.

The fact that you think you know his character without listening to him shows you up as an idiot.

Stop and think before you hit the post button.

Spot on mate!:niceone:

[Katman]

Spot on mate!:niceone:

Please tell me you're not a true indication of the level of 'rationality' of the medical profession.

[mada]

Please tell me you're not a true indication of the level of rationality of the medical profession.

Aww you just have to get personal. :baby:

[Akzle]

Spots are on the stove mate!:niceone:

i'll be along shortly

[Katman]

Aww you just have to get personal. :baby:

Well I seem to remember you stating that the medical profession needs to be open to dialogue.

It appears you were talking shit.

[mada]

Well I seem to remember you stating that the medical profession needs to be open to dialogue.

It appears you were talking shit.

Still waiting for the answers to questions and responses to valid points. 10/10 effort for moving on and distraction :niceone:

[TheDemonLord]

Why do you keep saying that?

Cause it's true.


You know full well this isn't an 'anti-vaccination' issue.

Andrew Wakefield has made that perfectly clear right from the start.

Yes, because I always trust the word of a Conman.

The net result is a anti-vaccination, and the net result of that is children dieing from preventable diseases.

If we want to talk about Pharmaceutical company ethics - Fine. Lets talk about that. But when the Director/producer/idiot person in that interview says one of the most monumentally Stupid, Dangerous and deceptive things I think I've ever heard, You'll forgive me if I call it a spade, regardless of what type of Garden implement they try and dress it up as.

[Katman]

Cause it's true.



Yes, because I always trust the word of a Conman.

The net result is a anti-vaccination, and the net result of that is children dieing from preventable diseases.

If we want to talk about Pharmaceutical company ethics - Fine. Lets talk about that. But when the Director/producer/idiot person in that interview says one of the most monumentally Stupid, Dangerous and deceptive things I think I've ever heard, You'll forgive me if I call it a spade, regardless of what type of Garden implement they try and dress it up as.

Then you're a fuckwit.

[TheDemonLord]

Then you're a fuckwit.

Says the person who champions a video made by either demonstrable Morons or Demonstrable Con-men.

[Katman]

If we want to talk about Pharmaceutical company ethics - Fine.

Ok, let's talk about the ethics of an industry that will crucify anyone who dares to speak out against them.

[TheDemonLord]

Ok, let's talk about the ethics of an industry that will crucify anyone who dares to speak out against them.

Okay then, first point of Order - Can you draw a distinction between legitimate action to defend against Conmen and nutjobs who have a chip on their shoulder and verifiable bad practices by the Pharmaceutical companies - ie they broke the laws of the countries where they sold their products?

[mada]

https://s31.postimg.org/6zin785u3/Suppressed_Documents.jpg

[Woodman]

Ok, let's talk about the ethics of an industry that will crucify anyone who dares to speak out against them.

So if someone spoke out about your business, you would be happy to let them do that? You wouldn't try to defend yourself or discredit them?:gob:

[Oscar]

And McBride calls hers GAPS :yawn:
No, that would be the admission of one of the CDC's top scientists in regards to destroying evidence. If you knew who Thompson was, you wouldn't need to ask.

There are no holes in the story. The science has proven that inflammation of the gut, and the known link between gut health and mental health is common in people with ASD conditions.

And so, to summarise your posts whilst you're eating cake :yawn:. You have my pity.

I know exactly who Thompson is.
However, I no longer care.
You have proved conclusively that you will grasp any straw in some ego pumping attempt to be alternative and arch.
You have also proved that you are a complete waste of time.
Disappointing, in fact.

[F5 Dave]

There's not as much money to be made if you cure people.



Because it helped at least one of them identify and treat gut issues in some of those kids. That in itself is not a bad thing. That treatment could be given to help some of those kids, surely that warrants more funding instead of vilification? I see smoke and am wondering where the fire is. You may not. But destroying data seems like an awful lot of fuss to go to if there isn't a potential issue in my book.
So you completely missed the point and none of the other disciples (am I supposed to call them sheeple?) were game to answer.

Because its not defendable.

A study of just 12 people, preselected or otherwise, is just so statistically irrelevant to warrent any credibility. Yet 20 years on people are still wibbling on about this.

[bogan]

https://s31.postimg.org/6zin785u3/Suppressed_Documents.jpg

Not enough neckbeardists...


Ok, let's talk about the ethics of an industry that will crucify anyone who dares to speak out against them.

Conspiracy theorism?

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

[Katman]

So if someone spoke out about your business, you would be happy to let them do that? You wouldn't try to defend yourself or discredit them?:gob:

Well the simple answer to that question is that by operating my business with unimpeachable honesty and integrity I don't have to worry about customers trying to expose dodgy dealings.

If more businesses operated on a similar level there'd be a whole lot less unhappy customers out there.

[Drew]

.

If more businesses operated on a similar level there'd be a whole lot less unhappy customers out there.

No there wouldn't. The bulk of those unhappy customers are fucken idiots with no idea about how business works.

[mashman]

I know exactly who Thompson is.
However, I no longer care.
You have proved conclusively that you will grasp any straw in some ego pumping attempt to be alternative and arch.
You have also proved that you are a complete waste of time.
Disappointing, in fact.

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... I told you to have some cake. You wouldn't listen. Not my problem. My ego did love the cake though.


So you completely missed the point and none of the other disciples (am I supposed to call them sheeple?) were game to answer.

Because its not defendable.

A study of just 12 people, preselected or otherwise, is just so statistically irrelevant to warrent any credibility. Yet 20 years on people are still wibbling on about this.

Perhaps we're not defending the known bias in Wakefields research? Perhaps we find that the scientific findings, signed off by more than 1 in the Wakefield research, not the conclusion, but what they actually found, of more concern than the methodology that was used to prove the findings. Add the Thompson smoke and then... argue over Wakefield, malpractice, study bias, absolutely anything but what the science actually says and what it is pointing too.

Me gotz to say I find it all a little ironicals... and as I'm retired, I may well go back to bed... might even stroke myself thinking of Oscar covered in cake telling me what I should be thinking too. Oh heaven.

[Oscar]

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... I told you to have some cake. You wouldn't listen. Not my problem. My ego did love the cake though.



Perhaps we're not defending the known bias in Wakefields research? Perhaps we find that the scientific findings, signed off by more than 1 in the Wakefield research, not the conclusion, but what they actually found, of more concern than the methodology that was used to prove the findings. Add the Thompson smoke and then... argue over Wakefield, malpractice, study bias, absolutely anything but what the science actually says and what it is pointing too.

Me gotz to say I find it all a little ironicals... and as I'm retired, I may well go back to bed... might even stroke myself thinking of Oscar covered in cake telling me what I should be thinking too. Oh heaven.

As I thought, literally a delusional wanker...

[Ocean1]

Well the simple answer to that question is that by operating my business with unimpeachable honesty and integrity I don't have to worry about customers trying to expose dodgy dealings.

If more businesses operated on a similar level there'd be a whole lot less unhappy customers out there.

I'm sure I heard someone say there was a report about a documentary proving your business was shite....

[TheDemonLord]

I'm sure I heard someone say there was a report about a documentary proving your business was shite....

Was there a discussion about the Documentary? Because discussions on Documentaries are the best form of Evidence.

[Katman]

I'm sure I heard someone say there was a report about a documentary proving your business was shite....

And I bet if such a report existed you'd be all over it like a rash.

[Woodman]

Well the simple answer to that question is that by operating my business with unimpeachable honesty and integrity I don't have to worry about customers trying to expose dodgy dealings.

If more businesses operated on a similar level there'd be a whole lot less unhappy customers out there.

You are doing that diverting the question thing again, so I will rephrase.
What if someone incorrectly ran your business down? would you defend yourself or discredit them?

[Katman]

You are doing that diverting the question thing again, so I will rephrase.
What if someone incorrectly ran your business down? would you defend yourself or discredit them?

I would offer my side of the story and let my customers decide for themselves whether they believed the other person.

But you're making the assumption that Andrew Wakefield's findings are incorrect.

The truth is, you wouldn't have a fucking clue.

And don't give me the old "99% of the medical profession say he's wrong".

Unless they've carried out the study themselves they're only parrotting what they've been told to believe.

[Woodman]

Unless they've carried out the study themselves they're only parrotting what they've been told to believe.


As do you "I am tho hip " internet rebels.

[Woodman]

Was there a discussion about the Documentary? Because discussions on Documentaries are the best form of Evidence.

You do realise that we are involved in a discussion about a discussion about a documentary that nobody here has seen.

I think maybe someone should look into the whys and start a discussion about why we are having a discussion about a discussion about a documentary that nobody here has seen.:brick:

[Katman]

As do you "I am tho hip " internet rebels.

Except I've never claimed to be certain that Andrew Wakefield is right.

I've merely suggested that, in light of the fact that the CDC appears to have committed fraud in destroying data that could support Andrew Wakefield's findings, further investigation into the matter is required.

As Andrew Wakefield states, if there is the slightest doubt as to the safety of a vaccine an excess of caution should be exercised.

If going back to the 3 separate shots is not an option then pushing the vaccine schedule out to 36 months instead of 12 months should be the next step.

[Ocean1]

And I bet if such a report existed you'd be all over it like a rash.

Nah, that's your game, I've got nothing but contempt for try hard followers of conspiracy fashion.

[TheDemonLord]

I've merely suggested that, in light of the fact that the CDC appears to have committed fraud in destroying data that could support Andrew Wakefield's findings, further investigation into the matter is required.

What Fact?

There is one person that says they (The CDC) committed fraud. I'm not saying he's wrong per se, but I am saying that those bold accusations need some equally strong evidence to back them up - and as of yet anything remotely resembling evidence, let alone Strong evidence has not been forthcoming.


As Andrew Wakefield states, if there is the slightest doubt as to the safety of a vaccine an excess of caution should be exercised.

The problem is that Mr Wakefield is a Fraud and was Struck off by the GMC - thus any opinion he has is worthless, but any Medical opinion is less than worthless.


If going back to the 3 separate shots is not an option then pushing the vaccine schedule out to 36 months instead of 12 months should be the next step.

And why do you suggest that? What Medical training or Data do you have to suggest that 36 months is safer than 12?

(and FYI - it's not 12 months - source: My Daughter has had her MMR recently - and she's 15 months)

[Katman]

The problem is that Mr Wakefield is a Fraud and was Struck off by the GMC - thus any opinion he has is worthless, but any Medical opinion is less than worthless.

And of course you'll be man enough to make a full retraction and apology for that statement should it ever turn out to be incorrect, won't you?

[Katman]

(Just a little sideline lol).

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/198081-2016-06-03-cdc-admits-flu-vaccine-does-not-work-influenza-outbreak-on.htm

[TheDemonLord]

And of course you'll be man enough to make a full retraction and apology for that statement should it ever turn out to be incorrect, won't you?

Why?

He's been Struck off (passed tense).

Thus, that statement is and will always be correct.

I might apologize for calling him a Fraud, but it would take some serious evidence that he wasn't trying to scam the system and get rich quick to convince me otherwise. And to be frank, given the weight of evidence against him, I don't think such evidence would be able to be produced without going back in time and being able to see his thoughts/intentions (because all of his actions say otherwise)

[Katman]

Why?

He's been Struck off (passed tense).

Thus, that statement is and will always be correct.

I might apologize for calling him a Fraud, but it would take some serious evidence that he wasn't trying to scam the system and get rich quick to convince me otherwise. And to be frank, given the weight of evidence against him, I don't think such evidence would be able to be produced without going back in time and being able to see his thoughts/intentions (because all of his actions say otherwise)

So is Dr John Walker-Smith also a fraud?

'Cos he was struck off too.

[TheDemonLord]

(Just a little sideline lol).

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/198081-2016-06-03-cdc-admits-flu-vaccine-does-not-work-influenza-outbreak-on.htm

Well, it is funny, but only because it shows that Conspiracy theorists don't appear to be able to read properly.

[TheDemonLord]

So is Dr John Walker-Smith also a fraud?

'Cos he was struck off too.

Was he included in my statement? No. No he was not.

[bogan]

Unless they've carried out the study themselves they're only parrotting what they've been told to believe.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/68975437.jpg

[RDJ]

Was he included in my statement? No. No he was not.

The Walker Smith reinstatement does not exonerate Wakefield. Walker Smith was named as the lead author on the original paper; Walker Smith successfully (in this narrow context) defended himself by pointing out that he wasn't aware of the conflicts of interest that Wakefield possessed, especially in regard to Wakefield's ability to profit from the consequences of his research, when he (Walker Smith) agreed to co-author the paper.

The GMC’s decision focused on the treatment of children subjected to invasive procedures without ethics approval and on misrepresentations related to conflicts of interests and ethics approval. The paper stated there was an Ethics Committee approval when there wasn’t one; and that the paper – and Wakefield and Walker-Smith – represented the children’s referrals as routine when they were not. This finding was justified.

"Professor Walker-Smith should not have allowed a paper to be published under his name without ensuring its accuracy. Whether or not that amounted to professional misconduct should have depended on the panel’s view of the truthfulness and accuracy of the evidence of Dr. Murch about the meeting between him, Professor Walker-Smith, Dr. Thomson and Dr. Wakefield after the discussion between researchers and clinicians of the last draft of the paper seen by Professor Walker-Smith. If it was, Professor Walker-Smith’s omission could properly have been characterised as an error of judgment: it was not misconduct for him, Dr. Murch or Dr. Thomson to invite a research colleague, Dr. Wakefield, to correct a misleading statement in the draft and leave it to him to do so. Because the panel made no finding on that issue, its reasoning is inadequate."

In other words, if the panel believed Walker-Smith’s claims, his behavior was not misconduct, just misplaced trust: it was an error to trust Andrew Wakefield to properly change the misleading statement. The problem is that the panel did not make a clear finding on whether it believed Walker-Smith’s version. But the implication is clear–if the panel accepted this version, it would exonerate Walker-Smith from misconduct, but not Wakefield, who took on himself responsibility for accuracy and then published an untrue statement. Quite the converse: it presents Walker-Smith as a victim of Wakefield’s untrustworthiness.

Walker Smith's successful appeal was successful not as a result of an proving himself innocent of all the charges, but because he convinced the appeal board he was not the guilty party. Ex-Dr. Wakefield’s purposes were research-and-profit: he set out to demonstrate the link between MMR vaccine, regressive autism and gastrointestinal disorders (which would result in personal profit; an interest he did not declare).

The critical question in the case of Professor Walker-Smith was whether that was his primary purpose as well - and his evidence was that his purpose was to attempt to find out what was wrong with a particular patient – something which no previous investigation had achieved; his part in the broader implications of the Wakefield paper was as the judge said "much less clear".

Thus, the appeal found that the ((original) panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith did research rather than medical practice, and may have used the wrong standard to do so. The reason for overturning the panel’s decision here, too, was incomplete explanation; they did not believe Walker Smith's motivation was Wakefield's - they believed his motivation was more clinical.

To summarise, the appeal found that Walker Smith was not as culpable as he was earlier declared to be despite the fact that he agreed to co-author a paper on research that he did not sufficiently participate in nor investigate that it deserved his endorsement; the appeal in no way walked back the condemnation of Wakefield.

In summary:

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 does reinforce 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 of Wakefield, and the charges against Wakefield, as the GMC continues to conclude, amount to serious ethical violations.

[Katman]

So Andrew Wakefield wasn't struck off for producing fraudulent test data.

[Ocean1]

More fuckwits.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/81306563/whooping-cough-outbreak-escalates-at-christchurchs-paparoa-street-school

But at least their kids are OK.

Oh, wait...

[husaberg]

So Andrew Wakefield wasn't struck off for producing fraudulent test data.

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.

The General Medical Council ruled he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in doing his research.


The Panel is satisfied that your conduct at paragraph 32.a would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest.


The verdict, read out by panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar, criticised Dr Wakefield for the invasive tests, such as spinal taps, that were carried out on children and which were found to be against their best clinical interests.


The panel said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London’s Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests.


He also said Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.



In reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected
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.

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

[Katman]

Did you notice how there was no mention of fraudulent test data?

[RDJ]

Can you think, parse sentences, construct a logical argument, base your statements on facts? No? Then, begone.

[RDJ]

Did you notice how there was no mention of fraudulent test data?

Can you think, parse sentences, construct a logical argument, base your statements on facts? No? Then, begone.

[F5 Dave]

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... I told you to have some cake. You wouldn't listen. Not my problem. My ego did love the cake though.



Perhaps we're not defending the known bias in Wakefields research? Perhaps we find that the scientific findings, signed off by more than 1 in the Wakefield research, not the conclusion, but what they actually found, of more concern than the methodology that was used to prove the findings. Add the Thompson smoke and then... argue over Wakefield, malpractice, study bias, absolutely anything but what the science actually says and what it is pointing too.

Me gotz to say I find it all a little ironicals... and as I'm retired, I may well go back to bed... might even stroke myself thinking of Oscar covered in cake telling me what I should be thinking too. Oh heaven.
So I'll type this slowly.

A study with 12 people is not Science. That is not following the Scientific method. It is merely some, at best, ill considered observations.

There is no basis to draw conclusion from and indeed no actual study has. That is where the science is pointing. Overwhelmingly. Why are we talking about this guy?

[Katman]

Well, the way it looks to me is that on one hand there was a study published in the Lancet that all 12 co-authors were happy to sign off on and which the GMC don't suggest was based on fraudulent data and on the other hand we have allegations that the CDC deliberately set about destroying documents that supported the findings in the Lancet study.

[Grumph]

Well, the way it looks to me is that on one hand there was a study published in the Lancet that all 12 co-authors were happy to sign off on and which the GMC don't suggest was based on fraudulent data and on the other hand we have allegations that the CDC deliberately set about destroying documents that supported the findings in the Lancet study.

Please satisfy my curiosity on two points if you will...

1 Do you have children ?

2 Have they been vaccinated against common diseases ?

Thank you.

Before you ask - my own answers are yes, and yes.

[F5 Dave]

Publishing it was a huge mistake. It was not a scientific study. There was no control and the sample size was ridiculous. Until that can be answered acceptably, even CIA, or Alien intervention would still not be of any consequence.

[Ocean1]

Well, the way it looks to me is that on one hand there was a study published in the Lancet that all 12 co-authors were happy to sign off on and which the GMC don't suggest was based on fraudulent data and on the other hand we have allegations that the CDC deliberately set about destroying documents that supported the findings in the Lancet study.

Which matters not a jot. What matters is that dozens of statistically realistic studies since carried out by impartial scientists have made this the single most thoroughly debunked piece of fiction ever, and have demonstrated beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt that there is no link between vaccines and autism. None.

What also matters is that vaccines, when used as directed provide better health outcomes than anyone ever expected before they were available.

This is all that matters:

322460

Against which no amount of Chinese whispers is worth shit.

[husaberg]

Well, the way it looks to me is that on one hand there was a study published in the Lancet that all 12 co-authors were happy to sign off on and which the GMC don't suggest was based on fraudulent data and on the other hand we have allegations that the CDC deliberately set about destroying documents that supported the findings in the Lancet study.




In reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest.


The General Medical Council ruled he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in doing his research.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/...lete-Corrected



b. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 32.a., 34.a. and 34.b.this statement was,
i. dishonest,

Found proved.

ii. irresponsible,

Found proved

iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information provided by you was accurate;

Found proved


The Panel is satisfied that you had such a duty, as set out in paragraph 31.c.ii.The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in the Lancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors.The Panel has found that your statement as set out in paragraph 35.a. does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet. The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96 for research purposes. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible

c. The description of the referral process in the Lancet paper wastherefore,i. irresponsible,

Found proved

ii. misleading,

Found proved

iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information in the paper was accurate;

Found proved



In reaching its decision, the Panel concluded that your description of the referral process as “routine”,when it was not, was irresponsible and misleading and contrary to your duty as a senior author.

[Katman]

Please satisfy my curiosity on two points if you will...

1 Do you have children ?

2 Have they been vaccinated against common diseases ?

Thank you.

Before you ask - my own answers are yes, and yes.

No, and no.

[Katman]

*lots of copy and paste*

So still nothing about fraudulent test data then?

And I love how one of the charges of dishonesty relates to the fact that the second installment of 25,000 pounds wasn't used for the purposes listed - it went on paying research staff's wages instead.

It's not like he went out and paid a deposit on a fucking Lamborghini with it.

(Or did you miss this bit......c. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 4.a.ii. was a misuse ofpublic funds and was
i. dishonest,
Found not proved
The Panel is satisfied that the funds claimed were used in the furtherance of the research and not for your personal gain. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel is not satisfied so that it is sure that both limbs of the test for dishonesty have been made out.)

[mashman]

So I'll type this slowly.

A study with 12 people is not Science. That is not following the Scientific method. It is merely some, at best, ill considered observations.

There is no basis to draw conclusion from and indeed no actual study has. That is where the science is pointing. Overwhelmingly. Why are we talking about this guy?

They didn't draw a conclusion... that was left to the courts to decide their intentions. They merely pointed out that the science had highlighted a prevalence of man made measles in the gut in what would be the target audience should one ever wish to test for such a thing. To say that the research wasn't done scientifically ignores that finding?

[husaberg]

So still nothing about fraudulent test data then?

Are you really that stupid.........
What do you think misleading information means and admitted and found proven.
You never even read the GMC report, otherwise you would have changed the subject a long time ago.:laugh:

b. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 32.a., 34.a. and 34.b.this statement was,
i. dishonest,

Found proved.

ii. irresponsible,

Found proved

iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information provided by you was accurate;

Found proved


The Panel is satisfied that you had such a duty, as set out in paragraph 31.c.ii.The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in the Lancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors. The Panel has found that your statement as set out in paragraph 35.a. does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet. The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96 for research purposes. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible

c. The description of the referral process in the Lancet paper was therefore,

i. irresponsible,

Found proved

ii. misleading,

Found proved

iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information in the paper was accurate;

Found proved

[husaberg]

They didn't draw a conclusion... that was left to the courts to decide their intentions. They merely pointed out that the science had highlighted a prevalence of man made measles in the gut in what would be the target audience should one ever wish to test for such a thing. To say that the research wasn't done scientifically ignores that finding?

Mashy read the GMC report, the findings were not correct.

[Woodman]

Mashy read the GMC report, the findings were not correct.

Maybe they should read an interview about the report.:shutup:

[husaberg]

Maybe they should read an interview about the report.:shutup:

On conspiracy weekly or by David Icke.

[Katman]

Maybe they should read an interview about the report.:shutup:

Dude, it's abundantly clear that your constant piss taking of the interview about the documentary is simply to cover the fact that you're too scared to watch it.

[F5 Dave]

They didn't draw a conclusion... that was left to the courts to decide their intentions. They merely pointed out that the science had highlighted a prevalence of man made measles in the gut in what would be the target audience should one ever wish to test for such a thing. To say that the research wasn't done scientifically ignores that finding?
OK real slow

It

Wasn't

Science


Stop calling it that in every 2nd sentence.

[Woodman]

Dude, it's abundantly clear that your constant piss taking of the interview about the documentary is simply to cover the fact that you're too scared to watch it.

What is with the scared shit? I just don't get it. What am I supposed to be scared of?

[Katman]

OK real slow

It

Wasn't

Science


Stop calling it that in every 2nd sentence.

The GMC ruling doesn't call into question the soundness of the science behind the study - so why do you feel that you're qualified to?

[Katman]

What am I supposed to be scared of?

Finding something that might just make you start reassessing whether you know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Woodman]

Finding something that might just make you start reassessing whether you know what the fuck you're talking about.

If something came up that changed my mind then so be it, but to say I am frightened is just plain fucken ludicrous, in fact possibly the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Have you and yokel been sharing needles?

[Katman]

If something came up that changed my mind then so be it, but to say I am frightened is just plain fucken ludicrous, in fact possibly the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Have you and yokel been sharing needles?

Watch the video then.

[Woodman]

Watch the video then.

The subject doesn't interest me enough.

[Katman]

The subject doesn't interest me enough.

But you've got nothing better to do than waste time here?

[mashman]

OK real slow

It

Wasn't

Science


Stop calling it that in every 2nd sentence.

Ok. A finding was that of man made measles in the gut. That finding was concluded scientifically.

[Woodman]

But you've got nothing better to do than waste time here?

It amuses me between workshit, houseshit, shedshit, tvshit, horseshit etc I assume similarly to you.

[husaberg]

The GMC ruling doesn't call into question the soundness of the science behind the study - so why do you feel that you're qualified to?
Oh yes it so does.
It isn't scientific to omit relevant information or make up information.

The Panel is satisfied that you had such a duty, as set out in paragraph 31.c.ii.The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in the Lancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors. The Panel has found that your statement as set out in paragraph 35.a. does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet. The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96 for research purposes. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible

c. In the circumstances set out at paragraph 31.b. above, and asone of the senior authors of the Lancet paper, you,

i. knew or ought to have known the importance of accurately and honestly describing the patient population,
Admitted and found proved
ii. had a duty to ensure that the factual information in the paper and provided by you in response to queries about it wastrue and accurate,
Found proved
In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken into account the guidance from the Lancet, published in October 1997,which states “he or she [authors of the paper] must share responsibility for what is published.” The Panel is satisfied that, as one of the senior authors of the Lancet paper, you had a duty to ensure that the factual information contained in the paper was true and accurate. In his evidence, Professor Rutter also referred to the importance of accuracy in scientific papers. In evidence, you accepted that when providing information in response to queries about the contents of the paper you had a duty to ensure that such information was true and accurate.


Your conduct as set out at paragraph 32.a. was,
i. dishonest,
Found proved
ii. irresponsible,
Found proved
iii. resulted in a misleading description of the patient population in the Lancet paper;
Found proved

In reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, andomitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest. The Panel is satisfied that your conduct at paragraph 32.awould be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest.

b. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 32.a., 34.a. and 34.b.this statement was,
i. dishonest,
Found proved
ii. irresponsible,
Found proved
iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the informationprovided by you was accurate;
Found proved

The Panel is satisfied that you had such a duty, as set out in paragraph 31.c.ii.The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in theLancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors. The Panel has found that your statement as set out in paragraph 35.a. does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet. The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96 for research purposes. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible.

[F5 Dave]

Ok. A finding was that of man made measles in the gut. That finding was concluded scientifically.
So you're still trying to argue around the central tenent of the argument. Its a lost cause.

[bogan]

What is with the scared shit? I just don't get it. What am I supposed to be scared of?

The man, man. Or whatever it is these conspiracy arseholes want you to be scared of this time :rolleyes:

[Katman]

Oh yes it so does.


Well if you'd actually read the ruling (instead of just copy and pasting sections) you'd know that the questions regarding the inclusion of certain patients in the project was because some had already been diagnosed with autism as opposed to merely the 'disintegrative disorder' as was listed in the project proposal.

[bogan]

Well if you'd actually read the ruling (instead of just copy and pasting sections) you'd know that the questions regarding the inclusion of certain patients in the project was because some had already been diagnosed with autism as opposed to merely the 'disintegrative disorder' as was listed in the project proposal.

Wtf are you doing KM, you've no point, and are clearly clutching at fucking retarded straws; go to bed mate, have a snickers...

[Katman]

Wtf are you doing KM, you've no point, and are clearly clutching at fucking retarded straws; go to bed mate, have a snickers...

I'm reading the GMC ruling - so go fuck yourself.

[bogan]

I'm reading the GMC ruling - so go fuck yourself.

You've skipped a few steps, start with comprehension for dummies and move onwards from there until you can actually understand the ruling.

[Virago]

It must be time for a sheep picture intermission?

[Grumph]

It must be time for a sheep picture intermission?

It's certainly due.

If no one but katman posts in this thread, how long before it goes to pink hell ?

he's demonstrably got no skin in the game so therefore is only interested in winding everyone else up...walk away.

[Katman]

It's certainly due.

If no one but katman posts in this thread, how long before it goes to pink hell ?

he's demonstrably got no skin in the game so therefore is only interested in winding everyone else up...walk away.

A couple of questions for you then.

Can you think of any sensible reason why babies are routinely given their first hepatitis B vaccine within hours of them being born?

And does it not bother you that a bill was passed in America that protects the pharmaceutical industry from legal action in the event of harm caused to anyone from receiving a vaccine?

[jonbuoy]

Is there a single medical procedure that has absolutely zero risk or side effects- ever read the possible side effects from paracetamol?

[Katman]

Is there a single medical procedure that has absolutely zero risk or side effects- ever read the possible side effects from paracetamol?

Is there a real threat of new born babies contracting hepatitis B?

(I mean real as in significant enough that it outweighs the risks involved in injecting a pathogen into a newly born baby).

[jonbuoy]

Wouldn't that depend if the mother was infected? Of course there is a risk to everything we have done to us - you might not wake up from that routine operation or have a bad reaction to certain drugs. Most of us accept its worth the risk.

[Katman]

Wouldn't that depend if the mother was infected?

Wouldn't it be more sensible to test the mother to find out if there is that risk?

[Ocean1]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to test the mother to find out if there is that risk?

Maybe you should find out. Educate yourself. An MD with a post doc thesis in pathology would seem the bare minimum to qualify as a beginner in the field. Man of your obvious passion for the field orta knock that out inside 10 years.

Maybe another decade in applied research to fill in some of the blanks.

Then you'd know some of the answers to your questions, and just maybe everyone else would have some respect for your arguments.

You'd still be an obnoxious twat, but you'd be a qualified one.

[Katman]

Maybe you should find out. Educate yourself. An MD with a post doc thesis in pathology would seem the bare minimum to qualify as a beginner in the field. Man of your obvious passion for the field orta knock that out inside 10 years.

Maybe another decade in applied research to fill in some of the blanks.

Then you'd know some of the answers to your questions, and just maybe everyone else would have some respect for your arguments.

You'd still be an obnoxious twat, but you'd be a qualified one.

Well I'll ask again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to test the mother to find out whether the risk exists?

Or do you just like the idea of injecting a pathogen into a child who is only a few hours old?

(And before anyone feels the need to point it out - yes, I'm aware that New Zealand's immunisation schedule exercises slightly more caution by waiting till 6 weeks old).

[FatMax]

Well I'll ask again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to test the mother to find out whether the risk exists?

Or do you just like the idea of injecting a pathogen into a child who is only a few hours old?

(And before anyone feels the need to point it out - yes, I'm aware that New Zealand's immunisation schedule exercises slightly more caution by waiting till 6 weeks old).

Katman is asking a question here

Simple as that

Why dont you provide your answer to this debate rather than bang on about qualifications and such. From what I see he has the guts to express an opinion so why not give him the courtesy of a reply

I dont have an opinion cos I have nit really read up on this. FFS guys, either join the dabte or go lord it over someone else

[Maha]

From what I see he has the guts


Prime candidate for the Fat Bikers..

[Ocean1]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to test the mother to find out whether the risk exists?

How is testing the mother going to establish whether the kid is going to encounter a life threatening contagion in it's first weeks of life?

Sounds like you're not even qualified to comment on making sense.

[Ocean1]

Katman is asking a question here

Simple as that

Why dont you provide your answer to this debate rather than bang on about qualifications and such. From what I see he has the guts to express an opinion so why not give him the courtesy of a reply

I dont have an opinion cos I have nit really read up on this. FFS guys, either join the dabte or go lord it over someone else

That's not guts, dude, it's plain ol' narcissism, he can't stand being seen to be wrong, it's as simple as that.

[TheDemonLord]

Well I'll ask again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to test the mother to find out whether the risk exists?

Would it be more sensible to wear a seatbelt only if you were a shit driver?


Or do you just like the idea of injecting a pathogen into a child who is only a few hours old?

I like the idea of my child dieing a horrible death from preventable diseases even less. And further more - this statement is framed in a way that is quite fundamentally retarded (just like your beliefs - funny that)



(And before anyone feels the need to point it out - yes, I'm aware that New Zealand's immunisation schedule exercises slightly more caution by waiting till 6 weeks old).

So there you have it - in one country the Medical community have assessed the evidence and based on that, made the decision that 6 weeks is the appropriate time, In another country (with differences in culture, Healthcare Policy, Ethinc make up and other factors) have assessed the evidence and based on that, made the decision that a few hours old is the appropriate time.

[Katman]

And further more - this statement is framed in a way that is quite fundamentally retarded (just like your beliefs - funny that)

Funny that - it was a statement directed at a retard.

[TheDemonLord]

Funny that - it was a statement issued by a retard.

Fixed it for you.

[Katman]

Because I know how much you all love videos.....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MBfsf1FQno4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheDemonLord]

Because I know how much you all love videos.....

Having Truth in your name of your show/brand is like putting Democratic in the name of your country.

[Katman]

Having Truth in your name of your show/brand is like putting Democratic in the name of your country.

You might like this one though.

It's got Marcia Angell in it.

[TheDemonLord]

You might like this one though.

It's got Marcia Angell in it.

http://www.kidztory.com/apps_images/the-boy-who-cried-wolf_02.jpg

[Ocean1]

Funny that - it was a statement directed at a retard.

Dude, I'm not the one attempting to blame an industry that has the best track record in saving lives of any single endeavor in human history for incompetence.

Based, apparently on the fact that some of it operates on capitalist principles.

Now that's fucking retarded.

[Katman]

Based, apparently on the fact that some of it operates on capitalist corrupt principles.

Fixed it for you.

You're welcome.

[Ocean1]

Fixed it for you.

You're welcome.

Dude, it that's the quality of your fixes I'm astonished that you're still in business.

And history demonstrates perfectly that there's no way in hell your business is anywhere near as effective as the vast majority involved in the immunological industry.

Which leaves you looking even more absurdly irrelevant to intelligent discourse than your usual drivel paints you.

[husaberg]

Because I know how much you all love videos.....



Fixed to for you, watch for the unicorns pooping rainbows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCjPPyEgpj4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6KctnOYCVo

Katman is asking a question here

Simple as that

Why dont you provide your answer to this debate rather than bang on about qualifications and such. From what I see he has the guts to express an opinion so why not give him the courtesy of a reply

I dont have an opinion cos I have nit really read up on this. FFS guys, either join the dabte or go lord it over someone else

# Note this is ironic as Katman has never once answered a question on KB.

[Katman]

Dr William Thompson's written statement as read before the US Congress by Congressman Bill Posey.

‘My primary job duties while working in the immunization safety branch from 2000 to 2006, were to later co-lead three major vaccine safety studies. The MADDSP, MMR autism cases control study was being carried out in response to the Wakefield-Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome. There were several major concerns among scientists and consumer advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000, regarding the execution of the Verstraeten Study. One of the important goals that was determined up front, in the spring of 2001, before any of these studies started, was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that suited our own goals and biases. We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features. We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in 2003.

‘At the Sept 5th meeting we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample. At the bottom of table 7, it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge.

‘All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September 2002, not to report any race effects from the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects. The co-authors 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. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hardcopies of all documents in my office, and I retain all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.’

[Katman]

And another written statement - this one released by Dr Thompson's attorney.

http://morganverkamp.com/statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

[TheDemonLord]

Dr William Thompson's written statement as read before the US Congress by Congressman Bill Posey.

‘My primary job duties while working in the immunization safety branch from 2000 to 2006, were to later co-lead three major vaccine safety studies. The MADDSP, MMR autism cases control study was being carried out in response to the Wakefield-Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome. There were several major concerns among scientists and consumer advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000, regarding the execution of the Verstraeten Study. One of the important goals that was determined up front, in the spring of 2001, before any of these studies started, was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that suited our own goals and biases. We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features. We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in 2003.

‘At the Sept 5th meeting we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample. At the bottom of table 7, it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge.

‘All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September 2002, not to report any race effects from the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects. The co-authors 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. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hardcopies of all documents in my office, and I retain all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.’

Cool.

Where are the Hardcopies that he supposedly kept? When we can review these and see what they show - then we can continue this discussion.

[husaberg]

Well I'll ask again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to test the mother to find out whether the risk exists?

Or do you just like the idea of injecting a pathogen into a child who is only a few hours old?

(And before anyone feels the need to point it out - yes, I'm aware that New Zealand's immunisation schedule exercises slightly more caution by waiting till 6 weeks old).

First you need to know the difference between an antigen test and an antibody test.
Then you need to be able comprehend the test is only as good as the day it is carried out. Also that no biological test is 100%.
Then you need to appreciate An estimated 240 million people are chronically infected with hepatitis B (defined as hepatitis B surface antigen positive for at least 6 months).
Then you need to factor in that more than 780 000 people die every year due to complications of hepatitis B, including cirrhosis and liver cancer
Then you need to appreciate that with infants and children:80–90% of infants infected during the first year of life develop chronic infections also that 30–50% of children infected before the age of 6 years develop chronic infections.
Lastly you need to be able to comprehend that there is no specific treatment for acute hepatitis B.
Treatment can only slow the progression of cirrhosis, reduce incidence of liver cancer and improve long term survival.
The vaccination is carried out on the very young as they are most at risk of dying, it and also given so early as it is a three or four dose vaccine.
I note over 1 billion doses of hepatitis B vaccine have been used worldwide.

Do you avoid and object to tetanus and other vaccinations as well Katman?
As you have no kids, what about your animals?
Have you ever witnessed the agony an animal suffers dying of a Clostridium infection?

[Katman]

Cool.

Where are the Hardcopies that he supposedly kept? When we can review these and see what they show - then we can continue this discussion.

Do you actually think you'll have a better idea of what constitutes 'statistically significant information' and 'controversial findings' than Dr Thompson has?

[TheDemonLord]

Do you actually think you'll have a better idea of what constitutes 'statistically significant information' and 'controversial findings' than Dr Thompson has?

Then why has he not produced the Evidence?

Me thinks either the Evidence does not exist or it does not back up the claims he is making.

Compare his actions to those of say Edward Snowden who produced his evidence first.

All this posturing and Lawyering without producing anything to back up what he is saying - sounds like an empty can rattling to me....

[Katman]

Then why has he not produced the Evidence?

Me thinks either the Evidence does not exist or it does not back up the claims he is making.

Compare his actions to those of say Edward Snowden who produced his evidence first.

All this posturing and Lawyering without producing anything to back up what he is saying - sounds like an empty can rattling to me....

The documents are in the possession of Congressman Posey.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud

[TheDemonLord]

The documents are in the possession of Congressman Posey.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud

Is he the Public Domain?

No?

Sounds like perhaps they don't as conclusively prove the claims he's making then, doesn't it.

[Katman]

Is he the Public Domain?

No?

Sounds like perhaps they don't as conclusively prove the claims he's making then, doesn't it.

Or perhaps they're going through the channels that they think will best ensure a Congressional Inquiry.

[TheDemonLord]

Or perhaps they're going through the channels that they think will best chance of lucrative Talk show deals, Exclusive interview deals and a book contract to ensure a nice cozy retirement

Fixed for accuracy.

And besides - I'm pretty sure Snowden's way of doing things (you know, present your evidence first) has generated quite a few Inquiries, in multiple countries.

[Katman]

Fixed for accuracy.

And besides - I'm pretty sure Snowden's way of doing things (you know, present your evidence first) has generated quite a few Inquiries, in multiple countries.

Your unflappable faith in the pharmaceutical industry is matched only by Ed's faith in his religion.

[TheDemonLord]

Your unflappable faith in the pharmaceutical industry is matched only by Ed's faith in his religion.

What Faith?

I'm pretty sure I've said that until the Evidence is presented, his words don't mean spit - which is the very Opposite of Faith.


You, on the other hand believe his word because it matches your pre-existing beliefs (the very definition of Faith).

I am also making a judgement on his actions that I think his motives aren't as altruistic as he claims and the fact that he didn't release his evidence first, means it probably doesn't back up what he is claiming it does - I'm able to make this judgement because when compared to actual whistleblowers who had actual evidence that actually backed up the claims they made - they presented the evidence FIRST.

[Katman]

What Faith?

I'm pretty sure I've said that until the Evidence is presented, his words don't mean spit - which is the very Opposite of Faith.

I said faith in the pharmaceutical industry - not faith in Dr Thompson's documents.

Shitforbrains.

[TheDemonLord]

I said faith in the pharmaceutical industry - not faith in Dr Thompson's documents.

Shitforbrains.

I know what you said, the problem was that it doesn't follow the current line of discussion:

Dr Thompson has Evidence for X > He Hasn't presented his Evidence therefore Claims are dismissed > His Lawyer has the Evidence > His Lawyer is not the public Domain > He is doing it through the proper channels > He's doing it in a manner to maximize the amount of revenue he can garner > You have faith in Pharmaceutical companies > Lol Wut?

I know that English, Comprehension, in fact any form of intellectual endeavor is clearly a challenge for you, and I know that anytime someone actual does something logical, you automatically call them Autistic (the irony of the century being the one who is clearly an idiot trying to impugn the intellectual capabilities of everyone else) - but even you must realise that your comments are out of context given the current line of discussion.

[Katman]

Dr Thompson has Evidence for X > He Hasn't presented his Evidence therefore Claims are dismissed > His Lawyer has the Evidence > His Lawyer is not the public Domain > He is doing it through the proper channels > He's doing it in a manner to maximize the amount of revenue he can garner > You have faith in Pharmaceutical companies > Lol Wut?

Ignoring anything that calls into question the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry = unflappable faith in the pharmaceutical industry.

[TheDemonLord]

Ignoring anything that calls into question the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry = unflappable faith in the pharmaceutical industry.

Close - but not quite:

Ignoring idiots who call into question the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry without valid scientific or other evidence = Skepticism and not being a nut job conspiracy theorist contributing to the death of children by preventable diseases.

There's a difference - see if you can understand the difference (I doubt very much)

[pritch]

For some reason which I can't explain I have just read the last umpty ump pages of this thread.
I have just one question. Why has this thread not gone pink?

[Katman]

For some reason which I can't explain I have just read the last umpty ump pages of this thread.
I have just one question. Why has this thread not gone pink?

Is that how it's supposed to work, is it?

Any opinion that you disagree with should be sent to PD?

That's the sort of childish shit I'd normally expect from bogan.

[Drew]

I have just learned of Wakefield and his study with mice. Where he used the wrong type of mice which are bred to get cancer when ya breath in them.

The cunt is a fucken crook. Anyone putting any faith in him is a fucken moron, and deserves to die of measles, mumps, or rubella.

[Katman]

I have just learned of Wakefield and his study with mice. Where he used the wrong type of mice which are bred to get cancer when ya breath in them.

Was it like this one?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160616140723.htm

Because if it is, Andrew Wakefield established a link between gastrointestinal problems and autism back in 1998.

[Katman]

Has anybody given any thought to the fact that since the year 2000 the stats have gone from 1 in 150 kids being diagnosed with autism to 1 in 50?

Back in the 70's it was in the region of 1 in 10,000.

[husaberg]

Was it like this one?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160616140723.htm

Because if it is, Andrew Wakefield established a link between gastrointestinal problems and autism back in 1998.

No Wakefeild produced a paper purporting there was a link.
10 of the 12 co authors retracted their support and he was found on multiple occasions to have falsified data and to be a fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
The paper was retracted.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/
He was found to have withheld information including his own huge conflicts of interest.
Like you other experts he has sued his accusers and never won, in fact he has had to pay the defendants costs on all occasions.
You are a gullible cretin of the highest order

[Katman]

No Wakefeild produced a paper purporting their was a link.
10 of the 12 co authors retracted their support and he was found on multiple occasions to have falsified data and to be a fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
The paper was retracted.
He was found to have withheld information including his own huge conflicts of interest.
Like you other experts he has sued his accusers and never won in fact he has had to pay costs on all occasions.
You are a gullible cretin of the highest order

Seriously man, that post is the pinnacle of 'total utter moron'.

[Katman]

They predict that if the current rate of increase continues, by 2030 we'll be at 1 in 2 diagnosed with autism.

[pritch]

Is that how it's supposed to work, is it?

Any opinion that you disagree with should be sent to PD?

That's the sort of childish shit I'd normally expect from bogan.

Not at all. It's not about my opinion. There was really no intelligent discourse in the previous umpty ump pages, mainly just people swapping insults.
Or perhaps more accurately, people replying to your insults? At that point I'da thunk it was pink material.

[Katman]

Not at all. It's not about my opinion. There was really no intelligent discourse in the previous umpty ump pages, mainly just people swapping insults.
Or perhaps more accurately, people replying to your insults? At that point I'da thunk it was pink material.

Then you haven't read it hard enough.

Fuck off back to page 1.

[husaberg]

They predict that if the current rate of increase continues, by 2030 we'll be at 1 in 2 diagnosed with autism.

You mean like in Japan
The MMR scare caused a low percentage of mumps vaccination (less than 30%), which resulted in outbreaks in Japan. There were up to 2002 measles caused deaths in Japan while there were none in UK, but the extra deaths were attributed to Japan's application of the vaccine at a later age. A spokesman for the Ministry of Health said that the discontinuation had no effect in measles, but also mentioning that there were more deaths by measles while MMR was being used.
In 1994 the government dropped the vaccination requirement for measles and rubella due to the 1993 MMR scare.
Japan is nowadays the only developed country with large measles epidemics. It has been called a "measles exporter" by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As another consequence of the scare, in 2003, 7 million schoolchildren had not been vaccinated against rubella.

Yet Autism rates continued to rise in Japan after the discontinuation of the MMR vaccine, which disproves any large-scale effect of vaccination.
Like I said, you don't know shit from a shovel.

So have your animals been vaccinated Katman?
What about you, have you been vaccinated?

[bogan]

Is that how it's supposed to work, is it?

Any opinion that you disagree with should be sent to PD?

That's the sort of childish shit I'd normally expect from bogan.

Oh look, another strawman. Clearly it's about the intellectual ineptitude and childish behavior of those putting forward their opinions that is the reason this drivel should be in PD.


Not at all. It's not about my opinion. There was really no intelligent discourse in the previous umpty ump pages, mainly just people swapping insults.
Or perhaps more accurately, people replying to your insults? At that point I'da thunk it was pink material.

Precisly, there was attempts at it, but one side goes and takes what could be discussed, and throws up silly insults and misdirection...


Then you haven't read it hard enough.

Fuck off back to page 1.

^just like that.

[Katman]

Precisly, there was attempts at it, but one side goes and takes what could be discussed, and throws up silly insults and misdirection...

Fuck off you stupid cunt.

You have contributed nothing to the discussion other than ridiculing anyone who questions any vaccine issue.

Like I've said before, you wouldn't recognise rational debate if it fucked you up the arse.

[bogan]

Fuck off you stupid cunt.

You have contributed nothing to the discussion other than ridiculing any who questions any vaccine issue.

Like I've said before, you wouldn't recognise rational debate if it fucked you up the arse.

Ah, so your instruction that I should take myself away from the thread due to my opinions differing from yours is somehow not equivalent to the childish PD 'censorship' you sought to attribute to me?

You should also take your own advice and read the thread then; I've made plenty of rational counterpoints. Would you like a few excerpts? or just save yourself some time and avoid the subject now...

[Katman]

So has anyone given any thought to what society is going to be like in the 2030's once every second one of us is autistic?

[husaberg]

Fuck off you stupid cunt.

You have contributed nothing to the discussion other than ridiculing anyone who questions any vaccine issue.

Like I've said before, you wouldn't recognise rational debate if it fucked you up the arse.

You are clearly afraid of any discourse, which is why you never answer questions, Its also why rep people with fuck off every time they post stuff that clearly refutes your faith based folk stories.........
I eagerly await your next gish gallop..........


So has anyone given any thought to what society is going to be like in the 2030's once every second one of us is autistic?

That sounds like a Wakefeild wet dream


In January 2010 the UK's General Medical Council (GMC) decided that Wakefield had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly,” a ruling that led to him being struck off the medical register four months later.

In the first part of his investigation, Deer showed how Wakefield was able to manufacture the appearance of a medical syndrome that would hoodwink parents and large parts of the medical establishment with a fraud that “unleashed fear, parental guilt, costly government intervention, and outbreaks of infectious disease."
In the second part, he shows how the discredited doctor planned secret businesses intended to make huge sums of money, in the U.K. and the U.S., from his allegations.
The BMJ report says that Wakefield met medical school managers to discuss a joint business even while the first child to be fully investigated in his research was still in the hospital; and how just days after publication of his Lancet article, he brought business associates to his place of work at the Royal Free Medical School in London to continue negotiations.
Drawing on investigations and information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Deer says Wakefield and his associates used financial forecasts that predicted they could make up to £28 million (about $43.7 million) a year from the diagnostic kits alone.
Deals Could Have Netted Millions
The kits in question were for diagnosing patients with autism. Deer obtained one 35-page document marked "private and confidential" which confidently predicted: “It is estimated that by year 3, income from this testing could be about £3,300,000 rising to about £28,000,000 as diagnostic testing in support of therapeutic regimes come on stream.”

Would-be investors were told that “the initial market for the diagnostic will be litigation-driven testing of patients with AE [autistic enterocolitis, an unproven condition concocted by Wakefield] from both the UK and the USA”.
Deer’s investigation also reveals that Wakefield was offered support to try to replicate his results, gained from just 12 children, with a larger validated study of up to 150 patients, but that he refused to carry out the work, claiming that his academic freedom would be jeopardized.
A further claim in the BMJ article is the existence of a business, named after Wakefield’s wife, which was intended to develop his own "replacement" vaccines, diagnostic testing kits, and other products which only stood any real chance of success if public confidence in the MMR vaccine was damaged..
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20110111/mmr-doctor-planned-make-millions-journal-claims

[bogan]

save yourself some time and avoid the subject now...


So has anyone given any thought to what society is going to be like in the 2030's once every second one of us is autistic?

I would have suggested a topic change somewhat less retarded than that.

In 2030 we'll have roughly overturned 20% of the population, considering the proportion now is just a few percent, and how autism occus in early development; it is statistically impossible for such a society to occur.

[yokel]

I have just learned of Wakefield and his study with mice. Where he used the wrong type of mice which are bred to get cancer when ya breath in them.

The cunt is a fucken crook. Anyone putting any faith in him is a fucken moron, and deserves to die of measles, mumps, or rubella.

I've had the mumps before, guess what? I'm still alive!

I have a child on the way and the least of my concerns is some stink arse virus.

I'm more worried about the missus driving and other dumb arses on the road.

I may vaxs for polio and fuck all else.

[scumdog]

They predict that if the current rate of increase continues, by 2030 we'll be at 1 in 2 diagnosed with autism.

'They'?

Are 'they' as accurate as the weather forecasters?

'They' say it's going to rain.....

[bogan]

'They'?

Are 'they' as accurate as the weather forecasters?

'They' say it's going to rain.....

Not these 'they' I guess...

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

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

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

[husaberg]

'They'?

Are 'they' as accurate as the weather forecasters?

'They' say it's going to rain.....

You know they

https://youtu.be/o6KctnOYCVo?t=7m1s

https://youtu.be/o6KctnOYCVo?t=7m19s

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/answers/35000/35807_1240617910976.23res_500_318.jpg

[pritch]

Fuck off you stupid cunt.
<snip>
Like I've said before, you wouldn't recognise rational debate if it fucked you up the arse.

I rest my case.

'Night all.

[Katman]

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

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

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

[husaberg]

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

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

The number of reported cases of autism increased dramatically in the 1990s and early 2000s. This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices; it is not known how much, if any, growth came from real changes in autism's prevalence, and no causal connection to the MMR vaccine has been demonstrated.
Rutter M (2005). "Incidence of autism spectrum disorders: changes over time and their meaning". Acta Paediatr 94 (1): 2–15. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2005.tb01779.x. PMID 15858952.


The recorded prevalence of autism has increased considerably in recent years. This reflects greater recognition, with changes in diagnostic practice associated with more trained diagnosticians; broadening of diagnostic criteria to include a spectrum of disorder; a greater willingness by parents and educationalists to accept the label (in part because of entitlement to services); and better recording systems, among other factors. (Taylor 2006)


The rate in this study is comparable to that in previous birth cohorts from the same area and surveyed with the same methods, suggesting a stable incidence. (Chakrabarti 2005)


Rates of diagnosis of autism have risen since 1980, raising the question of whether some children who previously had other diagnoses are now being diagnosed with autism. We applied contemporary diagnostic criteria for autism to adults with a history of developmental language disorder, to discover whether diagnostic substitution has taken place. A total of 38 adults (aged 15-31y; 31 males, seven females) who had participated in studies of developmental language disorder during childhood were given the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule--Generic. Their parents completed the Autism Diagnostic Interview--Revised, which relies largely on symptoms present at age 4 to 5 years to diagnose autism. Eight individuals met criteria for autism on both instruments, and a further four met criteria for milder forms of autistic spectrum disorder. Most individuals with autism had been identified with pragmatic impairments in childhood. Some children who would nowadays be diagnosed unambiguously with autistic disorder had been diagnosed with developmental language disorder in the past. This finding has implications for our understanding of the epidemiology of autism.
Autism and diagnostic substitution: evidence from a study of adults with a history of developmental language disorder.
Bishop DV1, Whitehouse AJ, Watt HJ, Line EA.

[bogan]

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

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

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

[Katman]

A refreshingly balanced view of the issue.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/autism-rise

[husaberg]

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

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


A refreshingly balanced view of the issue.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/autism-rise

it also makes a lie of what you posted above and previously.

Autism was first identified in 1943,
"We thought autism was a very rare occurrence, and it's clear that it's not."
"Genetics plays a role in autism and ASD is provided by research on twins. According to the CDC, if one identical twin has autism, there's a 75% chance the other twin will be affected, too.
Many U.S. couples have delayed childbearing, and the older ages of both the mother and the father have been linked with a higher risk of having children with ASD
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/autism-rise?page=2

[Katman]

it also makes a lie of what you posted above.

Well I suppose it depends whose version you pick.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/history-of-autism

[husaberg]

Well I suppose it depends whose version you pick.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/history-of-autism

Nice try, but that wasn't the link you posted now was it.............
The rest though, its plainly obvious that can you not comprehend, just how simplistic you are being, about what is a complex biological condition.
That's not an insult, its just an obvious conclusion, based on your simplistic narcissistic conspiracy attitude.

[TheDemonLord]

Was it like this one?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160616140723.htm

Because if it is, Andrew Wakefield established a link between gastrointestinal problems and autism back in 1998.

A: There is no Wakefield link - cause its been retracted
B: Bacteria is not a Virus - they are, yah know - different.

[TheDemonLord]

I've had the mumps before, guess what? I'm still alive!

But not without long term consequences....

Like Brain Damage and believing all manner of retarded shit you read on the internet.

I'm sorry - but it appears to be terminal.

[husaberg]

But not without long term consequences....

Like Brain Damage and believing all manner of retarded shit you read on the internet.

I'm sorry - but it appears to be terminal.

Thus its not odd at all, that he doesn't consider Rubella vaccinations are necessary for his future spawn.

[mada]

Katman's form of discussion = diss & cuss on everyone who presents valid information that is contrary to his opinion.... :niceone:

[Katman]

Katman's form of discussion = diss & cuss on everyone who presents valid information that is contrary to his opinion.... :niceone:

Not quite.

I "diss & cuss" (you're a sensitive wee thing, aren't you?) at a small bunch of morons whose idea of rational debate doesn't extend much beyond screaming "Anti-vaxxer! Baby-killer! Fuck off to Africa and die!" or repeatedly posting screeds of copy and paste from one man's hatchet job.

(It's much the same as the phrase "Anti-semite!" being trotted out every time anyone mentions the J word).

The fact is that there is a growing number of highly respected members of the medical profession who are speaking out about the undue influence that the pharmaceutical industry is exerting on the medical profession (and that of scientific research) and the inherent corruption that that influence brings. (But don't tell TheDemonLord that - he'll have a melt-down).

[TheDemonLord]

Not quite.

I "diss & cuss" (you're a sensitive wee thing, aren't you?) at a small bunch of morons whose idea of rational debate doesn't extend much beyond screaming "Anti-vaxxer! Baby-killer! Fuck off to Africa and die!"

What's the matter - don't like putting your money where your mouth is? Of course - we both know that you wouldn't go to Africa, because you would most likely catch any number of diseases that have been eradicated in the first world and die.

Which would make you a massive Hypocrite now wouldn't it....


or repeatedly posting screeds of copy and paste from one man's hatchet job.

Holy Projection Batman! You mean like continually referring to Wakefield and his 'research', You mean like continually referring to One Man's claims (that are thus far without any supporting evidence) - Oh wait! That is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO.


(It's much the same as the phrase "Anti-semite!" being trotted out every time anyone mentions the J word).

Or how we call people who refer to African Americans as 'niggers' as Racist cunts - its about the negative generalizations of an entire group of people - that's why we call you an Anti-Semite (cause you demonstrably are)


The fact is that there is a growing number of highly respected members of the medical profession who are speaking out about the undue influence that the pharmaceutical industry is exerting on the medical profession (and that of scientific research) and the inherent corruption that that influence brings. (But don't tell TheDemonLord that - he'll have a melt-down).

Even IF (and this is a huge, Massive IF) that statement is true - All of those Highly respected Members of the Medical Profession will still tell you that Vaccinations have been (along with anti-biotics) one of the biggest advances in Human health and Longevity in the last 100 years.

This is the problem you seem to be having - some Doctors saying that maybe the system could be better =/= vaccinations are bad. When you can get that through your skull and into the decaying atrophied mass that barely passes for a Brain, you may understand just how dangerous the retarded shit you (and all the other brain dead fuckwits) are spouting. I'll make it really simple:

Cunts like you directly cause other idiots to not Vaccinate their children against preventable virus infections. These children either end up in hospital with Life threatening complications or Die.

In some cases these children go on to infect other children (who whilst may be vaccinated, may have their immune system compromised for any myriad of reasons) and then That child dies.

All because of idiots like you.

[mashman]

Katman's form of discussion = diss & cuss on everyone who presents valid information that is contrary to his opinion.... :niceone:

Pot Kettle... Katman seems to be the only one in the thread that is prepared to be "wrong". Based on what I've read, I'm happy to be "wrong" also. However, based on what I've read, there's smoke in them thar hills. To simply dismiss is because the establishment says so, as well as admitting that documents and data were destroyed doesn't ring bells? If that admitted destruction had have been a lie and could have been proven to be a lie, then they would have hung Thompson out to dry. It would have been easy. They didn't. Given that they persecuted Wakefields to the end of the earth, love the drama eh. Thompson still has his job. Also, that kids are being treated in a different manner i.e. food based solution, off of the back of the research, isn't that a good thing? Yet it's all but forgotten by those who would happily point out the butcherous origins of what once was unsanctioned medicine. One really has to laugh at such a position.

The cuss'n is a bonus.

[Katman]

This is the problem you seem to be having - some Doctors saying that maybe the system could be better =/= vaccinations are bad.

And there is a perfect example of your irrationality.

I've never said that all vaccines are bad.

Neither has Andrew Wakefield.

[TheDemonLord]

And there is a perfect example of your irrationality.

I've never said that all vaccines are bad.

Neither has Andrew Wakefield.

But you have said some vaccines are bad, the evidence you use to say this has been retracted and discredited - and yet you still cite it.

You are saying something about Irrationality? The fact that you keep mentioning Andrew Wakefield (who has less than zero credibility) is testament to your irrationality, when you combine this with your other loony ideas, suddenly the bigger picture comes into focus: Big Pharma have wealth and power and therefore have to be doing evil.

[bogan]

Not quite.

I "diss & cuss" (you're a sensitive wee thing, aren't you?) at a small bunch of morons whose idea of rational debate doesn't extend much beyond screaming "Anti-vaxxer! Baby-killer! Fuck off to Africa and die!" or repeatedly posting screeds of copy and paste from one man's hatchet job.

(It's much the same as the phrase "Anti-semite!" being trotted out every time anyone mentions the J word).

The fact is that there is a growing number of highly respected members of the medical profession who are speaking out about the undue influence that the pharmaceutical industry is exerting on the medical profession (and that of scientific research) and the inherent corruption that that influence brings. (But don't tell TheDemonLord that - he'll have a melt-down).

Actually you diss and cuss to avoid addressing rational counterpoints... Like the point that the diagnosis rate of autism has gone up at least partially, and very likely predominantly, due to the increase in awareness and testing. Which rendered your aforementioned statement about 1 in 2 people being autistic by 2030; fucking moronic.

Ah yes, that annoying predominance of bigotry against bigots, good fucking job :killingme

Of course there is undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry. It's a fucking far cry from vaccines causing autism though. And somewhat ironic given your support for that wakefeild dickhead that sought to profit from his own undue influence on the science...

[Katman]

The fact that you keep mentioning Andrew Wakefield (who has less than zero credibility)

Like I've said before, I trust you'll be man enough to retract that statement should it ever transpire that Andrew Wakefield has simply been made subject to a smear campaign by the pharmaceutical industry.

[TheDemonLord]

Like I've said before, I trust you'll be man enough to retract that statement should it ever transpire that Andrew Wakefield has simply been made subject to a smear campaign by the pharmaceutical industry.

And I trust you'll be man enough to retract all your statements when it transpires he was struck off from the GMC and exposed as attempting to commit Fraud....







Oh, that right! That has already happened and you're a Fuckwit!

[Katman]

And I trust you'll be man enough to retract all your statements when it transpires he was struck off from the GMC and exposed as attempting to commit Fraud....

He was struck off for a perceived conflict of interest and failing to gain approval from the Ethics Committee.

[TheDemonLord]

He was struck for a perceived conflict of interest and failing to gain approval from the Ethics Committee.

Perceived?

Oh, I remember now - Everyone is out to get you and all the other loonies.

[Katman]

Perceived?

Oh, I remember now - Everyone is out to get you and all the other loonies.

Nobody better get in the way of the pharmaceutical industry when they're looking to make money.

[Drew]

Nobody better get in the way of the pharmaceutical industry when they're looking to make money.

Lets address this then.

Big Pharma are in it to make money. So they hire scientists to make shut they can sell. Then they sell it.

The spot that your perception of BP falls apart in there? The scientists and Doctors. The ones driven to cure and generally make people better. The ones studying Luke fuck to find a cause or reason they can exploit, to stop people from dying.

Yeah, a company sells it. But they don't fucking make it. They are just an agent.

So fuck up about how evil they are. Are YOU going to pay for the research? Like fuck you are. Big picture, those companies speed the whole process of making people better up.

[Katman]

So fuck up about how evil they are.

It's ok Drew, I'm sure the array of prescription pills you pop are perfectly safe.

[Katman]

Oh no, maybe not.

https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/

[Bass]

Lets address this then.


Yeah, a company sells it. But they don't fucking make it. They are just an agent.

.

Ummm actually, I think they do make it. No expert but a chemical engineer and so bulk manufacture of serums is part of my discipline. My understanding is that production of vaccines is a major part of their cost. The hygiene requirements alone are a major hurdle.

I'm very much pro vaccination. Plan to ride in the Himalayas next year and will be vaccinated to the hilt. I have no problem with companies who take major risks in their research investments etc also making major profits when they get it right. I actually hope they continue to do so because we all need some serious research in the area of antibiotics and soon. However, there are well known examples out there of these guys putting business before safety. Thalidomide is probably the best known.

It's a balance and I have no idea how you weigh caution against starting a panic that causes more harm than taking pharmacy at face value would have done.

[TheDemonLord]

Nobody better get in the way of the pharmaceutical industry when they're looking to make money.

Just like Facts better not get in the way of Katman when he's looking for another Big Evil to blame for the worlds problems....

[TheDemonLord]

Oh no, maybe not.

https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/

Interesting link - you note how the FDA continually updated labelling and issues advice to Doctors? The very thing you say doesn't happen - is clearly happening - something standing in the way of Big Pharma making Money.

What is really interesting is that in 1990 - the FDA considered the evidence at the time and did not find it sufficient to warrant a policy change - 6 year later, they are in communication with the manufacturers about an increase that they were noticing. 7 years later (presumably after more research into the increase) - they issue a warning.

It's almost like that as new evidence came to light, they evaluated the evidence and made changes accordingly.

But let's not let this get in the way of your delusional fantasies.

[Katman]

What is really interesting is that in 1990 - the FDA considered the evidence at the time and did not find it sufficient to warrant a policy change - 6 year later, they are in communication with the manufacturers about an increase that they were noticing. 7 years later (presumably after more research into the increase) - they issue a warning.

It's almost like that as new evidence came to light, they evaluated the evidence and made changes accordingly.

Then they probably didn't evaluate the evidence carefully enough back in 1990.

(Or maybe the drug company just hadn't made enough money out of it at that point).

[bogan]

It's ok Drew, I'm sure the array of prescription pills you pop are perfectly safe.


Oh no, maybe not.

https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/

There goes your final shred of decency :facepalm:

Just because there's a keyboard and pc between you and the wider world, doesn't mean there isn't real people on the other side.

[Katman]

There goes your final shred of decency :facepalm:

Just because there's a keyboard and pc between you and the wider world, doesn't mean there isn't real people on the other side.

It's ok, Drew knows where to find me if he's that bothered by it.

[TheDemonLord]

Then they probably didn't evaluate the evidence carefully enough back in 1990.

(Or maybe they just hadn't made enough money out of it at that point).

Your blind fanaticism knows no bounds.

Of course - the only reason you are capable of suggesting is that of Conspiracy.

It couldn't be that the evidence was insufficient at the time, probably due to insufficient time scales and sample sizes (which would account why they did more studies, which eventually lead to policy changes).

[bogan]

Ummm actually, I think they do make it. No expert but a chemical engineer and so bulk manufacture of serums is part of my discipline. My understanding is that production of vaccines is a major part of their cost. The hygiene requirements alone are a major hurdle.

I'm very much pro vaccination. Plan to ride in the Himalayas next year and will be vaccinated to the hilt. I have no problem with companies who take major risks in their research investments etc also making major profits when they get it right. I actually hope they continue to do so because we all need some serious research in the area of antibiotics and soon. However, there are well known examples out there of these guys putting business before safety. Thalidomide is probably the best known.

It's a balance and I have no idea how you weigh caution against starting a panic that causes more harm than taking pharmacy at face value would have done.

I think he was making the point that those at the top of the company who would be responsible for evil shitTM don't create the cures, don't invent them. They still depend on scientists; the same one who are intimately familiar with the process, effects, etc, and the same ones who can identify risk and propose studies to investigate it (ie, the way all the vaccine problems come to light).

[Katman]

Your blind fanaticism knows no bounds.

<img src="http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/legacy.images/smosh-pit/092010/extreme-ironing-hang-glide.jpg"/>

[mada]

How about a real discussion and looking at things objectively....

1. The MMR vaccine may cause autism. The causes of Autism are not well understood. On this basis though it is possible that anything may cause Autism.
2. Character and motives aside, Wakefield's study was small involving a small sample of 12 hand picked cases. Of those 8 developed Autism.
3. He believed there was an association. An association is not the same as causation.
4. He suggested further research be undertaken on the issue. Further research was undertaken, a shitload in fact by a variety of sources - all over the world from countries that use the MMR vaccine to those that do not (Japan).
5. Much larger and better run studies were undertaken - eg. those comparing hundreds of thousands of un-vaccinated kids to hundreds of thousands of vaccinated kids.
6. All the research to date has shown there is no proof of MMR causing Autism.
7. The Health Departments and World Health Organisations make recommendations based on research. Each country has it's own approach to health and disease as they all have different needs. There is no "one size fits all" approach to health.
8. If research suggests something is safe or unsafe it is evaluated by Health Departments / Pharmac before being used or disused.
9. Every year research is published which questions and compares the effectiveness and safety of treatments (vaccines/drugs/other). This often results in more research and changes to treatments.
10. Vaccines have been withdrawn in the past based on research.
11. Such changes occur continuously every year and can result in treatments being changed and thus a pharmaceutical company's treatment may no longer earn them as much money.
12. Big pharma are big and have a lot of money and do a lot of lobbying. Just like in every other industry that has big companies there are those that try to manipulate others. This doesn't mean all the companies and everyone in the industry or within the medical fraternity is corrupt or operates in a sinister manner and all their products are shit.
13. Doctors use their clinical experience and research when making medical decisions. If in their experience they came across MMR causing Autism there would be a lot more publicity and calls for further research than is present. Instead there is significant consensus from those at the front line not just those looking at data and stats that there is no proof of MMR causing Autism.
14. Children, particularly infants are at increased risk of death and morbidity (major life long disease) from the 3 viruses. Not immunizing children substantially increases their risk but also the risk of those who are immuno-compromised.

The clear question that begs answering is what would be gained from a conspiracy in relation to MMR? As I've pointed out before $$$ wise it would be more beneficial for big pharma to have three separate injections than one. So what is the logic?

And what is the "establishment"?

- All Pharmaceutical companies?
- All medical technology companies?
- The World Health Organisation?/ UN?
- Parliament?
- The Media?
- Pharmac?
- The Ministry of Health in every country? - who change and evaluate the safety of medicines?
- The Medical Council of every country?
- Your local DHB and hospitals?
- All registered health professionals?
- Your local GP? - who would have seen effects?
- Your local nurse administering the vaccination? - who would have seen effects?
- The doctors and nurses unions? - who speak up about safety issues in hospitals?
- All epidemiologists, researchers, and statisticians? - who have proven drugs/vaccines ineffective/unsafe before.
- The judiciary?

How many millions of people are involved in persecuting one man?

Why is big pharma big?

Probably has nothing to do with the time and the cost of making a new drug and the billions that need to be poured into R&D, scientists, lab rats, safe storage of bacteria/viruses, trials, and the regulations.

Maybe we could leave it to charity groups... get the sallies do it? I wonder who they would test on?

Can any governments afford to do this and have the means? Going from history, maybe North Korea can follow the footsteps of Japan and Nazi Germany, King Leopold of II Belgium?

Maybe we could all try R&D at home, as we all have the chemical knowledge, sterile lab equipment, and safety measures to ensure the stuff we are testing doesn't escape or hurt ourselves or anyone else.

How many treatments are investigated and have billions spent on them that do not actually get approved and do not make it to the market?

How much will a drug company need to cover themselves if some unknown side effect occurs during the trial stage, or better yet at a later date once it is approved and being used by the public. I'm sure we'd be happy to just let ACC pick up the bill?

Perhaps consider that it is no longer lawful or ethical to experiment on slaves, prisoners of war, and poor minority groups. That volunteers need to be recruited and that in itself can impact on how things turn out given people have different motivations for joining trials.

So what exactly would be gained from having small pharma?

Biology isn't a simple black and white... it's often a big hazy cloud of grey, where the approach is to have benefits outweighing risks, but also that doing something is often better than doing nothing. The internet turns it into a thunderstorm with the countless "expert" opinions available left right and centre that join dots and associations that don't exist. Words and statements can be construed to mean different things and manipulate opinions.

Case and point the other day a Lobby group in NZ for promoting medicines was saying on facebook that NZ spends lowest per GDP out of most countries on medications.... without acknowledging our outcomes are generally on par if not better than most other Western countries for what we spend.. every tom dick and harry jumps on commenting that it's shocking, fk JK, the TPPA :facepalm: Actually our "establishment" aka Pharmac works hard to keep the cost of medicines low and the efficacy of medications high... eg. not overprescribing.

It would be great if we had an endless pit of money to spend on everything and magic pills with no side effects.

[Katman]

I notice you left out any mention of Dr Thompson's allegations.

[TheDemonLord]

I notice you left out any mention of Dr Thompson's allegations.

When he makes his Evidence Public, then we can discuss it - till then - that which is submitted without evidence....

[mada]

I notice you left out any mention of Dr Thompson's allegations.

Because it is "he said, she said" limp biscuit.

All the "suppressed" data and documents are in the public domain. A perfectly logical explanation for exclusion of a statement on "association" has been provided, namely that of confounding to do with less information being available in regards to birth weights (which has a strong association with Autism) for those children who did not have birth certificates.

Dr Thompson's allegation shows more concern that the study method was not that great - which it wasn't. As I said before, better study design is either a Random Controlled Trial (good luck with that) or more realistic Observational with one group of non-vaccinated vs one group of vaccinated kids. Numerous large scale Observational studies have been done (including the one in Japan) which show no association.

Again, what would be gained from CDC "suppressing" and "hiding" information that they have actually kept records of?