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.

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.

So they expected their word alone was all they needed?

(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.