Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[bogan]

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?

[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?

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.

[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)