Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[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:



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.

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.

[husaberg]

Maybe they should read an interview about the report.

On conspiracy weekly or by David Icke.

[Katman]

Maybe they should read an interview about the report.

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?