Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[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

[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.