Thinking of getting vaccinated?

**bogan** · 24th June 2016, 18:02

Originally Posted by mada

"he said, she said" as in someone else is stating what he said.

It's like me quoting someone posting about you as evidence of what you have said... rather than quoting you.

There's another mental illness on the rise though, Clinical psychologist Darshani Kumareswaran has been investigating it:

"I also found that someone who creates conspiracy theories is more likely to have some form of psychopathology, or mental illness such as paranoid thinking, compared to those who believe in conspiracy theories but do not create them, or people who do not believe in them at all"

Given the strong correlation with not vaccinating, one can conclude Vaccinations prevent conspiracy theories. Which is in itself a conspiracy theory, init; because of course the Vril would like to see a decline in the conspiracy theory truth seekers.

Fuck it's easy to create this shit; how come all the actual conspiracy theories are so fucking terrible? Is that part of the illness? or is it simply gateway illogic that gets them to statistical impossibilities like:

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Drew

Not on the antidepressants at the moment, and they were a different type to those listed.

It's cool. I was completely open on the bookface when my mental got the best of me and I was peaking out three or four times a day. Lot of bikers might be surprised at some of the other people that described suffering the same shit for years.

Back to the quack next week to discuss some stuff, if he suggests pills, I'll knock 'em back happily (well...as happy as an axious depressed freak can be).

You're obviously coping well, but I'll stand my by judgement that personal attacks for such a condition is a despicable act.

**RDJ** · 24th June 2016, 18:07

Originally Posted by mada

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

Precisely, this.

**husaberg** · 24th June 2016, 18:23

Originally Posted by Katman

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

That's an outright untruth, yet you claim to have read the ruling........

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.

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, 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 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 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 28 February 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.

That's without Deers investigation

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/ne...journal-claims

**Katman** · 24th June 2016, 18:25

Originally Posted by bogan

You're obviously coping well, but I'll stand my by judgement that personal attacks for such a condition is a despicable act.

You get the full orchestra bro.

**bogan** · 24th June 2016, 18:39

Originally Posted by Katman

You get the full orchestra bro.

Demonstrably false, since...

"An orchestra (/ˈɔːrkᵻstrə/ or US /ˈɔːrˌkɛstrə/; Italian: [orˈkɛstra]) is a large instrumental ensemble, often used in classical music, that contains sections of string (violin, viola, cello and double bass), brass, woodwind, and percussion instruments."

I know wrong is your default state, but; I've got to ask, are you so far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole you can no longer tell what the difference between something demonstrably correct, and demonstrably false?

**Katman** · 24th June 2016, 18:40

Originally Posted by husaberk

That's an outright untruth...

Sue me or go fuck yourself.

**Katman** · 24th June 2016, 18:42

Originally Posted by bogan

Demonstrably false, since...

Ok, I lied.

You just got the violin section.

**bogan** · 24th June 2016, 18:49

Originally Posted by Katman

Ok, I lied.

More of your default state I guess.

But since you changed the topic again...

**Drew** · 24th June 2016, 19:29

Originally Posted by bogan

You're obviously coping well, but I'll stand my by judgement that personal attacks for such a condition is a despicable act.

Still mental, dunno how well I cope. I just admit it and talk about it freely. All the bollucks people talk about helping out and supporting us nut jobs is great an' all, but the biggest thing I can do for the rest is demonstrate that no one gives a fuck. They won't be thought less of for something they don't control. The rest is just warm fuzzies and free bikkies at support groups.

Back on topic however.

Taking everything the majority have said in this thread and throwing it away, and just leaving the stuff where source named info and stats are given. Steve's position on the subject is shot entirely to pieces.

So fuck the topic, let's have an old fashioned sagging fest. Personal attacks and name calling like.

Who's keen? I'LL BURN YOUR FUCKEN HOUSE DOWN!.

**Kickaha** · 24th June 2016, 19:45

Originally Posted by Drew

Who's keen? I'LL BURN YOUR FUCKEN HOUSE DOWN!.

Try it cunt, I'll stab you in the fucking throat with a screwdriver

**Drew** · 24th June 2016, 19:54

Originally Posted by Kickaha

Try it cunt, I'll stab you in the fucking throat with a screwdriver

You carry a step ladder with you everywhere stumpy?

**Katman** · 24th June 2016, 19:55

Originally Posted by Kickaha

Try it cunt, I'll stab you in the fucking throat with a screwdriver

I'm gunna make a fraudulent insurance claim.

**Drew** · 24th June 2016, 19:58

Originally Posted by Katman

I'm gunna make a fraudulent insurance claim.

You own a bike workshop. You make half your income from ripping off insurance companies cunt, shutchafuckenface or I'll break this Heineken bottle over your crazy old fucking head.