Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[pritch]

Check out this example of an idiot that got caught out not practicing what she was preaching, to the detriment of others.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ning-to-us-all

Yeah I smiled at that. There was another "influencer" caught up in the college admission scam. Her parents had paid hundreds of thousands to get her and her sister into a good college as members of the rowing squad. Neither were rowers. The influencer recorded herself saying she was too busy for schoolwork but hoped to attend game days and parties. Ah well, she won't have to worry about any of that now.

Actually it's cause for worry about the sort of people they influence. Not dissimilar to anti vaxxers?

[F5 Dave]

Here, let me help you with that.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dr+peter+fletcher

Oh I wasn't going to click on that in case I got Internet Aids. Besides theres a hard working algorithm at Google and I don't want it to think I'm stupid.

The quick answer would have been 2006 and even though his credibility is minimal at best, that is still cherry picked statements.

[Katman]

....and even though his credibility is minimal at best.....

How do you figure that?

Do Chief Scientific Officers generally have minimal credibility?

[Grumph]

How do you figure that?

Do Chief Scientific Officers generally have minimal credibility?

Depends largely on who picked them, who appointed them - and why they lost their jobs.
A trump appointee for example would have no credibilty whatsoever.

As do you on medical matters. Not visiting a doctor for 15 years means you know nothing about what is current in NZ medicine.
Drew may be comforted to realise that there's probably several potentially fatal problems germinating in or on your person.

[Katman]

Depends largely on who picked them, who appointed them - and why they lost their jobs.

That's a lot of speculation you've got going on there.

Drew may be comforted to realise that there's probably several potentially fatal problems germinating in or on your person.

Care to take bets on which of us is likely to check out first?

[F5 Dave]

Ok I am going to cherry pick here but the excerpts are pretty clear.


On 22 December 2006, in response to a request initiated by Deer under the Freedom of Information Act, the Legal Services Commission revealed for the first time details of how more than £15million of legal aid funding was spent by lawyers attempting to make a case that MMR had caused autism in more than 1,000 children (3). This case collapsed in September 2003 when the LSC finally realised that there was no possibility of the case succeeding on the basis of the research commissioned by the lawyers and refused further funding.

. .

The LSC’s disclosures confirm that the major beneficiaries of the anti-MMR litigation (payments were made from 1992 up to 2004) were the lawyers. They received some two thirds of the £15million total (£8million to solicitors, £1.7million to barristers). The bulk of the revenues accruing to solicitors went to the Manchester-based firm Alexander Harris, where one partner, Richard Barr, played the leading role in coordinating the anti-MMR campaign from the outset.
. .
The notion that serious science could result from research sponsored by legal aid funding and administered by lawyers is nonsense. The team of experts assembled by Barr did not include a single recognised autism specialist, paediatrician, vaccine specialist, virologist or paediatric gastroenterologist who has a current public appointment or is currently in practice. (Indeed, many of the experts have long retired, though several have embarked on new careers as professional expert witnesses.)
. . .

Our old friend , Not-a-Dr Wakefield make £400k from this

And Fletcher made £40k
He was head of the committee on safety of medicines in the 1970s (oh cool) and emerged from retirement to endorse Dr Wakefield’s critique of MMR safety in 2001


Well blow me down.
Credibility shot.

[Katman]

Well blow me down.
Credibility shot.

Credibility shot because he earned some money?

So where does that leave the credibility of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole?

[sidecar bob]

Credibility shot because he earned some money?

So where does that leave the credibility of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole?

But you're not about earning money are you?
You've pulled me up on it a number of times.

[Katman]

But you're not about earning money are you?
You've pulled me up on it a number of times.

It's not about earning money (after all, everyone needs to eat).

It's about earning more than you need.

And then still feeling you've not quite got enough.

[sidecar bob]

It's not about earning money (after all, everyone needs to eat).

It's about earning more than you need.

And then still feeling you've not quite got enough.

Phew, Well that counts me out then. I've got plenty of good years of work left in me, but I've eased up because I have enough now.
But don't you think the blokes mentioned fell into your bad category?

[TheDemonLord]

It's not about earning money (after all, everyone needs to eat).

It's about earning more than you need.

And then still feeling you've not quite got enough.

Who gets to define what is 'enough'?

By what Criteria is it defined?

If we look at a Global scale - you are as Rich and Decedent to the Majority of the Worlds population as a Billionaire seems to you.

[Drew]

It's not about earning money (after all, everyone needs to eat).

It's about earning more than you need.

And then still feeling you've not quite got enough.

What?

You're fucked man. Really really fucked.

The scale of how fucked you are, is unquantifiable relative to the next most fucked person on the planet.

[F5 Dave]

So you're well into retirement realising your pension is a bit thin, then some lawyer offers you a years salary to support his side of the argument, hands you the same bile Wakefield was spouting and say Agree on this.

I'm your man he sez. That would be a very useful top up.

The pharmaceutical reference is just deflection.

When you pay someone large sums of money to aid your argument you have perverted any impartiality.

[Ocean1]

When you pay someone large sums of money to aid your argument you have perverted any impartiality.

...Background cackling from every parliamentary select committee, ever...

[pritch]

There are probably thousands of authoritative pro-vaccine articles written by qualified people, but the antis prefer the handul of articles by those with dissenting views.

As for "experts" selling out, it happens in the court system all the time. The experts are paid for their evidence and, liking the business, they tend to give the answers the prosecution wants. I remember one who used to end her reports with words to the effect, "Although I could find no evidence that does not mean the crime did not take place"*.

One judge gave her a severe verbal slap for this, but mostly it passed without comment.



*Despite the quotation marks that is not a direct quote. A quote would be too specific.