Cancer and the drug companies

[Katman]

Andrew Wakefield is both revered and reviled. To a small group of parents, he’s a hero who won’t back down from his assertion that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause autism.

To most, however, he’s the man who authored a fraudulent study that has been refuted many times and was retracted by the journal that published it, a man whose views carry dangerous consequences for all of us. They will tell you that the former doctor—stripped of his license in 2010 by the U.K.’s General Medical Council for ethical violations and failure to disclose potentially competing financial interests—has derailed public confidence in vaccination programs that were safely eradicating serious and highly contagious diseases.




http://shotofprevention.com/tag/andrew-wakefield/




http://shotofprevention.com/tag/andrew-wakefield/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ld-mmr-vaccine

None of which changes the fact that very often peer-reviewed medical journals will say exactly what Big Pharma tells them to say.

[husaberg]

None of which changes the fact that very often peer-reviewed medical journals will say exactly what Big Pharma tells them to say.

what I posted was facts what you posted was a supposition based on what you believe
you can't refute what I posted so you try and change the subject.

So on the balance of the information and actual evidence did Andrew have a undisclosed agenda against the 3-in one shoot yes or no.
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

But Deer's investigation - nominated in February 2011 for two British Press Awards - discovered that, while Wakefield held himself out to be a dispassionate scientist, two years before the Lancet paper was published - and before any of the 12 children were even referred to the hospital - he had been hired to attack MMR by a lawyer, Richard Barr: a jobbing solicitor in the small eastern English town of King's Lynn, who hoped to raise a speculative class action lawsuit against drug companies which manufactured the triple shot.

Unlike expert witnesses, who give professional advice and opinions, Wakefield had negotiated an unprecedented contract with Barr, then aged 48, to conduct clinical and scientific research. The goal was to find evidence of what the two men claimed to be a "new syndrome", intended to be the centrepiece of (later failed) litigation on behalf of an eventual 1,600 British families, recruited through media stories. This publicly undisclosed role for Wakefield created the grossest conflict of interest, and the exposure of it by Deer, in February 2004, led to public uproar in Britain, the retraction of the Lancet report's conclusions section, and, from July 2007 to May 2010, the longest-ever professional misconduct hearing by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC).

PS what do you think your conspiracy website publications offer totally unbiased information devoid of any advertisers agendas and massages.
Maybe next time you are sick or injured you can shun all medical treatment and drugs.

[Katman]

what you posted was a supposition based on what you believe

Did you miss this bit.....

And yet, “All journals are bought—or at least cleverly used—by the pharmaceutical industry,” says Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal,

[Katman]

And that same former editor's opinion of the peer-review process.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/pre-pub...ournal/5449164

[husaberg]

Did you miss this bit.....

And yet, “All journals are bought—or at least cleverly used—by the pharmaceutical industry,” says Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal,

Subjective did you miss that?
So how are you getting on refuting that Andrew Wakefield (the cause of all the controversy and mistrust) was actually brought and paid for to create all of this mistrust in the 3-n 1 vaccine in the firsty place.
Not only that he has profited geatly and continues to out of the pain on others.
not only did he falsify data he actually did so with the intent to promote a competitors product.
He then further attempted to feed of people by accepting money to testify that one product was a the cause of there childs problems when he was acutely aware it was not.
do you refute any of this occurred?

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

[Katman]

do you refute any of this occurred?

Why would you imagine that I have the slightest interest in defending Andrew Wakefield?

[husaberg]

Why would you imagine that I have the slightest interest in defending Andrew Wakefield?

And the highly amusing part is that the likes of TheDemonLard will immediately accuse anyone who dares to question the vaccination process of simply wanting to see thousands of babies die.

That sort of argument goes way beyond fucking moronic.

Why do you think anyone questions vaccination, how much did it ever occur prior to Andrew Wakefield making up a whole lot of crap to suit his own agenda
But feel free to remain ignorant of that. Its like a way of life with your religion

[Katman]

I also think you'll find that instead of suggesting that children should never be vaccinated for measles, mumps or rubella, Andrew Wakefield preferred that they should be 3 separate vaccinations with 12 months between each one.

[husaberg]

I also think you'll find that instead of suggesting that children should never be vaccinated for measles, mumps or rubella, Andrew Wakefield preferred that they should be 3 separate vaccinations with 12 months between each one.

Of course he did? why was that?
lets see...... who was he secretly on the payroll for?

But Deer's investigation - nominated in February 2011 for two British Press Awards - discovered that, while Wakefield held himself out to be a dispassionate scientist, two years before the Lancet paper was published - and before any of the 12 children were even referred to the hospital - he had been hired to attack MMR by a lawyer, Richard Barr: a jobbing solicitor in the small eastern English town of King's Lynn, who hoped to raise a speculative class action lawsuit against drug companies which manufactured the triple shot.

Unlike expert witnesses, who give professional advice and opinions, Wakefield had negotiated an unprecedented contract with Barr, then aged 48, to conduct clinical and scientific research. The goal was to find evidence of what the two men claimed to be a "new syndrome", intended to be the centrepiece of (later failed) litigation on behalf of an eventual 1,600 British families, recruited through media stories. This publicly undisclosed role for Wakefield created the grossest conflict of interest, and the exposure of it by Deer, in February 2004, led to public uproar in Britain, the retraction of the Lancet report's conclusions section, and, from July 2007 to May 2010, the longest-ever professional misconduct hearing by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC).

For someone who quired why you would want to defend Andrew Wakefield you are certainly appear to be trying to.
Why do you think he was thrown out of the medical profession?

unfortunately because of his greed instead of it onlty undermining one kind of vaccine it tapped into a whole conspiracy movement where ill founded illogical conspiracy theorists such as you took what information was falsely presented and managed to convince a whole lot of gullible people that all sorts of issues were caused by vaccinations.

[Katman]

lets see...... who was he secretly on the payroll for?

He was probably on the payroll of another pharmaceutical company who wanted to advance their own version of the vaccines.

[husaberg]

He was probably on the payroll of another pharmaceutical company who wanted to advance their own version of the vaccines.

Wow Einstein... did you miss the 5 or 6 occasions I have already posted that.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934226
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934211
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934206
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934204
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934182
but there's the rub he presented the false information not the drug company. he was meant to be an independent researcher that why he was thrown out of the medical profession and the research was removed it proves the system works.
WHat its also proves is no matter what is said afterwards people like you will still try and feed of it as if it was true.

[Katman]

Wow Einstein... did you miss the 5 or 6 occasions I have already posted that.

Well if that were indeed the case then it would actually be the rival pharmaceutical company that was directly responsible for the controversy that surrounds the whole vaccination process.

[husaberg]

Well if that were indeed the case then it would actually be the rival pharmaceutical company that was directly responsible for the controversy that surrounds the whole vaccination process.

There is no if about it.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934226
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934211
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934206
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934204
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130934182

As it was not the pharmaceutical company that published the research. It was not was it the pharmaceutical company that made the claims it was Andrew Wakefield.
People listened and placed trust in to him as he was an independent researcher.
He certainly fooled you................

[Katman]

There is no if about it. As it was not the pharmaceutical company that published the research. It was not was it the pharmaceutical company that made the claims it was Andrew Wakefield
People listened and placed trust in to him as he was an independent researcher.

But if he was commissioned by a rival pharmaceutical company to produce a fraudulent study designed to discredit their competitor's product then it would be the rival company who was paying him off that would bear overall responsibility, wouldn't it?

[husaberg]

But if he was commissioned by a rival pharmaceutical company to produce a fraudulent study designed to discredit their competitor's product then it would be the rival company who was paying him off that would bear overall responsibility, wouldn't it?

Incorrect who produced the report, who didn't admit there was a conflict of interest.
Who falsified and misrepresented the data.
#the answer to all of these is ANDREW WAKEFIELD