Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

If you read nothing else on that page, go to the page linked that is written by Mary Holland.

As a Director at the New York University of Law she would not only have a very analytical mind but would also be perfectly well aware of the dangers of making unsubstantiated claims.

In it she outlines the charges brought against Andrew Wakefield by the GMC.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, that is the epitomal position of ignorance.

What is this epitomal you speak of?

But no, it's not the epitome of Ignorance - since I looked at it and based on the problems I found within, dismissed it. There's a big difference between what you are accusing and what I'm doing.

[Katman]

What is this epitomal you speak of?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/epitomal

[TheDemonLord]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/epitomal

Yes, but incorrect usage.

If you read nothing else on that page, go to the page linked that is written by Mary Holland.

As a Director at the New York University of Law she would not only have a very analytical mind but would also be perfectly well aware of the dangers of making unsubstantiated claims.

In it she outlines the charges brought against Andrew Wakefield by the GMC.

So you are referring to this document? http://vaccineepidemic.com/pdf/vech25.pdf or is it this one: http://vaxxedthemovie.com/wp-content...Holland-JD.pdf

Cause now I have multiple documents, ostensibly written by the same person with different content - so now I cannot be sure which is Mary Holland's original piece.

That said -

Let's get to the 4 claims and her 4 refutations:

The GMC alleged:

• Dr. Wakefield was paid 55,000 British pound sterling (about US $90,000) by litigators for the study published in The Lancet, and he failed to disclose this conflict of interest;
• He and his colleagues performed medically unnecessary tests on the children in the 1998 study and lacked appropriate ethical clearances
• The children in the 1998 study were selected for litigation purposes (as described in the Sunday Times article) and not referred by local physicians; and
• He drew blood from children at his son’s birthday party for control samples in the 1998 study with callous disregard for the distress that this might cause children.

In her rebuttal - the first statement:

Dr. Wakefield accepted 55,000 pounds to conduct a study for the class action suit regarding vaccines and autism.

Now, she tries to hand waive about this by asserting what the Lancet must have known:

Dr. Horton, editor of The Lancet, had been informed and should have been well aware of Dr. Wakefield’s role in the vaccine-related litigation before the publication of the 1998 article.

She submits no proof that Dr Horton had been informed, there's a citation number at the end of that statement, but no citation list - see above about the Anti-Vaxxers have been editing the original statement. Oh Dear. Furthermore - her choice of wording is interesting - someone should have known something? That's hearsay - you can't attest to what someone should have known.

The fact that this conflict of interest was not disclosed in the original paper is a big red-flag. It's why conflicts of interest HAVE to be declared.

Next - the Medically invasive tests:

The last statement is particularly interesting:

Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues reject the GMC’s ruling that the tests for the Lancet 12 were unnecessary.

That's like a convicted murdered rejecting a juries ruling that he's guilty - some reaaaaaally solid proof there...

Her actual argument can be boiled down to that Prof. Walker-Smith deemed the tests necessary as part of treatment for the children and then the results were subsequently used as part of the Study. You'll probably point to Prof. Walker-Smith's quashed sanction as proof - but reading the judgement on the appeal is rather interesting:

"It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure."
"If not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician."
"Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination. The panel's decision cannot stand. I therefore quash it."

There is a scenario (and the circumstantial evidence is tightly aligned with said scenario) that is inline with the first statement - doing research in the guise of treatment. You will note that the judge said that this question was not addressed and decided. You will no doubt take the opposite view (as is your want and whim) but it's not as cut-and-dry as Mary Holland makes it out to be.

Next point is that the Children were cherry-picked, ostensibly for litigation purposes. Again, with access to the Citations, it's kinda hard to evaluate - she asserts that parents were in contact with Wakefield prior to his attempt at a litigation suit. Without any proof of timings, I'll take that with a grain of salt. It's certainly not unreasonable that parents would seek out an expert in a field, but it's also not unreasonable for financially struggling parents, with special needs children to seek out someone who (as per Mary herself) advertised in a national newspaper a full year before the paper was published about the intent to litigate, on the promise of a big, fat, financial reward.

Last point is about taking Blood at a Birthday party.

Mary states:

admittedly an unconventional method of collecting control blood samples it hardly amounts to “serious professional misconduct” or an ethical breach warranting delicensure.

Whilst, I'll agree with her assessment that it was being done by professionals using a standard technique - it wasn't done at a location with medical facilities. Was the environment fully Sterile - well, considering what happens with Childrens parties, I think you can categorically say it wasn't.

For myself, as a parent, I'd have some serious reservations at letting my child get blood taken anywhere that wasn't appropriate (Nurses station, hospital, doctors office, ambulance etc.) which to me raises the question - he was a Doctor, with easy access to such facilities - why wouldn't he get it done in a more appropriate venue? That to me smells a bit odd.

Also reading through it - she states that each child was paid £5 - one might conjecture that this was compensation for the distress that the GMC spoke of (Children are so easily bribed).

[Katman]

So you are referring to this document? http://vaccineepidemic.com/pdf/vech25.pdf or is it this one: http://vaxxedthemovie.com/wp-content...Holland-JD.pdf

Cause now I have multiple documents, ostensibly written by the same person with different content - so now I cannot be sure which is Mary Holland's original piece.

Seriously???

The second link is presumably from a revised edition of her book. It says the same things but adds in a table.

Next - the Medically invasive tests:

The last statement is particularly interesting:



That's like a convicted murdered rejecting a juries ruling that he's guilty - some reaaaaaally solid proof there...

If that convicted murderer was later acquitted of his conviction then he would be quite within his rights to reject the jury's ruling. Wouldn't you?

Therefore, the fact that a Court chose to overturn Dr Walker-Smith's ruling, more than likely indicates that they would overturn that ruling with regards to Andrew Wakefield as well.

[TheDemonLord]

If that convicted murderer was later acquitted of his conviction then he would be quite within his rights to reject the jury's ruling.

Therefore, the fact that a Court chose to overturn Dr Walker-Smith's ruling, more than likely indicates that they would overturn that ruling with regards to Andrew Wakefield as well.

And there is one of the word games that the original article plays.

Prof. Walker-Smith has had his ruling overturned.
Andrew Wakefield has not.

Any claim that tries to imply anything about Andrew Wakefield, based on the appeal of Prof. Walker-Smith is trying to do a good ol' fashioned Bait and switch fallacy.

Plus, don't you find it curious that Prof. Walker-Smith appealed almost immediately and had his judgement quashed within 2 years, yet in 8 years, Andrew Wakefield has not?

[TheDemonLord]

Seriously???

The second link is presumably from a revised edition of her book. It says the same things but adds in a table.

Presumably?

Adds in a Table? or removes a Table? It's been altered. Which one is the original? And there's still no citations.

[Katman]

Prof. Walker-Smith has had his ruling overturned.
Andrew Wakefield has not.

Andrew Wakefield's insurance wouldn't cover the cost of an appeal process.

[Katman]

Presumably?

Adds in a Table? or removes a Table? It's been altered. Which one is the original? And there's still no citations.

Do you understand the fact that later editions of a book can have revisions in it and yet still be by the same author?

And if you can happily use the word 'ostensibly' then I will happily use the word 'presumably'.

[TheDemonLord]

Andrew Wakefield's insurance wouldn't cover the cost of an appeal process.

And?

Plenty of people don't have insurance that cover appeals, yet they still manage. And if the implication that both articles makes is to be believed (that since Prof. Walker-Smith had his judgement squashed, Andrew will also get his quashed) then it shouldn't be an expensive process.

Unless...

That Implication is a load of crap in which case, he wouldn't have appealed in 8 years... Oh wait...

[TheDemonLord]

Do you understand the fact that later editions of a book can have revisions in it and yet still be by the same author?

And if you can happily use the word 'ostensibly' then I will happily use the word 'presumably'.

Yes - which one is which?

Both have removed the citations, we have no way to be certain that one or either is the original, in full and intact.

If both articles were identical - I'd just complain about the lack of citations, but now we've got different versions, I can't trust any of them.

[Katman]

Yes - which one is which?

Both have removed the citations, we have no way to be certain that one or either is the original, in full and intact.

If both articles were identical - I'd just complain about the lack of citations, but now we've got different versions, I can't trust any of them.

I've looked through the two versions side by side. As well as the Table added to the second one there is also a sentence that references the 2012 High Court Appeal of Walker-Smith.

Since Mary Holland's book was originally published in 2011 we can assume the one with the Table is a revised edition.

And the two versions haven't "removed the citations". The citation numbers are still clearly there. Citations are usually listed and detailed at the end of a book.

[TheDemonLord]

I've looked through the two versions side by side. As well as the Table added to the second one there is also a sentence that references the 2012 High Court Appeal of Walker-Smith.

Since Mary Holland's book was originally published in 2011 we can assume the one with the Table is a revised edition.

And the two versions haven't "removed the citations". The citation numbers are still clearly there. Citations are usually listed and detailed at the end of a book.

So, by not including them in the online version - they've removed the Citations?

Glad you agree with me.

It would be nice to be able to back-check what was being cited, and whether it means what the author is claiming.

As for the assumption - can we? It's not like either version links back to the source and we can check - there is no way to validate it. Do we know it's Mary that added the Table and the sentence? This is the problem when you start using half-assed sources.

[Katman]

It would be nice to be able to back-check what was being cited, and whether it means what the author is claiming.

As for the assumption - can we? It's not like either version links back to the source and we can check - there is no way to validate it. Do we know it's Mary that added the Table and the sentence? This is the problem when you start using half-assed sources.

I imagine your local library might have a copy of the book if you were sufficiently interested - which I'm sure you're not.

[Katman]

Well look at that. You could have your own copy if you were sufficiently interested.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/books/nonf...f12cfd6995c42b

(But like I said, for all the fact that you state "it would be nice to be able to back-check what was being cited", we both know that you're not prepared to expose yourself to any information that might run contrary to your ingrained beliefs).