I have no reason to suspect I wouldn't have.Originally Posted by husaberk
Forum whore
I have no reason to suspect I wouldn't have.
Anorak
Thats only because you lack the ability to rationalise facts.
Maybe you should ask you mother why she had you vaccinated, she would have seen the results of the diseases you were vaccinated growing up that you ignore.
ps i see you as normal pick and choose what you respond to.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
You seem to forget that the vaccination schedule back when I was a child was considerably less than the schedule that today's children are subjected to.
Anorak
i dont care about the schedule when you were born,
You seem to know buggar all about vaccinations quite a few things have also been removed over time as well as added.As diseases are eliminated they get removed
But of course you claim to know better what is safe than 99.99% of medical professionals to vaccinate a child for.
Also the safety of vaccines also improve over time.
I note ealier you claimed you were not vaccinated for Tetanus are you still so sure
http://nursingreview.co.nz/history-o...tion-schedule/
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
So how about you show what the vaccination schedule was back in the 60's compared to that of today.
Anorak
As i said i dont care about your latest attempt to shift tacks.
I posted the schedules, Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you know better what is safe than 99.99% of what medical profeesionals recomend as being safe and what the side effects are for vaccination.
All your claimed objections are due to a study totally discredited by a discredited doctor who wanted to make a quick buck off his own vaccine.
Until you start posting some facts its all just your narcissistic conspiracy driven opinion drivel against all known verified medical science.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Now that's not fair.
He can't post any facts because his opinion is based on bollocks.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Forum whore
Dude, your total contribution to this thread has been 6 posts - none of which contain anything resembling 'facts'.
Moped rider
To be fair, that's still better than 378 posts of untruths and dangerous misinformation...
Anorak
These are facts
In 2010 the General Medical Council revoked Wakefield's medical licence after ruling his conduct 'dishonest and irresponsible'.
At the hearing, he was accused of being paid to conduct his study by lawyers representing parents who thought their children had been affected by MMR vaccinations.
He was also accused of buying blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them each £5.
The council ruled against Wakefield on both points - as well as several others.
The British Medical Journal said his work was fraudulent and that his data had been manipulated.
In 2004, the paper was attacked by ten of its 12 authors. the other two had their medical licences revoked
They wrote: 'We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised,' the scientists said in the retraction.
'Consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed on these findings in the paper.'
Their misconduct arose out of a fishing expedition, in which Malcolm ward was the pond for the measles theory. Since February 1996, seven months before child 2’s admission, Wakefield had been engaged by a lawyer named Richard Barr, who hoped to bring a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.arr was a high street solicitor, and an expert in home conveyancing,9 but also acted for an anti-vaccine group, JABS. And, through this connection, the man nowadays popularly dubbed the “MMR doctor” had found a supply of research patients for Walker-Smith.
“The following are signs to look for,” Barr wrote in a newsletter to his vaccine claim clients, mostly media enlisted parents of children with brain disorders, giving a list of common Crohn’s disease symptoms. “If your child has suffered from all or any of these symptoms could you please contact us, and it may be appropriate to put you in touch with Dr Wakefield.”Feature Secrets of the MMR scare
How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money
B
In the second part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer reveals a secret scheme to raise huge sums from a campaign, launched at a London medical school, that claimed links between MMR, autism, and bowel disease
“You used to hear Wakefield’s people talking about how they would win the Nobel Prize for this,” remembers Brent Taylor, the Royal Free’s head of community child health, who frequently clashed with the pair. “The atmosphere here was extraordinary.”
But instead of honours, the two men reaped disgrace. In January and May 2010, the UK’s General Medical Council found them guilty of a raft of charges over a project involving child 2.4 Wakefield, now 54, was judged by a five member panel to be guilty of some 30 charges, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 of causing children to be subjected to invasive procedures that were clinically unjustified; Walker-Smith, 74, was deemed irresponsible and unethical.4 Both were struck off the medical register5 6 and have since filed High Court appeals.
Working on a lawsuit
Their misconduct arose out of a fishing expedition, in which Malcolm ward was the pond for the measles theory. Since February 1996, seven months before child 2’s admission, Wakefield had been engaged by a lawyer named Richard Barr, who hoped to bring a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.7 8 Barr was a high street solicitor, and an expert in home conveyancing,9 but also acted for an anti-vaccine group, JABS. And, through this connection, the man nowadays popularly dubbed the “MMR doctor” had found a supply of research patients for Walker-Smith.
“The following are signs to look for,” Barr wrote in a newsletter to his vaccine claim clients, mostly media enlisted parents of children with brain disorders, giving a list of common Crohn’s disease symptoms. “If your child has suffered from all or any of these symptoms could you please contact us, and it may be appropriate to put you in touch with Dr Wakefield.”
A viral diagnostic
The following day, Monday, child 2 had an ileocolonoscopy, which, in common with seven other children reported in the paper, the GMC panel would find was not clinically warranted. Tuesday was Wakefield’s 40th birthday. And on Wednesday, with the news that the boy—still on the ward—might have Crohn’s disease, the doctor produced a remarkable document. It was an 11 page draft of a scheme behind the vaccine scare, now revealed for the first time in full.
The document was headed “Inventor/school/investor meeting 1.”15 Based on a patent Wakefield had filed in March 1995 claiming that “Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis may be diagnosed by detecting measles virus in bowel tissue, bowel products or body fluids,”it proposed starting a company that could reap huge returns from molecular viral diagnostic tests. It predicted a turnover from Britain and America of up to £72.5m a year.
“In view of the unique services offered by the Company and its technology, particularly for the molecular diagnostic,” the document noted, “the assays can command premium prices.”
To help finance the scheme, Wakefield looked to the government’s legal aid fund—meant to give poorer people access to justice. For the previous seven months, child 2 had been enrolled with Barr’s firm,17 which since February 1996— two years before the paper’s publication— had been paying the researcher undisclosed fees of £150 an hour, plus expenses.8
“The ability of the Company to commercialise its candidate products,” the draft plan continued, “depends upon the extent to which reimbursement for the cost of such products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health providers and, in the context of the molecular diagnostic, the Legal Aid Board.”
Money from the lawyer
Discussions about the business continued over the following years, but Wakefield’s involvement with Barr was quickly noted. In October 1996, the medical school’s dean, Arie Zuckerman, a virologist, was told that the lawyer had offered to pay the school for a “clinical and scientific study,”18 19 and had sent a first instalment of £25 000.20 21 This was held in suspense while Zuckerman sought confidential ethical advice from the British Medical Association, although Wakefield had already started spending it.
“Arising from recent widespread publicity given to this research,” Zuckerman (who told me he does not want to discuss these matters) wrote of Wakefield’s already televised claims about Crohn’s disease, “the Legal Aid Board has provided funding through a firm of solicitors representing Crohn’s disease sufferers and we have been asked to make an appointment to the staff of the Medical School, specifically to undertake a pilot study of selected patients.”
The BMA answered fully the following March, after its ethics committee had considered the issue. It said that money could be accepted provided there was proper research oversight and transparency over funding and patient sources.
“Further to our conversation regarding the establishment of a fund with the Special Trustees for your income and expenditure associated with the MMR research,” Else wrote to Wakefield, “I can confirm that a grant will be established for the purpose, given your written confirmation that there is no conflict of interest involved.”
Behind the press conference
Neither school nor hospital stood on the sidelines. They threw their weight behind Wakefield. In the build-up to the press conference, they installed extra phone lines and answering machines to field the expected panic, and distributed to broadcasters a 23 minute video news release showcasing Wakefield’s claims. “There is sufficient anxiety in my own mind for the long term safety of the polyvalent vaccine—that is, the MMR vaccination in combination—that I think it should be suspended in favour of the single vaccines,” he said, in one of four similar formulations on the videotape.28
Figure2
Single vaccine patent filed by Wakefield
Given the previous week’s publicity drive, the vaccine plans were sensitive. But the school had long known of this ambition. First surfacing in Wakefield’s 1995 patent for a diagnostic test for Crohn’s disease, it had been fleshed out in 1997, eight months before the press conference, in a patent for a “safer” single measles shot.30
The revised business plan was ambitious and detailed, aiming to raise £2.1m from investors. It spanned the detection of Crohn’s disease, the treatment of autism, and “a replacement for attenuated viral vaccines.”
ensued. Even as the vaccine scare escalated, triggering a deluge of referrals to Walker-Smith, staff at Freemedic, the commercial arm of what was now the merged Royal Free and University College Medical School, poured over contracts and plans.
Trading was to be fronted by Carmel Healthcare Ltd—named after Wakefield’s wife. Firmly rooted in Barr’s lawsuit, which eventually paid Wakefield £435 643, plus expenses,32 the business was to be launched off the back of the vaccine scare, diagnosing a purported—and still unsubstantiated33—“new syndrome.” This, Wakefield claimed, comprised both brain and bowel diseases, which, after Crohn’s disease was not found in any of the Lancet children, he dubbed “autistic enterocolitis.”34
“It is estimated that the initial market for the diagnostic will be litigation driven testing of patients with AE [autistic enterocolitis] from both the UK and the USA,” said a 35 page “private and confidential” prospectus, which was passed to me by a recipient. It aimed at raising an initial £700 000 from investors and forecast extraordinary revenues. “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.”35
Carmel was registered in the Irish Republic, where Wakefield would also become a director of another business. This was Unigenetics Ltd, incorporated in February 1999 with a Dublin pathologist, John O’Leary. After Wakefield submitted a confidential report to the Legal Aid Board,36 Unigenetics was awarded—without checks—£800 000 of taxpayers’ money 28 to perform polymerase chain reaction tests on bowel tissue and blood samples from children passing through Malcolm ward.
The key players in Carmel were the same as in the first company, Immunospecifics, with their planned equity now set out. Wakefield would get 37%, and the father of child 10 22.2%. The venture capitalist would get 18%, Pounder 11.7%, and O’Leary 11.1%.
Some would also be awarded extra money in advance, in proposed “executive and non-executive staff costs.” Wakefield was set to get £40 000 a year,37 in addition to his legal earnings and medical school salary, with an annual travel budget of £50 000 for the business.Patent for a Single Vaccine:
Wakefield also denied that he had a patent for a single vaccine. he claimed that:
The problem is that the patents in questions refer to this as a measles vaccine. For example, in a 1997 patent, before the publication of the paper, it says, “what is needed now is a safer vaccine …. I have now discovered a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer…”What we had at the time was a patent, the medical school owned the patent, not me. It was a patent on a thing called Transfer Factor. It’s a naturally occurring nutritional supplement that occurs in breast milk, for example, that boosts the immune response. Whether it worked or not is another question. That’s what we sought to try and find out. It boosts the immune response to an infection like measles. This could not prevent children from getting measles, so it didn’t act like MMR at all. What it did was to help them clear the virus once they became infected. It could never have competed with MMR vaccine. Never, because it did not work in the right way.
In another place, Wakefield said: “such a composition may be used as a measles virus vaccine.”
Here is a friendly suggestion to Andrew Wakefield. If you want to claim your patent was not for a single measles virus vaccine, it should not say that it can be used as a single measles virus vaccine.
Andrew Wakefield had a patent for a substance that he claimed could serve as a single measles virus vaccine before the publication of the Lancet paper and before he went to the media and claimed the MMR was unsafe. He did not disclose it. When he says otherwise, it’s a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
Nah, that's just Brian Deer's hatchet job.
Anorak
Really what are not facts.
Did the Medical council remove wakefeilds medical credentials and throw out his paper due to a reporters story?
Or because they conducted a long tribunal process where wakefeild was found to be a self serving opportunist not fit to be a doctor.
or because of a seies of facts as outlined above that wakefeild made up information so he could try and sell his diagnostic kits for a disease he made up and sell his patent for a "safe vaccine"
Wakefeid tried to sue Deer and the British medical journal for libel four times as a gagging ploy all four times they thrown out as it impossible to libel someone with facts.
https://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-a...eclaration.pdf
https://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-introduction.htm
in case you never knew the British libel laws say the person accused has to prove he didn't libel the victim.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
Really?
You're criticising Andrew Wakefield because he wanted to develop a 'safer' vaccine?
The Majestic Metal Wizard
No, we are Criticising the people who follow him, who rail against 'Big Pharma' with howls of 'profiteering', but support someone who invented a condition, so that same person could profit from selling the Cure.
Criticising MR. Wakefield is just an added bonus.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Anorak
Interesting you pick and choose what you resond to you seek to twist information as you have no basis to defend him otherwise
i am critizing wakefeild for being a total fraud willing to put 1000's of children's life at risk so he might line his own pockets.All based on his fraudulent claims.
H tried to hide his motives for doing so but was found out and exposed for being a lying scumbag fraud.
i believe the Same as the rest of the medical profession believe about him and his self serving motives thats why he was struck off and has been proven to be a total fraud time and time again
it should be added he also invented the cure and the test before he "discovered" the condition, But by discover i mean totally made up.
when asked about the test and the patent he tried to claim he had nothing to do with it when it was proven he did he tried to claim the patent was not for a vaccine only problem was the patent application clearly stated what it was and who had made it and when. Anyone that follows him or attempts to use him or is information is an idiot detached from reality.
Thus enter stage right Taupo Steve. Someone who needs no evidence only the word conspiracy
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks