Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

Do we know it's Mary that added the Table and the sentence?

Your desperation is hilarious.

[TheDemonLord]

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).

So you'll be buying the book and posting up the relevant citations then?

Remember - you put it forward, burden of proof is on you.

[TheDemonLord]

Your desperation is hilarious.

Not at all. Someone (other than the original author) has already edited the excerpt. We've got multiple excerpts that do not match. This is why Chain of Evidence is a thing.

[Katman]

Remember - you put it forward, burden of proof is on you.

Like I said, you'll find the proof if you're sufficiently interested.

[husaberg]

Like I said, you'll find the proof if you're sufficiently interested.

And a few myths about Andrew Wakefield dispelled.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/di...deconstructed/

It is up to you to tell everyone exactly what that is contained in your link that dispels and myths about the total medical fraud that is Wakefeild
Especially as you are forgetting what the 36 charges he was found guilty of.
Which include four counts of dishonesty.
12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally delayed children.
The Medical panel also ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.
But what would they know aye.
Not to mention Wakefeilds media releases where Wakefield made statements before the release of his paper where at a press conference, he called calling for the suspension of the triple MMR vaccine due to his findings.
Or his own vaccine patent application that stated

It has now also been shown that use of the MMR vaccine (which is taken to include live attenuated measles vaccine virus, measles virus, mumps vaccine virus and rubella vaccine virus, and wild strains of the aforementioned viruses) results in ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, chronic colitis and pervasive developmental disorder including autism (RBD), in some infants.

Or the libel court case that Wakefeild himself initiated then dropped days after the details of his fraud were released to the media
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/legal-aid.htm
Where he was ordered to pay all defendants' legal costs.

[Katman]

It is up to you to tell everyone exactly what that is contained in your link that dispels and myths about the total medical fraud that is Wakefeild
Especially as you are forgetting what the 36 charges he was found guilty of.
Which include four counts of dishonesty.
12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally delayed children.
The Medical panel also ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.
But what would they know aye.

Professor Walker-Smith was found guilty of virtually identical charges - and was later exonerated.

[husaberg]

Professor Walker-Smith was on trial for virtuality identical charges - and was later exonerated.

Yet Wakefield was clearly not.
You also clearly do not realise that walker smith asked for his name to be removed from the paper otherwise you would not mention him in relation to the wakefeild fraud
He did so as he said Andrew Wakefield had fraudulently misinterpreted his data

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...715-2/abstract

[Katman]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...715-2/abstract

That's the retraction of an 'interpretation' - not the entire study.

[TheDemonLord]

Like I said, you'll manufacture the proof if you're sufficiently ideologically possessed.

I've fixed it for you.

Now that we've dealt with one of the glaring fallacies in that turd of a link (bait and switch), I wonder if you are skeptical enough to find the others.

Professor Walker-Smith was found guilty of virtually identical charges - and was later exonerated.

Virtually =/= actually

And that is precisely the Bait and Switch tactic employed by the article:

Person A and Person B committed similar but not identical actions
Person A and Person B received the same sanction for said actions
Person B had the sanction expunged, (this is the bait)
Therefore Person A must also be innocent (this it the switch)

[Katman]

Virtually =/= actually

And that is precisely the Bait and Switch tactic employed by the article:

Person A and Person B committed similar but not identical actions
Person A and Person B received the same sanction for said actions
Person B had the sanction expunged, (this is the bait)
Therefore Person A must also be innocent (this it the switch)

Would you care to point out the differences between the charges laid against Wakefield and Walker-Smith?

Because one would expect that there would have to be massive differences between the charges laid against each of them - if one was later exonerated while the other was still seen as the Anti-Christ.

[husaberg]

That's the retraction of an 'interpretation' - not the entire study.

You really are a fool.
You mean ten of the 12 authors removing their names of Wakefield's fraudulent interpretation of their data.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...715-2/abstract

Now Why would they do that.
Or the children involved in the study 12 of their parents said Wakefeild had misrepresented what they said or their children's symptoms or notes.

not one case was free of critical mismatches between the paper which launched the vaccine crisis and the kids’ contemporaneous records. Some children were a cause for concern before vaccination. Some were deemed normal months afterwards. Some did not have autism at all.

unreported, molecular tests carried out in Wakefield’s own lab had found no trace of measles in the children’s guts and blood. Those tests were among a string which found no evidence of the virus.

In the Lancet, the 12 children (11 boys and one girl) had been held out as merely a routine series of kids with developmental disorders and digestive symptoms, needing care from the London hospital. That so many of their parents blamed problems on one common vaccine, understandably, caused public concern. But Deer discovered that nearly all the children (aged between 2½ and 9½) had been pre-selected through MMR campaign groups, and that, at the time of their admission, most of their parents were clients and contacts of the lawyer, Barr. None of the 12 lived in London. Two were brothers. Two attended the same doctor’s office, 280 miles from the Royal Free. Three were patients at another clinic. One was flown in from the United States.

[Katman]

You really are a fool.
You mean ten of the 12 authors removing their names of Wakefield's fraudulent interpretation of their data.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...715-2/abstract

Now Why would they do that.
Or the children involved in the study 12 of their parents said Wakefeild had misrepresented what they said or their children's symptoms or notes.

Let's see if TDL has a cry about your lack of citations.

[TheDemonLord]

Would you care to point out the differences between the charges laid against Wakefield and Walker-Smith?

Because one would expect that there would have to be massive differences between the charges laid against each of them - if one was later exonerated while the other was still seen as the Anti-Christ.

Would one?

Even by your own articles, they NEVER use the word identical - and as you said:

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.

So, from that we can infer that since a person, who by your own assertion, wouldn't make unsubstantiated claims - does not refer to the charges as identical - that they are in fact different.

From there, we can make a second inference that since Andrew Wakefield has not appealed his ruling, the differences between his and Prof. Walker-Smith are great enough that it would require a significant investment of Time (and therefore money) to dispel.

So, it's still a bait and switch fallacy, and still horseshit.

[Katman]

So, from that we can infer that since a person, who by your own assertion, wouldn't make unsubstantiated claims - does not refer to the charges as identical - that they are in fact different.

From there, we can make a second inference that since Andrew Wakefield has not appealed his ruling, the differences between his and Prof. Walker-Smith are great enough that it would require a significant investment of Time (and therefore money) to dispel.

So, it's still a bait and switch fallacy, and still horseshit.

Dude, that's a lot of guessing going on there.

(But then again, you may just have inadvertently invented the Autism Fallacy).

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, that's a lot of guessing going on there.

(But then again, you may just have inadvertently invented the Autism Fallacy).

Not at all, it's deductive reasoning, you should give it a try some time.

You're now in a predicament - either you have to retract your statement about the good Mary Holland and her careful wording or you have to concede that your article was full of shit (like I said it was, after a quick skim read).

What's it going to be?

The odds are:

3:1 Change of subject
2.2:1 Generic Abuse
1.8:1 Offer of homosexual fellatio