Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6001  
Old 12-06-2016, 12:17 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
To be clear, what is the reason behind independent ethical oversight?
peacegirl, having read the Declaration of Helsinki and other research ethics frameworks I have provided in this thread, do you not understand why independent ethical oversight, rather than the researcher's own judgment and opinion are critical to the ethical conduct of medical research involving humans? I find this difficult to believe, even for you, given your purported concern about conflicts of interest in certain types of medical research.
Quote:
He could not have gotten samples from healthy children in a hospital, which is what he needed.
peacegirl, take a moment to think about this statement. This is Wakefield simply lying. An enormous amount of medical research occurs involving healthy individuals. Maybe even most of it; for the most part, clinical research cannot advance without phase I dose escalation/pharmacokinetic studies involving healthy volunteers. This does not obviate the ethical requirement to obtain independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans; this need is particularly acute when the participants are children.

There are manifold ways to locate healthy volunteers. Wakefield could have even recruited them at the birthday party. If he had ethics committee approval. Medical research involving humans still requires independent ethical oversight. But he didn't, and his medical research was unethical.
Quote:
I don't agree that he was conducting research just because a needle was involved. You're stretching it Chuck. He also had a licensed doctor to get the samples.
No, he was conducting research because he used the needle to collect biological samples from humans for medical research purposes. It was unethical because he did not obtain independent ethical oversight for this medical research. The participating of another licensed doctor in his unethical medical research is troubling.
Quote:
I would need to know what the conditions were. You make it sound like a stranger barged into a child's birthday party and demanded blood samples. Wakefield's reasons for doing it this way were perfectly innocent. It happened to be HIS child's birthday party. His wife suggested it because it would be an easy way to get the samples so he could begin his research.
peacegirl, this severely undermines any kind of medical ethics argument you can muster. Why does it matter that it was his child's party? Why does it matter that his wife suggested it? peacegirl: none of these things relieve a researcher from the ethical obligation to obtain independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans. Wakefield unethically conducted medical research involving humans without obtaining independent ethical oversight. It does not matter that his son had a birthday party. It does not matter if he blames it on his wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He needed ethical approval regarding the biopsies, which he got. He did not need ethical approval to do the clinical study.
Asserted without basis in fact, and in correct. Medical research involving humans requires independent ethical oversight. Wakefield unethically conducted medical research involving humans without obtaining independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
None, but he was not doing medical research on children at the party Chuck.
He was conducting research in collecting biological samples from humans for medical research purposes. It was unethical because he did not obtain independent ethical oversight for this medical research.
Quote:
Obviously, for children to consent to getting their blood drawn they would have to understand what that entails. If they were too young, their consent would be meaningless.
peacegirl, informed consent is an important consideration in the ethical conduct of medical research, particularly where the research subjects are children, but the Declaration of Helsinki and other research governance frameworks do not end there. Indeed, a vital reason for the need for independent ethical oversight is to ensure the consent process is appropriate and voluntary. This is one reason why it was unethical for Andrew Wakefield to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
He still did not do anything ethically (morally) wrong because no one was hurt by what he did.
He unethically conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight
Quote:
He did not do medical research in his backyard that demanded ethical oversight.
He collected biological materials from humans for research purposes without obtaining independent ethical oversight of his medical research involving humans. This was unethical.
Quote:
He used a licensed general practitioner to do the blood draws and he got informed consent.
This is irrelevant and does not excuse his unethical conduct of medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
Not knowing the fallout this would cause, he said if he had to do it all over again he would have gotten ethical approval. But he still did not do anything ethically wrong in the moral sense.
His ethical ignorance and lack of foresight are irrelevant and do not excuse his unethical conduct of medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.

The distinction between "ethical" and "moral" wrongs is specious and entirely your creation. His conduct of medical research on children without independent ethical oversight was unethical.
Quote:
He is not a quack. He was above board in his dealings with parents, the hospital, and the actual study he conducted.
peacegirl, let me make a suggestion. I have the impression that this is actually, legitimately painful for you, and I have to confess that I feel some regret that I have so stridently stressed this point for that reason. But this is not a minor point; this is a morally fundamental point of medical ethics that we cannot simply ignore in a scientifically advanced civilized society.

Here is my suggestion: the next time you are in the position of defending Andrew Wakefield's indefensible breach of basic medical research ethics, don't. They cannot be defended. His actions were manifestly unethical. His own attempts at self-justification demonstrate this.

Some of the strongest arguments that can be made against the childhood vaccine schedule are rooted in medical ethics. When you defend this obvious fraud, you undermine your own ability to make that argument. It is one thing to discard facts you do not like; it is another to discard your morals. It is one thing to sound foolish; it is another to sound morally bankrupt. Defending Andrew Wakefield requires you to do all of these things. That may hurt to hear, because of whatever emotional bond you have formed with your perception of this man, but that bond cannot be worth the moral compromises it forces you to make.

This is not like defending your version of your father's work. That is all well and good and in good fun. If little else, he was your father whom you loved. Andrew Wakefield is a huckster, a fraud, and a liar. He does not deserve the privilege of your defense.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-09-2016), Dragar (12-06-2016), specious_reasons (12-06-2016), Stephen Maturin (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6002  
Old 12-06-2016, 12:32 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMCMXCVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

peacegirl, do you disagree with Andy Wakefield when he stated that Andy Wakefield failed to obtain "appropriate ethical approval" for certain acts, that his failure was a mistake he regrets, and that his failure gave the GMC a "concrete reason" to revoke his license?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), Ari (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), ChuckF (12-06-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-06-2016), Dragar (12-06-2016), specious_reasons (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016), Vivisectus (12-06-2016)
  #6003  
Old 12-06-2016, 12:54 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDLXVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
To be clear, what is the reason behind independent ethical oversight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, having read the Declaration of Helsinki and other research ethics frameworks I have provided in this thread, do you not understand why independent ethical oversight, rather than the researcher's own judgment and opinion are critical to the ethical conduct of medical research involving humans? I find this difficult to believe, even for you, given your purported concern about conflicts of interest in certain types of medical research.
I have no problem with independent ethical oversight.

Quote:
He could not have gotten samples from healthy children in a hospital, which is what he needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, take a moment to think about this statement. This is Wakefield simply lying. An enormous amount of medical research occurs involving healthy individuals. Maybe even most of it; for the most part, clinical research cannot advance without phase I dose escalation/pharmacokinetic studies involving healthy volunteers.

There are manifold ways to locate healthy volunteers. Wakefield could have even recruited them at the birthday party. If he had ethics committee approval. Medical research involving humans still requires independent ethical oversight. But he didn't, and his medical research was unethical.
He already said that he would have done things differently. Obviously if he thought he needed ethical approval for this he would have gotten it. He was not doing medical research which is probably why he didn't put this in the same category. Regardless, it did not warrant the revoking of his medical license.
Quote:
I don't agree that he was conducting research just because a needle was involved. You're stretching it Chuck. He also had a licensed doctor to get the samples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
No, he was conducting research because he used the needle to collect biological samples from humans for medical research purposes. It was unethical because he did not obtain independent ethical oversight for this medical research. The participating of another licensed doctor in his unethical medical research is troubling.
I have a different opinion than you as to what constitutes medical research.
Quote:
I would need to know what the conditions were. You make it sound like a stranger barged into a child's birthday party and demanded blood samples. Wakefield's reasons for doing it this way were perfectly innocent. It happened to be HIS child's birthday party. His wife suggested it because it would be an easy way to get the samples so he could begin his research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, this severely undermines any kind of medical ethics argument you can muster. Why does it matter that it was his child's party? Why does it matter that his wife suggested it?
Because you make it sound like it was done in a forced setting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl: none of these things relieve a researcher from the ethical obligation to obtain independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans. Wakefield unethically conducted medical research involving humans without obtaining independent ethical oversight. It does not matter that his son had a birthday party. It does not matter if he blames it on his wife.
He did not blame it on his wife. Accepting the fact that he didn't get ethical approval, this did not warrant the removal of his medical license. He could have been reprimanded, which would have been enough. There's more to the story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He needed ethical approval regarding the biopsies, which he got. He did not need ethical approval to do the clinical study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Asserted without basis in fact, and in correct. Medical research involving humans requires independent ethical oversight. Wakefield unethically conducted medical research involving humans without obtaining independent ethical oversight.
He did not need ethical approval for performing a clinical study. If you think he was lying about this, prove it.
Quote:
None, but he was not doing medical research on children at the party Chuck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
He was conducting research in collecting biological samples from humans for medical research purposes. It was unethical because he did not obtain independent ethical oversight for this medical research.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more right. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Obviously, for children to consent to getting their blood drawn they would have to understand what that entails. If they were too young, their consent would be meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, informed consent is an important consideration in the ethical conduct of medical research, but the Declaration of Helsinki and other research governance frameworks do not end there. Indeed, a vital reason for the need for independent ethical oversight is to ensure the consent process is appropriate and voluntary. This is one reason why it was unethical for Andrew Wakefield to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.
The fact remains that he did get appropriate consent. He just didn't get it from the ethics committee. What he did was unethical in a legal sense but not in a moral sense.
Quote:
He still did not do anything ethically (morally) wrong because no one was hurt by what he did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
He unethically conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight
Quote:
He did not do medical research in his backyard that demanded ethical oversight.
He collected biological materials from humans for research purposes without obtaining independent ethical oversight of his medical research involving humans. This was unethical.
Quote:
He used a licensed general practitioner to do the blood draws and he got informed consent.
This is irrelevant and does not excuse his unethical conduct of medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
Not knowing the fallout this would cause, he said if he had to do it all over again he would have gotten ethical approval. But he still did not do anything ethically wrong in the moral sense.
His ethical ignorance and lack of foresight are irrelevant and do not excuse his unethical conduct of medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.
Whatever!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
The distinction between "ethical" and "moral" wrongs is specious and entirely your creation. His conduct of medical research on children without independent ethical oversight was unethical.
If I, as a nurse, do something to save your life that has not been approved by the ethical committee, it would be better to let you die?
Quote:
He is not a quack. He was above board in his dealings with parents, the hospital, and the actual study he conducted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, let me make a suggestion. I have the impression that this is actually, legitimately painful for you, and I have to confess that I feel some regret that I have so stridently stressed this point for that reason. But this is not a minor point; this is a morally fundamental point of medical ethics that we cannot simply ignore in a scientifically advanced civilized society.

Here is my suggestion: the next time you are in the position of defending Andrew Wakefield's indefensible breach of basic medical research ethics, don't. They cannot be defended. His actions were manifestly unethical. His own attempts at self-justification demonstrate this.
I'm sorry but the only mistake he made was not getting approval. He did nothing unethical. He did not follow the rules of medical ethics (which does have its place) which is a standard of conduct that must be followed. I get it. But in spite of this, his breach of conduct according to the standards set by the ethical committee hurt no one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Some of the strongest arguments that can be made against the childhood vaccine schedule are rooted in medical ethics. When you defend this obvious fraud, you undermine your own ability to make that argument. It is one thing to discard facts you do not like; it is another to discard your morals. It is one thing to sound foolish; it is another to sound morally bankrupt. Defending Andrew Wakefield requires you to do all of these things. That may hurt to hear, because of whatever emotional bond you have formed with your perception of this man.

This is not like defending your version of your father's work. That is all well and good and in good fun. If little else, he was your father whom you loved. Andrew Wakefield is a huckster, a fraud, and a liar. He does not deserve the privilege of your defense.
Wow! I can concede that he made a mistake, and I can agree that he should have been reprimanded, but to call him a huckster, a fraud, and a liar is unfounded. Moreover, defending my father's work is not in good fun. It is serious business. You are the one that has turned it into lulz. You have no understanding of the book at all. That's why I don't trust anything you say regarding Wakefield because you don't know all the facts. You have no proof that he has done the terrible things he has been accused of.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #6004  
Old 12-06-2016, 01:09 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have a different opinion than you as to what constitutes medical research.
peacegirl, your opinion as to what constitutes medical research is immaterial. The conduct of medical research involving humans requires independent ethical oversight. As I have pointed out, the collection of biological materials from humans for research purposes is medical research involving humans, which requires independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
Because you make it sound like it was done in a forced setting.
Not necessarily. We can't say for sure, because the medical research involving humans was done without independent ethical oversight. The need to ensure that the consent process and the research are not coerced are an important reason that it is ethically necessary to obtain independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans.
Quote:
Accepting the fact that he didn't get ethical approval, this did not warrant the removal of his medical license. He could have been reprimanded, which would have been enough. There's more to the story.
This was not the sole bases for revoking his medical license, but his failure to obtain independent ethical oversight is manifestly unethical.
Quote:
He did not need ethical approval for performing a clinical study. If you think he was lying about this, prove it.
peacegirl, as I have demonstrated repeatedly, the Declaration of Helsinki and other research governance frameworks demand independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans. He did not obtain this.
Quote:
Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more right. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote:
The fact remains that he did get appropriate consent. He just didn't get it from the ethics committee. What he did was unethical in a legal sense but not in a moral sense.
As I mentioned, informed consent is an important consideration in the ethical conduct of medical research, but the Declaration of Helsinki and other research governance frameworks do not end there. Indeed, a vital reason for the need for independent ethical oversight is to ensure the consent process is appropriate and voluntary. This is one reason why it was unethical for Andrew Wakefield to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.

His failure to obtain independent ethical oversight for his medical research on children is not excused by his claim to have obtained informed consent; however, the consent itself must be subject to the review of independent ethical oversight in order to ensure that it is voluntary and free of coercion. Wakefield's failure to obtain independent ethical oversight of his medical research on children tainted the consent process.
Quote:
If I, as a nurse, do something to save your life that has not been approved by the ethical committee, it would be better to let you die?
peacegirl, as I previously discussed, medical interventions other than medical research involving humans do not necessarily require independent ethical oversight. Medical research involving humans does require independent ethical oversight. Otherwise, such medical research is manifestly unethical.
Quote:
I'm sorry but the only mistake he made was not getting approval.
This is a grave mistake.
Quote:
He did nothing unethical.
He conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. This is gravely unethical.
Quote:
He did not follow the rules of medical ethics (which does have its place) which is a standard of conduct that must be followed. I get it. But in spite of this, his breach of conduct according to the standards set by the ethical committee hurt no one.
His conduct of medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight is unexcused.
Quote:
Wow! I can concede that he made a mistake, and I can agree that he should have been reprimanded, but to call him a huckster, a fraud, and a liar is unfounded. Moreover, defending my father's work is not in good fun. It is serious business. You are the one that turned into lulz. You have no understanding of the book at all. That's why I don't trust anything you say regarding Wakefield. You have no proof that he has done the terrible things that he has been accused of.
I have proof that he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Andrew Wakefield himself provides that proof in his own narrative. That narrative is shocking to the morally normal conscience.

You don't have to "trust" me; fortunately, Andrew Wakefield has been stripped of his medical license for being an unethical quack, and now merely defrauds the gullible instead of conducting unethical medical research on children.

But suit yourself. The continued defense of Andrew Wakefield's conduct of medical research on children without independent ethical oversight severely undermines the legitimacy of moral arguments against the childhood vaccine schedule. The defense also happens to be incoherent and inconsistent, and refuted entirely by Wakefield's own statements, such that the proponent looks quite foolish and ill-informed in sustaining a defense of the ethically indefensible. But you have that right of way.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-06-2016), Dragar (12-06-2016), specious_reasons (12-06-2016), Stephen Maturin (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6005  
Old 12-06-2016, 06:38 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't know anything about him not telling other researchers about money he was getting, so I can't comment.
Ignorance of the subject matter has never stopped you from commenting before. Why is this case different?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), Dragar (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6006  
Old 12-06-2016, 02:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDLXVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have a different opinion than you as to what constitutes medical research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, your opinion as to what constitutes medical research is immaterial. The conduct of medical research involving humans requires independent ethical oversight. As I have pointed out, the collection of biological materials from humans for research purposes is medical research involving humans, which requires independent ethical oversight.
He was exploited and used as an example. You know that's true.
Quote:
Because you make it sound like it was done in a forced setting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Not necessarily. We can't say for sure, because the medical research involving humans was done without independent ethical oversight. The need to ensure that the consent process and the research are not coerced are an important reason that it is ethically necessary to obtain independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans.
Yes, regulatory agencies are necessary for those who don't do the ethical thing, which is why the agency was created in the first place. He didn't follow the rules of ethical oversight but he did nothing inherently unethical because he didn't force anyone to do anything, and he got informed consent. That was checked out.
Quote:
Accepting the fact that he didn't get ethical approval, this did not warrant the removal of his medical license. He could have been reprimanded, which would have been enough. There's more to the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
This was not the sole bases for revoking his medical license, but his failure to obtain independent ethical oversight is manifestly unethical.
I don't consider that unethical, which deals with hurt. A person goes to jail because he is caught smoking pot. He hurt no one but still gets punished because it's against the law. It is not unethical to smoke pot. It's illegal. It wasn't unethical what he did; it was illegal according to the ethical board because it was against the rules of ethical policy.
Quote:
He did not need ethical approval for performing a clinical study. If you think he was lying about this, prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, as I have demonstrated repeatedly, the Declaration of Helsinki and other research governance frameworks demand independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans. He did not obtain this.
Quote:
Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more right. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote:
The fact remains that he did get appropriate consent. He just didn't get it from the ethics committee. What he did was unethical in a legal sense but not in a moral sense.
As I mentioned, informed consent is an important consideration in the ethical conduct of medical research, but the Declaration of Helsinki and other research governance frameworks do not end there. Indeed, a vital reason for the need for independent ethical oversight is to ensure the consent process is appropriate and voluntary. This is one reason why it was unethical for Andrew Wakefield to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
His failure to obtain independent ethical oversight for his medical research on children is not excused by his claim to have obtained informed consent; however, the consent itself must be subject to the review of independent ethical oversight in order to ensure that it is voluntary and free of coercion. Wakefield's failure to obtain independent ethical oversight of his medical research on children tainted the consent process.
They could have easily interviewed the parents and children. I think the parents sided with Wakefield if I recall correctly.
Quote:
If I, as a nurse, do something to save your life that has not been approved by the ethical committee, it would be better to let you die?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, as I previously discussed, medical interventions other than medical research involving humans do not necessarily require independent ethical oversight. Medical research involving humans does require independent ethical oversight. Otherwise, such medical research is manifestly unethical.
I know that but it did not warrant the removal of his license. Sorry. This was a witch hunt.
Quote:
I'm sorry but the only mistake he made was not getting approval.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
This is a grave mistake.
Not it wasn't. He was just being used as an example and a reason to get rid of him so that people would still vaccinate using the MMR vaccine.
Quote:
He did nothing unethical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck"
He conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. This is gravely unethical.
No, it wasn't gravely unethical. He didn't follow protocol and now he could be used as a scapegoat.
Quote:
He did not follow the rules of medical ethics (which does have its place) which is a standard of conduct that must be followed. I get it. But in spite of this, his breach of conduct according to the standards set by the ethical committee hurt no one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
His conduct of medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight is unexcused.
Obviously, but there have been worse things done that have been excused. This was a witch hunt.
Quote:
Wow! I can concede that he made a mistake, and I can agree that he should have been reprimanded, but to call him a huckster, a fraud, and a liar is unfounded. Moreover, defending my father's work is not in good fun. It is serious business. You are the one that turned into lulz. You have no understanding of the book at all. That's why I don't trust anything you say regarding Wakefield. You have no proof that he has done the terrible things that he has been accused of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
I have proof that he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Andrew Wakefield himself provides that proof in his own narrative. That narrative is shocking to the morally normal conscience.
That's not the proof I was asking for. The morally normal conscience would do nothing to harm a child, which he did not do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
You don't have to "trust" me; fortunately, Andrew Wakefield has been stripped of his medical license for being an unethical quack, and now merely defrauds the gullible instead of conducting unethical medical research on children.

But suit yourself. The continued defense of Andrew Wakefield's conduct of medical research on children without independent ethical oversight severely undermines the legitimacy of moral arguments against the childhood vaccine schedule.
It does no such thing. It is immoral to force injections on children that could harm them. Wakefield did no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
The defense also happens to be incoherent and inconsistent, and refuted entirely by Wakefield's own statements, such that the proponent looks quite foolish and ill-informed in sustaining a defense of the ethically indefensible. But you have that right of way.
I believe he was innocent morally even though he failed to follow proper protocol, which he admitted to. This IS ethically defensible because no one was harmed. You are painting a fabricated picture of a caring and responsible doctor. He didn't deserve what he got.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #6007  
Old 12-06-2016, 02:51 PM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is offline
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCLXX
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They could have easily interviewed the parents and children. I think the parents sided with Wakefield if I recall correctly.
Ah yes, the parents looking to make a buck off their children. It's not like anti-vaxx parents would do anything unethical with their children, like say, give them bleach enemas... parents are always totally ethical about their children, just ask convicted baby shakers.

Of course that's exactly why there's an independent medical review board.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6008  
Old 12-06-2016, 02:57 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes, regulatory agencies are necessary for those who don't do the ethical thing, which is why the agency was created in the first place. He didn't follow the rules of ethical oversight but he did nothing inherently unethical because he didn't force anyone to do anything, and he got informed consent. That was checked out.
Not following medical ethics is, well, unethical. That's just how it is when you conduct medical research on children and do not obtain independent ethical oversight. :shrug:
Quote:
I don't consider that unethical, which deals with hurt. A person goes to jail because he is caught smoking pot. He hurt no one but still gets punished because it's against the law. It is not unethical to smoke pot. It's illegal. It wasn't unethical what he did; it was illegal according to the ethical board because it was against the rules of ethical policy.
It was unethical because he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.

peacegirl, do you think that is like smoking marijuana? Wouldn't it be closer to administering marijuana to children for research purposes without obtaining independent ethical oversight?
Quote:
They could have easily interviewed the parents and children. I think the parents sided with Wakefield if I recall correctly.
This does not cure the ethical failure of conducting medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. In the context of medical research on children, parents are not a substitute for independent ethical oversight. Indeed there is no substitute for independent ethical oversight in the context of medical research involving humans. That is why it is inherently unethical to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight, like Andrew Wakefield did.
Quote:
I know that but it did not warrant the removal of his license.
:lol: Apparently it did.
Quote:
It does no such thing. It is immoral to force injections on children that could harm them. Wakefield did no such thing.
He conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. That is manifestly unethical.
Quote:
I believe he was innocent morally even though he failed to follow proper protocol, which he admitted to. This IS ethically defensible because no one was harmed. You are painting a fabricated picture of a caring and responsible doctor. He didn't deserve what he got.
Let's be a little more accurate - he's not a doctor. He was, until he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Then he lost his license for that unethical act, among others.

Anyway, continue to come up with all the scenarios in which you think it's fine to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight - surely Big Pharma will be glad to hear of them. I'm sure Merck would be happy to pay parents oh, a thousand bucks, to take blood samples and develop genetic profiles of their children for prospective research use. No one will be harmed, and the parents said ok, it must be fine - peacegirl said so.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-06-2016), Dragar (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6009  
Old 12-06-2016, 04:06 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMCMXCVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He didn't follow the rules of ethical oversight but he did nothing inherently unethical because he didn't force anyone to do anything, and he got informed consent.
Equivocation fallacy. That's like you saying, "I'd love to have a merry little Christmas, but the last thing I want is to make the yuletide 'gay' because homosexuality is akin to crime, poverty, hatred and war."
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-06-2016), Dragar (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6010  
Old 12-06-2016, 04:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDLXVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They could have easily interviewed the parents and children. I think the parents sided with Wakefield if I recall correctly.
Ah yes, the parents looking to make a buck off their children. It's not like anti-vaxx parents would do anything unethical with their children, like say, give them bleach enemas... parents are always totally ethical about their children, just ask convicted baby shakers.

Of course that's exactly why there's an independent medical review board.
Non sequitur!
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #6011  
Old 12-06-2016, 04:22 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDLXVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

dupe
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 12-06-2016 at 05:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6012  
Old 12-06-2016, 04:56 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDLXVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They could have easily interviewed the parents and children. I think the parents sided with Wakefield if I recall correctly.
Ah yes, the parents looking to make a buck off their children. It's not like anti-vaxx parents would do anything unethical with their children, like say, give them bleach enemas... parents are always totally ethical about their children, just ask convicted baby shakers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Of course that's exactly why there's an independent medical review board.
Your premise about the motives of loving parents because of a few bad apples is misleading and sick. Let's not continue.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #6013  
Old 12-06-2016, 07:30 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCCLI
Images: 523
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
None, but he was not doing medical research on children at the party Chuck.
But you said in the previous post that he was collecting the blood samples for research purposes. Do you actually believe that data collection is not part of research?



Actually, come to think of it, you probably don't. After all, from the very beginning, your whole "argument" has been that neither you nor your father need to go through the tedious process of collecting any actual evidence in order to justify your "scientific" conclusions.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-06-2016), Dragar (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6014  
Old 12-06-2016, 07:36 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCCLI
Images: 523
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If he was doing something ethically wrong his conscience would have never let him proceed.
So, no physician would ever do anything unethical, because their consciences would never allow it. Good to know!


By the way, I'd like to introduce you to this nice Doctor. What was his name again, Mendez? ... Mendeleev? ... Mengele? Mengele, that's it! I bet the two of you will get along just like a Jew house on fire.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), Ari (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), ChuckF (12-06-2016), Stephen Maturin (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6015  
Old 12-06-2016, 07:51 PM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is offline
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCLXX
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Your premise about the motives of loving parents because of a few bad apples is misleading and sick. Let's not continue.
Where's your evidence these are loving parents?
Why do you support allowing the 'few bad apples' to get away with abuse by ignoring ethic review boards?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
  #6016  
Old 12-06-2016, 08:09 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDLIX
Images: 2
Default Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

If he was doing something ethically wrong his conscience would have never let him proceed.


So, no physician would ever do anything unethical, because their consciences would never allow it. Good to know!
Interestingly, this reasoning seems also to preclude the possibility of conflicts of interest affecting the judgment of individuals responsible for drug review and approval at the FDA, and vaccine schedule recommendations at the CDC, drugs development and marketing within the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the various conspiracy theories so often advanced without evidence. It is apparently sufficient to realize that their consciences would not allow them to proceed unethically, and therefore their actions are not unethical, QED.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), Ari (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016), Vivisectus (12-07-2016)
  #6017  
Old 12-06-2016, 08:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDLXVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes, regulatory agencies are necessary for those who don't do the ethical thing, which is why the agency was created in the first place. He didn't follow the rules of ethical oversight but he did nothing inherently unethical because he didn't force anyone to do anything, and he got informed consent. That was checked out.
Not following medical ethics is, well, unethical. That's just how it is when you conduct medical research on children and do not obtain independent ethical oversight. :shrug:
Quote:
I don't consider that unethical, which deals with hurt. A person goes to jail because he is caught smoking pot. He hurt no one but still gets punished because it's against the law. It is not unethical to smoke pot. It's illegal. It wasn't unethical what he did; it was illegal according to the ethical board because it was against the rules of ethical policy.
It was unethical because he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.

peacegirl, do you think that is like smoking marijuana? Wouldn't it be closer to administering marijuana to children for research purposes without obtaining independent ethical oversight?
It would be irresponsible to administer marijuana to a child who has a fragile medical condition without independent ethical oversight due to possible misuse or potential harm. A parent would welcome that kind of oversight knowing his child may benefit from the therapy.
Quote:
They could have easily interviewed the parents and children. I think the parents sided with Wakefield if I recall correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
This does not cure the ethical failure of conducting medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. In the context of medical research on children, parents are not a substitute for independent ethical oversight. Indeed there is no substitute for independent ethical oversight in the context of medical research involving humans. That is why it is inherently unethical to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight, like Andrew Wakefield did.
We're using two different definitions. Going by the 2nd definition, what he did was unethical. I am going by the first definition, which is how most people use the term.

1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. 2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.

Ethical | Define Ethical at Dictionary.com


Quote:
I know that but it did not warrant the removal of his license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
:lol: Apparently it did.
Well, the punishment didn't fit the crime.

Quote:
It does no such thing. It is immoral to force injections on children that could harm them. Wakefield did no such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
He conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. That is manifestly unethical.
According to the definition, yes. But it's smoke and mirrors. It's similar to the compatibilist definition of free will. According to this definition we have free will when we are not being coerced by external forces, but does that mean we actually have the kind that most people think of when they use the term? No. I don't think god would think what Wakefield did was unethical in the sense the word is normally used.
Quote:
I believe he was innocent morally even though he failed to follow proper protocol, which he admitted to. This IS ethically defensible because no one was harmed. You are painting a fabricated picture of a caring and responsible doctor. He didn't deserve what he got.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Let's be a little more accurate - he's not a doctor. He was, until he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Then he lost his license for that unethical act, among others.
He was a researcher which is even better. So that means he was a fraud? No. You're splitting hairs Chuck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Anyway, continue to come up with all the scenarios in which you think it's fine to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight - surely Big Pharma will be glad to hear of them. I'm sure Merck would be happy to pay parents oh, a thousand bucks, to take blood samples and develop genetic profiles of their children for prospective research use. No one will be harmed, and the parents said ok, it must be fine - peacegirl said so.
It sounds to me that someone could be harmed so ethical considerations would most certainly come into play. Here is an interesting article. Maybe you can expound on it.

Experts propose overhaul of ethics oversight of research
Date:
January 23, 2013
Source:
The Hastings Center
Summary:
The longstanding ethical framework for protecting human volunteers in medical research needs to be replaced because it is outdated and can impede efforts to improve health care quality, assert leaders in bioethics, medicine, and health policy.

cont. at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0123195358.htm



__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 12-06-2016 at 09:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6018  
Old 12-06-2016, 09:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDLXVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If he was doing something ethically wrong his conscience would have never let him proceed.
So, no physician would ever do anything unethical, because their consciences would never allow it. Good to know!


By the way, I'd like to introduce you to this nice Doctor. What was his name again, Mendez? ... Mendeleev? ... Mengele? Mengele, that's it! I bet the two of you will get along just like a Jew house on fire.
If he already had a strong conscience, his conscience would continue to guide him in the right direction where the safety and well-being of others are concerned. There are sociopaths and psychopaths in this world who don't have a conscience. We all know that. Wakefield is not one of them. :sadcheer:
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #6019  
Old 12-06-2016, 09:38 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCXCVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't consider that unethical, which deals with hurt.
:lol:

Jabbing a needle into someone is a "hurt", I'm quite sure. Even someone who was home-schooled by a 7th grade dropout should be able to get that fact.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (12-07-2016)
  #6020  
Old 12-06-2016, 10:29 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Let's be a little more accurate - he's not a doctor. He was, until he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Then he lost his license for that unethical act, among others.
In the interest of accuracy, I would like to know if Wakefield was ever granted a medical degree (M.D., D.O., etc.) that entitled him to the use of the honorific "Doctor". On the assumption that he has such a degree, even after having his license revoked, he would still be entitled to the use of the title "Doctor". In other words, he would be an unlicensed physician but he would still be a doctor.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #6021  
Old 12-06-2016, 11:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDLXVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't consider that unethical, which deals with hurt.
:lol:

Jabbing a needle into someone is a "hurt", I'm quite sure. Even someone who was home-schooled by a 7th grade dropout should be able to get that fact.
A hurt is doing something to someone that they don't want done to themselves. In this case, they volunteered for the jab so this was not a hurt. And please stop bringing my father into this. He was smarter than all of you put together. :yup:
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 12-06-2016 at 11:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6022  
Old 12-06-2016, 11:44 PM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is offline
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCLXX
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Peacegirl ethics:
•Taking money from lawyers years before you do your 'research.'
•Using plaintiffs from the lawyers case as test subjects.
•Not getting ethics board review.
•Not telling your co-authors about the money.
•Patenting a replacement vaccine before your research shows the current one to be dangerous.
•Fudging your data to make it appear the vaccine connects to autism.
• Profiting from that data.
All totally cool in the Peacegirl ethics class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And please stop bringing my father into this. He was smarter than all of you put together. :yup:
Armchair psychoanalyst. Peacegirl views Wakefield as a surrogate to her father, seeing him as a genius the mainstream world is trying to silence, this is why she supports him no matter what and appears unable to say anything bad about him as this would be admitting that misunderstood 'genius' has flaws.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-08-2016), But (12-07-2016), Dragar (12-07-2016), Stephen Maturin (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-07-2016), The Man (12-07-2016)
  #6023  
Old 12-06-2016, 11:50 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is online now
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMCCLXXXV
Images: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Let's be a little more accurate - he's not a doctor. He was, until he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Then he lost his license for that unethical act, among others.
In the interest of accuracy, I would like to know if Wakefield was ever granted a medical degree (M.D., D.O., etc.) that entitled him to the use of the honorific "Doctor". On the assumption that he has such a degree, even after having his license revoked, he would still be entitled to the use of the title "Doctor". In other words, he would be an unlicensed physician but he would still be a doctor.
I was going to make the same comment. As he was a licensed, registered physician in the past, that is a good indicator he achieved an M.D. and would still be privileged to use the "Doctor" honorific, however much he has besmirched it.

I found this, here:
Quote:
You can, of course, carry out activities not legally dependent on holding a licence. For example, you can continue to sign passport photographs and use the title ‘Doctor'.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-08-2016)
  #6024  
Old 12-06-2016, 11:55 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It would be irresponsible to administer marijuana to a child who has a fragile medical condition without independent ethical oversight due to possible misuse or potential harm. A parent would welcome that kind of oversight knowing his child may benefit from the therapy.
Thanks for clarifying peacegirl!

Parents doing their due diligence, note that peacegirl has no problem with medical researchers administering drugs to healthy children without independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
We're using two different definitions.
Conducting medical research on humans without independent ethical oversight is unethical. Andrew Wakefield unethically conducted medical research on children without independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
According to the definition, yes.
Yes, Andrew Wakefield unethically conducted research on children without independent ethical oversight. That is one reason why he lost his medical license.
Quote:
He was a researcher which is even better. So that means he was a fraud? No. You're splitting hairs Chuck.
Oh, many other things make him a fraud as well. This just makes him a particularly unethical fraud because of how he conducted medical research on children without independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
It sounds to me that someone could be harmed so ethical considerations would most certainly come into play.
What? Merck just needs healthy children's blood for research purposes. They'll just go out to birthday parties and give kids $10 for it. peacegirl, do you agree that Merck does need to seek independent ethical oversight before sending representatives to childrens' birthday parties to pay children to take children's blood for research purposes?
Quote:
Here is an interesting article. Maybe you can expound on it.
:lol: Maybe you can expound on it. No, you can't - because you didn't read it. You googled it, skimmed the headline, and thought it might be relevant (it's not) or at least distract from your bizarrely continuing defense of the fraudulent quack Andrew Wakefield.

I know the Hastings Center, you fucking idiot. They are thought leaders in bioethics - organizations like the Hastings Center are one of the reasons that researchers seek independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans. You should e-mail the Hastings Center and ask them whether researchers conducting medical research on children should seek independent ethical oversight.

Maybe you could do a little digging in their journal, which is titled IRB: Ethics & Human Research. Do you know what an IRB is, peacegirl? It's independent ethical oversight. You know, that thing Andrew Wakefield didn't bother to get before unethically conducting medical research on children.

peacegirl, are you entirely blind to the ethical morass that you're dragged into when you hitch your wagon to the fraudulent quack Andrew Wakefield? He unethically conducted medical research on children without independent oversight. And you think that's ok.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-08-2016), But (12-07-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-09-2016), Dragar (12-07-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-07-2016), The Man (12-07-2016)
  #6025  
Old 12-06-2016, 11:59 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Let's be a little more accurate - he's not a doctor. He was, until he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Then he lost his license for that unethical act, among others.
In the interest of accuracy, I would like to know if Wakefield was ever granted a medical degree (M.D., D.O., etc.) that entitled him to the use of the honorific "Doctor". On the assumption that he has such a degree, even after having his license revoked, he would still be entitled to the use of the title "Doctor". In other words, he would be an unlicensed physician but he would still be a doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Let's be a little more accurate - he's not a doctor. He was, until he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Then he lost his license for that unethical act, among others.
In the interest of accuracy, I would like to know if Wakefield was ever granted a medical degree (M.D., D.O., etc.) that entitled him to the use of the honorific "Doctor". On the assumption that he has such a degree, even after having his license revoked, he would still be entitled to the use of the title "Doctor". In other words, he would be an unlicensed physician but he would still be a doctor.
I was going to make the same comment. As he was a licensed, registered physician in the past, that is a good indicator he achieved an M.D. and would still be privileged to use the "Doctor" honorific, however much he has besmirched it.

I found this, here:
Quote:
You can, of course, carry out activities not legally dependent on holding a licence. For example, you can continue to sign passport photographs and use the title ‘Doctor'.
Sorry guys, zero fucks given.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-08-2016), Dragar (12-07-2016), Stephen Maturin (12-07-2016), The Man (12-07-2016)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.34991 seconds with 14 queries