Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7826  
Old 12-14-2017, 05:57 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
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
It was not unethical (since he got full approval from the children and the parents) although he regrets it since it gave the General Medical Council a reason to take away his license.
:lol:

If there was nothing wrong with it, why did it give them a reason to take away his license?
He admitted that he made a mistake by not following the rules of "proper" conduct by the ethical oversight committee, but that did not make what he did unethical in a true moral sense because what he did hurt no one. That would be like saying I should have to pay a big fine or have my license revoked because I turned right on a red light (after carefully looking to make sure no cars were coming) before the laws changed to make it legal. You need to separate the two definitions.

Ethical | Define Ethical at Dictionary.com

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.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #7827  
Old 12-14-2017, 06:10 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCXII
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He admitted that he made a mistake by not following the rules of "proper" conduct by the ethical oversight committee,
Actually, by completely ignoring the ethical requirement to seek independent ethical oversight, Wakefield failed to comply with the basic framework governing medical research involving humans, including the Declaration of Helsinki. That makes his medical experiments on children unethical.

Because he is a quack and a fraud.
Quote:
That would be like saying I should have to pay a big fine or have my license revoked because I turned right on a red light (after carefully looking to make sure no cars were coming) before the laws changed to make it legal.
peacegirl, do you think unethically experimenting on children is morally equivalent to making an illegal right on red?

peacegirl, do you agree that pharmaceutical companies should not have to seek independent ethical oversight of their medical research involving vaccination of children?

Parents doing their due diligence would like to know.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-14-2017), Stephen Maturin (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7828  
Old 12-14-2017, 06:34 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
UK Patent Application GB 2 325 856 A
Quote:
The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prevention and/or prophylaxis against measles virus infection
:yup:
This was not a vaccine.
:lol:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Wakefield
The present invention relates to a new vaccine
It wasn't just a dietary supplement:

Quote:
DLE-TF is usually administered by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, although oral administration appears equally effective. It can also be given intravenously or by suppository or by incorporation into liposomes to prolong its biological activity.
Also, page 28, "Claims"

Quote:
2. A composition according to Claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis [i.e. disease prevention] of measles virus.
The main purpose of the patent was to help children who already had the measles virus in their gut. You are misrepresenting his intentions, which is irresponsible. You are assuming that the whole reason for creating the patent was to profit, when the patent was actually in the name of the hospital. And if the transfer factor could have been used as a prophylaxis, it would have been of secondary benefit, not the original purpose. Again, your sole purpose in demonizing this doctor is because you are assuming that his intentions were evil when they were anything but. You will never admit that your judgment of him is wrong because you don't want to be wrong.

https://www.google.com/patents/US6534259
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #7829  
Old 12-14-2017, 06:54 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: MVDLXVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It was not unethical (since he got full approval from the children and the parents) although he regrets it since it gave the General Medical Council a reason to take away his license.
:lol:

If there was nothing wrong with it, why did it give them a reason to take away his license?
He admitted that he made a mistake by not following the rules of "proper" conduct by the ethical oversight committee,
There really is no need to put scare quotes around "proper", peacegirl.

Quote:
but that did not make what he did unethical in a true moral sense because what he did hurt no one.
That's idiotic. Everyone knows that drawing blood samples hurts. Colonoscopies (jamming a tube up your asshole), colon biopsies (cutting a piece out of your gut) and lumbar punctures (jabbing a needle into your spine) hurt even more.

You're in denial. You think that Wakefield is Jesus fucking Christ when he is in fact a fraudulent quack.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7830  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:11 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCXII
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The main purpose of the patent was to help children who already had the measles virus in their gut. You are misrepresenting his intentions, which is irresponsible. You are assuming that the whole reason for creating the patent was to profit,
:foocl: peacegirl, what do you think patents are for?
Quote:
when the patent was actually in the name of the hospital.
Now THAT is interesting. peacegirl, did you know that Wakefield actually named the hospital as the applicant without ever asking the hospital, and totally disregarding the IP protection process? (Which is also quite a terrible practice for prosecuting a patent...)

peacegirl, if you were interested in doing your due diligence, you could read about that in the testimony of Day 31 of the GMC proceedings - you know, the ones that ended in the fraudulent quack losing his medical license for being a fraud and a quack.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-14-2017), Stephen Maturin (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7831  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:14 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It was not unethical (since he got full approval from the children and the parents) although he regrets it since it gave the General Medical Council a reason to take away his license.
:lol:

If there was nothing wrong with it, why did it give them a reason to take away his license?
He admitted that he made a mistake by not following the rules of "proper" conduct by the ethical oversight committee,
There really is no need to put scare quotes around "proper", peacegirl.
Because proper conduct determined by an official commission does not necessarily make said behavior unethical IN A MORAL SENSE.

prop·er
ˈpräpər/Submit
adjective
1.
truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine.
"she's never had a proper job"
synonyms: real, genuine, actual, true, bona fide; informalkosher
"he's not a proper scientist"
2.
of the required type; suitable or appropriate.


Quote:
but that did not make what he did unethical in a true moral sense because what he did hurt no one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
That's idiotic. Everyone knows that drawing blood samples hurts. Colonoscopies (jamming a tube up your asshole), colon biopsies (cutting a piece out of your gut) and lumbar punctures (jabbing a needle into your spine) hurt even more.

You're in denial. You think that Wakefield is Jesus fucking Christ when he is in fact a fraudulent quack.
NO HE IS NOT! He did not need ethical approval for his study. He got ethical approval for the biopsies. Drawing blood samples that pinch for a second does not make the action unethical, or no doctor would be allowed to draw blood under any circumstance. Again, Wakefield admitted that if he had to do it over again, he would have done it differently because he lost his license as a result, not because what he did was unethical in a moral sense. This video is very explicit in how Brian Deer twisted the truth to make it appear that Wakefield was a fraud. And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #7832  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:19 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCXII
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because proper conduct determined by an official commission does not necessarily make said behavior unethical.
No - failure to comply with ethical requirements such as the requirement to obtain independent ethical oversight makes the behavior unethical. That's what fraudulent quack Andrew Wakefield did when he experimented on children without any independent ethical oversight.

But peacegirl, to be clear - you think that Big Pharma should not need to obtain independent ethical oversight in order to experiment on children, right?
Quote:
He did not need ethical approval for his study.
Of course he did, peacegirl. He just didn't bother obtaining it - because he is a fraudulent quack. Really, I have covered this quite extensively in this thread already.
Quote:
Drawing blood samples that pinch for a second does not make the action unethical, or no doctor would be allowed to draw blood under any circumstance.
What the fuck are you even talking about you idiot?

Medical experiments on children require independent ethical oversight in order to be ethical. Andy Wakefield experimented on children without independent ethical oversight. Andy Wakefield was unethical. It's pretty simple.

Last edited by ChuckF; 12-14-2017 at 07:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7833  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

If you really want to know the truth, listen to the facts for a change rather than keep up the pretense just because you have no way of saving face. :sad:

__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #7834  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:24 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: MVDLXVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Drawing blood samples that pinch for a second does not make the action unethical, or no doctor would be allowed to draw blood under any circumstance.
:lol:

Well, the difference is that he took blood samples to do highly speculative (in hindsight, crackpot) research. For that he needed independent approval. You know why he didn't try to get it? Because he wouldn't have gotten it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7835  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:26 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: MVDLXVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

peacegirl, why are you still avoiding this simple question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
But peacegirl, to be clear - you think that Big Pharma should not need to obtain independent ethical oversight in order to experiment on children, right?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7836  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:26 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCXII
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

:lol:

DEAR GREAT MASS OF NEWCOMERS, if you have questions about the medical ethics that Andy Wakefield ignored when he chose to unethically experiment on children, I suggest starting with the the foundational documents governing research ethics today.

I've provided some helpful starting points already:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'll sign only if you admit that what is unethical by a medical institution may not actually be unethical.
A researcher who does not obtain independent ethical oversight of his medical research on children is unethical.
Quote:
It just means we failed to follow the rules of the hospital. These are two different things.
Oh, peacegirl, you are very wrong again. Not only did he fail to follow the "rules of the hospital." He failed to follow the most basic ethical presents governing the conduct of medical research involving humans. If you wanted to read more about it, you could read the Research Governance Frameworks from the NHS Health Research Authority; but you don't, and you won't.
Getting clean blood samples was not doing biomedical research on these children.
Of course it was, peacegirl. See, e.g. Declaration of Helsinki at sec. 1 ("The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data.") (emphasis added) See also Royal College of Physicians, Research Involving Patients, 1990; British Paediatric Association guidance in relation to children. This is precisely why - as Andrew Wakefield himself pointed out - the independent oversight of the medical ethics committee was required. He failed to obtain it, and unethically conducted medical research involving children without independent ethical oversight. He is an unethical quack and a fraud.

peacegirl, I'm curious: what facts supported your conclusion that the collection of blood from human children for research purposes does not constitute research? From what body of knowledge did you derive your assertion? What research did you do to arrive at this assertion? Did you make any effort to investigate this matter, or did you simply make something up? Did you look into the facial distinction between minimal and low-risk research and the attendant implications for ethical oversight? In other words, peacegirl, did you do your due diligence before undertaking again to excuse this clear failure to observe basic ethical governance frameworks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He did not unethically experiment on children just because he didn't go through the ethics committee for approval.
:lol: Of course he did - not obtaining independent ethics oversight is, in itself, manifestly unethical. There is no such thing as ethical medical research on children without independent ethics oversight. See The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki 2008 revision, secs. 15, 25; see also sec. 26; accord 1964 edition, secs. I(2), I(10), II(5). See also International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2002, Guideline 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
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:
Stephen Maturin (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7837  
Old 12-14-2017, 07:39 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: MXDXLV
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He took blood samples
Who said anything about blood?
I asked, do you know who diagnosed these children as autistic and when?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7838  
Old 12-14-2017, 09:02 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
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
Drawing blood samples that pinch for a second does not make the action unethical, or no doctor would be allowed to draw blood under any circumstance.
:lol:

Well, the difference is that he took blood samples to do highly speculative (in hindsight, crackpot) research. For that he needed independent approval. You know why he didn't try to get it? Because he wouldn't have gotten it.
You’re wrong that the children were being used for an experiment. He got approval when it came to the biopsies. I agree that ethical oversight was required in order to follow proper procedure. He paid a high price for his ignorance in this regard. According to the medical definition, he acted unethically. He did not live up to the standards set by the official commission on ethics. He did get ethical oversight for the biopsies because it changed from a study (which did not need ethical approval), to research, which did require ethical oversight. Just to be clear, whether or not he made an ethical mistake did not make him a fraud. Far from it!

14:32 Dr. Andrew Wakefield Deals With Allegations - Vaxxed
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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; 12-14-2017 at 10:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7839  
Old 12-14-2017, 09:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
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
He took blood samples
Who said anything about blood?
I asked, do you know who diagnosed these children as autistic and when?
No one formally diagnosed the children as autistic. The parents contacted Dr. Wakefield because their children were having severe gastrointestinal problems. In the interview they gave their account regarding the timeline of when the symptoms started. 8 of those parents said their children displayed regressive behavior shortly after the MMR shot. This is how Wakefield got involved but he never claimed cause and effect. All he said is that it needed further investigation.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #7840  
Old 12-14-2017, 09:26 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: MVDLXVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You’re wrong that the children were being used for an experiment. It was just a study which did not require ethical oversight. He got approval when it came to the biopsies.
:nope:

FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL HEARING 28 JANUARY 2010

Quote:
The Birthday Party

‘42. a. On a date unknown prior to 20 March 1999 at your son’s birthday party you,

i. took caused blood to be taken from a group of children to use for research purposes, (amended) Found proved
The Panel considers that the amendment is necessary to reflect the state of the evidence.

‘43. a. Your conduct as set out in paragraph 42.a. above was unethical in that,

i. you did not have ethics committee approval for your actions, Found proved
The Panel does not accept your explanation that you did not consider this action to be unethical or that Ethics Committee approval was required.

ii. you took caused blood to be taken from children in an inappropriate social setting, (amended) Found proved
The Panel considers that the amendment was necessary to reflect the state of the evidence.

iii. you offered financial inducement to children in order to obtain blood samples, Found not proved
The Panel accepts that the children were not persuaded to give blood by being offered money first.

iv. you showed a callous disregard for the distress and pain that you knew or ought to have known the children involved might suffer, Found proved
The Panel is satisfied by your evidence that the children were “paid for their discomfort”(day 67p23), which it concluded was evidence of a callous disregard.

Last edited by But; 12-14-2017 at 09:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (12-14-2017), Stephen Maturin (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7841  
Old 12-14-2017, 09:36 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: MXDXLV
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No one formally diagnosed the children as autistic.
That seems like a pretty big hole in his research then if he was trying to link vaccines to a disorder none of the children were diagnosed with.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7842  
Old 12-14-2017, 09:46 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCXII
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You’re wrong that the children were being used for an experiment.
:lol: Of course they were, doofus. He was drawing blood from them without therapeutic intent, for what he called "research."

peacegirl, you agree that Big Pharma companies should be able to collect blood from children without any independent ethical oversight?
Quote:
I agree that ethical oversight was in order according to the proper medical protocol.
Yes, peacegirl: medical research on humans requires independent ethical oversight. When you conduct medical experiments on humans without independent ethical oversight, that's unethical - just like Andy Wakefield.

Also, lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He did not need ethical approval for his study.
You can't even keep your ignorant hooting internally consistent.
Quote:
He did get ethical oversight for the biopsies because it changed from a study which did not need ethical oversight, to research, which did require ethical oversight.
:lol: peacegirl, you're just making shit up. You have literally no idea what you are blathering about.

There is no such thing as a medical experiment on humans that does not require independent ethical oversight, see Declaration of Helsinki 2013 revision, art. 23; see also Declaration of Helsinki 1989 and 1996 revisions, art. 2 [these are the revisions in force at the time of Wakefield's unethical experimentation on children]

Last edited by ChuckF; 12-15-2017 at 12:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-14-2017), Stephen Maturin (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7843  
Old 12-14-2017, 10:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

duplicate
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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; 12-15-2017 at 12:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7844  
Old 12-14-2017, 10:25 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCCXLVI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you really want to know the truth, listen to the facts for a change rather than keep up the pretense just because you have no way of saving face. :sad:
So, yet again, Andy Wakefield did everything right because Andy Wakefield says that Andy Wakefield did everything right.
__________________
"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:
But (12-14-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7845  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:32 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
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
No one formally diagnosed the children as autistic.
That seems like a pretty big hole in his research then if he was trying to link vaccines to a disorder none of the children were diagnosed with.
What are you talking about? He never claimed that there was a definite connection but he did call for further research. His observations were based on what the parents were telling him. That’s all the Lancet study did. He did nothing wrong but he was ousted because he was the only one of 13 other doctors who defended the litigants and the lawyers who were hired by them. He was too outspoken for comfort. This required that he be silenced.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #7846  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:42 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCXII
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Hmm...could somebody remind me: did Wakefield report the conflict of interest created by his patent when submitting his Lancet paper for publication (like an ethical researcher would do)? Did Wakefield report all the money he received from plaintiffs' attorneys attempting to demonstrate that the MMR vaccine was dangerous, starting a couple of years before the Lancet paper?

Did he disclose these conflicts of interest at his press conference at which he called for the MMR vaccine to be suspended - and replace by single vaccines, like the one he filed a patent for? Did he mention that?

Now I remember - no, he didn't. Because he's a fraudulent quack.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (12-15-2017), But (12-15-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7847  
Old 12-15-2017, 01:08 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

All this is is an attempt to use Wakefield as a scapegoat in order to use him as an example of what happens when someone crosses the line. The system is so corrupt it will take a long time to drain the swamp!

Immunization and autism links: Ethics in research
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #7848  
Old 12-15-2017, 01:16 AM
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: MVDLXVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
‘7
b. Your,
i. involvement in the MMR litigation as set out at paragraph 3., Found proved

ii. receipt of funding for part of Project 172-96 from the Legal Aid Board; Found proved

constituted a disclosable interest which included matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to your involvement in Project 172-96 which you did not disclose to the Ethics Committee, Found proved

The Panel accepts your evidence that you should have declared the funding from the LAB. It is satisfied that your involvement in the MMR litigation also had ethical implications and should have been disclosed.

c. Your non-disclosure as set out in paragraph 7.b.i. and paragraph 7.b.ii.,

i. was contrary to your duties to the Ethics Committee as a named Responsible Consultant as set out at paragraph 6.g. above, Found proved in relation to both 7.b.i and 7.b.ii on the basis of the Panel’s findings at 6.g.v.

ii. thereby deprived the Ethics Committee of information material to its consideration of the ethical implications of project 172-96; Found proved in relation to both 7.b.i and 7.b.ii on the basis of the Panel’s findings at 6.g.v.
:yup:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (12-15-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7849  
Old 12-15-2017, 01:23 AM
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: MVDLXVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
‘38. a. On or before 5 June 1997 you instructed agents to file with the UK Patent Office a patent application with the short title “Pharmaceutical Composition for Treatment of IBD and RBD”, naming the applicants as the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine and Neuroimmuno Therapeutics Research Foundation (“the Patent”), Admitted and found proved

b. The invention which was the subject of the patent, and of which you were one of the inventors, related to a new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and measles virus and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease); particularly Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis and regressive behavioural disease (RBD); Admitted and found proved

‘39. a. Your,

i. involvement in the MMR litigation,

ii. receipt of funding for part of Project 172-96 from the Legal Aid Board,

iii. involvement in the Patent, constituted a disclosable interest which included matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to your role as a co-author of the Lancet paper which you did not disclose to the Editor of The Lancet, Found proved
:yup:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (12-15-2017), ChuckF (12-15-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
  #7850  
Old 12-15-2017, 01:38 AM
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: MVDLXVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All this is is an attempt to use Wakefield as a scapegoat in order to use him as an example of what happens when someone crosses the line. The system is so corrupt it will take a long time to drain the swamp!

Immunization and autism links: Ethics in research
Bullshit, Wakefield was part of the medical establishment and got his article published in the Lancet, which was one of the most prestigious medical journals, even though the article was complete crap, because a buddy of his was on the editorial board.

The rest is simply what happens when you commit massive fraud and get caught. He arguably got off lightly, exactly because he was part of the medical establishment.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (12-15-2017), The Man (12-15-2017)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 10:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.49308 seconds with 15 queries