Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4601  
Old 06-12-2016, 04:29 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
There is no other side. Experimentation on humans requires independent ethical oversight.
You didn't read the pdf. You skirt everything I post. I don't take anything you say as being of any importance. You're biased down to the bone.
:giggle: Yes, I agree with the consensus in the civilized world and the Declaration of Helsinki that experimentation on humans requires independent ethical oversight. I don't think it's ethical to go do experiments on kids without it. I think that is something that only fraudulent quacks do, and those quacks thank god that they have mouthbreathing morons to defend them and send them money.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-12-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-12-2016), Dragar (06-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (06-13-2016), The Man (06-12-2016), Vivisectus (06-12-2016)
  #4602  
Old 06-12-2016, 04:53 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 ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
There is no other side. Experimentation on humans requires independent ethical oversight.
You didn't read the pdf. You skirt everything I post. I don't take anything you say as being of any importance. You're biased down to the bone.
:giggle: Yes, I agree with the consensus in the civilized world and the Declaration of Helsinki that experimentation on humans requires independent ethical oversight. I don't think it's ethical to go do experiments on kids without it. I think that is something that only fraudulent quacks do, and those quacks thank god that they have mouthbreathing morons to defend them and send them money.
I am not in disagreement with you if someone is not abiding by the Declaration of Helsinki. But I am in disagreement with you that Andrew Wakefield fit this description. He did not experiment on children. I cannot believe how blind you are to your own pet peeves. Wakefield did not solicit anyone. He was called in as a consult. He was trying to help parents who asked for his help. He did the prerequisite tests that Dr. John Walker-Smith (an eminent doctor in his own right) agreed were necessary to properly diagnose and treat these very sick children who were failing to thrive. There's no convincing you, so let's stop here. And what are we doing when we treat all children the same and inject a concoction of toxins into their developing bodies without knowing the short or long term effects? This IS A NASTY EXPERIMENT which has already ruined the health of some children for the sake of the herd, which is also a myth.
__________________
"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; 06-12-2016 at 05:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4603  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:04 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

It's true: unethical experimentation on children is among my pet peeves.

It doesn't seem to bother peacegirl so much, whether it's fraudulent quack Andrew Wakefield, or fraudulent quack Dr. Geier doing it. :shrug:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-12-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-12-2016), Dragar (06-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (06-13-2016), The Man (06-12-2016)
  #4604  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:12 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 ChuckF View Post
It's true: the unethical experimentation on children is among my pet peeves.
Obviously it isn't, or you would be more concerned about the seizures, the high fevers, the screaming high pitched episodes, the regressive behavior changes right after being given 6 to 8 vaccinations. You don't seem to care about the application of this unethical experimentation on children, so why would anyone trust your judgment as to who is ethical and who isn't? I'm glad you're not on the ethical committee at a hospital. Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the log in your own eye? :popcorn:
__________________
"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
  #4605  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:18 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Obviously it isn't, or you would be more concerned about the seizures, the high fevers, the screaming high pitched episodes, the regressive behavior changes right after being given 6 to 8 vaccinations. You don't seem to care about the application of this unethical experimentation on children, so why would anyone trust your judgment as to who is ethical and who isn't? I'm glad you're not on the ethical committee at a hospital. Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the log in your own eye? :popcorn:
Goofy anti-vax sputtering aside, this is amusing primarily because you have no idea how close this is to what I actually, literally do for a living every single day :giggle:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), Ari (06-12-2016), But (06-12-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-12-2016), Dragar (06-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (06-13-2016), The Man (06-12-2016), Vivisectus (06-13-2016)
  #4606  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:36 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 ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Obviously it isn't, or you would be more concerned about the seizures, the high fevers, the screaming high pitched episodes, the regressive behavior changes right after being given 6 to 8 vaccinations. You don't seem to care about the application of this unethical experimentation on children, so why would anyone trust your judgment as to who is ethical and who isn't? I'm glad you're not on the ethical committee at a hospital. Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the log in your own eye? :popcorn:
Goofy anti-vax sputtering aside, this is amusing primarily because you have no idea how close this is to what I actually, literally do for a living every single day :giggle:
And so are some very narrow-minded judges, lawyers, and doctors. I'm not saying that's you but obviously you are protecting your ideas or you wouldn't be able to work with a clear conscience. This leads me to believe that you are feeling a lot of cognitive/dissonance that may prevent you from agreeing with me on anything, even though what I am saying makes a lot of sense.
__________________
"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
  #4607  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:38 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!!

The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis

History is a powerful thing. If you accurately tell the story of an event that occurred, you get one picture, one understanding of it. Leave one tiny little detail out, however, and the whole picture changes. You can get thousands of details right, but get one wrong, or simply omit telling it, and an historical event can become so distorted that it becomes a lie. Take the story of the Salk inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). During the first half of the 1950s, Jonas Salk, MD developed the first injectable vaccine against polio containing inactivated, or “killed”, strains of the poliovirus.

As a dead, rather than live, virus vaccine, Dr. Salk’s IPV supposedly carried no risk of giving recipients “vaccine-associated polio paralysis.”1 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “IPV is produced from wild-type poliovirus strains of each serotype that have been inactivated (killed) with formalin.”2

Here’s that little detail, though. The poliovirus that Dr. Salk killed with formalin, or formaldehyde, were not always killed; they sometimes only appeared to be killed.

Live poliovirus, which was put in an injectable vaccine, would appear to be inactivated right after it was made, but sometimes it would ‘resurrect’ in the vial… In essence, the formaldehyde did not kill off all the polioviruses in these vaccines, which led to live polio viruses being injected. As a result, more people developed paralysis from the vaccine in 1955 than would have developed it from a wild, normal natural poliovirus.3

Oops.

Field trials for the Salk vaccine were conducted on more than 1,800,000 children in the United States in 1954.4 Sponsored by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), now known as the March of Dimes, “623,972 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo, and more than a million others participated as ‘observed’ controls.’5

On April 12, 1955, Thomas Francis Jr., MD, director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, announced to the world that the Salk vaccine was “safe, effective, and potent,”—that it was “up to 90%” effective in preventing paralytic polio. Dr. Francis had been one of Dr. Salk’s professors at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology where Salk did his postgraduate training.4

During mid-April of 1955, about 400,000 people—mostly schoolchildren—in the U.S. were vaccinated with the Salk vaccine manufactured by Cutter Laboratories.6 It turns out that more than 200,000 of these children, living in five western and midwestern states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico7), were injected with vaccines “in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective.” The Cutter-produced vaccines ended up causing 40,000 cases of polio. It severely paralyzed 200 children and killed 10.8

The first of these cases to be reported was that of a young girl named Susan Pierce, who had received the vaccine on April 18, 1955.7

Five days later, she developed fever and neck stiffness. Six days later, her left arm was paralyzed. Seven days later, she was placed in an iron lung, and nine days later, she was dead.7

In his book The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis, Paul Offit, MD writes, “Seventy-five percent of Cutter’s victims were paralyzed for the rest of their lives.” A team led by epidemiologisit Alexander Langmuir of the Communicable Diseases Center (now the CDC) in Atlanta, GA determined that “the disease caused by Cutter’s vaccine was worse than the disease caused by natural polio virus,” adds Dr. Offit.7

Children given Cutter’s vaccine were more likely to be paralyzed in their arms, more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, more likely to require breathing assistance in iron lungs, and more likely to die than children naturally infected with polio.7

The so-called “Cutter Incident” led to the recall of the Cutter vaccine and the eventual replacement of the Salk IPV with the attenuated (weakened) live oral polio vaccine (OPV) developed by Albert Sabin, MD and introduced in 1963. (A modified inactivated Salk vaccine was re-introduced in the 1990s after the only cases of polio occurring in the U.S. were vaccine strain polio cases because live OPV can cause vaccine strain polio in the recipient or a close contact of a recently vaccinated person shedding live vaccine strain polio virus in body fluids.)8

But the fact that some improperly inactivated lots of the original polio vaccine paralyzed and killed American children was concealed from the public for a long time.

cont. at: The Cutter Incident: How America's First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis - The Edgy Truth
__________________
"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
  #4608  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:41 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

peacegirl, your defense of unethical experimentation on children doesn't make moral sense. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-12-2016), Dragar (06-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (06-13-2016), The Man (06-12-2016), Vivisectus (06-12-2016)
  #4609  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:47 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
even though what I am saying makes a lot of sense.
No, what you are saying does not make a lot of sense. You oppose vaccinations when you should be campaigning for better screening for children who might be harmed by vaccinations, even though there is no evidence that vaccinations are the cause of any problems with children. There is a high probability that the vaccinations and the onset of problems in a very few children are coincidental and not causal.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), The Man (06-12-2016)
  #4610  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:55 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
even though what I am saying makes a lot of sense.
No, what you are saying does not make a lot of sense. You oppose vaccinations when you should be campaigning for better screening for children who might be harmed by vaccinations, even though there is no evidence that vaccinations are the cause of any problems with children. There is a high probability that the vaccinations and the onset of problems in a very few children are coincidental and not causal.
They have no screening as of yet. Parents are wising up! :yup:
__________________
"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
  #4611  
Old 06-12-2016, 07:12 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: MXDCVII
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

It seems that, if his claims are only a hypothesis that needs more testing, going straight to the general public, with their lack of scientific understanding, to scare them into buying his books and videos is pretty unethical.

I would question any scientist who admits their views are only a hypothesis but that the public should decide for themselves, especially when it comes to health related issues.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-12-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (06-13-2016), The Man (06-12-2016), Vivisectus (06-12-2016)
  #4612  
Old 06-12-2016, 10:10 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
It seems that, if his claims are only a hypothesis that needs more testing, going straight to the general public, with their lack of scientific understanding, to scare them into buying his books and videos is pretty unethical.

I would question any scientist who admits their views are only a hypothesis but that the public should decide for themselves, especially when it comes to health related issues.
I don't question the fact that he created a hypothesis that was based on the commonalities he saw in these children. Isn't that how science is done? He suggested from his observations that the three vaccines in combination may be causing the problems that he was seeing. He suggested that parents only use one vaccine at a time, but they took the single measles vaccine off the market. Do you really think the government and the vaccine manufacturers are thinking about the potential harm they could be causing if it turns out that there is a causal connection? :glare:
__________________
"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; 06-12-2016 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4613  
Old 06-12-2016, 10:19 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMLXXXIV
Images: 295
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
You are mistaking hearsay with historical fact. It is not hearsay that Wakefield's license to practice medicine was revoked in Britain. It is not hearsay that he was found negligent and to have abused his patients.
That is not historical fact. That is ONLY one version of what happened.
So there's a history where Wakefield didn't get his license revoked?
It is a fact that he was found negligent, but it is not a fact that he was negligent.
The preponderance of credible evidence does not support the latter half of your statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
There's a historical record where the findings of the GMC didn't say that Wakefield was negligent and abused autistic children? Because those are the historical facts- they are not actually debatable.
Maybe I wasn't clear. He was found negligent (that's a fact) but he WAS NOT negligent in anything he did (that's also a fact).
Negligence as defined by Oxford is, "failure to take proper care in doing something." Wakefield states, in your link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Wakefield
...it [having blood samples drawn from children at his son's birthday party] gave the General Medical Council a concrete reason for them taking away my license. It was a mistake, and if I did it again, I would do so with the appropriate ethical approval, and so therefore, it’s something I regret.
That's negligence. By his own admission. Your statement is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What do you mean "he explained away doctoring patient histories?"
I'm saying I know of no explanation from Wakefield regarding the statements from parents of children involved in this study and the hospital records, that show the patient histories to be in contradiction to those stated in the Lancet paper.

Quote:
Child 11 was among the eight whose parents apparently blamed MMR. The interval between his vaccination and the first “behavioural symptom” was reported as 1 week. This symptom was said to have appeared at age 15 months. But his father, whom I had tracked down, said this was wrong.

“From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study,” he wrote to me, after we met again in California, “the data clearly appeared to be distorted.”

He backed his concerns with medical records, including a Royal Free discharge summary.
...>snip<...
“Dr Wakefield feels that if we can show a clear time link between the vaccination and onset of symptoms,” Barr told the legal board, “we should be able to dispose of the suggestion that it’s simply a chance encounter.”

But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.

“Please let me know if Andrew W has his doctor’s license revoked,” wrote Mr 11, who is convinced that many vaccines and environmental pollutants may be responsible for childhood brain disorders. “His misrepresentation of my son in his research paper is inexcusable. His motives for this I may never know.”
...>snip<...
The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:

-Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism
-Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns
-Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination
-In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”
-The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Drawing blood samples for his research by paying children at his son's birthday party? mentioned.
Is that it? You aren't going to admit you were wrong and you accused him without any foundation? I'll say it if you won't. YOU WERE WRONG.
Wakefield in his "explanation" buries himself, and verifies that yes, he engineered exactly what I stated- drawing blood from children at his son's birthday party without approval by the Hospital Ethics Committee. He didn't clear it up- he damned himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Wakefield
The only problem was that it did not have an approval from the Hospital Ethics Committee.That does not make it unethical. It was done, as I say, with fully informed child and parental consent. That’s the story. Do I regret it? Yes. Not because it was unethical, it wasn’t, but because it gave the General Medical Council a concrete reason for them taking away my license. It was a mistake, and if I did it again, I would do so with the appropriate ethical approval, and so therefore, it’s something I regret. Was it at any stage unethical? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
It is hardly ethical to not have your actions as a doctor cleared with the ethics board, when it is required.
He may have not gotten ethical approval (which he said he regrets since they used this to revoke his medical license), but he was above board with everything he did. Parents were notified and they gave their consent. That was the ethical thing to do, and he did it. :yup:
ChuckF covers this extremely well, and you and Wakefield are in error to suggest medical research on human subjects without ethical oversight is ethical. It is not- not remotely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Multiple studies that found no connection between MMR and autism? no mention by Wakefield in your link.
What are you talking about "there is no mention of Wakefield in my link". What link are you referring to?
Reading comprehension check- the multiple studies finding no connection between MMR and autism were not mentioned by Wakefield in the link you provided that supposedly had explanations, according to you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Maybe this will help get to the bottom of what happened.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield Deals With Allegations - Vaxxed
That link. Try and keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Due process has a clear legal meaning, which you appear to not understand. Please identify when and where Wakefield was denied his legal right to due process. What crimes was he charged with, in the British courts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He was charged with fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
In what court? And once he was charged, how specifically were his legal due process rights denied?
Oh, come on chunksmediocrites. This is getting redundant.
A synonym for redundant is superfluous; perhaps you meant repetitious? Ridiculous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There was definite collusion to oust this man without the due process that would have allowed him to clear his name. He was railroaded.
Wakefield was not charged with fraud in the courts. Due process is legal recourse. Wakefield chose not to attempt to clear his name with the GMC- he was not prevented from doing so. Wakefield chose to not sue Brian Deer for libel, in Britain, which has very strong libel laws favoring the plaintiff. What you are saying- that he was denied due process- is false, and suggests a clear and ongoing misunderstanding of what due process is on your part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They took away a doctor's medical license for no reason other than he was a threat to the organization. That is corrupt!
Not in evidence.
So you don't believe that this was the underlying reason they made a scapegoat out of him? You're in denial.
Bizarre logic chain aside (Vivisectus covers this well), you may need to do another reading comprehension check. I am saying there is no credible evidence to support your assertion, "They took away a doctor's medical license for no reason other than he was a threat to the organization," and that neither you nor Wakefield have provided anything resembling proof of this to date.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-13-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4614  
Old 06-12-2016, 10:45 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: MXDCVII
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't question the fact that he created a hypothesis that was based on the commonalities he saw in these children. Isn't that how science is done? He suggested from his observations that the three vaccines in combination may be causing the problems that he was seeing.
No, this is not how science is done. Science is done by creating a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis multiple times in controlled double blind studies which are then replicated by others. Then coming up with alternative reasons for the results and ruling those reasons out. As is often stated correlation is not always causation, for the very reason it can lead to erroneous conclusions.

What double blind studies did he do and who replicated them to make sure his data wasn't skewed? What alternative hypothesis did he propose and how did he eliminate them?

What is your evidence that vaccine manufactures are willing to harm those receiving vaccines? (remember 'profit' is not a valid response, given you've already claimed Wakefield shouldn't be discredited because he's profiting off his work.)
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-13-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4615  
Old 06-12-2016, 10:48 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMLXXXIV
Images: 295
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

From the other thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No one is saying that an ethics committee isn't sometimes needed, but in the case of Dr. Wakefield, although he did not get approval from the hospital's ethics committee, he did nothing unethical.
False.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He did not hurt these children. He helped them.
False.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He only did the tests that were necessary to make a diagnosis and work out a treatment plan.
False.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The parents were grateful for his help.
False, according to direct quotes from some of the parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Dr. Wakefield's research was covered by an appropriate ethical approval.
False, according to statements made by Wakefield.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already posted this. No one responded.
False.

You lie like you breathe.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-13-2016), Dragar (06-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (06-13-2016), The Man (06-13-2016), Vivisectus (06-13-2016)
  #4616  
Old 06-12-2016, 11:33 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Idea Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
You are mistaking hearsay with historical fact. It is not hearsay that Wakefield's license to practice medicine was revoked in Britain. It is not hearsay that he was found negligent and to have abused his patients.
That is not historical fact. That is ONLY one version of what happened.
So there's a history where Wakefield didn't get his license revoked?
It is a fact that he was found negligent, but it is not a fact that he was negligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
The preponderance of credible evidence does not support the latter half of your statement.
Credible evidence? He was maligned by Brian Deer. There was no credible evidence that he was doing any of this for his own gain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
There's a historical record where the findings of the GMC didn't say that Wakefield was negligent and abused autistic children? Because those are the historical facts- they are not actually debatable.
Maybe I wasn't clear. He was found negligent (that's a fact) but he WAS NOT negligent in anything he did (that's also a fact).
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Negligence as defined by Oxford is, "failure to take proper care in doing something." Wakefield states, in your link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Wakefield
...it [having blood samples drawn from children at his son's birthday party] gave the General Medical Council a concrete reason for them taking away my license. It was a mistake, and if I did it again, I would do so with the appropriate ethical approval, and so therefore, it’s something I regret.
That's negligence. By his own admission. Your statement is false.
He got permission from the parents. He needed blood samples of healthy children so his wife suggested that he ask the parents of the children at their child's birthday party. Where is this actually negligent and how is this anything other than an artibrary call?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What do you mean "he explained away doctoring patient histories?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
I'm saying I know of no explanation from Wakefield regarding the statements from parents of children involved in this study and the hospital records, that show the patient histories to be in contradiction to those stated in the Lancet paper.

Quote:
Child 11 was among the eight whose parents apparently blamed MMR. The interval between his vaccination and the first “behavioural symptom” was reported as 1 week. This symptom was said to have appeared at age 15 months. But his father, whom I had tracked down, said this was wrong.

“From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study,” he wrote to me, after we met again in California, “the data clearly appeared to be distorted.”

He backed his concerns with medical records, including a Royal Free discharge summary.
...>snip<...
“Dr Wakefield feels that if we can show a clear time link between the vaccination and onset of symptoms,” Barr told the legal board, “we should be able to dispose of the suggestion that it’s simply a chance encounter.”

But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.

“Please let me know if Andrew W has his doctor’s license revoked,” wrote Mr 11, who is convinced that many vaccines and environmental pollutants may be responsible for childhood brain disorders. “His misrepresentation of my son in his research paper is inexcusable. His motives for this I may never know.”
...>snip<...
The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:

-Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism
-Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns
-Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination
-In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”
-The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link
He had enough data from these children to be highly concerned that there could be a connection between the MMR vaccine and the regressive symptoms that followed. Maybe child 11's symptoms did not correlate with the MMR vaccine if the child actually displayed ASD before the shot. I'm sure there are other causes of autism. Should this rule out the possibility that Wakefield was correct in observing a temporal association with the MMR vaccine in other children? No.

Many parents report that their perfectly healthy children became autistic after receiving the MMR vaccine. The affected children were developing normally, then regressed after receiving the triple shot, losing their previously acquired skills. The medical community vociferously denies any connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. However, in 1998 Lancet published a landmark study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield linking the onset of autistic symptoms to the MMR vaccine.(21) Wakefield and his world-class team of medical experts investigated previously normal children who subsequently suffered from intestinal abnormalities and regressive developmental disorder, including a loss of acquired skills. In most cases, "onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation."(22) Further research uncovered a possible explanation:

"Atypical patterns of exposure to common childhood infections -- measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox -- have been associated with autism and autistic regression.... A close temporal relationship in the exposure to two of these infections during periods of susceptibility may compound both the risk and severity of autism.... Although historically, these rare patterns of exposure may have accounted for only a small proportion of autism, the widespread use of a combination of the candidate agents in a single vaccine [MMR] may have changed this."(23)

An earlier study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology identified in utero and infant exposures as periods of apparent susceptibility, when both the brain and immune system are undergoing rapid development.(24) Thus, fetuses and young children are especially prone to adverse consequences if they contract two or more viral infections concurrently. Wakefield elaborated on the increased perils of being exposed to more than one virus at a time:

"One important pattern of infection that may increase the risk of delayed disease is where different viruses interact, either with each other or both interact with the host immune system simultaneously. Virologic data support the possibility of a compound effect of multiple concurrent viral exposures influencing...the risk of autism."(25)

MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) Vaccines: Adverse Reactions. Thinktwice!


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Drawing blood samples for his research by paying children at his son's birthday party? mentioned.
Is that it? You aren't going to admit you were wrong and you accused him without any foundation? I'll say it if you won't. YOU WERE WRONG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chunksmediocrites
Wakefield in his "explanation" buries himself, and verifies that yes, he engineered exactly what I stated- drawing blood from children at his son's birthday party without approval by the Hospital Ethics Committee. He didn't clear it up- he damned himself.
He didn't follow hospital protocol. He should have gotten disciplined, but they should not have taken away his license. He actually did nothing unethical because he got permission from the parents and no one was harmed. His conscience was clearly his guide and he did right by these families. I don't think he would have ever put a child's well-being in jeopardy whether he got approval or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Wakefield
The only problem was that it did not have an approval from the Hospital Ethics Committee.That does not make it unethical. It was done, as I say, with fully informed child and parental consent. That’s the story. Do I regret it? Yes. Not because it was unethical, it wasn’t, but because it gave the General Medical Council a concrete reason for them taking away my license. It was a mistake, and if I did it again, I would do so with the appropriate ethical approval, and so therefore, it’s something I regret. Was it at any stage unethical? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
It is hardly ethical to not have your actions as a doctor cleared with the ethics board, when it is required.
He may have not gotten ethical approval (which he said he regrets since they used this to revoke his medical license), but he was above board with everything he did. Parents were notified and they gave their consent. That was the ethical thing to do, and he did it. :yup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
ChuckF covers this extremely well, and you and Wakefield are in error to suggest medical research on human subjects without ethical oversight is ethical. It is not- not remotely.
I maintain that he did nothing wrong. He was dealing with individual clinical cases where testing was allowed by the hospital -- without getting specific approval from the committee. This reminds me of a doctor who makes a decision to do something that was not authorized. Meanwhile he saves the patient's life but gets disciplined because he didn't follow the rules. Stupidity 101! Rules are sometimes meant to be broken and no ethical committee can tell me that Wakefield was unethical for that reason alone although he said if he had to do it all over again he would have checked with the committee. He took responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Multiple studies that found no connection between MMR and autism? no mention by Wakefield in your link.
What are you talking about "there is no mention of Wakefield in my link". What link are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Reading comprehension check- the multiple studies finding no connection between MMR and autism were not mentioned by Wakefield in the link you provided that supposedly had explanations, according to you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Maybe this will help get to the bottom of what happened.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield Deals With Allegations - Vaxxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
That link. Try and keep up.
Let me add to what was not mentioned in the video.

New Evidence Refutes Fraud Findings in Dr. Wakefield Case
January 24, 2012

By Dr. Mercola


In February 1998, the Lancet published Dr. Andrew Wakefield's case series of a group of autistic children with gastric problems, which has become one of the most controversial studies in medicine because part of the patients' story included regression after receiving the MMR vaccine.

The debate is a heated one, as the study suggests there may be a link between the MMR vaccine, bowel disease and autism.

In an interview I conducted with Dr. Wakefield in 2010, he said he knew he was about to enter treacherous waters when the study was published, and he expected the inevitable backlash from the vaccine industry.

However, "backlash" is putting it mildly, as Dr. Wakefield's reputation was completely smeared.

The latest revelations in this controversy add yet another twist, and suggest that a series of articles published by the BMJ in January 2011 alleging that Wakefield falsified data, making the original Lancet article fraudulent, were in fact the inaccurate ones …

New Investigation Defends Wakefield's Lancet Study

At the heart of the Wakefield controversy has been whether or not the children in the study were, in fact, diagnosed with non-specific colitis, or if that information had been fabricated -- allegations that were largely initiated by investigative journalist Brian Deer.

Writing in the BMJ, research microbiologist David Lewis, of the National Whistleblowers Center, explains that he reviewed histopathological grading sheets by two of Dr. Wakefield's coauthors, pathologists Amar Dhillon and Andrew Anthony, and concluded there was no fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield:

"As a research microbiologist involved with the collection and examination of colonic biopsy samples, I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of "non-specific colitis." Dhillon indicated "non-specific" in a box associated, in some cases, with other forms of colitis. In addition, if Anthony's grading sheets are similar to ones he completed for the Lancet article, they suggest that he diagnosed "colitis" in a number of the children."

In a press release, Lewis continued:

"The grading sheets and other evidence in Wakefield's files clearly show that it is unreasonable to conclude, based on a comparison of the histological records, that Andrew Wakefield 'faked' a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Now that these records have seen the light of day, it is time for others to stop using them for this purpose as well. False allegations of research misconduct can destroy the careers of even the most accomplished and reputable scientists overnight. It may take years for them to prove their innocence; and even then the damages are often irreparable. In cases where mistakes are made, every effort should be taken to fully restore the reputations and careers of scientists who are falsely accused of research misconduct."

Wakefield is Not the Only Researcher to Look Into the Possible Connection Between MMR Vaccine, Bowel Disease and Autism

cont. at: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ield-case.aspx


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Due process has a clear legal meaning, which you appear to not understand. Please identify when and where Wakefield was denied his legal right to due process. What crimes was he charged with, in the British courts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He was charged with fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
In what court? And once he was charged, how specifically were his legal due process rights denied?
Oh, come on chunksmediocrites. This is getting redundant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
A synonym for redundant is superfluous; perhaps you meant repetitious? Ridiculous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There was definite collusion to oust this man without the due process that would have allowed him to clear his name. He was railroaded.
Superfluous is not the same as redundant. Repetitive is a better synonym.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Wakefield was not charged with fraud in the courts. Due process is legal recourse. Wakefield chose not to attempt to clear his name with the GMC- he was not prevented from doing so. Wakefield chose to not sue Brian Deer for libel, in Britain, which has very strong libel laws favoring the plaintiff. What you are saying- that he was denied due process- is false, and suggests a clear and ongoing misunderstanding of what due process is on your part.
He was not heard. Every single allegation that was made against him is false. They have vilified him to such a degree that his reputation has been irreparably damaged. But he's making a come back because his original results are being replicated and shown to be correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They took away a doctor's medical license for no reason other than he was a threat to the organization. That is corrupt!
Not in evidence.
Quote:
So you don't believe that this was the underlying reason they made a scapegoat out of him? You're in denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Bizarre logic chain aside (Vivisectus covers this well), you may need to do another reading comprehension check. I am saying there is no credible evidence to support your assertion, "They took away a doctor's medical license for no reason other than he was a threat to the organization," and that neither you nor Wakefield have provided anything resembling proof of this to date.
I believe this was a big part of it. For Wakefield to even suggest that these three vaccines could have contributed to the children's symptoms would be upsetting to a lot of people, which he probably expected would happen. I'm sure there is some denial on the part of the manufacturers and the CDC that these vaccines are anything but lifesaving because they couldn't deal with it if they thought for one minute that Wakefield was correct. This is an informative article. I would read the whole thing.

Regressive Autism And MMR Vaccination
By: Dr. F. Edward Yazbak


Autism, as an entity, was unknown before the early 1940s when it simply appeared in small numbers. A steep increase in its prevalence was noted in the United States starting in the late 70s and in the United Kingdom after 1988 following the extensive use of the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine in both countries. The vaccine authorities in both countries are convinced that there is no connection between MMR vaccination and autism.

A new clinical picture also started to emerge around the same period. While earlier, symptoms of autism were noticed shortly after birth, "He was born autistic"¯, lately many of the affected children are healthy and developmentally normal in the first 12 to 15 months of life. Sometime between 15 and 18 months of age, they suddenly stop acquiring new skills and then start regressing, losing speech and social dexterity. At the same time, neurological, immune and gastro-intestinal symptoms appear: some children develop seizures, some have recurrent infections and are prescribed repeated courses of antibiotics and some start with peculiar eating habits and severe diarrhea, obstinate constipation or a combination of both. Most affected children today are not simply "autistic"¯, a psychiatric behavioral description. They suffer from a multi-system medical syndrome, called Regressive Autism. They do not require psychiatric care and medication only; they need medical treatment, dietary intervention and the close attention of a multidisciplinary team of therapists. The parents must be taught how to cope with aberrant behavior but they also need advice on diet, supplements, detoxification, management of obstipation, control of recurrent infections and development of education plans.

Relatively more affected children now have IQs above 70, respond to dietary restrictions, improve with Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) and can be gradually mainstreamed. This recent more frequent clinical picture and the fact that in many cases some symptoms can be improved and behavior controlled, seem to support the parents’ conviction that their children were normal for months, that they had acquired skills and that, with help, some of those skills can be retrieved, at least partially. As far as many parents are concerned, the timing of the behavioral, speech and cognitive changes appeared to follow the first dose of MMR.

Some parents have also reported that their children, after improving on special diets, supplements and behavioral therapy, regressed a second time around the age of 5 years shortly after receiving their MMR booster. Such double-hit situation (challenge-rechallenge) has been accepted in courts and by a committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as proof of causation.

The vaccine authorities do not know what causes autism but they are certain that the administration of the MMR vaccine is NOT responsible for Regressive Autism and are convinced that any "temporal association"¯ between the two is simply a coincidence "because autism usually occurs at about the age of 18 months"¯, shortly after the administration of the MMR vaccine.

<snip>

The Measles and MMR vaccines

As mentioned, the MMR vaccine became available in 1971-72. In the United States, it has always contained the exact same three "monovalent"¯ vaccines marketed individually as Attenuvax (measles), Mumpsvax (mumps) and Meruvax (rubella). When the new MeruvaxII was introduced, the triple vaccine became the MMRII. The vaccine manufacturer’s greatest concern was that the live virus vaccines would interfere with each other when combined. Much time was spent to prove that they did not. The data quoted by the manufacturer suggest that the MMR vaccine is almost as effective as its components and that the "slightly better statistics"¯ of the single vaccines should not be too significant. The efficacy requirement for licensure was thus fulfilled.

The monovalent measles vaccine is still used in major vaccination programs in third world countries where measles mortality rate remains very high because of malnutrition.

The safety studies on the MMR vaccine on the other hand were short and inadequate. The relatively few and limited follow-ups lasted 3 to 4 weeks on average with only 2 extending to 8 weeks. Chronic or long-term adverse events were never investigated or looked for. The difficulties the children are facing today may have been due to the fact that in the late sixties, "vaccinology"¯ as a science was much more advanced than immunology. Jenner inoculated Phipps with cowpox in 1796 and called the procedure vaccination from "vacca"¯, Latin for cow. Lately the more glamorous term "immunization"¯ has been used more frequently, more to intimate that the vaccination results in immunity than to get rid of the bovine connection. In fact, vaccination is a more accurate term. Not all "immunizations"¯ produce immunity every time.

Anyway, no one really knew in 1971 what happened to the immune system of a susceptible child in response to the simultaneous injection of three live viruses. In fact, it is safe to say that no one, to this day, knows for sure.

The fact is that older pediatricians [this one included] always noticed that children were very sick when they had two (or three) infectious diseases at the same time. They were therefore rightly concerned about administering three live virus vaccines, even if they had been "attenuated"¯, to a small child with a still immature immune system.

The immune assault (and the response) to natural disease and live viral vaccination are different. With the natural disease, the virus invades the respiratory tract where the lymphoid barrier softens the impact. Injected vaccines short-circuit the process, bypass the respiratory defenses, and introduce the live viruses directly and precipitously "into the system"¯, leading to a sudden unexpected immune stress and, in some cases the formation of auto-antibodies, antibodies against one’s self. This is the reason why several teams of researchers have been working furtively to develop an intra-nasal measles vaccine, which will mimic the clinical disease, and avoid the immune stress of the injected vaccine. One must wonder why the launching of this vaccine is taking so long! It would certainly make thousands of parents and doctors happy.

Many US pediatricians, who had been impressed with the performance of the single vaccines and who were concerned about increased reactions with the MMR, were slow to endorse it at first. In those years, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended many "preventive"¯ office visits and the administration of the measles vaccine at 15 months, the rubella vaccine at 21 months and the mumps vaccine at 24 months made a lot of sense. The monovalent vaccines were also well accepted by parents. Indeed, those of us practicing then noticed that parents rarely missed a visit in which a vaccination was scheduled.

In the late 70’s things changed.

HMOs decided to cut down (out) the number of "regular check-ups"¯

They also decided that they would not pay the nominal fees ($1-3.00/injection) they were paying for the administration of each of the 3 vaccines when ONE vaccine containing all 3, was available.

The State Health Departments, which in an effort to improve vaccination rates had started providing vaccines, free of charge, to the pediatricians and well-baby clinics, opted for the triple vaccine to save on personnel and refrigerated space.

The pediatricians capitulated and the MMR vaccine became widely, and almost exclusively used in the United States. In 1988, as mentioned previously, the MMR vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom in the midst of a highly publicized national vaccination campaign, and the use of the single measles, rubella and mumps vaccine in children was curtailed.

In 2001, Wakefield and Montgomery published "Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: through a glass, darkly"¯, (1) in which they reported that:

Pre-licensing trials of the MMR vaccine revealed gastrointestinal events that persisted to the end of the trial period in significant numbers of children from developed countries. Despite this, the follow up period for subsequent trials was reduced from 28 days to 21 days.

The decision to combine the three vaccines in one (undoubtedly atypical) exposure was taken without specific consideration of the known associations between concurrent exposures to common childhood infections and later consequences.

The authors pointed out that: ""¦ in the context of MMR, one plus one plus one never did equal three."¯

In the same issue of Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological (ADRT) Reviews, where the report appeared, the Editor endorsed Wakefield’s findings and Dr. Peter Fletcher, formerly the British counterpart of the FDA director, stated: "the granting of a product license was premature"¯.

As a courtesy, Dr. Wakefield had notified the health authorities several months in advance of the publication. When an attempt to coerce the editor not to publish the article failed, the vaccine authorities and Wakefield’s opponents came out "en masse"¯ against the report. Professor Walter O. Spitzer, Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology at McGill University (2) commented comprehensibly on the controversy in the following issue of ADRT Reviews, which also contained my comments on the unexplained increasing incidence of autism (3)

Originally the MMR vaccine was administered alone at 15 months and only if the child was in good health. This has changed and the vaccine is now given as early as 12 months of age, often with the last dose of HIB (Haemophylus Influenzae B) vaccine, the third dose of hepatitis B vaccine and the live chicken pox vaccine, even if the child is sick and/or on antibiotics "as long as he does not have a high fever"¯.

There is no reasonable medical justification for such an overload of immune stresses at such a vulnerable age, now that the risk of contracting those diseases is nil or very low. Pressure from the vaccine authorities to continue this practice is illogical. Pressure from the HMOs in order to protect the bottom line is immoral

The Incidence of Autism

In all likelihood the most accurate figures on autism in the pediatric age group are derived from statistics obtained from the special education departments in the different school systems. These are usually reported to the Department of Education (DOE) in each state and forwarded to the US DOE. Each year, a comprehensive report is sent to the US Congress in compliance with IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This act was signed into law in 1975 to ensure equal educational opportunities for children with disabilities. State and local education districts must provide a "free appropriate public education," based upon an "individualized education program" (IEP) geared to each student’s needs. Earlier, autism was included in the larger group of Developmental Disabilities. As the number of cases of autism increased, a decision was made to list autism as a separate entity starting with the 1991-1992 school year. Services are provided to individuals with disabilities till their 21st birthday. The increase in autism among children and young adults, ages 6 to 21 in US schools is evident in Graph

Regressive Autism And MMR Vaccination | Vaccination News
__________________
"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; 06-13-2016 at 12:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4617  
Old 06-12-2016, 11:42 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I maintain that he did nothing wrong. He was dealing with individual cases which already gave permission by the hospital. This is similar to a doctor who makes a decision to do something that is not authorized by the hospital rules. Meanwhile he saves the patient but gets disciplined because he didn't follow the rules. Now is this stupid or what? Rules are sometimes meant to be broken and no ethical committee can tell me that Wakefield was unethical just because he didn't get their approval. :chin:
Fortunately, no ethics committee is needed to tell civilized people that experimentation on humans without ethical oversight is unethical. The Declaration of Helsinki tells us that.

peacegirl, your ignorant handwaving over "rules are sometimes meant to be broken" is precisely why there are rules requiring independent ethical oversight of experimentation on humans. Your defense of human experimentation without independent ethical oversight is deeply immoral. It represents the opposite of moral progress. You should be ashamed of it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-12-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4618  
Old 06-12-2016, 11:58 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: MXDCVII
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He had enough data from these children to be highly concerned that there could be a connection between the MMR vaccine and the regressive symptoms that followed.
Hypothesis Autistic symptoms become increasingly noticable around the same time as the MMR Vaccine, especially when it's only heavily looked for after the vaccination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Should this rule out the possibility that Wakefield was correct in observing a temporal association with the MMR vaccine in other children? No.
Should it call it into doubt, enough that a proper scientist should say "we need further research" Oh you betcha!
What did Wakefield do? Cry conspiracy and let loose the hogs of public opinion over scientific rigor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Autism, as an entity, was unknown before the early 1940s when it simply appeared in small numbers. A steep increase in its prevalence was noted in the United States starting in the late 70s and in the United Kingdom after 1988 following the extensive use of the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine in both countries.
Completely and utterly false and clearly an attempt to obfuscate the truth.

There were zero cases of "autism" before 1944 because the condition wasn't named. Just like there were zero cases of any modern diagnosis before the diagnosis was created. However there were plenty of potential cases of autism long before the MMR vaccine.

There was also no real increase in autism, the 'steep increase' coincides instead with a change in diagnosis and the addition of autism to the DSM. The apparent increase is again of the condition being named, not an actual increase in those that have autism.

Why should we trust your sources if they are either ignorant or purposefully dishonest?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-13-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4619  
Old 06-13-2016, 12:47 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 ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I maintain that he did nothing wrong. He was dealing with individual cases which already gave permission by the hospital. This is similar to a doctor who makes a decision to do something that is not authorized by the hospital rules. Meanwhile he saves the patient but gets disciplined because he didn't follow the rules. Now is this stupid or what? Rules are sometimes meant to be broken and no ethical committee can tell me that Wakefield was unethical just because he didn't get their approval. :chin:
Fortunately, no ethics committee is needed to tell civilized people that experimentation on humans without ethical oversight is unethical. The Declaration of Helsinki tells us that.

peacegirl, your ignorant handwaving over "rules are sometimes meant to be broken" is precisely why there are rules requiring independent ethical oversight of experimentation on humans. Your defense of human experimentation without independent ethical oversight is deeply immoral. It represents the opposite of moral progress. You should be ashamed of it.
He did not experiment on children Chuck. Why are you propagating half truths and lies? These children were already sick. He was called in as a consult to try to find out what was going on. He was not doing experiments on them. How can a doctor know how to diagnose and treat without doing some tests which, btw, were already approved by the ethics committee. That's why I don't think he violated their procedures. In the process of looking over the tests he found that the children who had serious bowel problems also had regressive autism. He believed there was a link, but in no way did he do anything to experiment on the children. You're being unfair because you want to hold onto the belief that he was a fraud.
__________________
"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
  #4620  
Old 06-13-2016, 12:48 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Wakefield and his world-class team of medical experts
Wakefield and his team of unethical charlatans, who all decided to cut and run before the house of cards came tumbling down.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4621  
Old 06-13-2016, 12:55 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Wakefield's experimentation on children with no independent ethics review is manifestly unethical.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-13-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4622  
Old 06-13-2016, 01:01 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He believed there was a link, but in no way did he do anything to experiment on the children.
I see that we need to add "experiment" to the list of terms that you don't understand.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4623  
Old 06-13-2016, 01:08 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMLXXXIV
Images: 295
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He got permission from the parents. He needed blood samples of healthy children so his wife suggested that he ask the parents of the children at their child's birthday party. Where is this actually negligent and how is this anything other than an artibrary call?
This has been explained to you repeatedly. Medical research using human subjects requires approval by a Hospital Ethics Committee. What Wakefield was engaged in was medical research using human subjects. He did not request approval.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He had enough data from these children to be highly concerned that there could be a connection between the MMR vaccine and the regressive symptoms that followed. Maybe child 11's symptoms did not correlate with the MMR vaccine if the child actually displayed ASD before the shot. I'm sure there are other causes of autism. Should this rule out the possibility that Wakefield was correct in observing a temporal association with the MMR vaccine in other children? No.
Except that the Lancet paper's temporal associations were found to be in direct contradiction to the hospital records and parental reports- the timelines radically truncated to fit the hypothesis- which makes the report fraudulent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He didn't follow hospital protocol. He should have gotten disciplined, but they should not have taken away his license.
Feel free to quote the regulations governing the GMC that determine penalties, otherwise this sounds like opinion, not fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I maintain that he did nothing wrong.
Of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He took responsibility.
No, he didn't. He claimed it wasn't unethical to perform research on human subjects without approval from the Hospital Ethics Committee. This is false. Saying he would get approval if he had it to do over again isn't taking responsibility. Saying it was ethical is not taking responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Let me add to what was not mentioned in the video.

New Evidence Refutes Fraud Findings in Dr. Wakefield Case
January 24, 2012


By Dr. Mercola

...>snip<...
Writing in the BMJ, research microbiologist David Lewis, of the National Whistleblowers Center, explains that he reviewed histopathological grading sheets by two of Dr. Wakefield's coauthors, pathologists Amar Dhillon and Andrew Anthony, and concluded there was no fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield:

"As a research microbiologist involved with the collection and examination of colonic biopsy samples, I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of "non-specific colitis." Dhillon indicated "non-specific" in a box associated, in some cases, with other forms of colitis. In addition, if Anthony's grading sheets are similar to ones he completed for the Lancet article, they suggest that he diagnosed "colitis" in a number of the children."

In a press release, Lewis continued:

"The grading sheets and other evidence in Wakefield's files clearly show that it is unreasonable to conclude, based on a comparison of the histological records, that Andrew Wakefield 'faked' a link between the MMR vaccine and autism."
Brian Deer:
Quote:
...within perhaps six minutes it was clear to me that, notwithstanding both Wakefield’s and Lewis’s claims, the sheets overwhelmingly didn’t report colitis. My research in 2010 had given me some lay understanding of such matters, and it was clear to me that the scorings were almost all of observations which pathologists would assume to be physiologic. It also seemed to me that “non-specific” merely meant that findings weren’t specific to anything. As it happens, there’s no accepted entity called “non-specific colitis” and you’d be a long time looking for it in gastroenterology textbooks.
I was surprised that Lewis appeared not to understand relatively elementary fundamentals of GI histopathology when he was representing himself to us as an expert. He evidently couldn’t, or, worse, wouldn’t, read the grading sheets and make sense of them. Within perhaps an hour, I advised Dr Godlee to promptly put the sheets out for expert review. I’m aware of perhaps seven experts who subsequently looked at them. All of them said what I’d said. The sheets largely noted observations of apparently healthy bowel mucosa, and the “non-specific” tick-box wasn’t meant to indicate a finding of colitis.
This was a significant development in the overall MMR story. Here were previously unseen raw data, explicitly invoked by Wakefield as evidence of colitis and of a putative “new inflammatory bowel disease” associated with autism and MMR, which he would later call “autistic enterocolitis”. This was pivotal material which helped to launch the MMR vaccine crisis. And yet the data didn’t show what Wakefield claimed. Nor did they square with what he and others had told the GMC panel, which took evidence under oath.
...>snip<...
Shortly after publication, Professor Dhillon issued a statement in which he confirmed that the “non-specific” tick-box wasn’t meant to indicate colitis, and that a finding of colitis requires both input from clinicians’ and the patient’s history, neither of which were available to him when he completed his sheets.
David Lewis was mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Superfluous is not the same as redundant. Repetitive is a better synonym.
I do not know why you insist on arguing about syntax when you know fuck-all about nearly every subject you discuss. I wrote that superfluous is a synonym of redundant, to show that the way you used redundant in the sentence was likely not the word you intended. And repetitive is not a synonym of redundant. Feel free to consult your dictionary and thesaurus; they will concur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Wakefield was not charged with fraud in the courts. Due process is legal recourse. Wakefield chose not to attempt to clear his name with the GMC- he was not prevented from doing so. Wakefield chose to not sue Brian Deer for libel, in Britain, which has very strong libel laws favoring the plaintiff. What you are saying- that he was denied due process- is false, and suggests a clear and ongoing misunderstanding of what due process is on your part.
He was not heard.
This is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Every single allegation that was made against him is false.
We've covered this unto exhaustion- you clearly know that this is not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They have vilified him to such a degree that his reputation has been irreparably damaged.
Wakefield's reputation has been damaged by his own actions, and he blames those that brought his fraud to light, and the industry as a whole. His single attempt in the courts (in Texas, for no clear reason) to sue Brian Deer and the editor of the BMJ Godlee, was dismissed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But he's making a come back because his original results are being replicated and shown to be correct.
No, and quite the opposite.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), But (06-13-2016), ChuckF (06-13-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4624  
Old 06-13-2016, 01:09 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
These children were already sick.
He was not doing experiments on them.
Clinical trials are experiments and they often ask for patients with a particular disease at a particular stage to take part in the trial. These people are already sick and they are taking part in an experiment. There is always some kind of ethical oversight, which Wakefield ignored.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
  #4625  
Old 06-13-2016, 02:02 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCCLXXXVII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Has anyone mentioned Andy Wakefield's vaccine patent application lately, or are we focused exclusively on what an unethical pile of shit he is?
__________________
"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 (06-14-2016), Ari (06-13-2016), ChuckF (06-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (06-13-2016), The Man (06-13-2016)
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 03:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.27079 seconds with 14 queries