Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Why? Your sources are proven to be false. It's like asking us to look at a text book about creationism to learn about evolution.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
are vaccines safe?
- Thread starter Bob Watson
- Start date
Why? Your sources are proven to be false. It's like asking us to look at a text book about creationism to learn about evolution.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wait a minute Angelo not one of you proved anything. You cite the CDC as a credible source and I hand you Dr William Thompson a renown lead scientist in vaccine safety division who admits to destroying causal links between MMR and autism. The are also at least 12 other CDC scientists (SPIDER) who are complaining about a lack of ethics.
Wakefields paper never said there was a link. It said there was an indication that more research was needed.
You really should show your intelligence and look into what was actually said. Watch the video above and better yet listen to that podcast I would be extremely interested in your thoughts after you do.
Here's what it said.
Findings
Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities.
But its more than that.
Of course the paper did not say we found conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt links between the vaccine and these issues.
And for one obvious reason.
There isn't any link. The paper was designed to introduce reasonable doubt for the legal team that was paying him to give them something they could use in court.
And in order to get even this paper written he had to fit a square peg in a round hole.
We learned during the subsequent investigation his methods were scientifically flawed, and down right dishonest.
That's why he is struck off the register and his paper retracted.
Read the following carefully
Mr 11, an American engineer, looked again at the paper: a five page case series of 11 boys and one girl, aged between 3 and 9 years. Nine children, it said, had diagnoses of “regressive” autism, and all but one were reported with “non-specific colitis.” The “new syndrome” brought these together, linking brain and bowel diseases. His son was the penultimate case.
Running his finger across the paper’s tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son’s age and other details. But then he pointed at table 2—headed “neuropsychiatric diagnosis”—and for a second time objected.
“That’s not true.”
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.5 Although the family lived 5000 miles from the hospital, in February 1997 the boy (then aged 5) had been flown to London and admitted for Wakefield’s project, the undisclosed goal of which was to help sue the vaccine’s manufacturers.6
Wakefield’s “syndrome”
Unknown to Mr 11, Wakefield was working on a lawsuit,7 for which he sought a bowel-brain “syndrome” as its centrepiece. Claiming an undisclosed £150 (€180, $230) an hour through a Norfolk solicitor named Richard Barr, he had been confidentially 8 put on the payroll two years before the paper was published, eventually grossing him £435 643, plus expenses.9
Curiously, however, Wakefield had already identified such a syndrome before the project which would reputedly discover it. “Children with enteritis/disintegrative disorder [an expression he used for bowel inflammation and regressive autism10] form part of a new syndrome,” he and Barr explained in a confidential grant application to the UK government’s Legal Aid Board11 before any of the children were investigated.12 “Nonetheless the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology.”
The two men also aimed to show a sudden-onset “temporal association”—strong evidence in product liability. “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.”13
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.
This is significant. Wakefield states,
“Nonetheless the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology.”
(Wakefield A. Introduction to the rationale, aims and potential therapeutic implications of the investigation of children with Disintegrative disorder (regressive autism; Heller’s disease and intestinal symptomatology.” (Document issued by Wakefield and mailed to doctors and parents who approached the Royal Free , dated 3 February 1997.))
Pixel is cherry picking the wording of the retracted paper, But its very very clear Wakefield was of the view the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology.
That's bad science as the review board scathingly agreed. You take the evidence examine it and then form a hypothesis.
He started with the hypothesis and then had to shave the square peg to fit that round hole. Massaging the data and even misrepresenting it in order to support that hypothesis.
And he did it not to advance medical science, not for the kids. He did it for the money.
And the icing on that cake is the 4 bucks Pixel says we have to pay to see the film. If it was such a vital truth surely it would be up on YT for free.
It is and always has been about the money.
The paper remains retracted, and Wakefield remains struck off for his fraud.
The now retracted paper couldn't state we have found undeniable evidence of a connection..... Because there is none as proper and larger studies have confirmed.
Study 's that involved not a dozen children, but thousands. Double blinds, placebos and twins.
Its purpose was to give the lawyers something they could use to introduce "reasonable doubt" to their lawsuits. In civil matters that's all you need. Not beyond a shadow of a doubt proof. which Wakefield could never have done because there is no link. Instead the paper hinted at a link we know from an earlier paper he published he truly believed was real.
You have to look at the larger context to see the fraud that was perpetrated and its motives.
Thankfully the review board did just this and now hes discredited.
Steven Miles, a professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota, calls Andrew Wakefield a researcher with a track record of fraud.
"He's just not trustworthy," Miles said. "And it does not surprise me that he would seek out a population which is unsophisticated and desperate."
Unsophisticated is the kindest way of describing Pixels stance. If the Paracast were a village.....
Findings
Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities.
But its more than that.
Of course the paper did not say we found conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt links between the vaccine and these issues.
And for one obvious reason.
There isn't any link. The paper was designed to introduce reasonable doubt for the legal team that was paying him to give them something they could use in court.
And in order to get even this paper written he had to fit a square peg in a round hole.
We learned during the subsequent investigation his methods were scientifically flawed, and down right dishonest.
That's why he is struck off the register and his paper retracted.
Read the following carefully
Mr 11, an American engineer, looked again at the paper: a five page case series of 11 boys and one girl, aged between 3 and 9 years. Nine children, it said, had diagnoses of “regressive” autism, and all but one were reported with “non-specific colitis.” The “new syndrome” brought these together, linking brain and bowel diseases. His son was the penultimate case.
Running his finger across the paper’s tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son’s age and other details. But then he pointed at table 2—headed “neuropsychiatric diagnosis”—and for a second time objected.
“That’s not true.”
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.5 Although the family lived 5000 miles from the hospital, in February 1997 the boy (then aged 5) had been flown to London and admitted for Wakefield’s project, the undisclosed goal of which was to help sue the vaccine’s manufacturers.6
Wakefield’s “syndrome”
Unknown to Mr 11, Wakefield was working on a lawsuit,7 for which he sought a bowel-brain “syndrome” as its centrepiece. Claiming an undisclosed £150 (€180, $230) an hour through a Norfolk solicitor named Richard Barr, he had been confidentially 8 put on the payroll two years before the paper was published, eventually grossing him £435 643, plus expenses.9
Curiously, however, Wakefield had already identified such a syndrome before the project which would reputedly discover it. “Children with enteritis/disintegrative disorder [an expression he used for bowel inflammation and regressive autism10] form part of a new syndrome,” he and Barr explained in a confidential grant application to the UK government’s Legal Aid Board11 before any of the children were investigated.12 “Nonetheless the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology.”
The two men also aimed to show a sudden-onset “temporal association”—strong evidence in product liability. “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.”13
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.
This is significant. Wakefield states,
“Nonetheless the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology.”
(Wakefield A. Introduction to the rationale, aims and potential therapeutic implications of the investigation of children with Disintegrative disorder (regressive autism; Heller’s disease and intestinal symptomatology.” (Document issued by Wakefield and mailed to doctors and parents who approached the Royal Free , dated 3 February 1997.))
Pixel is cherry picking the wording of the retracted paper, But its very very clear Wakefield was of the view the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology.
That's bad science as the review board scathingly agreed. You take the evidence examine it and then form a hypothesis.
He started with the hypothesis and then had to shave the square peg to fit that round hole. Massaging the data and even misrepresenting it in order to support that hypothesis.
And he did it not to advance medical science, not for the kids. He did it for the money.
And the icing on that cake is the 4 bucks Pixel says we have to pay to see the film. If it was such a vital truth surely it would be up on YT for free.
It is and always has been about the money.
The paper remains retracted, and Wakefield remains struck off for his fraud.
The now retracted paper couldn't state we have found undeniable evidence of a connection..... Because there is none as proper and larger studies have confirmed.
Study 's that involved not a dozen children, but thousands. Double blinds, placebos and twins.
Its purpose was to give the lawyers something they could use to introduce "reasonable doubt" to their lawsuits. In civil matters that's all you need. Not beyond a shadow of a doubt proof. which Wakefield could never have done because there is no link. Instead the paper hinted at a link we know from an earlier paper he published he truly believed was real.
You have to look at the larger context to see the fraud that was perpetrated and its motives.
Thankfully the review board did just this and now hes discredited.
Steven Miles, a professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota, calls Andrew Wakefield a researcher with a track record of fraud.
"He's just not trustworthy," Miles said. "And it does not surprise me that he would seek out a population which is unsophisticated and desperate."
Unsophisticated is the kindest way of describing Pixels stance. If the Paracast were a village.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Nailed it. Could not have said it better.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Seriously, you want a credible source and I give you one of the most credible people at the CDC who was actually working on MMR vaccines.
What the frack more do you want?!?!
This is what VAXXED the movie is about.
Quit being dumb ass know it all idiots and watch the f'ing movie.
4 frikken dollars at most and you might find it for free somewhere.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What the frack more do you want?!?!
This is what VAXXED the movie is about.
Quit being dumb ass know it all idiots and watch the f'ing movie.
4 frikken dollars at most and you might find it for free somewhere.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Actually Wakefield has no history of fraud. None.
You guys might try reading his paper and learn about who else wrote it with him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You guys might try reading his paper and learn about who else wrote it with him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Everyone of you are doing nothing but repeating disinformation and lies and you don't even know it because of your own ignorance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
You go out of your way to dig up everything but the facts.
Someone tell me why you won't take the CDC scientists as credible sources?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone tell me why you won't take the CDC scientists as credible sources?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
You would rather take the word of their bosses, many who have moved on to high level positions at Merck and other vaccine makers.
Are you all that stupid you can't follow the money?
Yes you are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you all that stupid you can't follow the money?
Yes you are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only the village idiot would claim that...................Is "Nah ahhhh" all you can say ? Well here are the facts of the matter, i think they Trump "Nah Ahhh."
That he is a fraud has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The General Medical Council struck him off in 2010 after, in a superb example of journalism at its best, Brian Deer showed how Wakefield had manipulated research to make a non-existent link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism.
Not content with lying, Wakefield exploited his voodoo science for financial gain.
The return of the MMR charlatan fits with our times | Nick Cohen
A 1998 study that unleashed a major health scare by linking childhood autism to a triple vaccine was "an elaborate fraud," the British Medical Journal (BMJ) said.
Autism vaccine study 'an elaborate fraud'
An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.
"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."
Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds - CNN.com
And the test ? how do we know i am right and you are wrong ?
His paper was retracted, he is struck off and a google of "wakefield fraud" gives pages of results.
wakefield fraud - Google Search
Your claim he is NOT a fraud is just plain stupid. Still you get one point for being consistent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Research involving cohort of 95,000 children is latest research to contradict findings of discredited gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield
The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama). It sought to find out whether children who had older siblings with autism and therefore were at higher risk than most, were more likely to develop an autistic spectrum disorder themselves after having the MMR jab. They found no association between the jab and autism, even among the high-risk children, and regardless of whether they had just the first shot, under the age of two, or the booster as well at around the age of five.
No link between MMR and autism, major study concludes
The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama). It sought to find out whether children who had older siblings with autism and therefore were at higher risk than most, were more likely to develop an autistic spectrum disorder themselves after having the MMR jab. They found no association between the jab and autism, even among the high-risk children, and regardless of whether they had just the first shot, under the age of two, or the booster as well at around the age of five.
No link between MMR and autism, major study concludes
Andrew Wakefield's 'dishonest and irresponsible' research into the causes of autism led to his being struck off by the General Medical Council.
An investigation by journalist Brian Deer found that Wakefield had been paid £435,000 to advise lawyers for parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR and that he'd given children at his son's birthday party cash in return for blood samples for his research. A subsequent two-and-a-half-year General Medical Council (GMC) hearing concluded in January 2010 that Wakefield was guilty of serious professional misconduct, and that he had acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his research. He had, the panel concluded, subjected 11 children to unwarranted invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies without necessary ethical approval. The Guardian reported at the time that the GMC hearings also found that, before the paper was published, Wakefield had filed a patent as the inventor of a vaccine to eliminate measles and treat inflammatory bowel disease. In May 2010, the GMC struck him off and the Lancet eventually retracted the 1998 paper.
Andrew Wakefield: autism inc
An investigation by journalist Brian Deer found that Wakefield had been paid £435,000 to advise lawyers for parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR and that he'd given children at his son's birthday party cash in return for blood samples for his research. A subsequent two-and-a-half-year General Medical Council (GMC) hearing concluded in January 2010 that Wakefield was guilty of serious professional misconduct, and that he had acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his research. He had, the panel concluded, subjected 11 children to unwarranted invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies without necessary ethical approval. The Guardian reported at the time that the GMC hearings also found that, before the paper was published, Wakefield had filed a patent as the inventor of a vaccine to eliminate measles and treat inflammatory bowel disease. In May 2010, the GMC struck him off and the Lancet eventually retracted the 1998 paper.
Andrew Wakefield: autism inc
Once more about Andrew Wakefield fraud extraordinaire
“Piltdown” medicine: Andrew Wakefield’s scientific fraud was worse than previously thought
As bad as the findings were that Wakefield had committed scientific fraud, it turns out that it was even worse than the original reports indicated. A few hours ago, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an analysis of the scientific fraud committed by Wakefield, fraud that journalist Brian Deer likens in an accompanying editorial to the Piltdown Man.
“Piltdown” medicine: Andrew Wakefield’s scientific fraud was worse than previously thought
As bad as the findings were that Wakefield had committed scientific fraud, it turns out that it was even worse than the original reports indicated. A few hours ago, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an analysis of the scientific fraud committed by Wakefield, fraud that journalist Brian Deer likens in an accompanying editorial to the Piltdown Man.
Say those words out loud while looking in a mirror and you will have at last said something correct.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
He is not a fraud. Check his work for yourself. Unless you are a chickenshit.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
He falsified nothing. Big pharma shills are lying about his work.
Media is sponsored up to 80% by pharma.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Media is sponsored up to 80% by pharma.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know you think wrapping your head in tinfoil and sitting inside your faraday cage with built in white noise generators that you've installed in your underground bunker shields you from the mind control rays and thus you see the reality where we don't.
Let me ask you this though.
Wakefield had filed a patent as the inventor of a vaccine to eliminate measles and treat inflammatory bowel disease.
Would you give your kids his vaccine ?
Let me ask you this though.
Wakefield had filed a patent as the inventor of a vaccine to eliminate measles and treat inflammatory bowel disease.
Would you give your kids his vaccine ?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Why is it you all refuse to actually read his paper or listen to the CDC scientists complaining about fraud?
Why not just watch Vaxxed and f'ing learn something?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why not just watch Vaxxed and f'ing learn something?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I did check you can see the results above, ive even bolded the word Fraud every time it shows up, and it shows up often.
Nahh Ahh isn't a counter argument, its just silly noise.
Although the evidence is already abundant that no relationship exists in the general population between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine receipt and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) risk,6 immunization rates remain low in certain populations and countries because of this inappropriate belief. Descriptions of autism contain histories of children who seemingly were suddenly affected by a catastrophic developmental event between 1 and 2 years of age—a time in proximity to a scheduled MMR immunization. It made sense knowing this temporal window to ask, “Could it be that, if all of the requisite genetic and other risks are present, MMR can lead to the development of autism?” If so, the population in which there might be such a signal would be families already affected by autism.
In this issue of JAMA, Jain and colleagues7 evaluated 2 questions in their large insurance claims database: does the incidence of ASD differ in younger siblings of affected children who are immunized with MMR vs those who are not? And, for the population as a whole, does the incidence of ASD vary as a function of MMR immunization status? The answer to both questions is no.
In the report by Jain et al,7 of 95 727 children with older siblings who were included in the study, 1929 had an older sibling with ASD and 994 children had ASD diagnosed. The relative risk of ASD at age 2 years was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.49-1.18) for children with older siblings with ASD and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.67-1.20) for children with older siblings without ASD.
Some parents of children with ASD may have chosen to delay immunization in subsequent children until they were certain any risk had passed. Such behavior, which arguably could enrich the immunization rate in the nonautism subgroup relative to the group that may have been showing early atypical development, might create the impression that MMR vaccine is actually reducing risk for ASD. Indeed, Jain et al7 report relative risks of less than 1.0. Even so, short of arguing that MMR vaccine actually reduces the risk of ASD in those who were immunized by age 2 years, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the study is that there is no signal to suggest a relationship between MMR and the development of autism in children with or without a sibling who has autism.
Promising Forecast for Autism Spectrum Disorders
In this issue of JAMA, Jain and colleagues7 evaluated 2 questions in their large insurance claims database: does the incidence of ASD differ in younger siblings of affected children who are immunized with MMR vs those who are not? And, for the population as a whole, does the incidence of ASD vary as a function of MMR immunization status? The answer to both questions is no.
In the report by Jain et al,7 of 95 727 children with older siblings who were included in the study, 1929 had an older sibling with ASD and 994 children had ASD diagnosed. The relative risk of ASD at age 2 years was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.49-1.18) for children with older siblings with ASD and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.67-1.20) for children with older siblings without ASD.
Some parents of children with ASD may have chosen to delay immunization in subsequent children until they were certain any risk had passed. Such behavior, which arguably could enrich the immunization rate in the nonautism subgroup relative to the group that may have been showing early atypical development, might create the impression that MMR vaccine is actually reducing risk for ASD. Indeed, Jain et al7 report relative risks of less than 1.0. Even so, short of arguing that MMR vaccine actually reduces the risk of ASD in those who were immunized by age 2 years, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the study is that there is no signal to suggest a relationship between MMR and the development of autism in children with or without a sibling who has autism.
Promising Forecast for Autism Spectrum Disorders