are vaccines safe?

[pixelsmith]

I understand math, the scientific method, and the peer review process.

I do not understand what the benefit of making decisions based on emotion or simply wanting it to be true.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[pixelsmith]

The scientists came forward with fraud allegations and their boss lied and went to Merck.

How does this sound ok to you?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marduk]

You didn't answer the question.

You haven't answered mine, so the dialectic process isn't being respected.

You're also asking nonsensical questions, which returns null from rational people.

 

[pixelsmith]

You haven't answered mine, so the dialectic process isn't being respected.

You're also asking nonsensical questions, which returns null from rational people.

Nonsensical? Do you or do you not trust the vaccine safety scientists at CDC?

 

[marduk]

Nonsensical? Do you or do you not trust the vaccine safety scientists at CDC?

Can you or can you not tell me how to calculate significance with respect to both correlation and causation?

 

[pixelsmith]

Can you or can you not tell me how to calculate significance with respect to both correlation and causation?

No I flunked math.

Now, do you trust the vaccine safety scientists at the CDC
..or do you prefer to trust their former boss who knew what they found out then lied to congress then went to a very high paying job at Merck?

 

[marduk]

No I flunked math.

Now, do you trust the vaccine safety scientists at the CDC
..or do you prefer to trust their former boss who knew what they found out then lied to congress then went to a very high paying job at Merck?

So how can you have a position one way or the other when you don't understand how to form an opinion about it?

 

[pixelsmith]

So how can you have a position one way or the other when you don't understand how to form an opinion about it?

I don't need math to hear lead vaccine safety scientists admitting to a cover up and destruction of data.

Strange that you side step the most simple of a question.

 

[marduk]

I don't need math to hear lead vaccine safety scientists admitting to a cover up and destruction of data.

Strange that you side step the most simple of a question.

Actually, yes you do, because if you understood the math you could do it yourself.

I didn't answer your question because it's a logical fallacy to appeal to authority as a justification for your assertion.

Vaccination data is decades old, with billions of data points, and can perhaps be determined with as high a level of certainty or higher than quantum mechanics.

Opinions do not matter.

 

[pixelsmith]

Actually, yes you do, because if you understood the math you could do it yourself.

I didn't answer your question because it's a logical fallacy to appeal to authority as a justification for your assertion.

Vaccination data is decades old, with billions of data points, and can perhaps be determined with as high a level of certainty or higher than quantum mechanics.

Opinions do not matter.

When vaccination data has been corrupted then it cannot be reliably utilized. Right?
Why do you avoid answering even tho I answered you?

If your own preferred authority admits fraud where do you go from there?

You are wrong and won't admit it. Period.

 

[marduk]

When vaccination data has been corrupted then it cannot be reliably utilized. Right?
Why do you avoid answering even tho I answered you?

If your own preferred authority admits fraud where do you go from there?

You are wrong and won't admit it. Period.

The data can be verified.

This may surprise you, but American delusions and the CDC does not apply to the rest of the world.

 

[pixelsmith]

The data can be verified.

This may surprise you, but American delusions and the CDC does not apply to the rest of the world.

Why not check with Italy about mandatory vaccination.

 

[mike]

The Lancet Acknowledges Dr. Andrew Wakefield Is Cleared

Lancet ombudsman Dr. Molyneux acknowledged that the UK General Medical Council’s findings of misconduct against Dr. Wakefield had been overturned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only misconduct. This from your own link.

Dear Mr Crosby,

Thank you for your letter of June 13, 2015, in which you request that the Lancet Editor reinstate the retracted paper Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children.

In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment [sic] procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.

Having considered all of the relevant material, I can see no sufficient reason for reinstatement of the Wakefield paper. I do not believe that COPE’s guidelines have been violated by retraction of the paper in question, or by failure to reinstate it.

I do not believe there is justification for any further debate about this extensively discussed article.

Yours sincerely,

Prof Malcolm Molyneux, Lancet Ombudsman




The paper remains retracted and he remains struck off. You are cherry picking the minutia the big picture remains.
He did not show a link, no other credible study's show a link, because there isn't one.
If there was autism in unvaccinated children would be lower than in vaccinated. But the levels are the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated there fore vaccines cannot be the causative factor.
He is a proven fraud.
You are wrong end of story.

 

[marduk]

Why not check with Italy about mandatory vaccination.

Again, populism does not equal data.

Another appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[mike]

Wakefield, as you recall, is the British gastroenterologist who in 1998 published a case series in The Lancet linking MMR to autism. It has since been retracted and shown to have been fraudulent, and Wakefield has had his UK medical license stripped from him.

The “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory is based on the story of CDC scientist William Thompson, who in 2013 apparently contacted biochemical engineer turned incompetent antivaccine epidemiologist Brian Thompson to vent about a study he co-authored in 2004 that examined whether there was a correlation between vaccination with MMR and subsequent risk of autism. Not surprisingly, the study failed to find a correlation. However, there was one subgroup, African-American boys, in which the unadjusted data showed a 3.4-fold increased risk of autism. (I’m simplifying for space considerations in providing background, obviously; if you want the gory details, read here and here for a contemporaneous account of the origin of a new conspiracy theory, as well as my review of the book Vaccine Whistleblower and Andrew Wakefield’s fraudumentary VAXXED.) Thompson had had disagreements with how the data were presented and how he thought the CDC has “suppressed” the unadjusted data. Unfortunately for him, Thompson didn’t realize that Hooker was recording their conversations, and Andrew Wakefield found out about it. Thus, he became the “CDC whistleblower” who seemingly validated what I like to call the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement, specifically that the CDC “knows” that vaccines cause autism but covered it up. It didn’t matter one whit that the correlation was found only in a small subgroup (African-American boys), but it did matter because African-Americans already have reason to distrust the medical community based on history. The “CDC whistleblower” myth feeds into that sad history, which is why Wakefield loves to invoke the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

This is also not the first time Andrew Wakefield has targeted people of color with his pseudoscience. By any objective measure, for the most part the CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory and VAXXED have not had much resonance in the African-American community other than in the Nation of Islam and among a handful of parents like Sheila Ealey who really believe vaccines caused their children’s autism. The first time around, unfortunately, Wakefield was much more successful. Now, nearly a decade after he first started targeting the community, they are continuing to suffer measles outbreaks.

Thanks for the measles yet again, Andy

So to sum up, Wakefields paper still retracted because its garbage. Hes still struck off because hes a fraud, and the CDC whistle-blower story is a crock of shite as well. You got nothin pixie

 

[pixelsmith]

Only misconduct. This from your own link.

Dear Mr Crosby,

Thank you for your letter of June 13, 2015, in which you request that the Lancet Editor reinstate the retracted paper Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children.

In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment [sic] procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.

Having considered all of the relevant material, I can see no sufficient reason for reinstatement of the Wakefield paper. I do not believe that COPE’s guidelines have been violated by retraction of the paper in question, or by failure to reinstate it.

I do not believe there is justification for any further debate about this extensively discussed article.

Yours sincerely,

Prof Malcolm Molyneux, Lancet Ombudsman




The paper remains retracted and he remains struck off. You are cherry picking the minutia the big picture remains.
He did not show a link, no other credible study's show a link, because there isn't one.
If there was autism in unvaccinated children would be lower than in vaccinated. But the levels are the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated there fore vaccines cannot be the causative factor.
He is a proven fraud.
You are wrong end of story.

He didn't say he showed a link. He said it needed more study.
The CDC is the one who showed a link but they tried to cover it up.
God damn I wish you people would get your facts straight.

You are wrong. End of story.

 

[mike]

Brian Deer May 3, 2017


Is there really a person on this planet who would prioritize the judgment of some little squirt and his poison pen blog to the considered opinions of the UK General Medical Council, the editor in chiefs of the Lancet and British Medical Journal, and at least three High Court judges who’ve put the put into Wakefield (including Mitting)?

Even he would have to be afflicted by some profound personality disorder to live in that particular world of cuckoos.

I have never said three children in Wakefield’s series “weren’t autistic”. And I never published anything to the effect that Wakefield’s pathology was fraudulent.

This is what they do: classic Wakefield. They change the charge and refute something that was never said.

What the BMJ stories found – and proved, and stand by all these years later, with not the slightest doubt or hesitation – on these points was that Wakefield claimed that three children had a “behavioral diagnosis” of “autism”. They didn’t. He was lying.

Nor did we say that Wakefield’s pathology was fraudulent. We said it was wrong. We didn’t have the raw data on that point and so could make no judgment. Nevertheless, we did later get the raw data – from another malignant crank, David Lewis – and now are clear that the reporting of the pathology, too, was fraudulent.

Most of the relevant information is set out here:

http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-amended-declaration.pdf

Just tragic that anybody would listen to such a sly or stupid twerp

 

[mike]

The CDC is the one who showed a link but they tried to cover it up.

Already debunked that one.

 

[mike]

Brian Deer May 3, 2017




For anyone who missed the whole Wakefield thing, this in a nutshell is what happened.

He was hired by a lawyer (at an hourly rate) to find a new syndrome, with a specific pathology, and with the first symptoms closely following MMR.

So with the lawyer and a campaign group, he admitted a disparate group of children with developmental disorders, had them subjected to a barrage of tests, in a hunt for said syndrome.

Trouble was, there is no syndrome, and he got what you’d expect recruiting in the way he did: a bunch of constipated kids.

So, setting aside the findings of a child psychiatrist (kids not “regressive” and pathologists (no enterocolitis), he changed the results and reported a new syndrome of regressive autism and enterocolitis, with the first symptoms 14 days after MMR.

And, just for a laugh, here is one of Wakefield’s own submissions to his GMC case, as presented on his behalf by Kieran Coonan QC:

“We say that the reality of the position is that heads of charge 3 and 4 amount to an allegation of fraud against the Legal Aid Board whether or not the prosecution is prepared to characterise it as such.”

Sadly for the twerp, the finding was proven, and stands unchallenged by anyone but twerps, in English law, with nothing from ANY judge setting it aside. Indeed, the judge who criticised the GMC for failing to set out its reasoning in its findings against Wakefield’s clinical accomplice, pointed out that Wakefield’s Lancet paper carried a false claim of ethical approval. That alone would be enough for retraction, and that alone would be enough for any person with an IQ above Mr Crosby’s wrist circumference, to know that The Lancet has never, and will never, say anything to the effect that Wakefield has been “exonerated”. The claim is simply a lie.

 

[marduk]

He didn't say he showed a link. He said it needed more study.
The CDC is the one who showed a link but they tried to cover it up.
God damn I wish you people would get your facts straight.

You are wrong. End of story.

You have failed to make any case here whatsoever.

Why do you desperately want to believe vaccines harmed your children?