Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Dcdrac]

Exposed: Andrew Wakefield
and the MMR-autism fraud

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

Brian Deer's award-winning investigation

 

[Dcdrac]

From Quackwatch

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/autism.html

Misconceptions about Immunization

 

[Clayton Moore]

Since you're quoting that page (out of context, of course, we expect no less) I assume you believe what's there? For example:

Yeah sure. MMR can kill but it couldn't possibly cause autism, or anything else. No middle ground.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Unbacked.


Argument by loaded question. I would bet money that you have no evidence of what you're implying, hence the rhetorical question format.

Appeal to false authority.

So, let's ask you some questions;

1. Every doctor and medical researcher and the world knows vaccines are bad, yet are willing to dose family and friends with them?
   
2. Or do they have some kind of placebo for those situations? If so, what happens if the doctor giving the shot happens to be unreachable?
   
3. Why has no doctor - including those on their deathbed - been willing to expose the conspiracy?
   
4. Why would people who take a vow to "do no harm" do harm on such a massive scale?
   
5. A poster here asked a doctor if all the doctor's kids got their shots. The doctor said yes. Clay said the doctor was lying. Do you agree with Clayton Moore?
   
6. Did you know that Wakefield lost his license over the vaccine nonsense, and is no longer a doctor?
   
7. Did you know Wakefield made over £400,000 as an "expert witness" for vaccine lawsuits, and bribed kids to give him blood samples?

He has also been found guilty, following a fantastic piece of investigative journalism by Brian Deer of The Sunday Times, of unethical research behaviour, needlessly carrying out painful and invasive tests on autistic children, and bribing children at a birthday party £5 each to give blood samples. In the wake of the conflict-of-interest and unethical research findings, the Lancet retracted its original article. The GMC has struck him off for those findings, not for his stance on MMR.

If Wakefield had actually bribed the children it would have been without the knowledge/permission of their parents or guardians and he would have been arrested and likely convicted of a crime(s) against a child/children. Let alone the civil actions the parents would have taken. The BMC panel must have been weak minded idiots.

 

[Acleron]

If Wakefield had actually bribed the children it would have been without the knowledge/permission of their parents or guardians and he would have been arrested and likely convicted of a crime(s) against a child/children. Let alone the civil actions the parents would have taken. The BMC panel must have been weak minded idiots.

You haven't researched this very well, here is Wakefield playing on the fact that the kids threw up and fainted for laughs.

 

[Estellea]

Yeah sure. MMR can kill but it couldn't possibly cause autism, or anything else. No middle ground.

Yes Clay; there are numerous aetiological agents that do X,Y or Z but not A-W. Why do you have such difficulty with this? We can also map the biological pathway of how A caused B, not just wave our hands. If MMR or vaccines for that matter were causing autism, there would be a distinctive and consistent pathway.

If Wakefield had actually bribed the children it would have been without the knowledge/permission of their parents or guardians and he would have been arrested and likely convicted of a crime(s) against a child/children. Let alone the civil actions the parents would have taken. The BMC panel must have been weak minded idiots.

Another chink in your intellectual arsenal. There are these things called ethics committees that determine if an intervention/invasive proceedure is ethical and warranted. It is for the protection of humans and other animals in research. Wakefield did not seek nor acquire approval to take blood draws in spite of claiming he had parental approval. Research approval or denial trumps parental consent for good reason. Thus the GMC (not BMC) made a factual decision with regards to unethical treatment of research subjects.

Este

 

[pakeha]

From Quackwatch

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/autism.html

Misconceptions about Immunization

From the conclusion of your linked article:

There are no proven data to suggest that measles vaccine will increase the risk of developing autism or any other behavioral disorder [28]. The known benefits vastly exceed any unknown risks. The CDC continues to recommend two doses of MMR vaccine for all children who do not have a known medical contraindication; the first dose is recommended at 12-15 months of age and the second dose is recommended at either 4-6 years of age or at 11-12 years of age [30,31].

To assure the safety of vaccines, the CDC, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other federal agencies routinely examine any new evidence that would suggest possible problems with the safety of vaccines. Currently, CDC is conducting a study in the metropolitan Atlanta area to further evaluate any possible association between MMR vaccination and autism.

Immunization against measles has led to a dramatic decrease in the incidence of measles, which is sometimes fatal. I believe that the manner in which CNN covered this issue was extremely irresponsible and will result in the death of children whose parents are scared out of having their children receive it.

Off to hunt out that study in the metropolitan Atlanta area.

Yeah sure. MMR can kill but it couldn't possibly cause autism, or anything else. No middle ground.

CM, based on what we know, flu contracted during pregnancy is more likely to 'cause' autism than the MMR.
You read Stellaphane's linked article on the subject, of course?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Yes Clay; there are numerous aetiological agents that do X,Y or Z but not A-W. Why do you have such difficulty with this? We can also map the biological pathway of how A caused B, not just wave our hands. If MMR or vaccines for that matter were causing autism, there would be a distinctive and consistent pathway.



Another chink in your intellectual arsenal. There are these things called ethics committees that determine if an intervention/invasive proceedure is ethical and warranted. It is for the protection of humans and other animals in research. Wakefield did not seek nor acquire approval to take blood draws in spite of claiming he had parental approval. Research approval or denial trumps parental consent for good reason. Thus the GMC (not BMC) made a factual decision with regards to unethical treatment of research subjects.

Este

Little of that makes sense. If Wakefield didn't have parental approval why didn't the parents litigate his butt off?

And if "Research approval or denial trumps parental consent for good reason." certainly some sort of door opened for malpractice litigation.

I wonder how much money Brian Deer got for his investigative headlights?

 

[Clayton Moore]

From the conclusion of your linked article:


Off to hunt out that study in the metropolitan Atlanta area.





CM, based on what we know, flu contracted during pregnancy is more likely to 'cause' autism than the MMR.
You read Stellaphane's linked article on the subject, of course?

Delayed reporting autism? 1 1/2 year delay autism? Is that why they call it an incubation period?


You can do better than than. If not I'll understand.

 

[Straw Man]

Little of that makes sense. If Wakefield didn't have parental approval why didn't the parents litigate his butt off?

And if "Research approval or denial trumps parental consent for good reason." certainly some sort of door opened for malpractice litigation.

The UK is not the USA. We aren't as litigious, and we have different rules and laws that need to be followed.

I wonder how much money Brian Deer got for his investigative headlights?

Nowhere near as much as Dr Wakefield got.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Any parent who does not question the vaccines given today which is approximately 40 -should be prepared for a lifetime of medical care for damaged children.

Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/british-medical-journals-credibility-questioned/#ixzz2CDlHkfx4

 

[pakeha]

Delayed reporting autism? 1 1/2 year delay autism? Is that why they call it an incubation period?


You can do better than than. If not I'll understand.

Sorry, I don't get it.
Could you explain what you mean, please?

 

[Border Reiver]

If Wakefield had actually bribed the children it would have been without the knowledge/permission of their parents or guardians and he would have been arrested and likely convicted of a crime(s) against a child/children. Let alone the civil actions the parents would have taken. The BMC panel must have been weak minded idiots.

Wakefield's biggest "sin" was altering his findings to suit his conclusions:

"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;
"Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation."

 

[Straw Man]

Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/british-medical-journals-credibility-questioned/#ixzz2CDlHkfx4

This is not a source of anything reliable at all. Worthless 'facts' for a ridiculous argument.

Who Owns the British Medical Journal? Pharmaceuticals do.

Who Owns the Lancet? Pharmacuetical funds.

No they don't, Politicol News.

ETA: From this Privacy section: "The views expressed here are those of the individual authors. They do not necessarily express the views of our sponsors or associates and are partially meant to be entertainment in the world of politics." Bolding mine.

This is opinion, Clayton, not fact.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The UK is not the USA. We aren't as litigious, and we have different rules and laws that need to be followed.



Nowhere near as much as Dr Wakefield got.

Why would anybody care about money when they could put Wakefield before the GMC, have him answer the charges and get struck off so he wont harm children for profit in the future?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Statement by Rick Rollens, parent of a 17 year old son with autism, co-founder U. C. Davis M.I.N.D. Institute and member California Legislative Blue Ribbon Commission on Autism.
http://www.educationnews.org/articl...slative-blue-ribbon-commission-on-autism.html

If by 2009-2010 there has not been ANY change in the rate of increase of new cases of autism entering California's developmental services system, then we can scratch mercury in vaccines off our list of agents contained in vaccines as a cause, and; then begin concentrating on the numerous other poisons and toxic agents in vaccines such as aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG, live viruses, etc., and most importantly, the interaction of these and other toxic agents contained in the 34 doses of vaccines children receive from birth to two years old today.

Rick Rollens [email protected]

Wednesday

January 9th, 2008

 

[Estellea]

Little of that makes sense. If Wakefield didn't have parental approval why didn't the parents litigate his butt off?

And if "Research approval or denial trumps parental consent for good reason." certainly some sort of door opened for malpractice litigation.

I'm sorry you have trouble following logic Clay. Parental permission was apparently acquired, that's not the point. Wakefield had no oversight approval and thus his actions were grossly unethical and fairly found guilty and proved of it by the GMC. Laughing about it later is just an indication of how little Wakefield actually considers the safety and comfort of children.

I wonder how much money Brian Deer got for his investigative headlights?

That sounds like a grasping Tu Quoque argument. But first of all, Mr. Deer was in the employ of the Sunday Times so not exactly rolling in filthy lucre and secondly, even if he was paid a king's ransom, so what? Does that somehow erase all of the proof he uncovered? If Wakefield is not guilty of what Mr. Deer and the GMC have found, then why didn't Wakefield appeal his GMC decision? Why didn't Wakefield sue Mr. Deer in the UK for defamation? Even his U.S. suit isn't going too well for him.

Este

 

[Straw Man]

Statement by Rick Rollens, parent of a 17 year old son with autism, co-founder U. C. Davis M.I.N.D. Institute and member California Legislative Blue Ribbon Commission on Autism.
http://www.educationnews.org/articl...slative-blue-ribbon-commission-on-autism.html

If by 2009-2010 there has not been ANY change in the rate of increase of new cases of autism entering California's developmental services system, then we can scratch mercury in vaccines off our list of agents contained in vaccines as a cause, and; then begin concentrating on the numerous other poisons and toxic agents in vaccines such as aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG, live viruses, etc., and most importantly, the interaction of these and other toxic agents contained in the 34 doses of vaccines children receive from birth to two years old today.

Rick Rollens [email protected]

Wednesday

January 9th, 2008

So.........what happened by 2009-2010?

 

[Estellea]

So.........what happened by 2009-2010?

Even Rick Rollens, once a vaccinesdidit mouthpiece has dropped his stand, tucked tail and ran away.

Este

 

[Clayton Moore]

Wakefield's biggest "sin" was altering his findings to suit his conclusions:

"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;
"Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation."

Quote:

Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Absolutely, in the High Court in the UK, the long awaited outcome of John Walker Smith's appeal.
People who don't know, John Walker Smith is one of the founding fathers of pediatric gastroenterology in the world, he is an outstanding physician and very, very well respected and a leader in the field, a teacher of so many of today's young pediatric gastroenterologists. Back in 1998 we published in the Lancet on the discovery of a new bowel disease in children with autism and an association in time that the parents had made with MMR vaccine and for that, for those efforts, he was in an effort I think to get me to stop vaccine safety research, to send a message to everybody else, he lost his medical license along with me. He was allowed to appeal, I couldn't afford to but he was funded to appeal and he was completely and utterly exonerated in the high court. The judge issued a resounding condemnation of, I think in legal terms, at least in my opinion, the way in which the General Medical Council's case was handled. Asking why would a man of this caliber even consider taking a risk in effect. That's my reading of the opinion, but you know some of the criticisms of the GMC were very, very harsh and it may interest the readers- here you may think that there would be experts in research and experts in pediatric gastroenterology and child psychiatry sitting on the panel to judge this doctor, but there weren't. There were two lay people, one general practitioner with no experience in research, and rather than having a child psychiatrist they had an adult psychiatrist and rather than having a pediatrician they had a geriatrician. So right from the outset you can see how flawed the process was.

Did you forget that?