Anti-vaxxers

Dr Brown

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder how they would feel about Wakefield's competitor to the MMR vaccine which is what drove him to discredit himself in the first place.

The "competitor" Vaccine would of belonged to the royal free hospital not Wakefield.

Dr Brown

batgoat wrote: »

You seem to be ignoring the considerable amount of evidence against him... It's almost as if you support him because he agrees with your nonsense conspiracy.

Most if not all the "evidence" against him comes from just one man Brian Deer.

Why is that parents never spoke out against Wakefield if he was harming children ?

Igotadose

Dr Brown wrote: »

He was never charged with fraud that's just BS put out by brain deer.


They took his license away for ethical reasons.

Its funny that his colleague Dr John Walker-Smith who faced the same charges got his medical license back after he appealed to the high court.

You never hear that in the media.

Simplifying what I said: I said he *was* a fraud, not that he was *charged* with fraud. And, as you pointed out, he was *unethical*. That's what it means to lose your license 'for ethical reasons.' The Royal Free offered him a chance to replicate his result, and *he didn't*. Replication of results is basic science.

Let's be real - Wakefield is a con artist, he conned the Royal Free first, and it took some time but he was found out and barred from the practice of medicine. He's now in the US perpetuation the same con.

Dr Brown

Igotadose wrote: »

Simplifying what I said: I said he *was* a fraud, not that he was *charged* with fraud. And, as you pointed out, he was *unethical*. That's what it means to lose your license 'for ethical reasons.' The Royal Free offered him a chance to replicate his result, and *he didn't*. Replication of results is basic science.

Let's be real - Wakefield is a con artist, he conned the Royal Free first, and it took some time but he was found out and barred from the practice of medicine. He's now in the US perpetuation the same con.

The medical council trial against Wakefield and Dr John Walker-Smith was a farce they were accused of harming children by Brian Deer yet not one parent made an official compliant them.

When Dr John Walker-Smith appealed to a real court he was given his medical license back and was completely vindicated.

That's one small detail that media conveniently leave out in this story.

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

Most if not all the "evidence" against him comes from just one man Brian Deer.

Why is that parents never spoke out against Wakefield if he was harming children ?

Probably because they thought it was legitimate research. It's cute that you place the word evidence in inverted commas since you produce none yourself.

Here's the patent for you to ignore.

pjohnson

Oooh goody a conspiracy theorist is loose in AH. I've catching up to do.

Dr Brown

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Probably because they thought it was legitimate research. It's cute that you place the word evidence in inverted commas since you produce none yourself.

Here's the patent for you to ignore.

I never said there was no patent.


That's neither here nor there

Dr Brown

Dr Brown wrote: »

I never said there was no patent.


That's neither here nor there

Keep beating your narrative into the ground, it will never draw credibility.

rawn

Dr Brown wrote: »

The medical council trial against Wakefield and Dr John Walker-Smith was a farce they were accused of harming children by Brian Deer yet not one parent made an official compliant them.

When Dr John Walker-Smith appealed to a real court he was given his medical license back and was completely vindicated.

That's one small detail that media conveniently leave out in this story.

The former head of department at the Royal Free Hospital in north London lost his licence to practise in May 2010, along with Dr Andrew Wakefield.
A GMC panel found both guilty of misconduct over the way research into autism and bowel disease was conducted.
A third doctor, Prof Simon Murch, then a junior consultant in the department, was cleared.
The disciplinary case against the doctors centred on how they conducted their work.
The judge said the GMC panel failed to address whether Prof Walker-Smith had been doing research or simply investigating symptoms to help treat children. There had been "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion", he said.
The GMC said reforms to disciplinary hearings were being considered.
Chief executive Niall Dickson added: "Today's ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism.
"As Mr Justice Mitting observed in his judgement, 'There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked'.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-17283751

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

I never said there was no patent.


That's neither here nor there

Of course it is and it is in Wakefield's name. It shows that his motive was and continues to be base greed.

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

I never said there was no patent.


That's neither here nor there

You're concerned about doctors being paid off by big pharma but see nothing wrong with the fact that Wakefield was set to make millions from a patent as a result of his study.... Methinks you suffer from massive double standards and not a care for evidence...

gctest50

Dr Brown wrote: »

Most if not all the "evidence" against him comes from just one man Brian Deer.

...........

You missed this :

Unigenetics Ltd (Unigenetics) Laboratory in Dublin

Ceased trading in ~ 2005

One of the principals of the company was Dr John James O’Leary, who was associated with Trinity College and the Coombe Women’s Hospital, Dublin.

The 11 authors, one of whom was Dr O’Leary, reported that they found measles RNA in the samples of the large majority of the developmentally disabled children, but only in a few of the developmentally normal children. They concluded that their results raised an important question, namely, does MV [measles virus] play an aetiological role in intestinal inflammation in developmental disorder?

Dr Stephen Bustin found that the laboratory obtained positive results for their negative controls in approximately one third of the testing procedures.

Dr Brown

gctest50 wrote: »

You missed this :

And your point is ?


Wakefield's original study never said the MMR Vaccine caused autism it was about bowel disease.

Dr Brown

batgoat wrote: »

You're concerned about doctors being paid off by big pharma but see nothing wrong with the fact that Wakefield was set to make millions from a patent as a result of his study.... Methinks you suffer from massive double standards and not a care for evidence...

That money (if any) would of went to the royal free hospital.


The fact that Wakefield refused to back down shows that money was not his main motivating factor.


To say that Wakefield was only after money is laughable in the extreme when you consider that he lost his medical career in the UK due to speaking out.


When he could of just backed down and kept his job.

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

That money (if any) would of went to the royal free hospital.


The fact that Wakefield refused to back down shows that money was not his main motivating factor.


To say that Wakefield was only after money is laughable in the extreme when you consider that he lost his medical career in the UK due to speaking out.


When he could of just backed down and kept his job.

Do you ever cease to be full of rubbish? He's become incredibly wealthy as a result of this.

rawn

Dr Brown, out of curiosity, have you read any of the links posted in the last couple of pages of this thread?

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

That money (if any) would of went to the royal free hospital.


The fact that Wakefield refused to back down shows that money was not his main motivating factor.


To say that Wakefield was only after money is laughable in the extreme when you consider that he lost his medical career in the UK due to speaking out.


When he could of just backed down and kept his job.

The patent was in his name. His motivation was greed, plain and simple.

The study does attempt to link MMR and Autism to suit Wakefield's financial interest at the time. You are either lying or haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Here's another link for you to ignore in favor of alternate facts:

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Dr Brown

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The patent was in his name. His motivation was greed, plain and simple.

The study does attempt to link MMR and Autism to suit Wakefield's financial interest at the time. You are either lying or haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Here's another link for you to ignore in favor of alternate facts:

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Have you even read Wakefield's original study ?

It was never meant to be definitive Wakefield always said that further research was needed.

We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.
Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.

Dr Brown

rawn wrote: »

Dr Brown, out of curiosity, have you read any of the links posted in the last couple of pages of this thread?

Yes anything Brian Deer says has to be taking with a large gain of salt.

He has made a career out of attacking Wakefield.

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

Yes anything Brian Deer says has to be taking with a large gain of salt.

He has made a career out of attacking Wakefield.

Never heard of him. Wakefield on the other hand has made a fortune peddling nonsense which has caused harm to countless children. I don't know why you're so keen to defend this. I really don't.

Honestly, this just reads like a lazy dismissal of anything you disagree with. Have you any sort of scientific proof for your argument or is it just the usual anti-vaxxer nonsense that leads people to dismiss it so readily?

VicMackey1

Dr Brown wrote: »

Yes anything Brian Deer says has to be taking with a large gain of salt.

He has made a career out of attacking Wakefield.

Is it just the MMR vaccine you have a problem with or all vaccines? What about medicines such as antibiotics, blood pressure meds etc? Are you against these also?

mickrock

Vaccines are supposed to be life saving but in the developed world the countries where infants received the most vaccines had the highest number of infant deaths. Infant mortality is less in countries that give less vaccines.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given:

http://thinktwice.com/HET_study.pdf

Igotadose

mickrock wrote: »

Vaccines are supposed to be life saving but in the developed world the countries where infants received the most vaccines had the highest number of infant deaths. Infant mortality is less in countries that give less vaccines.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given:

http://thinktwice.com/HET_study.pdf

Oh please. Try making it difficult. This is a 7 year old study by a naturopath with a psych degree and another unqualified computer scientist.

Correlation is not causation. Regress to your heart's content.

And it's just some random correlation - like global warming and the number of pirates (warmer: more pirates). This site pretty much annihilates it:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

I like this summary: "..I declare this paper to be utterly worthless. It’s an embarrassment to Human and Experimental Toxicology that its peer reviewers didn’t catch all these problems and that an editor let this paper see print. The Editor-in-Chief Kai Savolainen and the Editor for the Americas A. Wallace Hayes ought to be ashamed of themselves."

Captain Obvious

mickrock wrote: »

Vaccines are supposed to be life saving but in the developed world the countries where infants received the most vaccines had the highest number of infant deaths. Infant mortality is less in countries that give less vaccines.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given:

http://thinktwice.com/HET_study.pdf

how do those rates compare to countries with no vaccines?

Igotadose

Captain Obvious wrote: »

how do those rates compare to countries with no vaccines?

That's the kind of questions the authors of that valueless paper should've been asked by their reviewers. Plus of course they cherry picked and miscounted, but neither's actually a researcher of any merit, just some anti-vax trough feeders.

Capt'n Midnight

mickrock wrote: »

Vaccines are supposed to be life saving but in the developed world the countries where infants received the most vaccines had the highest number of infant deaths.

As a general rule we don't give out vaccines here for tropical diseases.

Did you know - women who own horses live longer than those who don't ?

Here's a clue. It's not the horses, it's more likely being able to afford a horse means you can also afford a better standard of living and healthcare.


If you need vaccines for tropical diseases, chances are you live in a poor country and can't afford first world healthcare.

Dr Brown

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Is it just the MMR vaccine you have a problem with or all vaccines? What about medicines such as antibiotics, blood pressure meds etc? Are you against these also?

I'm for safe Vaccines.

For some people Vaccines are like a religion that can never be questioned.

Only a few years ago people who questioned the Swine Flu Vaccine were labeled conspiracy nut jobs who were anti science simply for questioning the Vaccine.

Now fast forward to 2018 and the people who questioned the Swine Flu Vaccine were proved to be 100% right all along.

Give it a few years and Regret and others will be vindicated.

rawn

Dr Brown wrote: »

I'm for safe Vaccines.

For some people Vaccines are like a religion that can never be questioned.

Only a few years ago people who questioned the Swine Flu Vaccine were labeled conspiracy nut jobs who were anti science simply for questioning the Vaccine.

Now fast forward to 2018 and the people who questioned the Swine Flu Vaccine were proved to be 100% right all along.

Give it a few years and Regret and others will be vindicated.

It's actually the total opposite. Vaccines are tested, trailed, studied, re calibrated and scrutinized by a number of different bodies all across the globe. Religion is fanatically believing in something with zero proof and refusing to question any of it in case it shakes them from their belief - like anitvaxxers.

Dr Brown

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Never heard of him. Wakefield on the other hand has made a fortune peddling nonsense which has caused harm to countless children. I don't know why you're so keen to defend this. I really don't.

Honestly, this just reads like a lazy dismissal of anything you disagree with. Have you any sort of scientific proof for your argument or is it just the usual anti-vaxxer nonsense that leads people to dismiss it so readily?

You call me lazy but I don't think that you've even read Wakefields original study ?

90% of the anti Wakefield propaganda that appears in the media originates from Brian Deer.

Deer made an official complaint to the medical council claiming that Wakefield was abusing children yet NOT ONE parent complained about Wakefield.

The guy is a weirdo if anyone was to make a complaint it should have been the parents of the children not some "journalist" who was out to make a name for himself. It was ridiculous for Deer to accuse Wakefield of "abusing" children.

Dr Brown

rawn wrote: »

It's actually the total opposite. Vaccines are tested, trailed, studied, re calibrated and scrutinized by a number of different bodies all across the globe. Religion is fanatically believing in something with zero proof and refusing to question any of it in case it shakes them from their belief - like anitvaxxers.

There has never been a large scale study to compare vaccinated against non vaccinated people.

That would be the gold standard in science to prove just how "safe" Vaccines really are.

Until that study happens the overall safety of Vaccines will always be in question.