or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Rrrrrachel

I know this is off topic, but I'm really bothered by how that website characterizes children with autism.
Yes. I find no signs of waning immunity 14 years out reassuring. I must be crazy. I didn't realize you had written an article about what you saw as the conflicts of interest. I will be sure to read it.
Here's some fun reading on retractions. http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
And it's one thing to publish research that ends up being wrong, journals retract articles dozens of times a year at least, it's another to publish research that was fraudulent and unethical.
Of course it mentioned Wakefield. It was about how the blowback on lancet after publishing his piece has impacted the current climate for publication.
Dinah, as some background, a similar study was previously done that counted number of DOSES. It found no relationship. It was supposed that counting antigens might be more accurate, since vaccines varied greatly (at the time at least) in the number of antigens they contain. Both of these variables - doses and antigens - are stand ins for "the schedule." If you want to study it you have to quantify it somehow.
Well you haven't been very convincing.
Why would there be less viruses around than before?
I don't think anyone is blaming Wakefield. I think it's just a critical look at the current climate for publishing material critical of vaccines. I would think more people around here would be supportive of that kind of conversation.
I don't think valuing the advice of a medical professional and doing your own research are mutually exclusive. My doctor is my partner in my families health. That means they don't dictate to me but it also means I don't shut them out of decision making. And if I bring them research and they tell me that doesn't mean what you think it does for this and that reason and there's this other research that says x y and z, I give that a lot of weight. I think the mechanic...
New Posts  All Forums: