Andrew Wakefield banned - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 95 Old 05-24-2010, 10:45 PM
 
mama1803's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Just wanted to add that I doubt very many parents decided against vaccines based on this case. Most of the people I know have done a fair amount of research from multiple angles before making up their minds.
mama1803 is offline  
#62 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 01:30 AM
 
Jadzia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
I have, indeed. It was about bowel disease and never claimed to prove a link between MMR and autism. It did, however, suggest a link and that it should be looked into further. It was only later in a press conference that Wakefield said that MMR causes autism and should be given in separate doses.
What he said at a press conference has no bearing on what was actually in the paper. He was asked a question about his opinion, so he gave it.

Quote:
He neglected to mention that he was being paid by an anti-vax lawyer or that he had patented a single-dose shot of measles two years earlier.
This is not true, he was working on a "transfer factor", which would have treated measles inflammation in the gut. It was not a vaccine and never designed to be. It did not work though so it was abandoned

Quote:
And it wasn't until later that the investigation into the study revealed that the raw data the study was based on was significantly different than the study's report. There were changes of symptoms, diagnoses, and other significant facts.
These were all unfounded allegations made by a journalist Brian Deer, who had his own conflicts. The GMC never found anything wrong with the actual science that was in the paper, although they spent years looking.

The only thing they could "get" him on was saying it was unethical to give colonoscopies to children (even though none of the parents of the children involved complained and they were not allowed to testify on Wakefield's behalf.) There was also an issue as to whether the cases in the study were "consecutively referred" which I never quite understood since a case study would only involve the cases that were referred to Wakefield because they were suffering from intestinal problems. He did not seek out these patients. They came to him because no other doctor would listen to them and help them.

Mommy to DS Adrian 8/10/04 and DD Geneva 9/02/09
Jadzia is offline  
#63 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 02:35 AM
 
heathergirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Turquesa- Please see the above post for an example of my earlier point.
heathergirl67 is offline  
#64 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 10:02 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Why would the autism question bother you? It was undoubtedly the loudest cry from anti-vaxxers for the longest amount of time. It stands to reason that it would stick in people's minds.
Correction. It was the loudest cry from news media claiming to represent non-vaxxers. Prior to reporting, nobody took a poll about why parents choose not to follow the CDC schedule.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#65 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 10:03 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Turquesa- Please see the above post for an example of my earlier point.
Never mind. I get it.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#66 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 11:47 AM
 
sapientia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*

Yes. This.
I am sick to pieces of hearing that non-vaccinating parents allow their children to spread disease. I have had people keep their vaccinated kids AWAY from mine because they were convinced my healthy child would give them whatever disease that their child is vaccinated against. Makes no sense.
I had what I thought was a FRIEND (she found out through a mutual friend) hold her child to her and CRY because my son ran up and mouthed her daughters arm when he was a few years old. She was convinced her child would be sick with-i kid you not-rabies or rubella or something. I told her she needn't worry, her kids was vaccinated, right?

Wife, mom to 6 great kids!...avid crafter, music lover,  reader, gardener!

 

homeschool.gif h20homebirth.gif novaxnocirc.gif homebirth.jpg

 

sapientia is offline  
#67 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 12:19 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapientia View Post
Yes. This.
I am sick to pieces of hearing that non-vaccinating parents allow their children to spread disease. I have had people keep their vaccinated kids AWAY from mine because they were convinced my healthy child would give them whatever disease that their child is vaccinated against. Makes no sense.
I had what I thought was a FRIEND (she found out through a mutual friend) hold her child to her and CRY because my son ran up and mouthed her daughters arm when he was a few years old. She was convinced her child would be sick with-i kid you not-rabies or rubella or something. I told her she needn't worry, her kids was vaccinated, right?

propaganda sheeple crap.
Apparently this "friend" doesn't trust the vaxes she is giving her kid, otherwise what does she have to afraid of?
Arduinna is offline  
#68 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 05:12 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I've been following this case closely.

I think the judgement is a travesty.

What was done was to take a few minor paperwork problems and blow them up into a huge scandal.

Compare, for example, to the business as usual response to Merck actually publishing fake medical journals to promote Vioxx.

Can we say double standard?

The main point of the insane way this whole thing has been handled was to intimidate any other doctors who might speak up for children or anyone else with vaccine injuries in the U.K.

Just my opinion, of course.
I couldn't agree with you more

and yes heather...what started this entire scandel was messed up paperwork...the folks that have the most to say (and usually not the nicest things) are the ones that actually know very little about the case and are merely reguritating what they have been told via mainstream media. (not saying this is you)

This case is not unlike the entire vaccine subject. The truth is not in plain sight. One must dig for it.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#69 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 06:02 PM
 
heathergirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
I couldn't agree with you more

and yes heather...what started this entire scandel was messed up paperwork...the folks that have the most to say (and usually not the nicest things) are the ones that actually know very little about the case and are merely reguritating what they have been told via mainstream media. (not saying this is you)

This case is not unlike the entire vaccine subject. The truth is not in plain sight. One must dig for it.
Enlighten us.
heathergirl67 is offline  
#70 of 95 Old 05-25-2010, 08:47 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I've read so much misinformation in this thread. If any of you want to know the real story, the easiest way will be to buy his book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161...pf_rd_i=507846

Even if you don't believe him, at least you'd be getting the other side of the story, which you probably haven't read, unless you have gone to great lengths to seek it out.

To anyone who says his study was too small, that's the nature of a case series. A case series is when a doctor writes about specific patients that he has treated. He found a new kind of bowel disease in those patients, and one small part of the report was that he mentioned that in the majority of those patients, the parents felt the bowel problems were somehow associated with the MMR. Should he have withheld that bit of information from his report?

Someone on this thread said he took blood samples without parent permission. That's absolutely false. He had the permission of parents and children. The issue was whether or not the ethical approval he had received for the study covered that specific blood draw. He said it did, the GMC said it didn't--not a big deal in reality.
ma2two is offline  
#71 of 95 Old 05-26-2010, 10:36 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Enlighten us.
Nope.....you need to do that for yourself. Seek and ye shall find

Quote:
It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#72 of 95 Old 05-26-2010, 03:44 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
*

I agree...many of the misunderstandings are quite complicated. This might be useful for some. It is well referenced, written by a third party who is an MDiv, PhD and a lawyer. This is what prompted me to start following the GMC case so closely. This was written before the verdict.
http://www.wesupportandywakefield.co..._Wakefield.pdf

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#73 of 95 Old 05-26-2010, 04:11 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
That looks like a good article, Marnica. I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly yet. I just wanted to make a correction, though. The author is not an MD. That MDiv is a Masters of Divinity. He also has a PhD in the area of religious history and a law degree.

So he's not a medical doctor or a scientist, but seems to be an intelligent, educated man, who actively sought out the truth and wanted to share what he learned.
ma2two is offline  
#74 of 95 Old 05-26-2010, 06:01 PM
 
OdinsMommy0409's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wakefield's response to the myths and misinformation regarding his Lancet paper.

http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/...eld_100128.pdf

Wife to Chris 12/27/07. DS1 Earth Day 2009 (4/22). DS2 March 6th, 2012. nocirc.gif saynovax.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfamilybed2.gif  vbac.gif

OdinsMommy0409 is offline  
#75 of 95 Old 05-26-2010, 06:20 PM
 
poppan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I didn't read all the posts... but I saw that lots of people said Dr Wakefield's study had nothing to do with their decision not to vaccinate and many had never heard of him.

This might be true of the very well researched community here... (although I am surprised that people have not heard of him). For myself, I feel his work was the first inkling I had that I ought to look into not vaxing, delayed vaxing, or selective vaxing. So even though in the end, I made my decision to not vax based mostly on the CDC's info, I feel sad that he has been very effectively discredited to the mainstream community or people who don't know much, but are kind of on the fence. I think it's a pretty big victory for the pro-vax side. It doesn't change my mind personally, but I think it will make parents who do not have the information I have, who have not done their homework yet, decide that not vaxing is for quacks without looking into it further.

Poppan ~ twins born April 2007
poppan is offline  
#76 of 95 Old 05-27-2010, 12:02 AM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have removed several posts from this thread which were either in violation of our guidelines or were responding to such posts. If this thread is to remain open for discussion, please remember that the purpose of the thread is not to gossip or speculate about a specific individual.

In that light, please do not post in any manner which casts unfounded accusations or suspicion on anyone. Please feel free to share documented facts pertaining to this study or the surrounding situations & issues. Please also feel free to share more about how this situation has impacted or not impacted your family's vax decisions.
amnesiac is offline  
#77 of 95 Old 05-27-2010, 10:44 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
That looks like a good article, Marnica. I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly yet. I just wanted to make a correction, though. The author is not an MD. That MDiv is a Masters of Divinity. He also has a PhD in the area of religious history and a law degree.

So he's not a medical doctor or a scientist, but seems to be an intelligent, educated man, who actively sought out the truth and wanted to share what he learned.
thanks for clarifying, didn't see the iv there!

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#78 of 95 Old 05-28-2010, 02:19 AM
 
heathergirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was reading something about this subject, and hoped that someone could help me out:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683643.ece

It's interesting and it would be telling if the claims in this article were true. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way of knowing whether or not it's true without seeing each of the 12 children's individual medical records. I can't imagine that they're out there, though. That seems like it would be a pretty big breach of privacy. Do you know where I could find these? Without them it just seems like I'd have to believe someone's claims. Since both sides are making such difference claims, it just seems like there's no way for me to know what's true without seeing the data that they've seen. Ya know?
heathergirl67 is offline  
#79 of 95 Old 05-28-2010, 09:06 AM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way of knowing whether or not it's true without seeing each of the 12 children's individual medical records. I can't imagine that they're out there, though. That seems like it would be a pretty big breach of privacy.
People were trying to understand how Brian Deer came to be in possession of those records. It is his evaluation of the data that skeptics, and many other people, claim that his study was outright fraud. (there are a couple of other people that cast doubt, but Deer is most definitely the central figure).

How, on gawd's green earth, did a journalist get a hold of those medical records?
an_domhan is offline  
#80 of 95 Old 05-28-2010, 09:48 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,413
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Well, he was supposed to have the records because he was being sued by Wakefield. But then the suit was stopped and any records in his possession should have been destroyed.

There was a fascinating exchange in the rapid response at the BMJ.

Dr. Yazbak wrote in about his grandchild, who saw the team, including Wakefield, at the Royal Free. Yazbak was full of praise for the care his grandkid received. Due to the wording in Yazbak's letter, there was some confusion as to whether his grandkid was one of the "12" or not.

Brian Deer wrote in stating that he had access to the records and that Yazbak was lying. Yazbak responded and clarified.

Then Hilary Butler responded and pointed out that Brian Deer shouldn't have access to that info and a bunch of other people also commented, saying the same thing.

The climax was when the BMJ left Brian Deer's comment but pulled all the others responding and critiquing it.

Right.

There are no powerful people backing Brian Deer.

and if you believe that, I've got a lovely bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
Deborah is online now  
#81 of 95 Old 05-28-2010, 10:23 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
When I read that rapid response on the BMJ, and I saw the video Cry Shame I saw another side of Brian Deer, one that is not openly discussed in the media.

When I first went to his website to find out more about the controversy, I was sure that the story was that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had executed poor science and would be found guilty. Brian Deer has an impressive resume and had many documents to support his claims.

I then found out that he was reporting on a case that he himself had brought to the GMC. No parent had complained. He himself had brought the complaint forward.

I am amazed at how damning people are of the ethics violations on the side of Andrew Wakefield, and so very complacent of the ethical issue of Brian Deer reporting on a case that he himself brought before the GMC, and the fact that he is keeping medical records of the children involved. I know I would be livid if my sons medical records were in the hands of a journalist.

It quickly became clear to me that Brian Deer was not a reliable source of information. He is too central to the conflict.

The media has also 'spun' the retraction as being evidence of fraud. The science itself was not fraudulent. Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of ethics violations. And the children studied are ignored. Against the recommendation in the retraction. It's a right mess.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#82 of 95 Old 05-28-2010, 12:27 PM
 
OdinsMommy0409's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
When I read that rapid response on the BMJ, and I saw the video Cry Shame I saw another side of Brian Deer, one that is not openly discussed in the media.

When I first went to his website to find out more about the controversy, I was sure that the story was that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had executed poor science and would be found guilty. Brian Deer has an impressive resume and had many documents to support his claims.

I then found out that he was reporting on a case that he himself had brought to the GMC. No parent had complained. He himself had brought the complaint forward.

I am amazed at how damning people are of the ethics violations on the side of Andrew Wakefield, and so very complacent of the ethical issue of Brian Deer reporting on a case that he himself brought before the GMC, and the fact that he is keeping medical records of the children involved. I know I would be livid if my sons medical records were in the hands of a journalist.

It quickly became clear to me that Brian Deer was not a reliable source of information. He is too central to the conflict.

The media has also 'spun' the retraction as being evidence of fraud. The science itself was not fraudulent. Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of ethics violations. And the children studied are ignored. Against the recommendation in the retraction. It's a right mess.

Wife to Chris 12/27/07. DS1 Earth Day 2009 (4/22). DS2 March 6th, 2012. nocirc.gif saynovax.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfamilybed2.gif  vbac.gif

OdinsMommy0409 is offline  
#83 of 95 Old 05-28-2010, 01:13 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Well, he was supposed to have the records because he was being sued by Wakefield. But then the suit was stopped and any records in his possession should have been destroyed.

There was a fascinating exchange in the rapid response at the BMJ.

Dr. Yazbak wrote in about his grandchild, who saw the team, including Wakefield, at the Royal Free. Yazbak was full of praise for the care his grandkid received. Due to the wording in Yazbak's letter, there was some confusion as to whether his grandkid was one of the "12" or not.

Brian Deer wrote in stating that he had access to the records and that Yazbak was lying. Yazbak responded and clarified.

Then Hilary Butler responded and pointed out that Brian Deer shouldn't have access to that info and a bunch of other people also commented, saying the same thing.

The climax was when the BMJ left Brian Deer's comment but pulled all the others responding and critiquing it.

Right.

There are no powerful people backing Brian Deer.

and if you believe that, I've got a lovely bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

He had very powerful people backing him. In fact I would go far as to say that he had very powerful people manipulating him. IMO he is just a pawn in a far bigger operation here. The editor from the Sunday Times that originally approached Deer asked him to "find something big about the MMR" Not hey investigate this story I have, but actually asked him to create a story. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/feb02_4/c672

that editor was Paul Nuki, son of Prof George Nuki, who sat on the Committee on Safety in Medicines when it passed Pluserix MMR vaccine as safe for use in 1987 (which was later withdrawn 1992 after adverse side effects ). Pluserix was manufactured by SmithKlineFrench Laboratories, which was later incorporated into GlaxoSmithKline. In 2007 Paul Nuki left the Sunday Times to manage a UK National Heath Service website (‘NHS Choices’ ).

Why would an ediitor need "something big"??

Whenever there is negativeity about a precious pharmaceutical, it must be handled and how they choose to handle it is to use the press.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...alth/42/42.pdf

look at page 60 where they talk about using PR to basically manipulate
Quote:
Considerable resources are invested into building long-term, sustainable relationships with stakeholders and ‘key opinion leaders‘ and journalists. These relationships are used to promote the use of certain brands and counter concerns relating to safety. Efforts to undermine critical voices in particular were identified, under terms of “issues management”. In later evidence, in response to the ISM’s memorandum, Pfizer stated that PR is entirely legitimate and can “help to educate and inform”. According to the PMCPA, PR activities may include “placing articles in the lay press, TV documentaries, soap operas etc“.’
The next Sunday times editor James Murdoch left in 2009 as he was appointed to the board of MMR manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline with a brief to
Quote:
help to review "external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation
"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...mithcline-role

Right after this there was a flurry of attacks on Wakefield by Deer and other times journalists. Coincidental?? maybe. I don't believe in those kinds of coincidents

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#84 of 95 Old 05-28-2010, 04:46 PM
 
Magali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Molten Core
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suka View Post
I wonder whats going threw the mind of non-vax mammas on here? Do you feel betrayed? Do you still stand by your decisions?
Who the heck is Andrew Wakefield?

-a non vaxxing mama

 caffix.gif

Magali is offline  
#85 of 95 Old 05-30-2010, 11:10 PM
 
caned & able's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bridgeport, ME
Posts: 999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Two words come to mind:

Ignaz Semmelweis
caned & able is offline  
#86 of 95 Old 05-30-2010, 11:41 PM
 
Jadzia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You know what's funny is that my local online paper just ran an article about whooping cough cases being on the rise, with the usual admonishments about making sure you vaccinate . The comments on the article were filled with people making fun of non-vaxers and bringing up how Wakefield was "discredited".

So the fact that a doctor who studied MMR was rebuked somehow proves the safety and efficacy of the pertussis vaccine?

Probably my number one complaint about pro-vaxers is how they lump all vaccines together. Somehow to them, if a pharma product is called a "vaccine" it automatically becomes essential for everyone to receive it, regardless if it works, is safe, or is even for a dangerous disease!

Mommy to DS Adrian 8/10/04 and DD Geneva 9/02/09
Jadzia is offline  
#87 of 95 Old 05-31-2010, 12:11 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,413
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Well, the vaccines are all good position is "scientific" and the let's consider vaccines individually position is unscientific.

Even worse is looking at each human being as an individual! What could be more fringe?
Deborah is online now  
#88 of 95 Old 05-31-2010, 12:17 AM
 
heathergirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So Brian Deer had circumstances that might call his bias and ethics into question. And Wakefield had circumstances that might call his bias and ethics into question. Brian Deer can back up his claims with the case files. Wakefield can back up his claims with the case files. But we can't see those, so there's no way of really knowing who is telling the truth. Right? We might get a feeling that one is "better" than the other, but we can't know because the medical files are sealed. Is that a correct assessment?
heathergirl67 is offline  
#89 of 95 Old 05-31-2010, 01:06 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,413
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Only if you leave out the parents, the reputation and standing of Dr. Walker-Smith, the various interlocking interests in the UK government, the Times and the drug companies.

1) The parents have spoken out, strongly, in favor of Dr. Wakefield. There is a film, available online that interviews several of the parents and also shows Brian Deer interacting with the parents...I can't think of the name but I'm sure someone will chime in.

2) Dr. Walker-Smith more or less created the modern field of pediatric gastroenterology. On top of that he is pro-vaccine and pro-MMR. And yet he examined these twelve children and recommended that they have the various invasive procedures which are at the core of this case. So why did he do it? The most straightforward explanation is that the kids really are sick, he saw this, and wanted to relieve their pain and suffering.

3) I have yet to see any explanation from the anti-Wakefield side that addresses the interlocking interests who had good cause to defend MMR and the overall vaccine program.

A final point: I've been following the Wakefield story since 1999. The amount of misinformation which has been spread around, most of it purposefully created to attack Wakefield is truly amazing. One example, which you brought up, is the bizarre claim that Dr. Wakefield was creating his own measles vaccine (transfer factor) and therefore was trying to destroy MMR to establish a market and make the big bucks.

If Wakefield was wrong, he was wrong. No problem, frankly. But then, why the crazy stories, why the misinformation?
Deborah is online now  
#90 of 95 Old 05-31-2010, 01:13 AM
 
heathergirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Only if you leave out the parents, the reputation and standing of Dr. Walker-Smith, the various interlocking interests in the UK government, the Times and the drug companies.

1) The parents have spoken out, strongly, in favor of Dr. Wakefield. There is a film, available online that interviews several of the parents and also shows Brian Deer interacting with the parents...I can't think of the name but I'm sure someone will chime in.

2) Dr. Walker-Smith more or less created the modern field of pediatric gastroenterology. On top of that he is pro-vaccine and pro-MMR. And yet he examined these twelve children and recommended that they have the various invasive procedures which are at the core of this case. So why did he do it? The most straightforward explanation is that the kids really are sick, he saw this, and wanted to relieve their pain and suffering.

3) I have yet to see any explanation from the anti-Wakefield side that addresses the interlocking interests who had good cause to defend MMR and the overall vaccine program.

A final point: I've been following the Wakefield story since 1999. The amount of misinformation which has been spread around, most of it purposefully created to attack Wakefield is truly amazing. One example, which you brought up, is the bizarre claim that Dr. Wakefield was creating his own measles vaccine (transfer factor) and therefore was trying to destroy MMR to establish a market and make the big bucks.

If Wakefield was wrong, he was wrong. No problem, frankly. But then, why the crazy stories, why the misinformation?
Right. Lots of claims and deductions about possible this or suspicious that. From both sides. But the actual evidence- the very truth of the core of the study and accusations- are in the children's medical files. Files that we don't have access to, right?
heathergirl67 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off