Anti-vaxxers

Dohnjoe · 08-04-2019 3:16pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

A Doctor standing up against

He's a struck-off conman, and the only thing he is making a stand against is the truth and medical science, all for his own personal gain

The world has always been full of quacks and charlatans doing the same thing since the year dot, he's just another modern embodiment of that and you're an example of why he is successful at it.

Dr Brown · 08-04-2019 3:36pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I'd read up on this before spouting such nonsense, Wakefield himself was pro vaccine, just not the 4in1. It would later turn out that he had a conflict of interests, being involved with companies that produced the individual vaccines and was as such a conflict of interest. Read up on who the study was funded by, that alone should have been declared as a conflict of interest.

Further studies with cohorts ranging from 100,000 upto several million, could find no link between the vaccine and autism. they did have controls, with over 100,000 children used as controls, who never had the vaccine. They found there was no difference in the risk of becoming autistic, in fact, there was a sub study looking at those considered more at risk, due to family histories, siblings etc. Again, no increased risk.

Unlike the Wakefield study that had 12 children, who were diagnosed with Autism, and even then, he excluded results that disagreed with his wanted result.

He was in it for nothing but the money, and got caught. Thank C4 for their investigations which brought alot of this too light.

His strong anti vax stance came about later when he was all out of money and places to go.

The Doctors who gave evidence against Wakefield were also getting money from pharmaceutical companies. Yet nobody sees that as a conflict of interest, talk about double standards:rolleyes:

Wakefields first study was never meant to be definitive. It was suppose to lead to further research.

The study of all studies that Dr William Thompson was involved in showed there is a link between vaccines and autism.

Wakefields colleague Dr John Walker Smith was completely cleared of any wrong doing once he appealed to the high court.

If Wakefield had of gone to the high court he would of also been cleared. At least of 90% of the charges against him were the same as Dr John Walker Smith.

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

ancapailldorcha · 08-04-2019 3:53pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

The Doctors who gave evidence against Wakefield were also getting money from pharmaceutical companies. Yet nobody sees that as a conflict of interest, talk about double standards:rolleyes:

It's not really double standards. You've proven none of your claims so why should this be taken in good faith? Wakefield owned patents on competing vaccines with MMR and had clear commercial motivation to undermine public faith in it.

Dr Brown · 08-04-2019 3:59pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's not really double standards. You've proven none of your claims so why should this be taken in good faith? Wakefield owned patents on competing vaccines with MMR and had clear commercial motivation to undermine public faith in it.

He didn't own the patents the Royal Free Hospital owned them.

If Wakefield was only in it for the money he could of just said he was mistaken and kept his job.

WinnyThePoo · 08-04-2019 4:02pm

Wakefield lost his job and medical licence because he found out to be fraud. His university offered him money and something like 250 subjects. He refused. Why did he refuse...because he knew what he was doing was fraudulent.

Dr Brown · 08-04-2019 4:02pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's not really double standards. You've proven none of your claims so why should this be taken in good faith? Wakefield owned patents on competing vaccines with MMR and had clear commercial motivation to undermine public faith in it.

It is double standards when the people giving evidence against Wakefield are getting paid by the Vaccine manufacturers.

That is not fair on any level.

ancapailldorcha · 08-04-2019 4:03pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

He didn't own the patents the Royal Free Hospital owned them.

If Wakefield was only in it for the money he could of just said he was mistaken and kept his job.

Nonsense. I work in research and have done for most of the past decade. It's extremely common for researchers (and charlatans) to own patents.

ancapailldorcha · 08-04-2019 4:04pm

Here's the abuse committed by Wakefield in detail:

These tests were hardly trivial: they included colonoscopy, where the child is sedated, and a long tube with a camera and a light passed through the anus and deep into the bowell; lumbar puncture, where a needle is placed into the spine to get cerebrospinal fluid; barium meals and more. It’s plainly undesirable for doctors to go around conducting tests like these on children for their own research interests without very careful external scrutiny.

Dr Brown · 08-04-2019 4:04pm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Wakefield lost his job and medical licence because he found out to be fraud. His university offered him money and something like 250 subjects. He refused. Why did he refuse...because he knew what he was doing was fraudulent.

He didn't refuse.

There was never any formal offer.

That was just PR.

Wakefield said he would of being happy to do more studies.

WinnyThePoo · 08-04-2019 4:05pm

He did refuse . Stop spreading lies.

Dr Brown · 08-04-2019 4:07pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nonsense. I work in research and have done for most of the past decade. It's extremely common for researchers (and charlatans) to own patents.

You claimed Wakefield owned the patent for a Vaccine.

He worked on it but he didn't own it the royal free did.

Dr Brown · 08-04-2019 4:08pm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

He did refuse . Stop spreading lies.

It was just PR.

Wakefield's Boss wanted rid of him.

WinnyThePoo · 08-04-2019 4:10pm

Your blatantly lying now. They wanted him to prove himself. He wouldn't because he is a fraud.

ancapailldorcha · 08-04-2019 4:10pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

You claimed Wakefield owned the patent for a Vaccine.

He worked on it but he didn't own it the royal free did.

Prove it then.

Igotadose · 08-04-2019 4:14pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

He didn't refuse.

Wakefield said he would of being happy to do more studies.

He's had 20 years. Any new studies?

CramCycle · 08-04-2019 4:24pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

The Doctors who gave evidence against Wakefield were also getting money from pharmaceutical companies. Yet nobody sees that as a conflict of interest:rolleyes: talk about double standards.

Which doctors? Did they declare it, if they declared it, it is not an issue. Wakefield set up two companies with a sole objective of profiteering of the perceived backlash and rejection of the MMR vaccine.

Wakefields first study was never meant to be definitive. It was suppose to lead to further research.

And he lied in that study to make the already skewed stats more in the direction he wanted. He excluded results which did not agree with his want, and also misdiagnosed some of his small cohort, again to make the numbers fit with what he wanted.

The study of all studies that Dr William Thompson was involved in showed there is a link between vaccines and autism.

None of the ones I read had, I can provide links to his papers which say there is no link. Only one paper of his has any mention of such a link and it clearly points out that it is more to do with age of getting the vaccine making it possible to mislead people who don't get stats. All those who were vaccinated and developed autism after 36 months had already shown early signs of Autism, those vaccinated before 18 months did not as you do not show signs of Autism at such an early age. He also goes onto say that those linking an increase in Autism cases over time are more likely due to better diagnosis practices.

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.56.1.56

https://jeffreydachmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Measles-mumps-rubella-vaccination-autism-Pediatrics-2004-DeStefano-Frank.pdf

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14760584.3.1.19

https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/20837594

The truth of the matter is that the only time W Thompson even came close to making the claims you are putting on him is that he said one result was left out of a publication, that was statistically significant, even though being SS does not mean it is relevant and as most journals now insist on, you publish the P value rather than the claim they are significant as the latter can be quite misleading to a lay person.

Wakefields colleague Dr John Walker Smith was completely cleared of any wrong doing once he appealed to the high court.

The judge in the case, as well as the GMC admitted there were errors in their approach.
Nonetheless, Wakefield has never been able to win a court decision in his favour, yet you consistently ignore this.

If Wakefield had of gone to the high court he would of also been cleared. At least of 90% of the charges against him were the same as Dr John Walker Smith.

Wakefield has went to court several times and not won?!? JWS and Wakefield had different roles in the study, which is one of the key reasons JWS being struck off was taken back in court as the GMC went after the two for the same thing.

Quandary · 08-04-2019 4:36pm

How is someone able to consistently post this baseless rhetoric without being compelled to substantiate it adequately?

That ageofautism website is hilarious. It's like the web version of an incoherent lunatic wearing a sandwich board screaming to the world about his daft notions.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2019 4:55pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

One of the first Doctors to prove that lead was poison also faced character assassination like Wakefield but he was proved right in the end.

Just like Wakefield Dr Herbert Needleman was also accused of scientific fraud.

The same people attacking Wakefield without hearing the full story probably would of also attacked Dr Herbert Needleman back in the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Needleman

Nicander of Colophon reported on lead toxicity around 250 BC. And lots more since.

The "character assassination" of Needleman was by lawyers in a court case in the US. Which is standard in an adversarial system. Neither the lawyers nor their witnesses revealed who funded them but the lead and petrochemicals industry had a lot to loose.

At the end there were no retractions , just revisions of the original graphs. Decent sample size and controls. More importantly other research backed the original findings.

So in short , your first statement is wrong by over two thousand years.

Your second statement is a complete misrepresentation of what happened. US legal trials are adversarial so character assassination within a trial isn't exactly uncommon.

Third statement, I'm very sure most people can tell the difference between
big business throwing lawyers at a medical report that could cost them a fortune
Vs. experts looking at a medical report and proving it's complete bullcrap .

Igotadose · 08-04-2019 5:00pm

Missed that Christopher Exley was refused a GoFundMe site to raise money for his anti-vaxxx *cough* research *cough*.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/christopher-exley-vaccine-pseudoscientist/

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2019 5:06pm

Quandary wrote: »

How is someone able to consistently post this baseless rhetoric without being compelled to substantiate it adequately?

Discussing dirty electricity, alternative medicine, chemtrails, fluoride, mobile phone masts, dirty electricity, anti vaxx etc. all ends up the same

M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!
...

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

O: It is NOT!

Ad nauseam.

Dr Brown · 08-04-2019 5:59pm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your blatantly lying now. They wanted him to prove himself. He wouldn't because he is a fraud.

BS Wakefield had no reason to walk away from the studies.

ancapailldorcha · 08-04-2019 6:00pm

The word of a charlatan counts for nothing.

WinnyThePoo · 08-04-2019 6:01pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your blatantly lying now. They wanted him to prove himself. He wouldn't because he is a fraud.

BS Wakefield had no reason to walk away from the studies.

Nothing Wakefield says is credible.

ancapailldorcha · 08-04-2019 6:03pm

Here's an article I just found by Brian Deer, the journalist who uncovered the seedy mess that was Wakefield's "research".

I haven't read it yet but intend to shortly:

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258

ancapailldorcha · 08-04-2019 6:36pm

Here's Deer's episode of Dispatches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbL8opM6TM

I'd never have found this were it not for Dr Brown's zealous but feeble attempts to poison the well.

Dr Brown · 08-04-2019 9:30pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Here's Deer's episode of Dispatches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbL8opM6TM

I'd never have found this were it not for Dr Brown's zealous but feeble attempts to poison the well.

Here's a much better Doc from the parents perspective.

They absolutely hate Brian Deer.

Over 90% of the lies and smears against Wakefield originate from Brian Deer.

ancapailldorcha · 08-04-2019 9:49pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

Here's a much better Doc from the parents perspective.

They absolutely hate Brian Deer.

Over 90% of the lies and smears against Wakefield originate from Brian Deer.

Well, yes. Obviously charlatans hate being called out on their illicit activities. I'm not surprised they hate him.

mzungu · 08-04-2019 9:53pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

Here's a much better Doc from the parents perspective.

They absolutely hate Brian Deer.

Over 90% of the lies and smears against Wakefield originate from Brian Deer.

The thing is, though, when claims are true they are not "lies and smears." They are facts. Brian Deer was correct and we all know Mr. Wakefield is fraud. The evidence is there.

Glad to clear that up for you.

CramCycle · 08-04-2019 10:00pm

3minutes in and you can hear the issues. Those further studies have been done. They show that it's not linked and more importantly, the indication that it was the vaccine was due to bias based on the studies design. Here is the part some don't like to hear though. That bias could have been accidental or the result of gross ignorance or over confidence. All of these can be rowed back from. Heck, they could have pushed for further investigation with as more robust trial, he certainly had the backing and opportunity. Where that all falls apart, is Wakefield pushing a single vaccine over the multi vaccine with no reasoning bar his feeling. Them come the unannounced conflict of interests, he set up two businesses to push these single vaccines.

At this point, that's the crux of it, he could have been right, bad science but a valid hypothesis. The thing is, even if you ignore the conflict of interest, the manipulated data, the refusal to engage. It does not change the fact that key line you pointed out in the documentary has been done, repeatedly and independently, and he, knowing that he is wrong, has went down the American hack route and living off the fear and paranoia that live in many of us.

Your mind won't be changed, that's fine, herd immunity is a wonderful thing. I find it odd that you can't even a knowledge the flaws in the research. Most scientists can and do on a regular basis, it's rare to get a paper where you can't see some issue.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2019 10:24pm

Dr Brown wrote: »

Over 90% of the lies and smears against Wakefield originate from Brian Deer.

Wow , for a journalist he must have been very busy. That Danish trial alone included at least half a million children.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr/mmr-studies.html

Studies have shown a small increased risk of febrile seizures occurs among children who are younger than 7 years old approximately 8-14 days after vaccination for every 3,000-4,000 children vaccinated with MMR vaccine. This is compared to children not vaccinated during the preceding 30 days.

No published scientific evidence shows any benefit in separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots.

CBA checking it fully but IIRC Wakefield wasn't against vaccines, just the ones he wasn't getting paid to support.

If you claim to believe Wakefield but don't vaccinate your kids then you don't believe Wakefield. It's that simple.

Because there is nothing stopping parents paying out of their own pocket to get separate vaccinations.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments