Andrew Wakefield published a study in 1998 It made us sicker

Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,146
Location: here

11 Dec 2014, 4:46 pm

all you gotta do is search on google for:
whistleblowers implicated merck vaccines
and youll get the story.
here is a quote from the philadelphia legal examiner:

Quote:
The third, a senior CDC scientist, indirectly blew the whistle on Merck as it was really directed at his own actions as well as his CDC colleagues that were part of a 2004 study that involved the MMR vaccine. In this case the claims involve a cover-up of data that showed higher rates of autism in African-American boys after receiving the MMR vaccine



Then search for
'finland narcolepsy vaccine' to get the other one



PlainsAspie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 518
Location: USA

11 Dec 2014, 5:09 pm

The swine flu vaccine in question was not approved in the US, and the US-approved vaccine showed no association with narcolepsy.

The Merck whistleblowers allege lack of effectiveness, not risk of autism or any other disability, disorder, or disease.

The CDC Whistleblower's data was totally flawed (now retracted), but even if it wasn't, it showed NO ASSOCIATION between timely administration of vaccines and autism. First of all, the association was only in african-american children, contrary to white anti-vaxxer parents saying this proves it caused their kids' autism. Second, the association was only present in african-american kids who got it late, not those who got it at the recommended time. If you're gonna accept the data as valid, which you shouldn't, it is a blow to the "too many too soon" argument.



slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,146
Location: here

11 Dec 2014, 8:30 pm

Do you have a link for the whistleblower's retraction?

There was another doctor who retracted her statement that the cervical cancer vaccine was worse than cancer
http://www.naturalnews.com/027225_vacci ... vical.html
But maybe she folded due to pressure



PlainsAspie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 518
Location: USA

11 Dec 2014, 8:33 pm

He didn't retract it, the journal retracted the reanalysis he used as evidence.



slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,146
Location: here

11 Dec 2014, 8:43 pm

heres another doctor who used to work for merck

he says the cervical cancer vaccine is useless and dangerous

http://central-pennsylvania.legalexamin ... -all-time/



Hansgrohe
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 329
Location: Oakland, CA

11 Dec 2014, 9:02 pm

Can't help but feel the Wakefield study also helped increase stigma of autistic people. I mean as long as autism is considered bad, we'll always be an easy target. (sigh)



PlainsAspie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 518
Location: USA

11 Dec 2014, 10:03 pm

Hansgrohe wrote:
Can't help but feel the Wakefield study also helped increase stigma of autistic people. I mean as long as autism is considered bad, we'll always be an easy target. (sigh)


absolutely



PlainsAspie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 518
Location: USA

Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

16 Dec 2014, 8:44 am

PlainsAspie wrote:
I've heard of a study showing that exposure to pro-vaccine information makes anti-vaxxers even more anti-vaccine. It's scary.

In other words... they're accidently being vaccinated against evidence?

Well, there's one vaccine that *is* bad...



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

16 Dec 2014, 12:38 pm

alex wrote:
16 Years Ago, A Doctor Published A Study. It Was Completely Made Up, And It Made Us All Sicker.

Quote:
Once upon a time, a scientist named Dr. Andrew Wakefield published in the medical journal The Lancet that he had discovered a link between autism and vaccines.

After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything.
In the intervening years, millions have been spent on studying this further to see if there was anything that could connect autism and vaccines. This is what they found.


Image

http://www.upworthy.com/16-years-ago-a- ... ker?c=ufb3


Your link doesn't work. Here's the correct link:

http://www.upworthy.com/16-years-ago-a-doctor-published-a-study-it-was-completely-made-up-and-it-made-us-all-sicker?c=hpstream



voleregard
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 226
Location: A magical place without backup warning beepers or leaf blowers

20 Dec 2014, 8:00 pm

alex wrote:
That is certainly scary. It's hard when a large number of people refuse to use logic and objectively evaluate what they hear. Most people have incredibly counterproductive confirmation bias.


So I'm interested in applying logic and objectivity to this: Here's a release from William Thompson through legal representation:
http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27- ... nd-autism/

This CDC insider says that he was part of the group at the CDC that allowed evidence to be suppressed which linked vaccines and autism. In this video he (or what may be a voice actor representing his view) says he bears great shame over the fact that he lied and they covered up the connection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q62DcaNs_0M

A specialist in investigating scientific fraud is interviewed who reviewed the papers and he says that what the CDC did is clearly fraud.

Here's another review of the press release: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjCpmdz3bA

Wakefield explains that the correlation was only found in those classified as Black/African-American for the study, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the CDC suppressed a finding of a correlation. The original post reminds us of the supposed fraud of Wakefield, but Wakefield was partially right. This graphic gives the impression he was completely wrong. But he was only believed to be wrong because part of the findings of the CDC investigating the possibility of a correlation were covered up, an in so doing committed an act which an investigator identifies as "fraud." So are they going to revise the graphic in light of this disclosure?

If I apply logic to this, it seems there's scientific basis for continuing to investigate at least the possibility of a correlation. And scientific literature backs such an approach: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

Or am I missing something?



PlainsAspie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 518
Location: USA

21 Dec 2014, 3:44 pm

Quote:
Whenever that happens as you slice epidemiological data finer and finer, you should be alert for the very distinct possibility that what you're really looking at is a spurious correlation.


http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/c ... lQsGeYs.99



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

21 Dec 2014, 4:36 pm

voleregard wrote:
alex wrote:
That is certainly scary. It's hard when a large number of people refuse to use logic and objectively evaluate what they hear. Most people have incredibly counterproductive confirmation bias.


So I'm interested in applying logic and objectivity to this: Here's a release from William Thompson through legal representation:
http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27- ... nd-autism/

This CDC insider says that he was part of the group at the CDC that allowed evidence to be suppressed which linked vaccines and autism. In this video he (or what may be a voice actor representing his view) says he bears great shame over the fact that he lied and they covered up the connection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q62DcaNs_0M

A specialist in investigating scientific fraud is interviewed who reviewed the papers and he says that what the CDC did is clearly fraud.

Here's another review of the press release: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjCpmdz3bA

Wakefield explains that the correlation was only found in those classified as Black/African-American for the study, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the CDC suppressed a finding of a correlation. The original post reminds us of the supposed fraud of Wakefield, but Wakefield was partially right. This graphic gives the impression he was completely wrong. But he was only believed to be wrong because part of the findings of the CDC investigating the possibility of a correlation were covered up, an in so doing committed an act which an investigator identifies as "fraud." So are they going to revise the graphic in light of this disclosure?

If I apply logic to this, it seems there's scientific basis for continuing to investigate at least the possibility of a correlation. And scientific literature backs such an approach: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

Or am I missing something?


Believed when seen. As far as I know, all the studies so far seem to have suggested, rather conclusively I might add, that there is no connection between autism and vaccines.