Why does the left feel the need to attack others all the tim

Post Reply New Topic

OK, looking in more detail at the problems with the Wakefield study, which was released in 1998. One, the Wakefield study's results were not repeated, even with broadly similar study designs. That suggests right there, because repetition, other researchers getting the same results as you, is very important to demonstrating a claim.

Two, there were undisclosed financial conflicts of interest. Researchers are expected to reveal potential conflicts of interest, or they are being unethical.

Three, Wakefield engaged in actual abuse of developmentally challenged children. The GMC said he showed callous disregard for the children in his study. He also conducted the study without regard to the ethics committee of the hospital he was working at.

Four, he failed to disclose how his patients were selected. In clinical studies, you must mention how your patients were selected. In meta-analyses and systematic reviews as well, you must mention the criteria you used to include and exclude the studies in your meta-analysis or systematic review.

Five, his fraudulent research led to lowering immunization rates that allowed for the comeback of measles in the USA.

Also, this Forbes article discusses how unreliable Italian courts are when it comes to science, mentioning for example that the courts convicted scientists back in 2009 for failing to predict an earthquake:

Governments and courts have terrible records on science. The current position of the government of the United Kingdom is that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin.

It is not sensible to look at the actions of governments and/or government officials and/or rich people generally when deciding good policy. Celebrities and government officials follow all kinds of crazy diets for no good reason.

No, look at the science. That's unambiguous - vaccines are safe, mostly effective (the big exception being the flu vaccines, which due to the nature of the virus will always be hit and miss), and save lives. Thiomersal is safe, and regardless, mercury poisoning doesn't cause autism.

Hi Walrus...haven't seen you in about three weeks.

One thing to keep in mind: autism existed before most of the vaccines were developed.

Autism existed since before vaccines. But it is known without any trace of doubt the reported cases are exploding and have been exponentially since the 90's.

Autism cases increased because people started getting tested for autism. Vaccines have nothing to do with it.

Are there really enough anti-vaxers out there to pose a threat? I think it's more a matter of some people wanting to impose thier will on others by forcing them to do things they don't want to.

BTW, here is the text of the bill in question. This way, you guys don't have to put words into the legislators' mouths.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bil ... duced.html

A pediatrician and health researcher makes a video on how vaccines do NOT cause autism:



Apparently, the Wakefield study in 1998 included only about 9 children, and they all had autism. It's clear that the study

1.) had a too small a sample size to be authoritative on anything,

2.) did not have controls, and

3.) did not demonstrate any causation.

Since it was published, 10 out of 11 of the co-authors retracted their statements that there is a connection between vaccines and autism, while only Wakefield stuck by it. Apparently, this includes Walker-Smith himself who retracted his statement, too.

Also, since 1998, a number of studies comprising over 14,000,000 children (a far, far larger sample size), which had much more sound methodology than the Wakefield study, demonstrated no connection between vaccines and autism

I personally consider myself to be a moderate. The main thing that bothers me about the far left is that everything has to be politically correct with them. If people publicly say things that offend someone on the left they are forced to apologize and are sometimes threatened. Maybe sometimes that happens from people on the right but it is less common.