not to mention the journal that plubished the inital study that anti vaccine people used went back, retracted it and said "yeah it was all made up"
Vaxxed
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
not to mention the journal that plubished the inital study that anti vaccine people used went back, retracted it and said "yeah it was all made up"
when jenny mccarthy is the face of your movement, and your movement isnt less coverings of the ta-tas, maybe it time to rethink the creditibilty.
Actually, the US has the most aggressive vaccine schedule in the world, and I'm pretty sure very few (if any) countries are even close. If I remember right the US doubles the western world's average. Now what's that you were saying?
This is my favorite part of naturalbornHawk's link
FDA Oversight and the Problem with Trust
Here is the abstract for an article by Charles Seife, MS, published in JAMA in April, 2015. This paper reveals huge ethical breaches found by the FDA when they inspected the sites of clinical drug trials between 2008 and 2013. The author finds 57 published clinical trials inspected by the FDA during this period had significant evidence of:
A few key things to remember when looking at these findings:
Cause I guess we'll just ignore this little thing....
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full
FDA Oversight and the Problem with Trust
Here is the abstract for an article by Charles Seife, MS, published in JAMA in April, 2015. This paper reveals huge ethical breaches found by the FDA when they inspected the sites of clinical drug trials between 2008 and 2013. The author finds 57 published clinical trials inspected by the FDA during this period had significant evidence of:
- Falsification or submission of false information [22 trials, 39%]
- Problems with adverse events reporting [14 trials, 25%]
- Protocol violations [42 trials, 74%]
- Failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent [30 trials, 53%]
- Inadequate or inaccurate record keeping [35 trials, 61%)
A few key things to remember when looking at these findings:
- These infractions occurred in research that became published clinical trials,
- The FDA doesn’t inspect very many clinical trial sites. A Vanity Fair article from 2010 revealed that in sample year 2008, the FDA inspected about 1.9% of trial sites for research conducted in the US (and less than 1%, when the research takes place outside the country).
Cause I guess we'll just ignore this little thing....
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full
That correlation has nothing to do with causation.
Seriously did you pass third grade science?
A question was asked, and it was answered. Sorry if it was too complicated for you.
Good try producer.
NTERVIEWER: Dr Wakefield, what exactly have you found?
DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD: Well this work started just over a year ago when we were contacted by a group of mothers who complained that their children had been developing perfectly normally until they had encountered an environmental insult, in many cases they claimed it was the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, and then had lost their … all their acquired skills, such as speech, language, developmental milestones. And at the time we were not sure of the implications of that. But what was interesting is that those children had also suffered gastrointestinal symptoms, diarrhoea, alternating constipation and diarrhoea, sometimes blood loss. And it became evident to us that after five calls in two days we had to look at this very seriously to (investigate) these gastrointestinal side effects in particular. Now one of the questions that had been raised before … the claims had been rather put to one side of gastrointestinal disturbances, these were just a function of the behavioural problems, but we felt they merited taking a little more seriously and so that we investigated them. Interestingly, we set out a study, ten children, we thought we might find inflammation perhaps in one or two based upon the history -- we’ve now looked at 40 children and 39 of those have exactly the same findings. And that’s been intriguing. The children have a patchy inflammation of the colon, rather like colitis as we recognise it historically. And they also have great big swollen lymph glands in the terminal ileum, that is the end of the small intestine. And that combination, as we call it ‘ileo hyperplasia’, follicular hyperplasia of the terminal ileum and colitis, is the, is the core of the gastrointestinal syndrome. Interestingly, they also have all undergone developmental regression after a period of normal development.
INTERVIEWER: There has been concern recently over any long term effects as a result of the MMR vaccine, are you saying now then that there does appear to be a proven link between the vaccine and the side effects?
DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD: No, the work certainly raises a question mark over MMR vaccine, but it is, there is no proven link as such and we are seeking to establish whether there is a genuine causal association between the MMR and this syndrome or not. It is our suspicion that there may well be but that is far from being a causal association that is proven beyond doubt.
INTERVIEWER: But if you say there’s at least a question mark over it now, should the vaccine continue to be administered while you’re investigating?
DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD: I think if you asked members of the team that have investigated this they would give you different answers. And I have to say that there is sufficient anxiety in my own mind of the safety, the long term safety of the polyvalent, that is the MMR vaccination in combination, that I think that it should be suspended in favour of the single vaccines, that is continued use of the individual measles, mumps and rubella components.
It may have started off as looking at autism and gastro problem. But, that wasn't what the paper was about or what Wakefield said in interviews. And the second he said "some of them are completely completely out of autism"....well how can any not immediately hit stop?! There is no cure. That is like saying they are coming completely out of Down syndrome or ALS.
Sorry, it's summer. I don't have time to look something up that you will not read anyway or just chalk up to some big conspiracy anyway. I will just refer you to the opinions of the WHO, AMA, CDC, NIAID, FDA, and pretty much any other organization that has taken a look at this issue. They all say that not only are vaccines safe, it is far more dangerous to not vaccinate your kids. I realize this isn't what you are looking for but you need to realize that these organizations know a f***ton more about this issue than you do, the people who made that sham of film do, or the people that made whatever blog post you link to. These organizations have read and peer reviewed thousands of studies on this topic, far more than you have or the makers of your film have. So, I'm going to go with the experts.
However, I will provide a link to
http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2014/03/75-studies-that-show-no-link-between.html
I posted that to indicate that other governments aren't really on board with the US's aggressive vaccination schedule.
They aren't on board with our military either. Or our distain for soccer.
So what's your point?
Ok. What's your point (other than the fact you believe correlation is causation)?
You're right, don't waste your time. The long term double-blind placebo-controlled studies would do a much, much better job of indicating the overall safety of vaccines. Why hasn't this been done?
Joe said "Because despite being confronted with facts and evidence, you still accept the 'retarded' viewpoint (e.g. vaccines and autism). It's been debunked ad nauseum, by many independent societies and governments. That's one whale of a collusion going on, if they are all 'bought' by Big Pharma...."
I was indicating to him that those governments take a much more relaxed approach to mandatory vaccines.
and that means what?
Ok they take a more relaxed approach what does that have to do with vaccine causing medical problems?
If they weren't questioning safety would they not fall in line closer to the US schedule?
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!!!!!
Just because they have a more relaxed schedule means nothing and it certainly doesn't atomically mean they are questioning the safety. Maybe Finland's government is too busy discussing fjords to mandate vaccine X. Maybe Austria is too busy not getting invaded by Germany yet again to have a vote on vaccine Y. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety.
You'd have a much better case if you could say/prove these countries decreased their requirements after a 1998 study that turned out to be bull crap.
Mainly, because it is unethical (assuming you are talking about providing a placebo for some subjects and vaccines for other subjects). You can't put human lives in danger for research purposes. However, there is overwhelming evidence from other sources to prove the point so it is unnecessary.
Not in any way shape or form.
Del said that the study is one of gastro problems of kids with autism. That's is all the study is about. Del: "It was not a study of vaccines and autism...Really what the paper pointed out was this may not be just a neurological disease. There is clearly a connection to the intestinal track. (then he suggest curing autism though diet)
The connection to the vaccine was only a side note of this paper....You have to write everything said, every background...(then he suggests other investigators raised concern about including the fact parents say their child got autism after receiving a vaccination an Andy said we must include it)"
But, what the study and its principal investigator say is that there what started as that became a real concern about vaccines causing autism as evident by :
Interpretation by wakefield in the findings "We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was general associated in time with possible environmental triggers" In this case environmental triggers are vaccines.
Then in an interview Wakefield says "I have to say that there is sufficient anxiety in my own mind of the safety, the long term safety of the polyvalent, that is the MMR vaccination in combination, that I think that it should be suspended in favour of the single vaccines, that is continued use of the individual measles, mumps and rubella components." So in an interview he admits that the study raises enough anxiety to question MMR, that is not a footnote nor a study about gastro and autism.
So you're saying that every other country in the world believes in an aggressive US vaccine-like schedule but they just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Many of them have the same or similar vaccines, but more relaxed timing.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: My job is not to pander to the whims of the pharmaceutical industry or to government policy. My job is to answer the question that the parent presents to me when they call me or confront me at a meeting. That is my job and my duty as a doctor. So one came to a crossroads … well, if the parents are right about the boweldisease, are they right about the vaccine? We decided to look into that in more detail. And that’s where the controversy began. I am not in any way anti-vaccine, by the way, and my own children were vaccinated. But I had to understand the background. I put together a 250-page report on these safety studies and they were appalling, they were totally unsatisfactory.
Daily Bell: You’re saying those who make and regulate vaccines – both – were not properly vetting the effects of vaccines? That’s a strong statement to make.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: They did not look at the outcomes of the vaccine beyond the short-term. To put this in context, we are dealing with viruses that can cause disease many years later. Thus, you do not confine your safety studies to 3–6 weeks. As a result of thisunderstanding, it became my clear conviction that parents deserved access to the option to access single vaccines – the way it was done before, which was perfectly effective.
Daily Bell: Sounds reasonable.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: In fact, Measles, Mumps and Rubella had separate vaccines. The combined risk of three viruses in a vaccine, MMR, is a way in which nature has never seen them before. Never. And to subject those to inadequate safety studies is in my opinion, not acceptable. That was the essence of the controversy and what has happened ever since has been in essence what medicine and science have done perhaps for all time – crush dissent by discrediting the messenger … me.
It is simply an effort to silence me because of the egregious errors that have been made in vaccination safety studies. But this has happened since time immemorial. One of the classic cases has to do with the drug Thalidomide. The doctor who first described abnormalities following mothers taking Thalidomide during pregnancy was strongly attacked.
Daily Bell: Let’s back up to be clear. Exactly what did you suggest parents do as a result of your famous study published in the Lancet Journal in 1988?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The Autism study was a simple case series of 12 children and all it did was to tell the parents story of what they told us. It was to document the pinnacle findings in the children. Further research was needed into causes of autism.
Daily Bell: As we understand it, the paper suggested further research specifically regarding linkage between the MMR vaccine and autism, and thus you have been held responsible for the plunge in children getting vaccinated with MMR. However, it also seems to us that in thousands of articles written about all this recently that you’ve been constantly accused of making a direct link between vaccines and autism in that now-retracted paper.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Never before in the history of human endeavor has so much been said about a paper that has been read or understood by so few. It is quite extraordinary. The fact that we published 19 papers on the subject after that one is irrelevant. It’s nevermentioned. Critics dwell only upon that one paper. I listened to the parents’ story and acted according to my professional and moral obligations to determine what was happening with these children.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/05...ersy-and-his-ongoing-professionalpersecution/
Maybe, maybe not.
But, I'm not going to say its because of safety concerns without any proof what so ever other than causation.
But it was just a study of gastro issues in 12 kids with autism according to Del, so what did Wakefield get all this info?
He documented what parents had told him. Pretty straightforward. Are you saying that there was a collusion of autistic parents that got together and said, "Hey, let's get our story straight and F the pharma companies?"
Sentence three where did that come from?! Oh wait its Nat right? so out of his tailpipe.
What I am saying is that Wakefield did far more than document what parents told him when he wrote that the findings were that gastro and development problem came after the onset of environmental insults.
You're dumber than a
Yes I am.
Still doesn't show in any way shape of form that vaccines lead to autism or any point you have made so far.
What do you mean then by "Not in any way shape or form." That wording is a bit strong here as your contention seems to be the amount of concern. Just because "the study raises enough anxiety to question MMR" doesn't mean it wasn't or shouldn't be in a sidenote. Pitty-patty ticky-tack stuff here. Del even says Wakefield said that the concern is great enough to halt current MMR practices.
As I have stated time and again in this thread, Big Pharma had put all of their weight behind STOPPING FURTHER STUDY. Don't half ass the article. Read all of it...if the gov allows you to do so.
Who cares? Del's interview is not all-encompassing, and -12- who cares? Not a game breaker, and not something to get too hung up on. See the movie, maybe they iron it out there.
Last edited:
I get I'm arguing with someone that has their mind made up and refuses to change.
But, the no way shape or form is due to :
Del says ""It was not a study of vaccines and autism...Really what the paper pointed out was this may not be just a neurological disease. There is clearly a connection to the intestinal track." And then calls it a side note.
But, the paper's finding states "We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was general associated in time with possible environmental triggers"
So Del is either lying or wrong. It's more than a side note it's the damn paper. We identified associated gastro disease and development disease (let me translate for you we found both gastro and development disease) in a group of previously normal children (not me, but most children) which was general associated in time with possible environmental triggers (we also found an association to the two above with when a vaccines were introduced into the picture).
If it was just a gusto/autism paper the findings would be like we found gastro diseases in children with autism and parents say it began with vaccines -- but we only interviewed 12 people so the sample size is too small to say there is an association to the claims -- than yes Del would be correct, it's a footnote. That's not what it says.
Not nearly what they should be making on antipsychotics for you.
I think my kids last shots were about 15 bucks before insurance (which covered it 100% because they know their worth). I'm a physician, and my kids will be getting the recommended vaccines on the recommended schedule.
I see one estimate says 52 Billion in 2016. Another estimate projects 61 Billion in 2020. From what I've read vaccines may be at least partially responsible for a myriad of different neurological ailments including but not limited to autism, ADD, seizures, epilepsy, encephalitis, lowered IQ, Gullain Barre, etc. That's plenty of profit on the back end to make up for the paltry 52 B if true.
Well the problem is that w/out being able to use placebo, in most of these safety studies the control groups get a dose everything else but the active ingredient. Well, it's the everything else that's the skeptics are contending that are causing the problems. So where exactly does that get you? Another item of contention is that the studies are too short term. Another, many are funded by big pharma that creates an obvious conflict of interest. 107 studies is not all encompassing. New studies are being done all the time. What if your precious studies found safety issues? Would you pay attention or look the other way - because your short term, flawed design studies done by those with a conflict of interest have told you they are safe? By the way peer-reviewed studies have indeed found safety issues, and VAERS has paid out for a number of them.
