It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Next Level BS of the Vaccine Controversy.

page: 7
100
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Pardon?
Let's go back to what you've written.
A. 1 in 13 with respiratory problems not compelling enough?
B. 1 in 42 being hospitalised not compelling enough?
C. 1 in 500 getting encephalitis not compelling enough?
So you would rather have all those people hospitalised and then have a greater than 1 in 100 chance of dying than have a vaccine with a far less than 1 in a million chance of severe reaction?
Really?

Wow.


A. No, especially when the degree of the problems is not noted. If 12/13 had extremely mild problems, like simple chest congestion, then no big deal. If 12/13 had pneumonia (which isn't the case, knowing enough about stats on measles), then I would have an issue with it. And I have asthma, and have since I was in an oxygen chamber at two weeks old. I understand repiratory problems, and what are severe and what aren't.

B. Nope, because again, knowing why and how often people actually go to the ER, this is also not indicitive of how severe the symptoms of measles are that got them in a hospital...and often times, hospital admittance is done simply as a precautionary measure, even if no severe symptoms are present. What this number is NOT is an indicator that all hospitalizations were due to severe issues caused by measles.

C. Again, no, and because of the range of symptoms and effects of encephalitis. There can be zero symptoms from the brain swelling, or there can be mild flu-like symptoms, or there could be seizures, or there could be--in very extreme cases--death. So, no, 0.2% of measles sufferers who may develop encephalitis--the symptoms of which are overwhelmingly non-deadly--does not scare me.

See, what you did with the last part of your response was try to bastardize my comment. The 1:96 ratio of deaths to hospitalization is not a probability...and I thought you said that you wanted to keep the death rate out of this. But you're looking at the numbers all wrong and trying to appeal to emotion, here. Let's break it down correctly for you:

- 2,000,000 presumed infections
- 48,000,000 hospitalizations
- 500 deaths

You need to discard the hospitalizations if you want to be realistic--the death rate is 1:4,000. That means for every 4,000 people who contracted measles, one died. That means that 0.025% of all who had measles would die from them (in the U.S.). Yes, I'll take my chances with measles, because I also know that I have a very strong immune system and I'm very health, which are both variables in favor of me fairing quite well against the all-dreaded measles. Also, it's a proven fact that a natural measles immunity is highly potent for your entire lifetime--the MMR vaccine is not, and degrades over time where you can be succeptible to measles again.

As for the rest of society--they can get the MMR shot. I'm not trying to say that they can't, so for you to say that I would rather see people hospitalized than get the shot is an utterly assinine assumption on your part. Vaccinate or don't vaccinate--I don't care. It's your body and your responsibility.

EDIT: Also, please note that you did exactly what I said people do on this cite--you're appealing to emotion in order to try and villify my stance, research, numbers, and logic. Any intelligent person can see right through that crap. You may as well have just said, "But what about the children?!?!"


Using your numbers (again).
1 in 4000 chance of death from measles or 1 in ∞ from the vaccine (as yet, I've not found any confirmed deaths from the MMR vaccine)?
1 in 42 chance of hospitalisation from measles or




posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

As for the rest of society--they can get the MMR shot. I'm not trying to say that they can't, so for you to say that I would rather see people hospitalized than get the shot is an utterly assinine assumption on your part. Vaccinate or don't vaccinate--I don't care. It's your body and your responsibility.


What about the ones who can't? It's not like you're wearing a sign above your head stating that you haven't been vaccinated, so how are they to know? Would you be happy to disclose your vaccination status to people around you? Would you be happy for, let's say your employer, to keep a record of whether or not you've been vaccinated so that any immuno-compromised colleagues you may have can be kept away from you and the potential danger you could pose to them? After all, as they can't vaccinate then surely they have a right to stay away from those that haven't been vaccinated, in order to try and ensure their own safety.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

Was it Brian Deer who decided Wakefield committed fraud and was unethical?
No.
He uncovered evidence to say he might have and the BMC took it from there.



Riight... Deer has made many claims which were false. He claimed and I quote:

I personally interviewed 1, 2...3 families of the 12. Ah, somebody else...2 others were interviewed on my behalf by other journalists. That's 5 of the 12... Oh no wait... I...I..I do.. I , I have had conversations with another. So, it's quite a substantial number...
That's from the interview that CNN did with Deer.

BTW, it is not my intention to make fun at any possible speech disorder that Deer may have, or may not have. In other interviews he speaks without any noticeable impediment. Anyway, my intention is to post exactly what Brian Deer has claimed which doesn't seem to corroborate what the parents of the 12 children of the original Lancet study actually say. I am certain that the parents are not lying, and it has been Brian Deer who has been lying.




Deer's claim included that the parents were led to believe by Wakefield that the MMR vaccine was the link, when it was the parents who from the start say the vaccine seemed to be the trigger. The parents sought legal aid, and the legal aid hired Wakefield and colleagues to see if there was such a link.

If you want to see what the REAL parents of the 12 Lancet children have to say, here is a couple of videos and what they actually have to say.



The video above shows one of the parents reading a letter that 8 of the 12 parents signed which was written to the GMC. (2 other parents of the 12 children were non-traceable, 1 was oversea and one emailed their support) Deer claims that between him and some other journalists they interviewed 6 of the 12 parents/families, and that's not what the parents say. Also watch what the parents have to say about the claims that Wakefield and the other doctors did unnecessary probing on the children, and see what they say whether or not it was necessary.



Again, Brian Deer has been lying from the beginning. He claimed to have been an investigative journalist for the Sunday Times of London, which is false. He was not part of the Sunday Times staff, and from there on he has kept on lying.



originally posted by: Pardon?
And you say you "can't find the study".
Took me about 30 seconds to find it.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


I am pretty certain i wrote "so far i didn't find the Lancet study" (something like that)... I was posting the evidence as I was finding it, and included in that post that would continue posting more evidence...

Yet again, you try to dismiss the evidence which refutes your claims by making personal attacks... Nice try...

BTW, thank you for posting the link to the paper...

As to your last claim whether or not Wakefield and the other doctors conducted the studies without approval?... If that was true I wonder why ONLY WAKEFIELD was punished when the other doctors also performed the studies and probed the children...


edit on 2-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and correct statement.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

I'll take your attempt to discredit Brian Deer and I'll raise you this about "whistleblower" David L. Lewis, Ph.D.
...


My attempts to discredit Deer? I don't have to attempt anything, Brian Deer did that himself without my help.

As for your other claims?... You are out of your mind... I have posted evidence that refutes your claims in this and another thread that deals with this topic in particular and what you have done continuously is claim none of the doctors, and specialists that refute your claims are experts...and you imply that none of the research that refutes your claims can be taken seriously...

When it is shown that Brian Deer has been lying, now you change your tune and try to claim that David L. Lewis, Ph.D. must also be lying and all your evidence is that Lewis decided to work for a company that is taking seriously the concerns of parents, doctors, researchers and specialists which refute your claims?... is that your evidence?...



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?

Was it Brian Deer who decided Wakefield committed fraud and was unethical?
No.
He uncovered evidence to say he might have and the BMC took it from there.



Riight... Deer has made many claims which were false. He claimed and I quote:

I personally interviewed 1, 2...3 families of the 12. Ah, somebody else...2 others were interviewed on my behalf by other journalists. That's 5 of the 12... Oh no wait... I...I..I do.. I , I have had conversations with another. So, it's quite a substantial number...
That's from the interview that CNN did with Deer.

BTW, it is not my intention to make fun at any possible speech disorder that Deer may have, or may not have. In other interviews he speaks without any noticeable impediment. Anyway, my intention is to post exactly what Brian Deer has claimed which doesn't seem to corroborate what the parents of the 12 children of the original Lancet study actually say. I am certain that the parents are not lying, and it has been Brian Deer who has been lying.




Deer's claim included that the parents were led to believe by Wakefield that the MMR vaccine was the link, when it was the parents who from the start say the vaccine seemed to be the trigger. The parents sought legal aid, and the legal aid hired Wakefield and colleagues to see if there was such a link.

If you want to see what the REAL parents of the 12 Lancet children have to say, here is a couple of videos and what they actually have to say.



The video above shows one of the parents reading a letter that 8 of the 12 parents signed which was written to the GMC. (2 other parents of the 12 children were non-traceable, 1 was oversea and one emailed their support) Deer claims that between him and some other journalists they interviewed 6 of the 12 parents/families, and that's not what the parents say. Also watch what the parents have to say about the claims that Wakefield and the other doctors did unnecessary probing on the children, and see what they say whether or not it was necessary.



Again, Brian Deer has been lying from the beginning. He claimed to have been an investigative journalist for the Sunday Times of London, which is false. He was not part of the Sunday Times staff, and from there on he has kept on lying.



originally posted by: Pardon?
And you say you "can't find the study".
Took me about 30 seconds to find it.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


I am pretty certain i wrote "so far i didn't find the Lancet study" (something like that)... I was posting the evidence as I was finding it, and included in that post that would continue posting more evidence...

Yet again, you try to dismiss the evidence which refutes your claims by making personal attacks... Nice try...

BTW, thank you for posting the link to the paper...

As to your last claim whether or not Wakefield and the other doctors conducted the studies without approval?... If that was true I wonder why ONLY WAKEFIELD was punished when the other doctors also performed the studies and probed the children...



So I'll take you back to the question I asked initially.
Was it Brian Deer who provided the evidence and tried Wakefield?
No it wasn't was it?
The GMC did that. Do you think they would take a journalist's word for it or do you think they would look into what happened properly?

It wasn't only Wakefield who was punished, Walker-Smith was too.
But Wakefield was guilty of a few other things wasn't he?
Non-declaration of the sum he was paid by the solicitors.
Accepting legal-aid payments for NHS procedures (only Wakefield).
Misappropriating legal-aid payments (only Wakefield).
Non-declaration of a competing interest (his "Transfer Factor").(only Wakefield)
Performing investigations without ethics committee approval (it really doesn't matter what the parents say about this at all. Parents are parents, if they've been convinced that a procedure may help their children they will agree to it. That still doesn't make the procedure ethical nor necessary).
Misrepresenting the findings of the paper (only Wakefield).
And then there's this...(nasty)
"In relation to the administration of Transfer Factor to Child 10, the Panel noted
the admitted background of Dr Wakefield’s involvement in a company set up
with Child 10’s father as Managing Director, to produce and sell Transfer
Factor. Around the same time, Dr Wakefield inappropriately caused Child 10
to be administered transfer factor. The Panel accepted that information as to
its safety had been obtained and that the approval to administer Transfer
Factor to one child was granted in the form of “Chairman’s approval”, “on a
named patient basis” in a letter from Dr Geoffrey Lloyd, Chairman of the
Medical Advisory Committee at the Royal Free Hospital. Nonetheless the
Panel found that Dr Wakefield was at fault because the substance was given
for experimental reasons, he did not cause the details to be recorded in the
child’s records, or cause the general practitioner to be informed, and he did
not have the requisite paediatric qualifications.
Dr Wakefield’s actions were contrary to the clinical interests of Child 10 and
an abuse of his position of trust as a medical practitioner. The Panel
considered these to be serious departures from the standards of a registered
medical practitioner and concluded that these amounted individually and
collectively to serious professional misconduct."


There's a few more reason too.
They're all here
dl.dropboxusercontent.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?

I'll take your attempt to discredit Brian Deer and I'll raise you this about "whistleblower" David L. Lewis, Ph.D.
...


My attempts to discredit Deer? I don't have to attempt anything, Brian Deer did that himself without my help.

As for your other claims?... You are out of your mind... I have posted evidence that refutes your claims in this and another thread that deals with this topic in particular and what you have done continuously is claim none of the doctors, and specialists that refute your claims are experts...and you imply that none of the research that refutes your claims can be taken seriously...

When it is shown that Brian Deer has been lying, now you change your tune and try to claim that David L. Lewis, Ph.D. must also be lying and all your evidence is that Lewis decided to work for a company that is taking seriously the concerns of parents, doctors, researchers and specialists which refute your claims?... is that your evidence?...

Again, was it Brian Deer who tried Wakefield?
No. It wasn't was it?

You may have posted what you consider "evidence" in this and other threads which I've refuted and not just by claiming that the "doctors" and "specialists" (specialists? really?) aren't experts. I've looked at the content and come to the conclusion that it's not evidence.
Conversely, irrespective of the evidence put towards you, not only haven't you been able to refute them you simply ignore them.
There's the difference.

I don't believe I've said that Lewis is lying. You shouldn't put words in others mouths, makes you look dishonest.
What I've pointed out is a massive conflict of interest which may skew what he writes.
As for NVIC being concerned about patients, it isn't.
It's a Mercola funded vehicle designed solely to undermine medicine and ultimately benefit Mercola.

Thick as thieves and twice as dishonest.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: FluffyCannibal
What about the ones who can't?


Then they or their parent needs to take the proper precautions in life, like, say, don't take your kid to Disneyland during the height of winter-illness season. Also, those who are infected with a highly contagious disease also need to take the proper precautions in order to avoid infecting people as much as possible.


It's not like you're wearing a sign above your head stating that you haven't been vaccinated, so how are they to know? Would you be happy to disclose your vaccination status to people around you? Would you be happy for, let's say your employer, to keep a record of whether or not you've been vaccinated so that any immuno-compromised colleagues you may have can be kept away from you and the potential danger you could pose to them? After all, as they can't vaccinate then surely they have a right to stay away from those that haven't been vaccinated, in order to try and ensure their own safety.


I don't come to work when I'm sick, specifically so that I don't expose people to a contagious illness. Call me crazy.

But, no, there is no "right" to stay away from sick people if you have a job and you need to work and get paid, just as in society there is no "right" to expect to stay away from sick people in public. Of course, they could always ask to work from home (if possible) or take a sick day, but others should not have to be ostracized because an individual may have such a medical condition, and honestly, it's quite ridiculous to assume so.

But like I say--measles, which is what this is all about, isn't a major issue for the vast majority of Americans. Just like if you have immune-system issues, if there is a likelihood of catching a contagious disease that is going around, you take precautions, but what you don't do is rely on other people to take precautions for you. If they do, cool, but that should not be an expectation held by anyone. If it is, they don't understand how the world works.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Incomplete comment?

Why, suddenly, do you want to talk about deaths again? I thought you didn't want to focus on that...and like the stats say, no deaths in America since 1993. That's over half of my lifetime that no one in America has died from the disease. You can keep beating this dead horse, or just accept the fact that, with the variables of my highly functioning immune system and very good health, I have no intentions of continuing the boosters.

You know, I'm not anti-vax, I'm just pro-personal choice in the matter...like choosing to quit discussing this merry-go-round topic.

Best Regards...and hopefully I won't forget to stop replying like I did last time I claimed I was done.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Then they or their parent needs to take the proper precautions in life, like, say, don't take your kid to Disneyland during the height of winter-illness season. Also, those who are infected with a highly contagious disease also need to take the proper precautions in order to avoid infecting people as much as possible.


So people shouldn't go out in public if they don't want to get sick? Right, got it.




I don't come to work when I'm sick, specifically so that I don't expose people to a contagious illness. Call me crazy.

But, no, there is no "right" to stay away from sick people if you have a job and you need to work and get paid, just as in society there is no "right" to expect to stay away from sick people in public. Of course, they could always ask to work from home (if possible) or take a sick day, but others should not have to be ostracized because an individual may have such a medical condition, and honestly, it's quite ridiculous to assume so.


But it's ok to ostracize people with medical conditions by making them stay away from you (which, if you re-read my post is what I was saying - keep them away from you, not the other way around)? And you're working under the assumption that you know you're sick before you become contagious, but with a lot of illnesses that is far from true.



But like I say--measles, which is what this is all about, isn't a major issue for the vast majority of Americans. Just like if you have immune-system issues, if there is a likelihood of catching a contagious disease that is going around, you take precautions, but what you don't do is rely on other people to take precautions for you. If they do, cool, but that should not be an expectation held by anyone. If it is, they don't understand how the world works.


Firstly, I'm referring to any disease that is potentially preventable through vaccinations. Secondly, I'm not expecting you to take care of my health. I'm asking you to recognise that what you said about people getting vaccinated if that's what they want to do is a load of #. There are plenty of people out there whose health and wellbeing depends heavily on that of the ones around them. And they have a right to know if or when they are potentially being put at risk.
edit on 3-3-2015 by FluffyCannibal because: To clarify a point



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: FluffyCannibal
So people shouldn't go out in public if they don't want to get sick? Right, got it.


Not what I said at all--I said that they should take proper precautions. People with compromised immune systems go out in public all the time and don't get sick and die. Stop being a two-extremes type of person and use a little constructive thinking, and I'm sure you'll figure out some solutions without needing me to spoonfeed them to you.


But it's ok to ostracize people with medical conditions by making them stay away from you (which, if you re-read my post is what I was saying - keep them away from you, not the other way around)? And you're working under the assumption that you know you're sick before you become contagious, but with a lot of illnesses that is far from true.


Your last sentence, while true, is not the assumption I made at all. I've repeatedly said that they should take proper precautions--they can still come in to work, but if they know they're succeptible to infections, they would already know how to reduce the possibility of infection, whether you grasp the 'how' behind that or not.

As for ostracizing--I never said they needed to be ostracized, I said they could choose between different options to protect themselves. Don't worry, they'd know how to handle their own life, so I don't need to explain it in detail to you just to satisfy your quest to try and trap me in a revolving discussion that has no end.


Firstly, I'm referring to any disease that is potentially preventable through vaccinations. Secondly, I'm not expecting you to take care of my health. I'm asking you to recognise that what you said about people getting vaccinated if that's what they want to do is a load of #. There are plenty of people out there whose health and wellbeing depends heavily on that of the ones around them. And they have a right to know if or when they are potentially being put at risk.


Firstly, I'm only talking about the MMR vaccine, but everything I say about personal choice--whether it be to vaccinate if possible, or to take personal precautions if it's not--is still absolutely valid across the board. The "right to know" if they're potentially at risk is answered in the fact that they cannot undergo the vaccination process. They know they're at risk because they can't be vaccinated. This isn't as difficult a scenario to understand as you are making it out to be, nor is it as big a "load of #" as you're claiming. Also, if you're going to claim that "there are plenty of people out there whose health and wellbeing depends heavily on that of the ones around them," could you provide a link and a number or percentage of the population? I'm willing to bet it's not as high as you're randomly inferring, but if you're going to make such claims, you really should back them up to keep this discussion factual.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

You've missed a few key points.

He had patented an alternative to the triple vaccine 9 months PRIOR to releasing the results of his "study".


No, it is you who has missed the point. He asked for permission to investigate THE POTENTIAL of the use of the Transfer Factor for treatment to the Free Royal. It wasn't a made deal, and the company wasn't even started when the Lancet paper was published. Wakefield asked permission to start the company and do the research into a POTENTIAL USE after the Lancet paper was published. I guess you didn't know that clinical research can provide results... Medical research can lead to potential treatments and even to possible cures... Not to mention that parent 10 was the one who drafted the document, but I am guessing you are going to try to imply the parent was in it to make money and not to try to help his child?

Do tell me, how do you disclose that a patent you made could be a conflict of interest when he still needed to do research to see if it could be used in cases like those children of the Lancet 12 research study?

More so on the patent which was later found not to work as intended?...

Dr. Wakefield, and colleagues wanted to help the parents, and the children, and the claims that they did not seek permission from the ethics commission is patently false.



originally posted by: Pardon?

There were ONLY 12 subjects in it, hardly a study at all, more a series of case reports.
...



Wow, your attempts of dismissing the findings of the paper come as no surprise to me at all... You have made similar claims in the past on at least one other thread dealing with this topic, and even in this thread. To EVERY research paper that refutes your claims...

First of all, neither Wakefield, nor anyone here pointed to the Lancet paper as "definitive proof"... But like so many other research studies on this subject, from before and after the Lancet paper it showed that this possible connection needed to be looked into. Instead it was being dismissed, just like you keep doing to every research paper that differs from your claims that all vaccines are perfectly safe.

BTW, there were other children who were part of other research done by Wakefield and colleagues. Not to mention the fact that several other medical research teams from all over the world found the link that Wakefield and colleagues had found.


originally posted by: Pardon?
He was paid over £400,000 to testify as a professional witness against the pharma company who made the MMR (this was never declared to the Lancet when he published his "study" btw. Conflict of interest maybe?).


He did declare it to Dr. Horton. BTW... as for the claim that Horton was not aware of this...


...
When Richard Horton appeared before the GMC hearing in 2007 to give evidence, the defence relied upon his answers in cross examination to put together a picture of when he first knew of Dr Wakefield's involvement with Richard Barr of Dawbarns the lawyer who handled the case for the MMR claimants. Since Horton's cross examination, however, papers have come to light which identify more exactly the time Horton first knew of Dr Wakefield's involvement with Dawbarnes and the Legal Aid Board. This new information castes doubt on the veracity of Richard Horton's evidence to the GMC.

In 1995 Dawbarns solicitors were appointed by the Legal Aid Board to manage the claims arising from immunisation with the MMR combined live vaccine. As part of their efforts to learn and inform their clients about the vaccine, Dawbarns through Richard Barr and Kirsten Limb prepared a factsheet about the vaccine which they distributed primarily to their clients. Over time this factsheet grew in size as more information and research came to light.

Whilst it was intended primarily for clients, requests for copies came from medical practitioners, from the pharmaceutical industry and even from the government departments charged with looking at vaccine safety. The factsheet attempted to present the situation fairly, but it was not uncritical of the lack of information and what appeared to be misinformation provided by the government in vaccine issues.

In the first quarter of 1997 a Dr B.D. Edwards, a member of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) wrote to Dr Richard Horton, bringing to his attention the fact that text and tables from various Lancet papers were being reproduced in the Dawbarns Fact Sheet. Consequently Ms Limb received a phone call from Sarah Quick of the Lancet on 19 th March 1997. In that telephone conversation Miss Quick said that Dawbarns should apply for retrospective permission to reproduce the Lancet material. She indicated that there should be no problem about granting permission.

Richard Barr wrote to the Lancet explaining Dawbarns' position in a letter on 3 rd April 1997 . The letter makes it clear that Barr worked for Dawbarns solicitors and that he was involved in litigation related to potential damage to children following exposure to MMR and MR vaccines. In the letter, Barr references Wakefield's work on MMR and autism and draws Horton's attention to this work. Barr took Horton directly to the text that describes his working relationship with Dawbarns.
...

www.whale.to...

Then there is the fact that the money that was used for the research was never touched by Wakefield.


...
In relation to the £55,000, the prosecution had always maintained, wrongly, that this money was paid directly to Dr Wakefield so that he might carry out research. In fact, the £55,000 was paid in two parts, to another research worker at the Royal Free Hospital. The money was banked with and dispensed by, the Special Trustees of the Hospital and was never actually touched by Dr Wakefield.
...

www.whale.to...

As for being an expert witness and getting paid for it?... Do you plan to claim that every expert that has ever been hired as an "expert witness" are paid to make false claims?... Really?...

Not to mention that the £435,643 in fees and £3910 in expenses from legal aid funds were for a period covering over an 8-10 year period...

Let's see if there you are actually just grabbing at straw-mans...


Thursday 1 May 2014 15.08 EDT
Criminal case faces collapse following legal aid cuts for medical experts
Dozens of neurologists decline to give advice about defendant's fitness to stand trial after legal aid fee cut by £18 an hour

A criminal prosecution has been put in danger of collapse because dozens of medical experts have declined to give advice about a defendant's fitness to stand trial following deep cuts in their fees.

The case, which cannot be identified, suggests growing resistance among professional witnesses to reduced legal aid rates, a stance that could undermine the criminal justice process.

Neurologists were, until December last year, being paid about £90 an hour but their fees have now been reduced to £72 an hour with no travelling expenses. Even though in this case they are being offered the older, higher fee, a total of 27 neurologists have declined to take on the legal aid work, according to lawyers representing the defendant.
...

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
BTW, yes I know that the last link I gave is from 2004. But noting how in that paper it even says that medical experts can charge up to £200 an hour and the regulation was amended in 2013... It shows how it isn't out of the question that Wakefield would have been paid about £43,563 - £54,455 a year... I guess that' out of the question for you?...


...
Medical consultants, who can charge more than £200 an hour for private work, suffered fee reductions through economies brought in by the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
...

www.theguardian.com...

BTW, as for conflicts of interest... How about this?...


...
In 2007, it was revealed that the Chair of the Panel for the Wakefield hearing, chosen by the GMC, was Professor Dennis McDevitt. Just before the hearing began Professor McDevitt was challenged by parents over undisclosed interests when previously unseen minutes of a meeting revealed that Professor McDevitt had been present at the 1988 JCVI meeting that approved Pluserix-MMR as safe for a product license. McDevitt continued to sit on the JCVI through 1991 when SKB were forced to withdraw Pluserix after serious adverse reactions were reported in a number of countries.



· In 2004, the High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis, in a closed hearing, rejected the appeals made on behalf of vaccine damaged children whose legal aid had been withdrawn for a coming court case, which would ultimately represent some 2,000 cases. Weeks after this decision had been made, John Stone reported that the Judge had failed to disclose that his brother was a non-executive board director of GSK, defendants in the case. The case had been in progress for nearly ten years and was only months away from it's hearing in the High Court. The science lobby groups funded by the drug companies and especially Lord Dick Taverne the founder of Sense About Science and previously a major PR handmaiden for the pharmaceutical industry had campaigned heavily to get legal aid taken from the parents. After John Stone publicised the conflict of interest, Brian Deer accused him of being 'cruel' to the scions of the Davis family.



· During Dr Wakefield's defense case the fact that Richard Horton's line manager at the Lancet, the Director of the Elsevier publishing company, was also a non executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, was reinforced. Dr Horton gave evidence claiming that Dr Wakefield had failed to provide him with evidence of his conflict of interest in relation to money that the Legal Aid Board had granted the Royal Free Hospital. This evidence did not appear to coincide with the historical record.[13] Dr Horton made no declaration at the beginning of his evidence that he was on speaking terms with one of the GSK directors or indeed that such a person acted as his line manager at the Lancet.
...

www.dmi.unipg.it...

Dr. Horton's Lancet line manager, Crispin Davis, the Director of the Elsevier publishing company, was also a non executive director of GlaxoSmithKline.


...
"Now it is obvious Dr. Horton's company has been grossly contaminated by special interests as biased as Dr. Ross's 'PharmaCouncil'," Dr. Horowitz said.

Reed-Elsevier-ChoicePoint, it turns out, is directed by Chief Executive Officer, Sir Crispin Davis, according to a Reuter's News Service promotion for GlaxoSmithKline recently published (www.reuters.com...). According to Forbes, Sir Davis was knighted by the Queen of England for his "service to the information industry." (people.forbes.com...) He has served as a Non-Executive Independent Director of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC since 2003. Sir Davis spent his early career with Procter & Gamble.

Reuter's News Service, key to the British "information industry," is directed by Editor-in-Chief, Thomas H. Glocer, who serves on the Board of Directors of Merck & Co., which admittedly paid Reed-Elsevier to publish pseudo-scientific articles and fraudulent medical journals, including the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.
en.wikipedia.org...
...


www.naturalnews.com...


The vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline had made MMR vaccines which were used in some of the Lancet 12 children. Even Brian Deer's information reflects that fact... How is that for "conflict of interest"?...


edit on 4-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct names and statement.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
originally posted by: TheDon
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

" What's the big deal? "




My hat goes off to you Sir


Glad to see someone has actually done some real research regarding this matter.

I to was very disappointed in the way NLBS approached the subject of vaccines and the links to autism.

As a parent with a son who is now 12 who has autism ( I have many kids btw), I saw when he was 2 years old and a normal toddler, have his vaccination and within a matter off weeks he changed.

I spent years fighting these people them telling me it was not the vaccine. But I know it was, So nobody or no matter off research is going to tell me otherwise. I saw it with my own eyes

I experienced it and now live with it, so all you nah sayers out there who want to believe there is no connection, you need to wake up.

OP, thanks for so great posts

S+F

Peace.


This is one hell of a big deal if you ask me!

SnF for the best thread I've ever read on ATS.

The owners should pay you!

edit on Ram30415v592015u08 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Should I mention again the fact that several other medical research studies from all over the globe have found the same links that Wakefield and colleagues found?


Dr James Le Fanu

12:01AM GMT 02 Mar 2004

The truth about MMR must be revealed, says Dr James Le Fanu

The Government finds itself in an invidious situation over the MMR/autism controversy, having painted itself into a corner by denying parents the option of the single measles vaccine. They, thus, have no alternative other than to insist the MMR is totally safe - irrespective of evidence that might emerge to suggest the contrary.

Their difficulty is that this position is now looking a lot shakier than it did even a year ago. Several further independent studies have confirmed the association of the syndrome of regressive autism with chronic bowel disorder that was originally described by Andrew Wakefield. More recently, research has confirmed the presence of the measles virus in the gut and spinal fluid of affected children.

This may not constitute "proof" and, indeed, a former colleague of Dr Wakefield challenged the significance of these findings in the Lancet a fortnight ago - and he may be right to do so. None the less, it is beginning to look as if, as neurologist Peter Harvey points out in the same issue, there is now "a step-by-step cascade of evidence" linking the MMR vaccine to some cases of autism.

This could explain the assault on Dr Wakefield's integrity. The validity of his original findings, it is claimed, may have been compromised by a conflict of interest involving research funds that he failed to disclose. This might be relevant if it were true, but it is not, as anyone can check for themselves: Dr Wakefield acknowledged the source of his funding in the Lancet in 1998. It would seem to be that neither the Government nor the medical establishment can afford for Dr Wakefield to be vindicated - and they are getting pretty desperate.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

We can even go back to the timeframe that Wakefield and colleagues published their Lancet paper and find similar reports. There were also reports showing this possible link even before the Lancet paper, and before Wakefield et al began to even study this.

In fact, among the many other research papers there is one from Japan in 2000 in which they even found the viral infection from vaccine strains in some of the kids they researched.


Dig Dis Sci. 2000 Apr;45(4):723-9.
Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism.
Kawashima H1, Mori T, Kashiwagi Y, Takekuma K, Hoshika A, Wakefield A.
Author information

Department of Paediatrics, Tokyo Medical University, Japan.

Abstract

It has been reported that measles virus may be present in the intestine of patients with Crohn's disease. Additionally, a new syndrome has been reported in children with autism who exhibited developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms (autistic enterocolitis), in some cases soon after MMR vaccine. It is not known whether the virus, if confirmed to be present in these patients, derives from either wild strains or vaccine strains. In order to characterize the strains that may be present, we have carried out the detection of measles genomic RNA in peripheral mononuclear cells (PBMC) in eight patients with Crohn's disease, three patients with ulcerative colitis, and nine children with autistic enterocolitis. As controls, we examined healthy children and patients with SSPE, SLE, HIV-1 (a total of eight cases). RNA was purified from PBMC by Ficoll-paque, followed by reverse transcription using AMV; cDNAs were subjected to nested PCR for detection of specific regions of the hemagglutinin (H) and fusion (F) gene regions. Positive samples were sequenced directly, in nucleotides 8393-8676 (H region) or 5325-5465 (from noncoding F to coding F region). One of eight patients with Crohn disease, one of three patients with ulcerative colitis, and three of nine children with autism, were positive. Controls were all negative. The sequences obtained from the patients with Crohn's disease shared the characteristics with wild-strain virus. The sequences obtained from the patients with ulcerative colitis and children with autism were consistent with being vaccine strains. The results were concordant with the exposure history of the patients. Persistence of measles virus was confirmed in PBMC in some patients with chronic intestinal inflammation.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Let me post that last part again...


...
The sequences obtained from the patients with ulcerative colitis and children with autism were consistent with being vaccine strains. The results were concordant with the exposure history of the patients. Persistence of measles virus was confirmed in PBMC in some patients with chronic intestinal inflammation.


What the UK government was afraid of was that Wakefield's study could show that some of the children from the Lancet 12 were very probably infected with aseptic meningitis that the Urabe strain of the MMR vaccinne was known to have a high risk to cause.

In fact the government of the UK, and their health officials had given indemnization to vaccine manufacturers from any side effects caused from the MMR vaccine, and in specific from the Urabe strain vaccine which was known to be unsafe yet was used from 1988-1992.

(continued below.)


edit on 4-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
BTW, in case you didn't know Pardon?, aseptic meningitis can cause inflammation of the lining of the brain.


Aseptic meningitis is an illness characterized by serous inflammation of the linings of the brain (i.e., meninges), usually with an accompanying mononuclear pleocytosis. Clinical manifestations vary, with headache and fever predominating. The illness is usually mild and runs its course without treatment; however, some cases can be severe and life threatening.
...

emedicine.medscape.com...

AND...


...
The virus also is found in the stool (bowel movement) of people who are infected with enteroviruses. It is spread this way mainly by young children who are not toilet trained, or by adults who change the diapers of infected babies. Good hand washing (thoroughly and often) is important to prevent the spread of the viruses that cause meningitis.


Read more: www.humanillnesses.com...


...
Enteroviruses are by far the most common causes of aseptic meningitis in children. In the United States, enteroviruses are responsible for 30,000 to 50,000 meningitis hospitalizations per year as a result of 30 million to 50 million infections.
...


Encephalitis (swelling of the brain) is a rare manifestation of enterovirus infection.



edit on 4-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Thanks a lot for the comment. A lot of other members have been helping as well in this tread by posting information they found themselves.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   
BTW "pardon?" You seem to love to post statistics trying to downplay the rise of children with autism. Now the cases are 1 in 64 for U.S. children to develop autism. Something is causing a trigger. Meanwhile certain vaccines are not the sole trigger, more and more research points to those vaccines you claim are "perfectly safe" could very well be one of the main triggers for the autism epidemic, and other neurological disorders as well as other health problems.

In fact, the figures are really alarming.

If we take for example the rise in cases of autism in children 3-5 years of age in California from 2000-2012



lbrbblog.files.wordpress.com...

Then we have the fact that despite vaccine manufacturers like Merck claiming their vaccines are safer now, we know they have been lying and publishing false information. But of course, like always "pardon?" and a few others will continue to deny all of this...

What I find very interesting is the fact that in the other thread dealing with this subject you try to dismiss several research studies because they say "there is a possibility that vaccines may cause autism, other neurological problems and other health problems. Now you are claiming that Wakefield using similar statements means that he was saying for certain that vaccines do cause these problems?... You like to flip-flop your argument when it fits your agenda...


edit on 4-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?

You've missed a few key points.

He had patented an alternative to the triple vaccine 9 months PRIOR to releasing the results of his "study".


No, it is you who has missed the point. He asked for permission to investigate THE POTENTIAL of the use of the Transfer Factor for treatment to the Free Royal. It wasn't a made deal, and the company wasn't even started when the Lancet paper was published. Wakefield asked permission to start the company and do the research into a POTENTIAL USE after the Lancet paper was published. I guess you didn't know that clinical research can provide results... Medical research can lead to potential treatments and even to possible cures... Not to mention that parent 10 was the one who drafted the document, but I am guessing you are going to try to imply the parent was in it to make money and not to try to help his child?

Do tell me, how do you disclose that a patent you made could be a conflict of interest when he still needed to do research to see if it could be used in cases like those children of the Lancet 12 research study?
More so on the patent which was later found not to work as intended?...
Dr. Wakefield, and colleagues wanted to help the parents, and the children, and the claims that they did not seek permission from the ethics commission is patently false.

originally posted by: Pardon?
There were ONLY 12 subjects in it, hardly a study at all, more a series of case reports.
...

Wow, your attempts of dismissing the findings of the paper come as no surprise to me at all... You have made similar claims in the past on at least one other thread dealing with this topic, and even in this thread. To EVERY research paper that refutes your claims...

First of all, neither Wakefield, nor anyone here pointed to the Lancet paper as "definitive proof"... But like so many other research studies on this subject, from before and after the Lancet paper it showed that this possible connection needed to be looked into. Instead it was being dismissed, just like you keep doing to every research paper that differs from your claims that all vaccines are perfectly safe.

BTW, there were other children who were part of other research done by Wakefield and colleagues. Not to mention the fact that several other medical research teams from all over the world found the link that Wakefield and colleagues had found.

originally posted by: Pardon?
He was paid over £400,000 to testify as a professional witness against the pharma company who made the MMR (this was never declared to the Lancet when he published his "study" btw. Conflict of interest maybe?).

He did declare it to Dr. Horton. BTW... as for the claim that Horton was not aware of this...

...
When Richard Horton appeared before the GMC hearing in 2007 to give evidence, the defence relied upon his answers in cross examination to put together a picture of when he first knew of Dr Wakefield's involvement with Richard Barr of Dawbarns the lawyer who handled the case for the MMR claimants. Since Horton's cross examination, however, papers have come to light which identify more exactly the time Horton first knew of Dr Wakefield's involvement with Dawbarnes and the Legal Aid Board. This new information castes doubt on the veracity of Richard Horton's evidence to the GMC.
In 1995 Dawbarns solicitors were appointed by the Legal Aid Board to manage the claims arising from immunisation with the MMR combined live vaccine. As part of their efforts to learn and inform their clients about the vaccine, Dawbarns through Richard Barr and Kirsten Limb prepared a factsheet about the vaccine which they distributed primarily to their clients. Over time this factsheet grew in size as more information and research came to light.
Whilst it was intended primarily for clients, requests for copies came from medical practitioners, from the pharmaceutical industry and even from the government departments charged with looking at vaccine safety. The factsheet attempted to present the situation fairly, but it was not uncritical of the lack of information and what appeared to be misinformation provided by the government in vaccine issues.
In the first quarter of 1997 a Dr B.D. Edwards, a member of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) wrote to Dr Richard Horton, bringing to his attention the fact that text and tables from various Lancet papers were being reproduced in the Dawbarns Fact Sheet. Consequently Ms Limb received a phone call from Sarah Quick of the Lancet on 19 th March 1997. In that telephone conversation Miss Quick said that Dawbarns should apply for retrospective permission to reproduce the Lancet material. She indicated that there should be no problem about granting permission.
Richard Barr wrote to the Lancet explaining Dawbarns' position in a letter on 3 rd April 1997 . The letter makes it clear that Barr worked for Dawbarns solicitors and that he was involved in litigation related to potential damage to children following exposure to MMR and MR vaccines. In the letter, Barr references Wakefield's work on MMR and autism and draws Horton's attention to this work. Barr took Horton directly to the text that describes his working relationship with Dawbarns.
...

www.whale.to...
Then there is the fact that the money that was used for the research was never touched by Wakefield.

...
In relation to the £55,000, the prosecution had always maintained, wrongly, that this money was paid directly to Dr Wakefield so that he might carry out research. In fact, the £55,000 was paid in two parts, to another research worker at the Royal Free Hospital. The money was banked with and dispensed by, the Special Trustees of the Hospital and was never actually touched by Dr Wakefield.
...

www.whale.to...
As for being an expert witness and getting paid for it?... Do you plan to claim that every expert that has ever been hired as an "expert witness" are paid to make false claims?... Really?...
Not to mention that the £435,643 in fees and £3910 in expenses from legal aid funds were for a period covering over an 8-10 year period...

Nope.
He filed for a patent prior to publishing the study in 1997. He also re-filed it just after the study was published in June 1998.
That's not "asking for permission" is it?
Here's the patent application sourced through the UK Patent archives.
Wak efield's Patent

He also gave a press conference claiming that a single vaccine was safer than the MMR even though the study didn't claim that. There's a video around of his actual conference (and why did he ask for a press conference for a study of such a small nature....was it to help him with his legal evidence...was it to help him promote his Transfer Factor...very bizarre?)

"He declared his payment to Horton".
But it remained undeclared on the study itself.
Wakefield should and would have known this was likely to cause problems if it was omitted from the final publication



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?

You've missed a few key points.

He had patented an alternative to the triple vaccine 9 months PRIOR to releasing the results of his "study".


No, it is you who has missed the point. He asked for permission to investigate THE POTENTIAL of the use of the Transfer Factor for treatment to the Free Royal. It wasn't a made deal, and the company wasn't even started when the Lancet paper was published. Wakefield asked permission to start the company and do the research into a POTENTIAL USE after the Lancet paper was published. I guess you didn't know that clinical research can provide results... Medical research can lead to potential treatments and even to possible cures... Not to mention that parent 10 was the one who drafted the document, but I am guessing you are going to try to imply the parent was in it to make money and not to try to help his child?

Do tell me, how do you disclose that a patent you made could be a conflict of interest when he still needed to do research to see if it could be used in cases like those children of the Lancet 12 research study?

More so on the patent which was later found not to work as intended?...

Dr. Wakefield, and colleagues wanted to help the parents, and the children, and the claims that they did not seek permission from the ethics commission is patently false.



There was no ethics approval for the invasive testing.
The fact that it was a study looking for an association/case effect from the MMR meant they would never have had it approved.
That basic medical ethics rules.

Lets look at the patent abstract shall we?
WAKEFIELD ANDREW [GB]
Applicant:
WAKEFIELD ANDREW
CPC:
A61K38/19
G01N33/56983
G01N33/6893
IPC:
A61K38/19
A61P31/12
G01N33/569
(+2)
Publication info:
US6534259 (B1)
2003-03-18
Priority date:
1997-06-05
"The invention provides a method for the diagnosis of regressive behavioral disease (RBD) from a body derived sample, which method comprises performing an assay for persistent measles infection in said sample. The invention also concerns a pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of an MMR virus mediated disease comprising a transfer factor (TF) formed by the dialysis of virus-specific lymphocytes to a molecular weight filter cut-off of 12,500 disposed in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent therefore".

Where does it say that it is for research purposes only? It seems to be very clear that the Transfer Factor has already been produced.
Who's the application from btw?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
BTW, yes I know that the last link I gave is from 2004. But noting how in that paper it even says that medical experts can charge up to £200 an hour and the regulation was amended in 2013... It shows how it isn't out of the question that Wakefield would have been paid about £43,563 - £54,455 a year... I guess that' out of the question for you?...


...
Medical consultants, who can charge more than £200 an hour for private work, suffered fee reductions through economies brought in by the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
...

www.theguardian.com...

BTW, as for conflicts of interest... How about this?...


...
In 2007, it was revealed that the Chair of the Panel for the Wakefield hearing, chosen by the GMC, was Professor Dennis McDevitt. Just before the hearing began Professor McDevitt was challenged by parents over undisclosed interests when previously unseen minutes of a meeting revealed that Professor McDevitt had been present at the 1988 JCVI meeting that approved Pluserix-MMR as safe for a product license. McDevitt continued to sit on the JCVI through 1991 when SKB were forced to withdraw Pluserix after serious adverse reactions were reported in a number of countries.



· In 2004, the High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis, in a closed hearing, rejected the appeals made on behalf of vaccine damaged children whose legal aid had been withdrawn for a coming court case, which would ultimately represent some 2,000 cases. Weeks after this decision had been made, John Stone reported that the Judge had failed to disclose that his brother was a non-executive board director of GSK, defendants in the case. The case had been in progress for nearly ten years and was only months away from it's hearing in the High Court. The science lobby groups funded by the drug companies and especially Lord Dick Taverne the founder of Sense About Science and previously a major PR handmaiden for the pharmaceutical industry had campaigned heavily to get legal aid taken from the parents. After John Stone publicised the conflict of interest, Brian Deer accused him of being 'cruel' to the scions of the Davis family.



· During Dr Wakefield's defense case the fact that Richard Horton's line manager at the Lancet, the Director of the Elsevier publishing company, was also a non executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, was reinforced. Dr Horton gave evidence claiming that Dr Wakefield had failed to provide him with evidence of his conflict of interest in relation to money that the Legal Aid Board had granted the Royal Free Hospital. This evidence did not appear to coincide with the historical record.[13] Dr Horton made no declaration at the beginning of his evidence that he was on speaking terms with one of the GSK directors or indeed that such a person acted as his line manager at the Lancet.
...

www.dmi.unipg.it...

Dr. Horton's Lancet line manager, Crispin Davis, the Director of the Elsevier publishing company, was also a non executive director of GlaxoSmithKline.


...
"Now it is obvious Dr. Horton's company has been grossly contaminated by special interests as biased as Dr. Ross's 'PharmaCouncil'," Dr. Horowitz said.

Reed-Elsevier-ChoicePoint, it turns out, is directed by Chief Executive Officer, Sir Crispin Davis, according to a Reuter's News Service promotion for GlaxoSmithKline recently published (www.reuters.com...). According to Forbes, Sir Davis was knighted by the Queen of England for his "service to the information industry." (people.forbes.com...) He has served as a Non-Executive Independent Director of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC since 2003. Sir Davis spent his early career with Procter & Gamble.

Reuter's News Service, key to the British "information industry," is directed by Editor-in-Chief, Thomas H. Glocer, who serves on the Board of Directors of Merck & Co., which admittedly paid Reed-Elsevier to publish pseudo-scientific articles and fraudulent medical journals, including the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.
en.wikipedia.org...
...


www.naturalnews.com...


The vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline had made MMR vaccines which were used in some of the Lancet 12 children. Even Brian Deer's information reflects that fact... How is that for "conflict of interest"?...


If the prosecution was found to be influenced by GSK et al then they should be censured.

However, that's not really the concern.
The concern is his patent.
The concern is his non-declaration of funds (there's a line on research submissions where you put any funding and conflict of interest on. Why didn't he complete this?)
But mainly his lack of ethics approval which he knew he wouldn't have received even had he applied for it.




top topics



 
100
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join