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.

 

Follow-up to retracted MMR-autism "study"

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Though I'm sure I'll receive nothing but flames, threats, personal attacks, and more than a handful of nonsensical rants, I thought this article was worth posting for the few here who value science education.

I'm sure most who frequent this board recall the Wakefield study that tried it's best to link the MMR vaccine to autism, and then was later retracted for glaring flaws in methodology, data handling, and basic logic. The British Medical Journal has been investigating the study and it's author since this retraction and has found that, no only was the author incorrect, but he purposely manipulated data in a way that would favor his theory (and subsequently earn him some money from trials and consulting fees).

The BMJ has a series of articles on the subject. Below, I've linked the first of these articles, as well as quoted a few notable portions. It is also worth noting that there are references cited throughout the article, in case you want to verify information and data.

BMJ article


Claiming an undisclosed £150 (€180, $230) an hour through a Norfolk solicitor named Richard Barr, [Wakefield] had been confidentially put on the payroll two years before the paper was published, eventually grossing him £435 643, plus expenses.



That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.



The paper did not reveal that two of this trio were brothers, living 60 miles south of the hospital. Both had histories of fits and bowel problems recorded before their MMR vaccinations. The elder, child 6, aged 4 years at admission, had Asperger’s syndrome, which is distinct from autism under DSM-IV, is not regressive, and was confirmed on discharge. His brother, child 7, was admitted at nearly 3 years of age without a diagnosis, and a post-discharge letter from senior paediatric registrar and Lancet coauthor David Casson49 summarised: “He is not thought to have features of autism.”


These are just a few snippets from the first half of the article. It really is a very good and thorough read, providing well-sourced (both scientifically and legally) information regarding the true nature of the Wakefield study, as well as of Wakefield himself.

i encourage anyone interested in either side of the debate to read this.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

edit on 1/5/2011 by Mirthful Me because: EX Tags.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
"The only reason this is being brought up now, 13 years after the study, is because people are waking up to the truth. They know they are losing control of the populace to individual thought, and they will continue to pull out all the stops to maintain control. Watch for even more ridiculous revelations as they attempt to close the fist around the people. The truth will prevail- everyone just hang on this wild ride a little longer."

This is what I replied in the previous post on this subject. I stand firm in my position.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum Logic
 


So, your response is to avoid the information in the article, and instead post something that has nothing to do with the reality of the study or the findings of the investigation?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


go watch the utube video with the brain cells in a petri dish
that are subjected to micro amounts of mercury
then tell me mercury is safe
i personally know of two kids affected from this mmr vaccine
go look at the united nations ambitions on poulation reduction
then rethink your post
any study can be flawed
just look at the guy who ran studies for twenty years
he always gave the drug companies what they wanted
the answer they wanted
trust vaccines?
why give power to someone else to control what goes in your body?
depopulation?
perfect chance to control the population
agenda 21 go google it

xp



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So, you haven't read the article, then? Because not a SINGLE thing you've just said has anything to do with the article.
edit on 1/5/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
OP good work.

I'm sick of vaccine haters thinking that everyone with a mail order PhD is a medical doctor or professional. Its sad even when you throw the facts out on the table people refuse to look at it. I have a phobia of needles but I still get the mandatory ones and the ones that can save my life, chicken pox, measles, tetanus....

As for the comments on mercury, actually mercury is found in trace amounts in the human body already so are many "deadly" chemicals that in large doses kill us. Its level of toxicity that will kill you.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


No, it is not. I know what happened to my daughter when she received the vaccine, and it set her back mentally. She became very ill, disconnected, and lethargic. It was over 18 months before she returned to a "normal" behavior. I would expect anyone in the medical field to support the journals, since you blindly learn, believe, and follow whatever the establishment tells you. Good luck in your endeavors, for there is obviously no way to convince you otherwise.
edit on Thu Jan 6 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quantum Logic
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


since you blindly learn, believe, and follow whatever the establishment tells you. .


Ah, okay. Here's what I was looking for. You're a close-minded bigot. The final piece of the puzzle falls into place.
edit on 1/5/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)

edit on Thu Jan 6 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Shameless bump.

The data in the Wakefield study was hopelessly, even criminally flawed. Period. However, while I understand your frustration, you may want to consider refraining from personal attacks as a rebuttal; it discredits you. Besides, most of these people are very frightened parents who desperately need for there to be a reason that can be remedied for what they see in their children. They want simple cause and effect, because then there may be a "cure", recompense, or just accountability... somewhere... Anywhere really. It's counterproductive to argue with an emotionally based reactionary response.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by redhorse
 


I completely understand that some people here are likely to be frightened parents. That being said, generalizing myself and those I work with as "blindly" doing anything ticks me off just a tad. It's like they think ALL doctors must be cookie-cutter copies, but surely those against vaccines aren't...right?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Amazing. S & F. Ironically my son was just included as a study case in the BMJ you mention. His picture as well as a synopsis of his diagnosis is included along with that of another young boy with similarities of the particular genetic anomoly. The same feature is also included next week at a lecture near Baylor University and is repeated about once every month since the BMJ entry about 6 months ago.

Simons Simplex Foundation is an excellent resource on the subject of genetics as related to autism and such.

As far as MMR is concerned I think that it in itself is not the cause of the disease but possibly a trigger to specific vulnerable genes. Otherwise everyone who received the vaccine would acquire it.
edit on 5-1-2011 by csimon because: Should have read the full thread.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by Quantum Logic
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


since you blindly learn, believe, and follow whatever the establishment tells you. .


Ah, okay. Here's what I was looking for. You're a close-minded bigot. The final piece of the puzzle falls into place.
edit on 1/5/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)


It did not take long for the name calling to begin. You have only reinforced my stance all the more. Nice try, but I do not fall for bait so easily, hence the final line of my previous response to you.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum Logic
 


If you'll note, I was merely responding to your ad hominems in kind. Nice try, though.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

Ah those journalists who are ambushing the MMR autism study,


Just so you know i am agaisnt all forms of vaccines including the autism vaccine.

CNN Anderson Cooper had the guy on the show and another guy which attacked him for the study claiming the study is false, yet claiming the British experts say the autism vaccine is safe without any proof, it was on CNN a while ago.

edit on 5-1-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

Just so you know i am agaisnt all forms of vaccines including the autism vaccine.

edit on 5-1-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

The autism vaccine - are you serious?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


What journalists are you talking about? How is writing a well-sourced, evidence-based article "ambushing"?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


What journalists are you talking about? How is writing a well-sourced, evidence-based article "ambushing"?


What evidence? you mean evidence from the The British Medical Journal and a British journalist Brian Deer i believe the vaccinations do cause autism in children.

This is one of the ways drug companies will try to defend themselves agaisnt by calling the studies a fraud.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


So, you haven't looked at the article, then? If you had, you would know that every single fact in the article is followed by a reference to an study or previous work supporting it. That's how actual science writing works. You state something as a fact, and then support it. I understand this is a bit of a novelty to the conspiracy lot.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


I just have a quick question for you. What solidifies your evidence? What makes your evidence right vs. this evidence disproving it? There are multiple studies for both sides. Both have holes, both have good points. Using personal experience is a case study and cannot be taken as fact. Its an individual vs. a group.

Anyone claiming they had a child get autism from the vaccine, well prove the vaccine did it. What is your evidence? By getting the shot then seeing the end result isn't necessarily causation.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I just found this article and was going to make a thread. Made a search and found this


Great job OP, S&F.

Great thread, but I suggest you change the title to: MMR Vaccine Autism Link Debunked, or something along those lines. ATS readers does not react well to non-tabloid headlines

I think that will give the thread the attention it deserves, the fear mongerers should shut up or come up with some evidence.

The Lancet retracted the article and now BMJ comes with a follow-up article that explains why, and it shows everyone the clear evidence of tampering with evidence.

The Lancet and BMJ has nothing to do with Big Pharma and they have no reason to lie about this.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join