It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them.
Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers.
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
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?
Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
The Lancet and BMJ has nothing to do with Big Pharma and they have no reason to lie about this.
Is Content of Medical Journals Related to Advertisements? Case-control Study
The number of advertisements in medical journals is enormous, competing frequently with the professional medical content (2,9).
. . . .
With rare exceptions, the sustainability of paper journals depends on the revenue from advertisements, mostly from the pharmaceutical industry (1,2). Even in the best journals the revenue from advertisements is higher than revenues from subscription (2), the relations with industry are not completely benign (3,4), and advertisers influence the content of journals (5).
Excessive and disproportionate advertising in peer-reviewed journals.
Advertising ratios (ratio of advertisements to editorial content) were near unity in NEJM and 0.30 in JAMA, compared with reported ratios of 0.15 among low-circulation specialty science journals and 0.80 among high-circulation consumer magazines. In both journals, five corporations placed more than 50% of all display advertisements. The findings suggest a dissonance between the ethical guidelines and the de facto advertising practices of arguably the two most important member journals of the ICMJE.
Journal rejects article after objections from marketing department
A leading nephrology journal has rejected a guest editorial questioning the efficacy of epoetin in end stage renal disease, despite favourable peer reviews, apparently because it feared losing advertising.
Originally posted by SunnyDee
Where are the clinical studies of kids that have not been vaccinated? Seems the most logical study to see if there is a link between autism and vaccines, yes?
Only study I've found so far is from an actual doctor that tends to the Amish, and he's found not one single case of autism, but I will not post it, since it is only one doctor of 35 years to the Amish, and someone will find that not to be good enough.
Will keep looking. Years ago, I found a study done in the Northwest, on non-vaccinated, that proved positively that there was no autism in any of the subjects, but it seems to have disappeared now, will keep looking, and post when/if I find it.
Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Xiamara
And exactly why I didn't use it as proof, just anecdotal.
Where are the studies for austism on non-vaccinated? That is the BIG question.
Strikingly, the survey found that while 3.01% of all vaccinated children had an ASD diagnosis, about 3.73% of all unvaccinated children did. That's right. The survey found autism to be more common among the unvaccinated.