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.
Rubinstein
If someone gets an autoimmune disease directly after vaccination, by default it's logical to assume it was caused by the vaccine unless anyone can prove it wasn't, in the same way as if someone is run over by a car we assume the car caused their broken bones unless there is other evidence available.
OneManArmy
Im desperate for you to prove me wrong.
All im doing is providing my evidence for "fear mongering" in the face of official statistics, if thats ridiculous, then Im sorry.edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmSat, 23 Nov 2013 13:12:44 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)
Pardon?
You comment is very wrong.
It's completely ILLOGICAL to assume anything in diagnosing any medical condition otherwise you could miss the actual reason.
redshoes
reply to post by Rubinstein
Many scientists have studied the statistics, generated experiments and published results. I'm prepared to rely on the thousands of researchers who support MMR than on a nameless sceen name, with as far as I can see no actual data of his own to back up his argument.
We're not talking about aliens or space NAZIs or the holy grail here, where the facts cannot be isolated and proven or debunked, we are discussing facts that can be verified by science.
As to the big Pharma argument, There is as much commercial reward in proving a link between MMR and disproving one. If the only motive for a conspiracy by big pharma is an economic one, it would surely prove more profitable to manufacture and administer six injections, rather than two.
OneManArmy
Rubinstein
If someone gets an autoimmune disease directly after vaccination, by default it's logical to assume it was caused by the vaccine unless anyone can prove it wasn't, in the same way as if someone is run over by a car we assume the car caused their broken bones unless there is other evidence available.
Tis a point humorously made.
I chuckled.
Pardon?
OneManArmy
Im desperate for you to prove me wrong.
All im doing is providing my evidence for "fear mongering" in the face of official statistics, if thats ridiculous, then Im sorry.edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmSat, 23 Nov 2013 13:12:44 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)
How can you be proven wrong if you're not right in the first place?
And your "evidence" proves nothing you're trying to say.
But let's take a step back here.
Your first post states that "My daughter has autism...yes she has had the MMR...Dr Wakefields career has been destroyed, maybe he was right all along. Regardless of what you think. "(I'll come back to Wakefield...)
Then you post a couple of links about MMR & autism and basically saying "Well I had measles and I'm alright (Jack)".
Then another autism/MMR link.
maybe
ˈmeɪbiː,-bi/Submit
adverb
1.
perhaps; possibly.
"maybe I won't go back"
synonyms: perhaps, possibly, conceivably, it could be (that), it is possible (that), for all one knows; More
noun
noun: maybe; plural noun: maybes
1.
a mere possibility or probability.
"no ifs, buts, or maybes"
But later on you post that you know the MMR doesn't cause autism.
So why post those links then?
A later post mentions fear-mongering (but you're posting links trying to show an MMR/autism link, if that's not fear-mongering, what is?)
The you start your back-tracking about your daughter and the MMR jab.
Then you chide someone for fear-mongering and then you whip out your "evidence" i.e. an unsubstantiated report in a newspaper...and a very unbalanced comparison of measles and vaccine complications. You top this off with a lie about measles being eradicated prior to vaccination.
Then it's a bit of cat & mouse and obfuscation by you over your anti-vax credentials although the outcome of that is obvious in the extreme.
You keep on saying that you're a concerned parent yet you dismiss out of hand the statistics on people who have been harmed or killed as a result of NOT being vaccinated.
Even though the evidence tells you that there is far less harm having the vaccine than not having it.
The evidence also tells you that there is absolutely no benefit in having single jabs.
Yet you bang on about having the single jabs...(even though that means you would rather give your child 3 needles rather than one (why?) even though it's the measles component both in the single variant and the MMR which can give a fever.
You're dismissal of any evidence which supports MMR but when a certain poster (who's very less than credible) posts a list of anti-vax stuff you exclaim "Hooray! That's what I'm looking for!".
Very balanced of you indeed.
You say you don't go on anti-vax sites then you post a link from Age of Autism which is probably THE most extreme of any anti-vax sites.
And you KNOW that autism isn't caused by MMR but you're happy to accept a report on an anti anti-vax doctor from a site that lies about the causes of autism...
You're really confused aren't you?
Going back to Wakefield again, it seems to me, judging from your comments that you are a supporter of his or at the very least a sympathiser.
That deceiving and conniving b*stard wasn't made an example of at all, as he should have been jailed for what he did to disabled children. He got off lightly.
I would really love to meet him face to face.
Irrespective of what anyone posts your mind is already made up (you effectively said so earlier) so why continue with the charade?
Yeah, you're a concerned parent alright.
A bit like I'm a professional footballer.
Rubinstein
To understand fully what's going on with MMR / Autism, we have to understand that the debate is no longer scientific, it is political, as is pointed out by Big Pharma Whistleblower and former UK Department of Health Chief Dr Peter Fletcher, he had access to documents which are not being released to the public, he is a distinguished man with over 40 years experience, every parent should take his warnings on board.
Dr Peter Fletcher, former UK Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health said
"it is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There's far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so."
...
"the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history"
...
"There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
....
"Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,"
Pardon?
Rubinstein
To understand fully what's going on with MMR / Autism, we have to understand that the debate is no longer scientific, it is political, as is pointed out by Big Pharma Whistleblower and former UK Department of Health Chief Dr Peter Fletcher, he had access to documents which are not being released to the public, he is a distinguished man with over 40 years experience, every parent should take his warnings on board.
Dr Peter Fletcher, former UK Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health said
"it is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There's far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so."
...
"the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history"
...
"There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
....
"Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,"
Fletcher, similar to Wakefield, likes gravy.
www.spiked-online.com...-2Fw
OneManArmy
OneManArmy
Pardon?
Rubinstein
To understand fully what's going on with MMR / Autism, we have to understand that the debate is no longer scientific, it is political, as is pointed out by Big Pharma Whistleblower and former UK Department of Health Chief Dr Peter Fletcher, he had access to documents which are not being released to the public, he is a distinguished man with over 40 years experience, every parent should take his warnings on board.
Dr Peter Fletcher, former UK Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health said
"it is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There's far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so."
...
"the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history"
...
"There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
....
"Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,"
Fletcher, similar to Wakefield, likes gravy.
www.spiked-online.com...-2Fw
With regards to Brian Deer, the main linked source for that article lead me to find this documentary, just for the sake of balance I post it here and have not yet watched it, but I will do right now.
Pardon?
As for your applauding the other posters sources, yeah, right.
As for only using AoA for a critical argument against Orac, yeah, right.
Pardon?
Fletcher, similar to Wakefield, likes gravy.
www.spiked-online.com...-2Fw
OneManArmy
Pardon?
As for your applauding the other posters sources, yeah, right.
As for only using AoA for a critical argument against Orac, yeah, right.
I also used 2 other sources as to the credibility of Orac.
I will not address your arguments any more, you are blind to the facts.
You are consistently using misdirection and other common shill tactics, like misrepresentation of the facts, and ridicule.(Doesnt make you a shill, but you use their tactics), I will not blatantly accuse you(unlike you), I will let the readers decide for themselves.
No amount of factual evidence will ever sway your opinion. Unlike you, as the facts change so does my opinion.
You have not admitted a single error or misrepresentation of facts in the face if "official" numbers.
You have provided no really credible evidence to back your claims, and as such I can only disregard what you have to say.
EDIT: Finally in the video I posted that is damning of Brian Deer, the very same parents of the "Lancet 12" who you claim are hard done by Andrew Wakefield (8 of the 12) are giving their own testimonies to how they have in your words been "wronged" it would appear that your claim is yet another blatant lie.
edit on 201311America/Chicago11am11amSun, 24 Nov 2013 09:13:40 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)
Accordingly the Panel has determined that Dr Wakefield’s name should be erased from the medical register. The Panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him.
Rubinstein
Well said, Brian Deer is a snake, he's a hired hitman used by the Pharmaceuticals to take out honest scientists who are damaging profits. Anyone who's examined the case will easily see what's happened, it's just a smear campaign, you could do the same to 99% of doctors if you wanted to and had enough money behind you. Wakefield was always known as one of the best, he still is, but Pharma don't want us to know that.
OneManArmy
Pardon?
As for your applauding the other posters sources, yeah, right.
As for only using AoA for a critical argument against Orac, yeah, right.
I also used 2 other sources as to the credibility of Orac.
I will not address your arguments any more, you are blind to the facts.
You are consistently using misdirection and other common shill tactics, like misrepresentation of the facts, and ridicule.(Doesnt make you a shill, but you use their tactics), I will not blatantly accuse you(unlike you), I will let the readers decide for themselves.
No amount of factual evidence will ever sway your opinion. Unlike you, as the facts change so does my opinion.
You have not admitted a single error or misrepresentation of facts in the face if "official" numbers.
You have provided no really credible evidence to back your claims, and as such I can only disregard what you have to say.
EDIT: Finally in the video I posted that is damning of Brian Deer, the very same parents of the "Lancet 12" who you claim are hard done by Andrew Wakefield (8 of the 12) are giving their own testimonies to how they have in your words been "wronged" it would appear that your claim is yet another blatant lie.
edit on 201311America/Chicago11am11amSun, 24 Nov 2013 09:13:40 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)
The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378).
Professor Sir Michael Rutter FRS of the Institute of Psychiatry in London gave expert evidence for the prosecution at the trial of Andrew Wakefield before the GMC in 2007. Sir Michael, an expert in conflicts disclosure, was of the opinion that even in 1997 when the Lancet paper was written, a researcher had an objective duty to disclose conflicting interests, both actual, and even those that might possibly be perceived as conflicts by a casual reader. [1] Professor Sir Michael's reason for the disclosure obligation, in 2007 and a decade earlier, was so that
... "the reader of the published research could judge for himself whether the quality of the reported science outweighs the potential for the conflict to bias the interpretation." [2]
However, the casual BMJ reader in January 2011 was not given the opportunity to judge the potential for the BMJ's conflicting interests to bias the editorial interpretation of Brian Deer's published research. Where are the competing interest corrections to the editorial, editor's choices and the published Deer research? "The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452)." But even the online reader is still unlikely to have the opportunity to honestly weigh up the potential for editorial bias in the interpretation of Deer's research.
[1] 'Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines - the truth behind a tragedy' by Andrew Wakefield 2010. Chapter Eleven: Disclosure.
[2] GMC vs Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch. Tr. 37-55D
Competing interests: None declared
paraphi
All those who smugly think Wakefield was good news support poor research.
Regards