|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 25, 2018 0:53:02 GMT 1
Wakefield deserved everything he got and more. His paper was not just wrong but fraudulent. How was it fraudulent? Allegedly, according to the Sunday Times. Denied by Wakefield. You call it a fact. There must be some evidence of this fact, then? Inexpicably. I've read the paper - I see no reason at all to retract it. It's not even about MMR! On what basis? I've observed before on this board - people generally seem to have a very distorted assessment of the reliability of wiki artiscles, Scientists, or rather people who like to think they are scientistifically minded, especially. Perhaps I need to present a detailed post about how easy it is to post a wiki article, and then, with a bit of money, influence the wa it is edited, and counter-edited. Then there's the factor of "authority" - how, given the ease of such editorial influence, a bit of Establishment weight can effectively dictate what appears on any wiki page. Am I talking to children? |
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 25, 2018 1:05:52 GMT 1
No, you're not talking to children, but to people who may have children and whose children may ... etc.
As far as I can see, Wakefield's obviously obsessional and hasn't convinced his peers by any distance.
Why should ordinary people trying to do the best for their kids be persuaded by an obsessive with followers who are also obsessives?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 25, 2018 1:17:44 GMT 1
No, you're not talking to children, but to people who may have children and whose children may ... etc. I was referring to the gullibility of people who take wiki articles as some sort of definitive factual record. Huh? Why do you come to that conclusion? Well...oh, ffs. Look - I have no idea who "his peers" might be. You mean "doctors"? So called "scientists"? What? Fuck that. All I'm intersted in is the truth, and he seems to be the only one who's telling the truth. No reason. That's not the question, in any way you've characterised it, I think. Just look at the evidence. Be persuaded by that. The fraud is not on Wakefield's side - no one has shown such fraud occurred. The fraud is on the scientific Establishment's side. And the media's. And the governments'. It's shocking, I know. There's a great deal of money involved - that's the explanation. Trillions. It's a very, very big deal. A sequence of very bad decisions have been taken, by people who will suffer very badly if that's revealed. But the consequences of those decisions are so bad that it will be revealed. It is, as we speak. |
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 25, 2018 1:23:29 GMT 1
OK, you're tired, emotional, obsessional and loyal. I understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 25, 2018 1:33:52 GMT 1
I'm extremely tired: I have an overflowing plate at the moment. The rest - nope, not at all. You haven't taken in the full extent of this scandal, I take it. As neither have the so-called "scientists" on this board. You do not change your protocol after your results are in. That's a cardinal rule of the scientific method. In this case, it's also a crime, full stop. Loyalty? I have no connection to Wakefield. I'm loyal to the truth, to be sure. I have a great deal of sympathy for him, as someone who stumbled into a fact and, naturally, was obliged to report it: and then was destroyed by such an accident. Beyond that, I admire the way he has persisted to defend not only himself, but the truth. Scientific progress was ever thus.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 25, 2018 1:41:08 GMT 1
OK. But you must realise that most people - ie, nearly everyone - need much more than that to be convinced.
The scandal wasn't against Wakefield but against a lot of children.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 25, 2018 2:00:40 GMT 1
OK. But you must realise that most people - ie, nearly everyone - need much more than that to be convinced. The scandal wasn't against Wakefield but against a lot of children. Errr...I'm not trying to convince anyone, Aqua. i don't think these boards can really fulfil such a function. I was pointing out that the so-far revealed facts demonstrate that Wakefield was right, is continuing to be vilified, and this is scandalous. Not because it's against one person in particular, I agree - the issue is indeed about the children. Wakefield has asserted as much himself, over and over. Look - you need to watch Wakefield's films, I think. Especilly the last one, a couple of years ago. I've looked for you, about how to do that, and I can't see any way to do it for free. You need to hire it - it's on Netflix. Then make your own mind up. As far as I'm concerned. the assertions I've made in these posts are true, as far as I can judge. If they're not, I'm the victim of a bigger hoax than...I can't think what. I can't think how Wakefield could have falsified this evidence, and still be around unincarcerated, living in the States. It's just not possible. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 25, 2018 9:33:07 GMT 1
I've observed before on this board - people generally seem to have a very distorted assessment of the reliability of wiki articles... There's nothing about the category 'Wiki article' that makes any individual article reliable or unreliable per se. Reliability rests on the quality of the references supplied, which any reader can follow up to their own satisfacton. No references, no credibility. As with so many of your own posts. There's no equivocation about full-blown autism, suddenly manifesting. at around the age when the vaccine is likely to be administered. And manifesting also in children who haven't been vaccinated. Wakefield observed a correlation. All attempts to produce evidence that there is a causal link, by Wakefield himself or anyone else, have so far failed. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 25, 2018 13:56:51 GMT 1
Nobody with any credibility has ever claimed that a vaccine is "perfectly safe". It can't be. You can say the same about any drug. It's a meaningless comment. Of course they haven't. But it was you who said they did: [The doctors] are the ones giving assurances to worried parents, saying to their faces: science has shown this vaccine is perfectly safe... |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 25, 2018 14:03:21 GMT 1
Look - you need to watch Wakefield's films, I think. Do you really think that's the place to look for an unbiased account? Does Wakefield have an answer for this, for example, or does he simply avoid mentioning it at all? |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 25, 2018 17:18:24 GMT 1
Not for vaccines. That falls to the CDC. They take their lead from the Americans - assuming, rightly enough, that their safety standards are safer than theirs. There is no such demonstration required for vaccines. The FDA has nothing to do with passing vaccines! According to the CDC and MHRA, you are misinformed on every count above. Check your sources. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 26, 2018 10:10:52 GMT 1
This much
from Wikipedia is uncontentious. Basic science: say what you did, what you saw, and what you think. And "further research is necessary" is a catechism.
The problems arose initially from his failure to abide by the codes of research ethics including a declaration of financial interest. That in itself would be no big deal: most useful research has some commercial or forensic funding, but ethics committees demand transparency in exchange for confidentiality, and publishers require it too.
His actual research methods might well have been approved or modified for approval if submitted for prior scrutiny, but without prior ethics approval they constituted assault. Minor assault, possibly, but any breach of the Helsinki protocol raises entirely justifiable alarms.
I do wonder about the retraction statement issued by Wakefield's 12 co-authors
so far, so good, but implies that scientists should retract their opinion if it is unpopular/anti-soviet/heretical/jewish/correct. Wakefield et al may have published an irrelevant and insignificant correlation, but the flat-earthers of this world are dangerously wrong about everything.
I also wonder how twelve good men and true were persuaded to not merely support but to claim co-authorship of the original Lancet paper, given its murky ethics. Whatever happened to SH Murch, MB A Anthony, MB J Linnell, PhD DM Casson, MRCP M Malik, MRCP M Berelowitz, FRCPsych AP Dhillon, MRCPath MA Thomson, FRCP P Harvey, FRCP A Valentine, FRCR SE Davies, MRCPath JA Walker-Smith, FRCP that reflects their participation in such a scandalous affair?
On the one hand I can have no sympathy with somebody who knowingly and without obvious cause breaks the basic rules of research ethics and falsifies results. On the other, any consequent public panic and resultant harm must be ascribed to those whose job it is to foment controversy and spread misinformation.
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 26, 2018 11:16:41 GMT 1
And what was the basis for the campaign against MMR that directly (and secretly) funded Wakefield?
As far as I know, we have never been told.
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 26, 2018 11:39:43 GMT 1
Parasitic lawyers, apparently. The High Court allowed the charge inter alia
and has not been denied.
Nothing new here. It is entirely normal for distressed parents to seek to blame someone, and for solicitors to pay an expert to collect evidence, but the expert must do so transparently and ethically.
but surprisingly also from the Legal Aid Board
which stinks a bit. If HM Government thought there was a public safety case to answer, it should surely have tasked a government laboratory (Public Health Laboratory Service, say, or MoD Porton Down) or an independent epidemiologist and pathologist to review and extend Wakefield's work under proper ethical clearance. The notion that Legal Aid did not, for instance, consult with the Dept of Health or the Public Prosecutor over the investigative process, is worrying. Independent reproducibility of results is the key to proof of a hypothesis, and there was nothing secret or magical about the tests and procedures used by Wakefield's original team.
The problem now is that any attempt to re-evaluate Wakefield's hypothesis in the UK or USA will be degenerate into a media circus and a legal feeding frenzy, not a scientific investigation. It would be interesting to study the Japanese government's pre-Wakefield decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 26, 2018 16:08:30 GMT 1
And here's the obvious flaw.
If 90% of the population is vaccinated, and you pick 12 kids who are autistic, you would expect to find that 10 or 11 of them have been vaccinated. That finding is obviously meaningless.
The meaningful question is what fraction of the vaccinated population is autistic, compared with the unvaccinated population? Now you have a significant problem: unvaccinated tends to be associated with atypical parents, who may be less likely to present "difficult" kids for assessment, and more likely to home school or be excessively protective - the kids will just not show up as autistic on anyone's register. So you have to purposively sample the population known to be unvaccinated, and subject them to a psychological assessment that will certainly annoy the parent amd may prejudice the kids' future.
Historic controls are useless as the methods and criteria of psychological diagnosis vary with the seasons. You need to study a very large cohort, several years after the supposed trigger event, when persistent anomalous behavior will have surfaced at secondary school (or in the courts). SUch a study is well beyond the capability of an independent maverick and will attract criticism of "big pharma" or "government coverup" if the findings do not indicate causality.
|
|
