|
Post by nickrr on Aug 27, 2018 19:14:01 GMT 1
You can read the details in the link I posted under the section "Fraud and conflict of interest allegations". To also quote the British Medical Journal (BMJ): Here's a link to a BMJ article showing how Wakefield was planning to make money from the crisis: www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.fullWell clearly The Lancet, in which it was originally published, did. I suspect they are better qualified than yourself to make such a judgement. Here are a few reasons given by the General Medical Council: And of course you can add the fraud referred to above etc. If you can point to any errors please go ahead, with evidence for any claims of inaccuracy (after all, Wikipedia provides plenty of links to substantiate their articles and one would expect no less from someone trying to rebut them).
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 27, 2018 23:11:55 GMT 1
Well clearly The Lancet, in which it was originally published, did. I suspect they are better qualified than yourself to make such a judgement. It wasn't The Lancet, but Wakefield's 12 co-authors who unanimously retracted the paper. AFAIK not one of them has had third thoughts about the matter. Unless they were all hypnotised or corrupted, they had found and published a correlation which on sensible consideration was not proof of causation. But the Press, public and ambulance-chasers are not prone to "sensible consideration" and the resulting panic has almost certainly done more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 23, 2018 8:54:05 GMT 1
You can read the details in the link I posted under the section "Fraud and conflict of interest allegations". To also quote the British Medical Journal (BMJ): Here's a link to a BMJ article showing how Wakefield was planning to make money from the crisis: www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.fullAll quite false, as Wakefield has shown, utterly convincingly. The "data" he's accused, quite falsely, or falsifying wasn't even his data - and was in any case peer-reviewed by the BMJ's journal itself. Deer's accusation -sadly swallowed by Horton - that he was planning to make money with his own single vaccine is also quite false. The patent for the "Transfer Factor" - an immune system boost, not a vaccine - was in Wakefield's name, but any monies that might accrue from it were the Royal Free's - Wakefield wouldn't have received a penny. The Lancet retracted it after immense pressure from the Government. It didn't apologise for having published it in the first place (there's nothing to apologise for), nor did it explain how its allegedly "falsified data" about vaccines - there is no such data cited in the article, as anyone who reads it can see for themselves - got through their peer-review. He wasn't. His study was into gastric ailments - it was about the team's (thirteen doctors) discovery of a new bowel disease common in autism patients. The parents of eight of the patients in that study (out of twelve - three quarters of them) reported to him that in their opinion their children's autism occurred immediately after receiving the MMR vacine. This was what the Lancet article reported. It stated this link was not proven or even studied in the paper - and recommended that further investigations ought to be made, given these parents' reports. Later he was employed to conduct further studies by their solicitors - but those studies weren't the one he and the Lancet published, and no such litigation was underway when that study was undertaken. The hypothesis of the study was that the bowel irritation was being caused by an underlying persistent measles infection - nothing to do with the MMR vaccine. Quite false, as Wakefield has convincingly demonstrated. If there was a shred of truth in this charge, it raises the question of why on earth he wasn't prosecuted, doesn't it? It's also the case that the lead scientist of this study, Professor Walker-Smith, who was also struck off with Wakefield in the same GMC hearing, managed to find the half million quid funding to legally appeal that case. The Judge found that the GMC's case was politically motivated and without any grounds, and Walker-Smith was duly restored to the register. The fix weas in from the start - it was a kangaroo court. The charges against Walker-Smith, found to be groundless in the only legal case ever brought in the matter, were exactly the same as those against Wakefield - the only difference being the taking of blood samples as neutral comparison data at his son's birthday party. Unfortunately, Wakefield had neglected to get RBI ethical permission - though he did get fully informed consent from all the children and all their parents, and the blood was drawn by a fully qualified doctor, with no complications or mishap. Again, he has explained this is complete detail. No one was harmed, it was all voluntary - a bit daft, but nothing illegal, nor unethical about it. The £5 was not a "purchase", but an entirely unnegotiated gift in their goody bag as a thankyou for their help. The "joking" was merely that - a bit of comedy in a light-hearted talk, as anyone can see on YouTube. Utter nonsense. The children suffered no distress or pain. If they had done, would their parents have all come to his GMC hearing in full support, and vehement denunciation of Brian Deer, the hack who'd started all these scurrilous stories - so much so that they had to be ejected from the room? There was no "fraud". The Judge in Walker-Smith's appeal was absolutely adamant about that crucial point. I just have pointed to the errors. The evidence that they are errors is the fact that Wakefield is not in prison. Anyone can provide links to "substantiate their articles" - how you imagine articles that merely repeat or agree "substantiate" is jaw-dropping. What "substantiates" is evidence, not mere assertion. The sort of indisputable scientific evidence discovered by the Centre for Disease Control in their study of the link - before Wakefield's dismissal - and deliberately covered up by them.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 23, 2018 9:03:19 GMT 1
Here's a highly plausible possible explanation for the proven (by the CDC) MMR-autism link:
This is also a highly plausible explanation for the sky-rocketing incidence of allergies in children since the 70s (peanut allergy was not encountered before 1974, for example.) All these people with "gluten intolerance" and the like are in reality more than likely suffering from glyphosate poisoning. It may also be the agent responsible for the exponential rise in Alzheimers cases, given that it crosses the blood-brain barrier and accumulates in brain tissue.
|
|