Andrew Wakefield on MMR vaccine

[ViperJock]

That really depends on who benefits from said consensus.

Actually drug companies typically lose money on vaccines. They would generally prefer not to make them but they do it because someone has to. Drug companies make way more money on other drugs. Even with govt subsidy to make them it's not in their best interest except out of goodwill.

So basically you are saying that the "establishment" wants people to get autism so badly that they are wiling to lose money over it? That hardly sounds reasonable.

 

[steveh_131]

Actually drug companies typically lose money on vaccines.

Source?

So basically you are saying that the "establishment" wants people to get autism so badly that they are wiling to lose money over it? That hardly sounds reasonable.

No.

They want folks thinking collectively, and depending on the government. The pharmaceutical companies want people to buy their products.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[88GT]

I did.

And introduced a completely irrelevant component to the discussion, particularly if it was supposed to be in response to the post you quoted.

And this thread is about the benefits of vaccination versus the risks, which is most definitely a matter that medical researchers can and have quantified more accurately than any collection of anecdotes ever could. You'd like it to be about the applications practiced by the medical industry, but it isn't.

Well, now that's funny because I saw this thread being about the existence of two lines of evidence and the medical community's complete refusal to be honest about the existence of the other one. Which begs the question: why?

Those applications are a direct reflection of the beliefs held by the medical community. When a doc advises a particular course of action, he does so for one of two reasons: he benefits personally or it is in the best interest of his patient based on the weighing of the pros and cons of the science behind it. When evidence is introduced that the science doesn't support a particular course of action, what is left to conclude but that the doc is acting for himself and not his patient? To bring it home, why would someone want to keep evidence contrary to his position swept under the rug?

 

[mbills2223]

Easy answer then. Just do what the government says is best and call it a day! No worries.

I'll rely on my scientific knowledge to do what is best. You shouldn't just assume that only you understand something and that the rest of us are complete morons.

I'm so tired of being inundated with solicitations to do drugs, rarely if ever mentioning the 'dangers.'

What are you referring to...?


One more thing to any and all who may be saying or thinking it...vaccines do not cause autism.

 

[Fargo]

I'll rely on my scientific knowledge to do what is best. You shouldn't just assume that only you understand something and that the rest of us are complete morons.





What are you referring to...?


One more thing to any and all who may be saying or thinking it...vaccines do not cause autism.

I dunno if they cause autism or not. All I know is that the MMR vaccine can cause nerve damage. I know this because I suffer from auditory nerve damage from that vaccine.

That is not my personal diagnosis, it was the diagnosis of about a dozen different specialists, including a neurologist, at the Mayo Clinic who studied my condition for several years with vast barrage of tests... They were the ones who informed me that this is a documented side effect of the vaccination occurring in a very small percentage of those who receive it.

Oh, and I'm not a vaccine hater; my kids get most vaccines. They don't get MMR because I'm concerned that in light of my reaction they may have a genetic predisposition to the same.

Vaccines do have bad side effects from time to time. I don't know about autism but, pretending they don't ignores the reality of things like this:

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Best,


Joe

 

[88GT]

I'll rely on my scientific knowledge to do what is best.

I don't believe he has ever advocated for anything but. What he has consistently argued is that the scientific knowledge available from docs is often missing relevant pieces of information that might sway a patient in his choice.

You shouldn't just assume that only you understand something and that the rest of us are complete morons.

I think what you are seeing is his desire to have the full picture presented for those faced with the decision. He has said, though maybe not in so many words, that a patient cannot make a fully informed decision without all of the information and that it is in the medical profession's best interest in many cases to keep some of that information from patients. Therefore, the patient cannot be making the best decision, they can only be making a better decision. It is not a patient's stupidity that limits him, but his ignorance. When that ignorance is the direct result of a doc withholding information, we should all be screaming bloody murder, particularly with the way health care is going in this country.

Forgive me, steve, for defending your (our shared) position with what amounts to putting words in your mouth. Neg rep me if I've erred in my assessment.

vaccines do not cause autism

Since autism has no known cause and the mechanism for the disease is unknown, the best you can say is that vaxes do not play a direct role in the manifestation of the autism symptoms. On the other hand, there is a growing body of evidence that the MMR vax is a catalyst for autism symptoms in patients with a particular set of circumstances involving the gut, food ingredients, and a fungus.

 

[level.eleven]

Who is crooked?

My money is on the fellow who filed a patent for his new product and instead of allowing it to stand on merit authored fraudulent papers about his competition.

 

[Stickfight]

Science is nothing more than a procedure followed by flawed and biased humans.

It is not magical, as much as you want to place your faith in it.

I'm pretty comfortable with what science is and how it works. For your ridiculous misconception that it is nothing more than a procedure to be valid, all of the humans involved would have to be flawed in the same way at the same time. Considering all of the comforts you take for granted, even the technology you are using to communicate your "ideas", were handed to you by this system, I'd think you'd have a little more confidence in it.

 

[Stickfight]

When evidence is introduced that the science doesn't support a particular course of action, what is left to conclude but that the doc is acting for himself and not his patient? To bring it home, why would someone want to keep evidence contrary to his position swept under the rug?

I don't dispute there are doctors acting contrary to the best interests of their patient. There are people in every profession doing that every day. What is being alleged here is not some few doctors doing that, but the overwhelming majority of not only doctors, but medical researchers at universities and drug companies and research hospitals. That they are all acting in concert to suppress all research suggesting a link between vaccines and serious medical problems. YEC Steve says you can't get published if you don't toe the line.

Of course, that is easily disproven by the fact that the guy in the title of the thread was published in The Lancet. Of course when subjected to peer review, no one could replicate his findings or confirm anything he claimed.

But don't let the fact that the process worked exactly as it is designed to stop you...

 

[88GT]

I don't dispute there are doctors acting contrary to the best interests of their patient. There are people in every profession doing that every day. What is being alleged here is not some few doctors doing that, but the overwhelming majority of not only doctors, but medical researchers at universities and drug companies and research hospitals. That they are all acting in concert to suppress all research suggesting a link between vaccines and serious medical problems. YEC Steve says you can't get published if you don't toe the line.

Of course, that is easily disproven by the fact that the guy in the title of the thread was published in The Lancet. Of course when subjected to peer review, no one could replicate his findings or confirm anything he claimed.

But don't let the fact that the process worked exactly as it is designed to stop you...

I just gave an example of an entire subset of the medical industry that, as a matter of routine, standard operating procedure, advises its patients daily on issues in direct contradiction of the science. How is it so hard to believe that it isn't occurring in other areas where there is more at stake?

There's no money in finding a link between vaxes and autism. No one wants to fund it. And no one wants research results that "prove" it because it means a big hit to the bottom line. Sure, someone can get published. But how would you know if there were big research results showing a link that didn't get published? How many are submitted for publication that are rejected? Publication is just one small part of the research. There's plenty of good research taking place that never sees the light of day because it isn't published, whether by study authors' choice or publication editors' choice. Are the results of that research any less valid because it didn't make it into a scientific journal?

We put far too much emphasis on the use of publications as a litmus test of research validity. And it would be naive to think that the editors aren't without some sort of self-serving bias.

 

[Stickfight]

There's no money in finding a link between vaxes and autism. No one wants to fund it. And no one wants research results that "prove" it because it means a big hit to the bottom line.

You might have forgotten, that Wakefield was able to conduct his "research", although it might not have required much funding since he fabricated quite a lot. And of course the reserchers who tried confirmation studies somehow found funding.

I don't agree too much emphasis is placed on publication. I'd say not enough is and too much goes out press release style to non-scientists. "See, they told us carrots were good for us last week but now they say they'll kill you! Science is crooked!" type gibberish. You know it well, obviously.

Want to take a stab at calculating the ROI on studying PSR J0348+0432?

 

[steveh_131]

I think what you are seeing is his desire to have the full picture presented for those faced with the decision. He has said, though maybe not in so many words, that a patient cannot make a fully informed decision without all of the information and that it is in the medical profession's best interest in many cases to keep some of that information from patients. Therefore, the patient cannot be making the best decision, they can only be making a better decision. It is not a patient's stupidity that limits him, but his ignorance. When that ignorance is the direct result of a doc withholding information, we should all be screaming bloody murder, particularly with the way health care is going in this country.

Forgive me, steve, for defending your (our shared) position with what amounts to putting words in your mouth. Neg rep me if I've erred in my assessment.



Since autism has no known cause and the mechanism for the disease is unknown, the best you can say is that vaxes do not play a direct role in the manifestation of the autism symptoms. On the other hand, there is a growing body of evidence that the MMR vax is a catalyst for autism symptoms in patients with a particular set of circumstances involving the gut, food ingredients, and a fungus.

No, you said it perfectly as far as I'm concerned.

I don't agree too much emphasis is placed on publication. I'd say not enough is and too much goes out press release style to non-scientists. "See, they told us carrots were good for us last week but now they say they'll kill you! Science is crooked!" type gibberish. You know it well, obviously.

Like you said, it all depends on peer review. And when the peers are bought and paid for, your research won't go far. Nobody has even heard of all of these studies that confirmed Wakefield's findings.

 

[Expat]

Wakefield is a charlatan and a fraud. That was clearly established. Nothing he says can be believed.

 

[$mooth]

Absolute truth, here.

Child birthing in U.S. hospitals is 90% about the convenience of the doctor and 10%, at most, about the best interests of the mother.

Example: Most women give birth on their backs. Why? Because doctors don't want to get pooped on. Ignored is the documented research showing that it produces distress in the baby, tearing of the mother, and many other things. It is the most un-natural and difficult way for most women to give birth.

But it's easier for the doctor.

Agreed with all of it, but the birth on their back. The reason is that most women want an epidural. When you're doped up, being on your back is easier. If you skip that and learn better pain management techniques, you don't have to stay on your back.

But a lot of what you said is not just about Doctors. The general public is to blame too. Most people want convenience, not necessarily the right way to do it. Doesn't it seem weird that people who don't need C-Sections schedule them just so they can have the baby on their schedule?

 

[Stickfight]

Like you said, it all depends on peer review. And when the peers are bought and paid for, your research won't go far. Nobody has even heard of all of these studies that confirmed Wakefield's findings.

Your "argument" shifts with the wind. First you claim you can't get published if you don't toe support consensus, but that is obviously false. Then you claim you can't get funded if you don't, and that is also obviously false. Now you claim the peer review process is bought off.

Maybe at this point you can follow the process you claim to know so well and provide some evidence to support your claim. How many studies confirmed Wakefield? Who conducted them? Where are they documented?

Unlike you I know I'm not qualified to review the things other than for design and analysis standards. There are a couple of guys on this floor who probably will though.

 

[JettaKnight]

There's no money in finding a link between vaxes and autism. No one wants to fund it. And no one wants research results that "prove" it because it means a big hit to the bottom line. Sure, someone can get published. But how would you know if there were big research results showing a link that didn't get published? How many are submitted for publication that are rejected? Publication is just one small part of the research. There's plenty of good research taking place that never sees the light of day because it isn't published, whether by study authors' choice or publication editors' choice. Are the results of that research any less valid because it didn't make it into a scientific journal?

You surely must be joking.

No one want to do studies to find a link? Have you not heard all the studies the Dutch have conducted?

believe it or not the vast majority of scientist and researchers do their job to uncover the truth.

What is it that forces people to take on the attitude, "If you don't agree with me then you're corrupt, unethical and conspiring to cover up the truth." ?

 

[JettaKnight]

Wakefield is a charlatan and a fraud. That was clearly established. Nothing he says can be believed.

Whose paying you to say that? Obviously you must work for Big Pharma.

 

[steveh_131]

Your "argument" shifts with the wind. First you claim you can't get published if you don't toe support consensus, but that is obviously false. Then you claim you can't get funded if you don't, and that is also obviously false. Now you claim the peer review process is bought off.

Huh? These are all the same basic concept. Every step of the way is more difficult if you're going against the people funding and publishing your research. Simple as that.

Maybe at this point you can follow the process you claim to know so well and provide some evidence to support your claim. How many studies confirmed Wakefield? Who conducted them? Where are they documented?

I've shown these many times on this board. Example:

Wakefield wasn't the only one who thought that the measles virus introduced by vaccination may have been linked to the gut issues that seem to result in autism-like symptoms.

Scientists fear MMR link to autism | Mail Online

Here are some more studies that came to the same conclusions:

http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/GI symptoms in PDD Yale.pdf
http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Jyonouchi 2005.pdf
http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/4.Horvath 1.pdf
Immune activation of peripheral blood and muc... [J Neuroimmunol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Stickfight]

Those aren't the same basic concept, they are three different things. But evidence exists to show that each is false, and color me surprised you don't offer anything to back up your claims.

Thanks for the links to studies. I don't pay any attention to you unless I notice you in a thread I'm reading anyway, so I've never seen you drop those before. I'll see if anyone here has heard of these and try to get an opinion.

 

[steveh_131]

Those aren't the same basic concept, they are three different things. But evidence exists to show that each is false, and color me surprised you don't offer anything to back up your claims.

You don't think that there is some inherent bias in favor of the company or government entity that is funding the research?

And you don't think that research could easily be shoved under the rug (instead of published) by said company or government entity if it returns results that are not in their favor?

And you don't think that the 'peer review' process is going to be subject to the same human bias as every other human endeavor?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

Peerless Science

"A common fiction is that science is one thing and science policy another. According to this interpretation, what scientists do to maintain the quality and reliability of scientific knowledge is independent from influence by or on science policy; only the funding (input) or the knowledge (output) can be said to interact with political values... Such a position, however, represents beliefs that are not just inaccurate but naive. And this is particularly true for the peer review system."