The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2009, 03:03 PM   #1
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
A.) There was not a "revelation" that Dr. Wakefield falsified his results--there was a single accusation that he had done so, and he is currently suing said accuser.

B.) If you actually look at the original study, it was in no way intended to demonize vaccines in and of themselves.

Quote:
INTERPRETATION: We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.
The digestive disorders were correlated with the autism symptoms, and the MMR vaccine (specifically the live measles part of it) may or may not have contributed to worsening the underlying digestive disorders. No one has ever implicated the polio vaccine in anything, and people who go whole-hog and choose not to get it are overzealous. The reality is, vaccinating and not vaccinating both have side effects. It is a little unfair to expect the parents of a child who has been harmed by a vaccine to rationally accept that it is better that their own child be harmed rather than some other child dying of the disease. There's no comparison. Either it's your child or it's not, and if it is your child, everything changes.
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2009, 04:51 PM   #2
Tiki
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
A.) There was not a "revelation" that Dr. Wakefield falsified his results--there was a single accusation that he had done so, and he is currently suing said accuser.

B.) If you actually look at the original study, it was in no way intended to demonize vaccines in and of themselves.
A) According to an investigation by the Times, the allegations look to be confirmable: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683671.ece

B) I said "the original Lancet paper that kicked off the anti-vaccination craze", not "the original Lancet paper that was intended to demonize vaccines". Either way, the vast majority of the researchers involved have withdrawn support from the paper, and I think that bears strong consideration.

The rest of your post contains interesting observations similar to those I alluded to in my own post.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2009, 06:25 PM   #3
jinx
Come on, cat.
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
Quote:
A) According to an investigation by the Times, the allegations look to be confirmable: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683671.ece
Brian Deer, the Times reporter is the SOURCE of the allegations ffs... sorry I don't trust him to accurately investigate the bullshit he made up in the first place.


Quote:
B) I said "the original Lancet paper that kicked off the anti-vaccination craze"
[/quote]

Also incorrect. The anti-vaccination craze had been around for a long, long time prior to Wakefield's paper. There has been vaccine controversy for as long as there have been vaccines. Have you not heard of the swine flu/Guillian Barre, DTP vs. DTaP, thimerosal fiascos etc.? Yeah - it's the people that bitch about the unsafe vaccines that get that made safer - for those who choose to use them.
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.
jinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.