![]() |
|
|||||||
| Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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 Either way, the vast majority of the researchers involved have withdrawn support from the paper, and I think that bears strong consideration.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. |
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||
|
Come on, cat.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|