Vaccination & epidemic

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I find it interesting that the salient point you have taken from the study, is that the unqualified parent in question believes vaccines may be a factor.

"Autism research monies" have overwhelmingly been funneled into the arena of behavioral therapies, by a vast margin. And of the money that was allotted to vaccine studies, the majority of it was provided by the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves.

The points I have taken from the study--which I have read in detail, many times, including the facts of these new allegations, which are not in fact new at all, they are just being dredged up again because Brian Deer hasn't had an article published in awhile--have very little to do anymore with my beliefs on the subject from a medical standpoint. This was one study done 13 years ago, with questionable methods. The study, and the doctor himself, have been discredited time and again. I don't know anyone who cites this study as a basis for their beliefs anymore. Yet it continues to be vilified because the studies that have come after it are 1.) more scientifically sound, and 2.) more discreet.

The salient point that I am taking from the recent articles (as opposed to the old study itself) is that there are many people out there who are basing their beliefs on the antithesis of one bad study, rather than simply chucking the one bad study and looking at everything that has come since. I'm pointing out that even the father who angrily calls Wakefield a fraud and hopes for the revocation of his medical license (which already happened, almost a year ago) still fundamentally believes in a more up-to-date version of Wakefield's hypothesis, presumably because he has kept up with more recent research.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Going over the rest of the studies is not his job and we don't know whether he has.

It's true, we don't. Who has, I wonder? Certainly none of it was mentioned in this latest media flurry.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

"The points I have taken from the study--which I have read in detail, many times, including the facts of these new allegations, which are not in fact new at all, they are just being dredged up again because Brian Deer hasn't had an article published in awhile--have very little to do anymore with my beliefs on the subject from a medical standpoint.

Fair enough: though part of the reason for this being published is that the initial report into the case and which was referenced in earlier reports has now concluded. It was also in part prompted by the fact that Wakefield is now promoting a book about it all.

This was one study done 13 years ago, with questionable methods. The study, and the doctor himself, have been discredited time and again. I don't know anyone who cites this study as a basis for their beliefs anymore. Yet it continues to be vilified because the studies that have come after it are 1.) more scientifically sound, and 2.) more discreet.

I know very little about the other studies; and have said on numerous occasions that i think more research needs doing: as the other guy in the article said though; much of the recent research has been skewed to 'answering' and disproving this study: therefore Wakefield has managed to have a negative impact even in the area he apparently wanted to work. Also, these aren;t questionable methods. Thats the whole point of bringing this up again. This wasn;t questionable methods it was outright deliberate fraud.

The reason it is still so public, isn't just because it eclipses other studies, but because it essentially 'fathered' the whole area of investigation.

The salient point that I am taking from the recent articles (as opposed to the old study itself) is that there are many people out there who are basing their beliefs on the antithesis of one bad study, rather than simply chucking the one bad study and looking at everything that has come since. I'm pointing out that even the father who angrily calls Wakefield a fraud and hopes for the revocation of his medical license (which already happened, almost a year ago) still fundamentally believes in a more up-to-date version of Wakefield's hypothesis, presumably because he has kept up with more recent research.

I get you. That's a fair point. I wasnlt posting this to show that the whole theory of vaccines and autism is now debunked. I was posting specifically about Wakefield and the damage he has done.

As I've said before: though I personally am fairly skeptical about many of the claims made around this area, there is clearly enough concern to warrant more investigation. Until that investigation is done, then it is extremely difficult for any of the pro-vaccine doctors and scientists to claim that it is safe. Right now, nobody wins. Those who think vaccines are safe are facing the problem of massive downturn in the vaccine rates and the consequent problems that brings. Those who believe that the vaccines are potentially causing/exacerbating autism and other problems, have become villified because of studies like this. So, now all studies end up suspect, and both sides are entrenched and in conflict with each other.