Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
He still has his Doctorate.
He still has his Medical Degree and the 150+ peer reviewed papers to his name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
But he was struck off for fraud.
As Was Professor Walker-Smith in the same hearing. Walker-Smith has been re-instated and the GMC were reprimanded for the way in which they conducted the hearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
I mean why on earth choose him.....
Would you really prefer I cited Dr. YouveNeverHeardOf ? The rest of the medical industry is too scared to comment. It's why there is no research. None at all, going into the causes of Autism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
So why do people make us believe MMR vaccination is safe if it isn't.
I don't know, money ? The main manufacturer of MMR (Merck) also made Vioxx (and claimed it was safe). Look that up on wikipedia. Here's a one liner "Merck has reserved $970 million to pay for its Vioxx-related legal expenses through 2007, and have set aside $4.85bn for legal claims from US citizens"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Just ask yourself, is taking the advice of a convicted fraudster really a good idea? Who else is saying this, where is a peer reviewed paper, some meta analysis?
Part of the reason I posted the Wakefield clip is so that people could judge for themselves whether anything he says can be trusted. He is by no means the only medical professional with concerns about vaccine safety. One of the problems is that any study that doesn't deliver the desired (by the marketing department) results, doesn't get published.
There are several campaigns to change this. The AllTrials campaign is supported by Dr. Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science and Bad Pharma.
http://www.badscience.net/2013/01/al...gn-and-spread/
There's also the
All Trials Registered, All Results Reported
So put your question back at you, why does NICE allow medicines based on "science" that has been cherry picked for commercial purpose. Why don't they demand that all research be revealed ? I don't know why.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
That's not evidence that it was caused my vaccinations though, that's just statistics that show an increase in autism in the US. Any number of things could have caused that... Google 'new popular things in america for 2008' and you have about the same amount of evidence for any of them as you do the vaccination.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
He still has his Medical Degree and the 150+ peer reviewed papers to his name.
And, so what?! The one in question, the only one that proved some link, was fraudulent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
As Was Professor Walker-Smith in the same hearing. Walker-Smith has been re-instated and the GMC were reprimanded for the way in which they conducted the hearing.
So what. The convicted fraudster wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
Would you really prefer I cited Dr. YouveNeverHeardOf ? The rest of the medical industry is too scared to comment. It's why there is no research. None at all, going into the causes of Autism.
Yes, yes I bloody would. Pretty much anyone is a better source than a convicted fraudster on this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
I don't know, money ? The main manufacturer of MMR (Merck) also made Vioxx (and claimed it was safe). Look that up on wikipedia. Here's a one liner "Merck has reserved $970 million to pay for its Vioxx-related legal expenses through 2007, and have set aside $4.85bn for legal claims from US citizens"
You do realise that he stood to potentially profit by people not using MMR. It wasn't just a little bit of a miss, it was really shockingly bad. Fraud is a polite term.
http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/th...d-mmr-verdict/
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
Part of the reason I posted the Wakefield clip is so that people could judge for themselves whether anything he says can be trusted. He is by no means the only medical professional with concerns about vaccine safety. One of the problems is that any study that doesn't deliver the desired (by the marketing department) results, doesn't get published.
Name some others then. Because he counts against it, he was fraudulent and criminal. The report had nothing worthwhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
Your now talking about a man who has spoken out against the criticisms of MMR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
So put your question back at you, why does NICE allow medicines based on "science" that has been cherry picked for commercial purpose. Why don't they demand that all research be revealed ? I don't know why.
What do you mean all research be revealed? NICE are by no means perfect, but to describe the MMR vaccine as some kind of coverup is really difficult without any evidence.
Right now, you've got no evidence at all. A youtube by a convicted fraudster doesn't count at all. Ask yourself why you would believe a man who potentially stood to profit, who had fraudulent and ethically substandard research.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biscuit
That's not evidence that it was caused my vaccinations though, that's just statistics that show an increase in autism in the US. Any number of things could have caused that... Google 'new popular things in america for 2008' and you have about the same amount of evidence for any of them as you do the vaccination.
Nah, correlation and causality, simple!
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erika...1467103173.jpg
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Sorry, the link in my original post is broken (it was late) and I can't edit it on my iPhone.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield response to the measles outbreak in South Wales
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
<Snip--->
I don't know, money ? The main manufacturer of MMR (Merck) also made Vioxx (and claimed it was safe). Look that up on wikipedia. Here's a one liner "Merck has reserved $970 million to pay for its Vioxx-related legal expenses through 2007, and have set aside $4.85bn for legal claims from US citizens"
Wakefield stood to gain financially from his campaign
Quote:
In a BMJ follow-up article on 11 January 2011,[18] Deer said that based upon documents he obtained under Freedom of information legislation,[87] Wakefield—in partnership with the father of one of the boys in the study—had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing".[19][60] The Washington Post reported that Deer said that Wakefield predicted he "could make more than $43 million a year from diagnostic kits" for the new condition, autistic enterocolitis.[87] According to Deer's report in BMJ, the ventures, Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltd and Carmel Healthcare Ltd—named after Wakefield’s wife—failed after Wakefield's superiors at University College London's medical school gave him a two-page letter that said:....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_...st_allegations
While I don't regard Wikipedia as authoratitive itself, it does cite several other more authoratitive sources.
Wakefield (as the article states) continues to protest his innocence and states that his findings were valid, although they have not been reproduced by any other researcher.
At best, it could be said that a link has not been been disproved, but that is the equivalent of saying that God exists because His existrnce has not bee disproved.
Your beliefs concerning MMR, measles and so on, espoused earlier, are your affair, however little credibility they have.
However, what is true is that medical intervention almost invariably carries some risk, the question is whether the risks of not doing something outweigh the risks of doing something, and statistics apply to groups, not individuals.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
billythewiz
There are some ridiculous things being claimed in this thread.
Here are my personal beliefs ...
MMR is not as safe or effective as we are led to believe.
Measles is not as dangerous as we are led to believe (it is nasty).
Vaccines are given an unjustified special status which allows many to be rushed to market without adequate safety trials.
If this is the case, what happens when your child succumbs to the effects? Will you ultimately blame those not vaccinated rather than yourself. You seem to be deflecting the main issue of the OP.
How about the hospital turning you away because you didn't vaccinate your vulnerable child because of your own personal albeit selfish beliefs to satisfy your pride?
I am tired of seeing parents like you using their children as an excuse to project their unhealthy beliefs including and not limited to homeopathy and then complain and run back to the NHS when things go wrong.
Seeing as every treatment in the NHS has risks, perhaps you are advocating not using any treatment when you get ill.
Medications undergo strict clinical trials and must adhere to a code of practice under FDA (US) and MHRA (UK)guidance. These vaccines are made to treat what it was made to do. Of course pharmaceutical companies need to make some money back, all the research and development is not free, they didn't set it up in their own back yard and recruited volunteers, nor did this out of the goodness of their own heart. Investment leads to innovation, without either there is no future treatments you are reaping at the moment.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biscuit
that's just statistics that show an increase in autism in the US
An increase in reported cases.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
csgohan4
I am tired of seeing parents like you using their children as an excuse to project their unhealthy beliefs including and not limited to homeopathy and then complain and run back to the NHS when things go wrong.
Nope, I think he's proposing roughly what I was, that people be allowed to chose for themselves/their child the course of action they deem appropriate based on whatever risk/information they have to had, and suggesting that through education we ensure more people have the right facts.
As you are proposing we should all be vaccinating our children regardless of risk, I do wonder whether you have personally taken all available vaccines? Here's a sample:
Diptheia
Tetanus (boosters up to date too?)
Whooping Cough
Polio
Hib
Pneumococcal
Meningitius C
MMR as discussed
Flu
That last one, really interesting in this context.
What about the less common ones?:
Cholera?
Hep A
Rabies
Typhoid
Yellow Fever
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
directhex
An increase in reported cases.
Which has often been argued is a result of "better diagnostics", or more likely everyone wanting a label they can apply that means its not their fault as parents.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phil4
As you are proposing we should all be vaccinating our children regardless of risk, I do wonder whether you have personally taken all available vaccines? Here's a sample:
Diptheia
Tetanus (boosters up to date too?)
Whooping Cough
Polio
Hib
Pneumococcal
Meningitius C
MMR as discussed
Flu
That last one, really interesting in this context.
What about the less common ones?:
Cholera?
Hep A
Rabies
Typhoid
Yellow Fever
Yup had them all, but I got both Hep ones, used the twinrix one for Rabies too, probably have more but papers are with passport, not on me. But then I go to strange places sometimes which make sense to have protection, most people don't need rabies, unless say your 3 days away from a medivac.
I do believe I was dyslexic before I had most of them too. Global Warming and Pirates people!
(not to mention that certain kinds of what was once called autism aren't any more, even things like Aspergers are been relegated/redefined of late, comparing increase of numbers is a flawed starting point without identifying which trait it is meant to be producing. The reason no one is bothering with this, is its a pointless assertion that a decrease in gingers is directly due to the use of fluoridation.)
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BobF64
Which has often been argued is a result of "better diagnostics", or more likely everyone wanting a label they can apply that means its not their fault as parents.
Not to mention money! For passing some test that put me in the top fraction of a percent (patterns, logic etc), I got a £1k grant to squander, mostly on micro-electronic stuff. For being dyslexic I got £2k.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Yup had them all)
Fair play to you, you truly live by your statements. I wonder if all that follow your line of thought are in the same position.
You have my respect now, whether you wanted it or not.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
directhex
An increase in reported cases.
Good point, IIRC they actually broadened what was classed as autism.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phil4
Fair play to you, you truly live by your statements. I wonder if all that follow your line of thought are in the same position.
It's simple, when you look at the data, so long as you're not in an at risk group it really makes sense to have them. It doesn't make economic sense for some, I wouldn't say kids should get rabies as a matter of cause, but anyone going trekking in parts where its endemic, it's just a good idea.
Some people who are suffering from serious medical ailments shouldn't have vaccines, they are the only ones, they are sadly the ones put at risk by a selfish herd (selfish as in prisoners dilemma selfish, herd as in the technical term when talking immunology).
Every developed country shares this view, the only dissenters are nut jobs with no qualifications, or a convicted fraudster who's testing method was so shockingly immoral he deserves to be given no second thought.
Having these vaccinations is a decision so easy; they don't come much simpler.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
phil4
Nope, I think he's proposing roughly what I was, that people be allowed to chose for themselves/their child the course of action they deem appropriate based on whatever risk/information they have to had, and suggesting that through education we ensure more people have the right facts.
As you are proposing we should all be vaccinating our children regardless of risk, I do wonder whether you have personally taken all available vaccines? Here's a sample:
Diptheia
Tetanus (boosters up to date too?)
Whooping Cough
Polio
Hib
Pneumococcal
Meningitius C
MMR as discussed
Flu
That last one, really interesting in this context.
What about the less common ones?:
Cholera?
Hep A
Rabies
Typhoid
Yellow Fever
Had all except the Less common ones, but I have had Hep B
But I would have no hesitation in having my kids vaccinated if it is safe to do so after balancing risks and benefits. A story in the Daily mail I'm afraid doesn't register as A fail for me
