OK. What do think the film says?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Quacks & Pseudoscience
- Thread starter scaramanga
- Start date
OK. What do think the film says?
There's been a huge increase in road deaths over that time. Do vaccines cause road traffic accidents?
There's been a decrease in airline deaths. Do vaccines make better pilots?
I know it says that vaccines cause autism.
They don't. They don't now, they didn't before. If you care to make even the most cursory of searches you'll find that there have been thousands of studies to see if they do - they all agree that they don't.
Except for one of course. That one was by a person who is trying to sell his own measles vaccine. He also happens to be the person making a film about vaccines causing autism. He was also struck off for falsifying his results.
milo
Jack L. Jones
It has increased because it is diagnosed more widely now. I think that the incidence has probably remained static but it went largely undiagnosed until relatively recently.
Wakefield has been completely discredited and his theories debunked. I can find some trustworthy material on this if you are interested.
As others have said, not vaccinating your children is dangerous and the potential harm far outweighs any risk from vaccines.
I am not sure it does. It says that Centre for Disease Control in America covered up the extent of the adverse effects of vaccines. And provides evidence from a whistleblower who worked there to support it.
He was not struck off for falsifying results but for not getting consent from the parents of the children from whom he took blood samples to use them in a study on autism.
The High Court found he did not falsifying results and his conclusions were "appropriate".
milo
Jack L. Jones
I'd be interested in seeing a link to that. The judge hearing the appeal by Prof John Walker-Smith who was struck off with Wakefield and carried out the research with him said in his judgement:
'There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked'.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17283751
milo
Jack L. Jones
I haven't seen the film and do not know what he is claiming in it beyond what you have posted here. Does he claim that other countries are carrying out a similar cover up? I am not aware of a reputable public health body in the world that agrees with Wakefield's views on vaccines.
Seedy Ron
Frederic Kanoute
I've not looked into these, but I'm sure they can be found online if required:
-Taylor et al. (1999); 498 children in the UK - no difference in autism rates based on vaccination
-Makela et al. (2001); 500,000 children in Finland - no difference in autism rates based on vaccination
-Madsen et al. (2002); 500,000 children in Denmark showing no difference in autism rates based on vaccination
-Hviid et al. (2003); 450,000 children in Denmark - no difference in autism based on thimerosal in vaccines
-Verstraeten et al. (2003); 125,000 children in the U.S. - no difference in autism based on thimerosal in vaccines
-Miller et al. (2004); 100,000 children in the UK - no difference in autism based on thimerosal in vaccines
-DeStefano et al. (2004); 2,500 children in the U.S. - no difference in autism rates based on vaccination
-Smeeth et al. (2004); 5000 people in the UK - no difference in autism based on vaccination
-Honda et al. (2005); 300,000 people in Japan showing no difference in autism rates based on vaccination
-Fombonne et al. (2006); 28,000 children in Canada - no difference in autism - based on vaccination
-Richler et al. (2006); 300 people with autism in the U.S. - no difference in autism rates based on vaccination
-Uchiyama et al (2007); 900 people with autism in Japan - no difference in regressive autism rates based on vaccination
-Price et al. (2010) and DeStefano et al. (2013); 1000 children in the U.S. - no difference in autism, based on thimerosal and other ingredients in vaccines
-Kuwaik et al. (2014) and Jain et al. (2015); studied autism among those who had siblings with autism - no difference based on vaccination even with genetic predispositions to autism
The data that the CDC is meant to have destroyed wasn't, is still held on their servers and in fact is publicly available, apparently. And the whistleblower (assuming you mean Dr William Thompson) was I believe secretly recorded and doesn't actually appear in the film. He still backs vaccination and also confirms the data wasn't destroyed.
glasgowspur
Nayim
No need for that tone.
It's a FACT, which is more than can said for any your claims.
milo
Jack L. Jones
This Cochrane Review also included some MMR/placebo trials and finds no link between MMR and autism. It also confirms that effectiveness of MMR in treating measles, mumps and rubella.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/AR...of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella
milo
Jack L. Jones
This Australian systematic review of over one million children also found no link between MMR and autism
http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/no-link-MMR-and-autism
http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/no-link-MMR-and-autism
The film does not present any evidence of other countries covering up the adverse effects of vaccines. The film does provide evidence the CDC covered up the extent of vaccine damage in particular in relation to the two most sensitive results: black boys were 4 times more likely to be damaged and the instances of "isolated" autism increased dramatically after vaccination. The film also provides moving testimony from doctors, parents and paediatricians suggesting that the 20,000% increase in 50 years autism is not adequately explained away by "coincidence" or better reporting.
I agree no Government (apart from Japan and France) would accept even the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism,
milo
Jack L. Jones
The US does not operate in a vacuum. If there was evidence of this there and they covered it up, it would be found in another country and made public. There would be Nobel prizes in this for any scientist who could prove it.
Do you accept that Wakefield is far from impartial on this and could have vested interests in perpetuating talk of a link between vaccines and autism? Do you also accept that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of there being no link?
Sure. But he did not falsify records. And his conclusion were appropriate. In other words he did not commit fraud and he is entitled to his opinion - right or wrong. And lets not forget, the Lancet published it after peer review. At the time it seems a reasonable and logical conclusion. And frankly it remains so for many people and it is why it will not go away.
It didn't. As with everything by Wakefield, the evidence is entirely false. There's a reason the "whistleblower" didn't appear in the film - his quotes were a cut and shut job. It was all taken out of context and cropped to suit.
See here for a more detailed breakdown than I have time for:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...se-full-of-sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing/
I've skimmed the report and haven't found a single case where his findings were described as appropriate. Given the general tone of the rest of the report, I'd be very surprised if they did.
Yes he was struck of partly for mistreating patients (that should tell you all you need to know own about him), but the study also repeatedly states that the subjects chosen were not appropriate for a random trial - mainly because he already knew that the subjects were suffering from the effects he was claiming. Essentially they're saying he cherry picked data that suited in order to create an effect that isn't there.
milo
Jack L. Jones
No but his trials were flawed and invasive (they included colonoscopy, where the child is sedated, and a long tube with a camera and a light passed through the anus and deep into the bowel; lumbar puncture, where a needle is placed into the spine to get cerebrospinal fluid; barium meals and more) and were conducted without ethics committee approval.
The trial also only included 12 children and the link between the onset of autism after MMR was largely anecdotal. The trial was so small to be practically worthless and the methods only further undermine it.
The Lancet also retracted the paper and peer review has failed to replicate Wakefield's findings. The Lancet
Lancet said:
The whistleblower was working on a specific MMR study for the CDC and they found unhelpful results and these are the results that they covered up. I am sure he felt that by exposing this he would be awarded a Nobel prize.
Oddly given what he said, the CDC and American Government did nothing. Either he should be charged with fraud or it should be investigated by Congress. Either way there would need to be full disclosure. Perhaps that is why nothing happens.
Wakefield is very partial.
There has not been a vaxxed / non vaxxed study, so there is no overwhelming evidence. On one side, there are millions of people who claim their kids were damaged by vaccine. This evidence is entirely observational. On the other side, they are many Pharma and Government backed studies that claim that these people are delusional and that it is a coincidence. This evidence is entirely observational.
The question remains why won't pharma agree to a trial to the same ethical standards as a drug. it leads some to the conclusion that the reason they won't do this is because they won't like the results.
Yes. Awful. He was struck off for this. But it did not have an impact on the results
Yes his evidence was anecdotal but so is all the evidence on the other side. Every other study is anecdotal.
Why can't there by a vaxxed / non vaxxed study to proper ethical standards as they would do with any drug. It would put this to bed once and for all.
No it doesn't. It provides no evidence at all
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...droid-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Do you know the sample size for that study?
10.
That's right, a sample size of 10. You've obviously not done much research into how clinical evidence works, but let me assure you - a sample size of 10 may as well be a sample size of 0. Give me a sample size of 10 and I'll prove eating Broccoli causes pregnancy.
What is "isolated autism?" Protip: It's made up, it doesn't exist.
If you hear someone using that term, you can skip the diagnosis and go straight to quack.
Moving testimony? Is that what we now base clinical trials on? It would be handy if so, not only would it speed testing up and make it significantly cheaper, it would also get rid of that pesky requirement that our medicines actually work.
And these "doctors" - would they be doctors that have worked for Wakefield in the past? Or maybe people also advocating homeopathy?
As for parents (and I speak as one) when it comes to health they're fudging idiots. Nobody can make impartial decisions when it involves their child, neither are the vast majority of them capable of reading and/or understanding scientific research papers.
With good reason, there is no link. Not a little link, not a casual link, there isn't even any correlation.
Let me give you a little history of anti-vax quacks:
Initially they claimed that it was mercury in vaccines that caused autism. Mercury was (at the time) required in vaccines but undesirable - despite a dosage safety factor in the hundreds. Mercury was already on its way out of vaccines, but the vaxtards didn't know it at the time. In the following few years, Mercury was phased out of vaccines at a diffent pace across the world. Now there should have been a corresponding decrease in autism detection, but there wasn't - it continued on the same trend it has done for years.
Currently, in the US, pretty much every (might be all by now) child vaccine is mercury free. The only major one that isn't is the flu jab - there isn't, however, a corresponding spate of autistic pensioners.
Lately though, you won't hear vaxtards talking about mercury, because they've finally cottoned on to how foolish they sound. Now, they talk about vaccines interfering with the body's ability to "detoxify" - another non-existent flimflam term thrown about by people with a second class Sports Science degree who think that drinking water and eating white food for a day will cure colon cancer.