New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism!

[chocchild]

Has anybody come across this in the news? Maybe it's not newsworthy enough! healthimpactnews.com/2013/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again/

It would be extremely bizarre if he said that about Urabe as he spent time at the beginning talking about Urabe adverse events.

OK - he says at around 12.13 that;

"By 1985 the monovalent Urabe vaccine had been given to about about 5 million persons around the world, predominantly in Japan. There had been no reports of meningitis with the single vaccine."

Which is what CatherinaJTV and I discussed on the other thread.

I don't have time right now to listen to the rest of the talk again but I doubt Wakefield is going to say "single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects" at any point.

About 12:23 Beach! "Urabe AM 9 no reports of aseptic meningitis"

However earlier on he clearly says "Urabe strain causes meningitis."

So he's hardly trying to lie. He says right at the beginning "Urabe strain causes meningitis". It's a confusion - rather than a lie.

Considering what he reveals in that talk, the appalling implications for ministers and drug companies and the cover-up motivated entirely by money, you must be desperate to pick that out. Don't you have anything to say about the role of David Salisbury? Was Wakefield wrong about that? What about the reason for choosing a more dangerous vaccine - cost? There is so much there for you to take issue with. But you pick on that? When he's clearly said at the beginning Urabe causes meningitis?

X post. Not really worth listening for but thanks for prompting me to listen to that super talk again.

he is lovely to listen to, isn't he? So you think it was just an innocent mistake in the course of a longer talk?

oh, and I am sorry, can't listen to it again atm - DD has just been offered a university place abroad and I am drowning in paperwork (have found her birth certificate - next up, insurance card, book flights/trains, find flat...) I'll be back in mid October from the looks of it - so exciting

The most shocking thing is that somebody can watch that whole video, take notes, and not have any concern about the issues raised. The vaccine safety, the ministerial complicity, the failure to record adverse reactions, the involvement of people still in senior public health jobs - the list goes on and on. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt ie even if their wrong, to imagine their motives may be good. But when someone is well aware of exactly what's happened, and maintains a position of denial, then their enthusiasm for vaccines borders on obsession.

they're wrong :)

Is the thing that actually got AW fired considered to be true by his supporters on here?

The breach of ethical guidelines?

I ask because I am currently filling in the ethics part of a grant proposal and I am not really seeing anything skipable.

It seems odd to say "I do think Andrew Wakefield is rather marvellous. He certainly is a man of honesty, integrity, courage and proven commitment to children and public health." about someone that blew off procedures designed to keep people safe and treat them in an ethical way?

He's amazing. Huge integrity, huge courage and an enormous commitment to children's health.

so it doesn't bother you that he didn't follow ethical guidelines?

or I suppose rather than answering the question you could just keep stating your view point again and again and hope we don't notice...

are you a politician by any remote chance?

If you knew anything about it (which you plainly don't) you'd know that most of the evidence against Mr Wakefield is undermined by the reinstatement of Prof Walker Smith. But never mind - from your previous contributions I gather you aren't really that interested. Also from your previous contributions and avoidance tactics, I can safely say that you can think what you like about my opinion, because I don't have any respect for yours.
HTH.

still not answering the question then....what a surprise.

I think I can safely say from our previous interaction that you haven't the faintest idea what my opinion on Wakefield is....what with me not having ever told anyone.

but don't let that stop you....

bloody hell. You guys are the motherload of defensive paranoia...

also wtf about avoidance tactics? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

If you admire Mr Wakefield and approve of him, and think he did the right thing, surprise me now. Prove me wrong.

I can see you need things spelling out. No it doesn't bother me and no, he hasn't behaved unethically. Now I bet boots to Blackburn that your opinion is the polar opposite. You see I do have the very very faintest idea what your opinion of Mr Wakefield is.

You accused me and another poster of being conspiracy theorists who think all stated risks and reported results from medical trials are bull, because we found on the whole internet some other people it had happened to. When you were disabused of this misconception you ran away.

I am SO looking forward to my surprise by the way.

You're a male medical student aren't you!

ahh I actually didn't return to that thread as I had learnt all I needed to on that topic regarding your opinions. I might go back if you think anyone actually made a valid point.....

On what basis do you find that the GMC was incorrect in saying that ethical guidelines and procedures had been breached?

My opinion of Wakefield is that if he did breach ethics procedure than he did something very wrong. If he didn't and the whole GMC thing is a stack of cards then he didn't do much wrong. At that point his heart being in the right place (which I do believe it was) becomes a relevant point in his favour.

But I can't admire someone who broke rules in place to protect children.

By the way reinstatement of someone else doesn't mean that either AW or the other person are innocent. People get released from jail when they served their time as well as in the extremely rare case that they are later found to be innocent.

Of course there was a valid point - one which proved you off the wall wrong. I wouldn't have returned either if I were you. That sort of thing isn't comfortable for people who think they know more than anyone else.

Nope I can't see it? I said you were all certain the reported risks were being deliberately under stated and the only point that seems to even vaguely address that was saintly saying she went to research talks as well as reading MN.

I am not sure what that is supposed to prove.

What point do you think was made?

Do please feel free to answer the questions in my post as well as slating me for things I suspect I never even commented on in another thread...