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/

Wakefield is supposed to have ordered examinations on children for the purposes of research, without the appropriate ethical permissions. He didn't. He ordered them for the purposes of diagnosing the children's problems. But of course you'd know this if you followed the cases.

X post. You said exactly what I quoted you as saying and you were wrong, wrong, wrong.

gotta get home now...but feel free to assume I am running off with my tail between my legs if it gives you pleasure...

I am not male and neither am I a medic and I am not a student either.

but er...accurate otherwise...

Well you seem to believe there is a conspiracy to under report vaccine damage?

does that not make you a conspiracy theorist?

There wasn't any point carrying on the discussion because I was trying to work out why I held a different opinion to you and the answer is because I accept the stated risks and you don't.

Of course we won't come to the same conclusion.

"My opinion of Wakefield is that if he did breach ethics procedure than he did something very wrong." Like what? Just a feeling you've got? How ridiculous is that.

"If he didn't and the whole GMC thing is a stack of cards then he didn't do much wrong."
The whole GMC case is a stack of cards, stacked against Andrew Wakefield.

"But I can't admire someone who broke rules in place to protect children."
No problem there - he didn't. He was doing his damnedest to help the children and the parents respected and were grateful to him for it.

Read up. In fact why don't you watch the Youtube video posted by Catherina, by way of a link to another thread. You will learn a great dea.

love, why are you so pissed off about me asking about this?

I don't know the answers...that's why I am asking....

I don't know the whole case history...that's why I asked if you believed the bit about the ethical breach was correct or not.

I already knew his paper didn't contain the vast majority of things his detractors slate him for saying....so I was asking if the other bit was also incorrectly reported...

but all I am getting from you is well you would know this if you cared enough.

If people were only allowed to ask questions about things they already knew then MN wouldn't exist....

SO why exactly are you so bloody paranoid?

I think vaccine damage is under-reported. Did I say it was because of a conspiracy? Why, I don't think I did.

Yes I do assume you're running off.

yeah I am getting the impression that asking anyone but you would have been a whole lot more informative, less agro and less bitchy.

Fine.

HAve it your way.

You could have communicated...you have chosen not to.

Whatever.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

I find it laughable that people could admire this man.

wow you really are a piece of work...are you getting off on putting others down?

Some way to get your gratification eh?

If you don't know the answers you need an entirely different approach. An highly aggressive and patronising know-it-all approach is...inappropriate.

Look at yourself for putting others down. If you don't like it back in your direction (how often does one have to say this on vaccine threads?) don't go there yourself. It's quite simple.

Zideq: read a little more widely. Children's lifelong disabilities are not funny by the way.

I too think that vaccine damage/adverse reactions are under-reported.

One reason for this is that you are not told that there is a yellow card scheme for reporting adverse reactions to all medicines, including vaccines and complementary.

When did you last see a poster up about this, at the surgery say? I read about it on mumsnet.

lol where in my post did I say they were and you belive the GMC where wrong?

LaVolcan I seriously need to hide this topic. When I'm not at work it's completely addictive. I think I need an intervention

I don't understand your post Zideq. Certainly don't understand your "lol".

the lol was in response to the complete straw man of:

"Children's lifelong disabilities are not funny by the way"

Do you belive the GMC where wrong in their assesment of Andrew Wakefield.

Yes I do.

And Wakefields action in regard to the libel actions don't cause you concern?

You'll have to spell out which action are you talking about. If it's something that comes from Brian Deer it's dull.

Doesn't it concern you that Professor Walker Smith was re-instated, so undermining evidence against Andrew Wakefield?

Do people think that what has gone on around Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith, Professor Murch, Professor Dhillon, the Lancet children, their parents, Horton, the Lancet, the GMC, The DoH, etc for over a decade is simple ?

I mean as simple as saying "oh well duh he breached medical ethics he must be a bad 'un" ?

Cos that is the level of debate we are seeing on this thread.

So I ask posters here a) what specifically do you consider Wakefield to have done wrong and b) does the result of the appeal by Professor Walker-Smith affect how you answer question a. ?

(If you don't know who Walker-Smith is or anything much about his appeal then how on earth are you able to have much of an opinion on Dr Wakefield. By which I mean your own opinion. Not the opinion of someone else that you have read in the press or on a website.)

CatherinaJTV - are you going to admit that you cannot quote Wakefield saying ""single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects" ?

Are you going to admit that you were either wrong about that or that you made it up?

BC you yourself found the time he said it...

back to flat hunting...

He didn't say it Catherina. You know this. He never said what you claim he said. Admit it.