Did Andrew Wakefield Perpetrate an "Elaborate Fraud"?

[Joe Hillshoist]

That looks to be enormously fun, I must say. But at the moment, we have no posting guidelines in specific prohibition regarding affirmations of the principles of the Knights of Malta beyond the overriding "anti-fascism" rules.

Indeed we don't. All we have when it comes to suggestions such as this, are supposedly intelligent people to all intents and purposes sniggering at the very idea of a few inbred fucks pulling the collective chains of the proles.

I mean, the very idea that those who consider themselves appointees of God himself , for the best part of 2000 years, could through a number of not so secret societies such as the Knights of Malta, Pilgrims Society, Bilderburgers, Council of Foreign Relations, and any other number of such non democratic institutions control a global populus by giving them some sense of self governance via a system of "democracy" ?

How fukn stupid is that ?

Or that over and above that, these same inbreds, through their lackeys and proxies arent into population control and governance by controlling your food, your medicine, your economy and indeed your very identity.

That kind of nonsense isnt what RI is all about, is it ?

I find it kind of insulting that several aspects of "democracy", won cos people put their lives on the line and in many cases died standing up to the reptillian pricks you refer to, can be written off as some gift of those same pricks.

I'm pretty close to breaking a long standing RI rule here, but I won't, I'll just wtf this has to do with whether or not Wakefield committed a fraud with his 1998 research?

[barracuda]

Not that I am admitting to advocating for Scientology, or stifling an urge to do so, but since you reminded us of this: Jeff quoted "... Therefore, advocacy for Scientology, and use of Scientology materials to promote its principles, is forbidden.", I am wondering if, non-Scientology materials Can be used to advocate for allegedly or provably Scientology-associated organizations.

Please avoid promoting Scientology in any way here. I'm not sure why you'd want to advocate for provably Scientology-associated organisations, cat. Any polemical issues which you may wish to explore can, in all likelyhood, be expresssed without resorting to those sources in the first place. And our posting guidelines expressly prohibit using them as sources anyway. So, no, I wouldn't advise it. If you'd care to argue that an organisation is being unfairly smeared as Scientology, be my guest, and we'll see what we see.

But if you're talking about the Age of Autism site, I don't think I really need Scientology to show that they should be avoided. For instance, I notice they're very excited about Dr. Marc Geier's addition of the castration drug, Lupron to Boyd Haley's use of an industrial-chemical compound for treating mining wastewater as a chelator in the treatment of children with autism.

Do you recommend advocating for giving five-year olds hormone-blocking injections that are strong enough to equate to cutting off the balls of a grown man as boosters for the chelator that's strong enough to leach metals out of industrial waste that they're already getting?

Or do you just recommend such advocates as ripostes in Wakefield discussions without considering their positions as such?

[catbirdsteed]

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/ ... l-journal/

Over and above all this, as no parent was called by the GMC prosecutor in the GMC hearings [bar the one who thought the evidence was given for the Defendants' benefit], there has been no opportunity for the parents to answer Mr Deer’s allegations or to challenge what he says nor has there been any proper full examination of these cherry-picked allegations, nor any opportunity for any claims now being made to be subject to cross-examination and independent investigation.

Additionally, one of the witnesses in the GMC proceedings against Dr Wakefield writing to the British Medical Journal confirmed the validity of the histopathology on which the paper was based and illustrated how Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer had misrepresented her evidence. Dr Susan E Davies, Consultant Histopathologist, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge stated in the British Medical Journal regarding a BMJ article by Brian Deer that:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/ ... l-journal/

There is some misrepresentation …. and lack of understanding of the process in studies involving histopathology.” and that there were significant findings “While a clinical gastroenterologist might consider caecal active inflammation with incipient crypt abscess formation to be normal in children (1), this is a significant finding to be recorded by pathologists“ “Caution in assessing histopathological opinions.” BMJ Rapid Responses 30 April 2010.

The other significant flaw in these lies is that if the paper were a fraud, how is it that the findings are now being accepted by the US Government and mainstream medicine.

Nowhere is this made clearer than in the US National Autism Association’s News Release 5th January exclusively to the UK media [full text & full references pasted below]:-

In summary what NAA state in their UK news release is that if the 1998 Lancet paper’s results were faked how is it that now Dr Wakefield’s work is being proven right:-

* US Government health officials have admitted vaccines [and not just the MMR vaccine] cause autistic conditions;
* the US Federal Court has ordered substantial compensation for children whose autistic conditions were caused by vaccines;
* papers published independently in mainstream leading medical journals confirm, just as Dr Wakefield found in 1998, that autistic children suffer serious bowel disease when their non autistic contemporaries do not."



NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – REBUTTAL

January 5th 2011 – Nixa, Missouri USA/ British Medical Journal claims to be published Friday 6th January 2011 that the suggestion of a possible link between vaccines, bowel conditions and autistic conditions in children was “an elaborate fraud” are directly contradicted by:-


[Full details to following in "Notes to Editors" below and .pdf attached]

*

public statements by officials of US Federal Agencies made on US national news broadcast television that vaccines in general [ie not just the MMR vaccine] can cause autistic conditions;

* by a line of recent mainstream research papers showing that
o instead of being rare as claimed by government health officials autistic children are more likely to have mitochondrial dysfunctions which can lead to autistic conditions following vaccination
o

and by the latest medical research [including Jan 2010 Pediatrics] and by a substantial body of prior peer reviewed papers showing that autistic children have substantially higher rates of bowel disease than other children
+

this published medical evidence confirms the early report in The Lancet medical journal in 1998 by a 13 strong team of medical experts from the internationally renowned Royal Free Hospital London.

* by three US Federal court decisions Poling, Zeller and Banks that vaccines have been proven to have caused autistic conditions:-
o [NB These are in addition to 1322 cases of serious brain injuries and medical conditions caused by vaccines which the US HRSA admits compensating. It is troubling that children susceptible to serious vaccine injury are not being screened out of the vaccine programmes and nothing is being done to save such children.]

[Plutonia]

The whole Wakefield flap is INTERFERENCE. It is adding to the pervasive subversion of any reasonable discussion of the fact that a statistically significant group of parents and caretakers (some of whom are pediatricians) see very tangible and repeatable evidence of inflammatory bowel conditions in autistic children.

It was the Wakefield study, that was pivotal in legitimating the disease vector you describe. His work is null ergo it's time for you all to start over. From scratch. Let's have some evidence. Oh right, there is none.

BTW, I'm on the spectrum myself. That trumps your "I'm a caregiver."

[Plutonia]

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com

That site promotes pernicious Co$ front groups Generation Rescue, Age of Autism and a new one, Alliance for Human Research Protection.

[stickdog99]

Not that I am admitting to advocating for Scientology, or stifling an urge to do so, but since you reminded us of this: Jeff quoted "... Therefore, advocacy for Scientology, and use of Scientology materials to promote its principles, is forbidden.", I am wondering if, non-Scientology materials Can be used to advocate for allegedly or provably Scientology-associated organizations.

Please avoid promoting Scientology in any way here. I'm not sure why you'd want to advocate for provably Scientology-associated organisations, cat. Any polemical issues which you may which to explore can, in all likelyhood, be expresssed without resorting to those sources in the first place. And our posting guidelines expressly prohibit using them as sources anyway. So, no, I wouldn't advise it. If you'd care to argue that an organisation is being unfairly smeared as Scientology, be my guest, and we'll see what we see.

I'm arguing that anit-vax organizations are all being unfairly smeared as Scientology, this supposed relationship is the ultimate red herring, and your equivalence of anything these organizations write to "advocacy for Scientology" simply because some "known Scientologists" are associated with these groups is the profoundest of moronic guilt-by-association censorship, overtaking even McCarthyism by a wide margin.

IMHO, you should be ashamed of yourself for even broaching this heinous gambit.

[stickdog99]

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com

That site promotes pernicious Co$ front groups Generation Rescue, Age of Autism and a new one, Alliance for Human Research Protection.

LOL. Where the fuck is your evidence? All you have produced is guilt-by-association nonsense. By your standards, every single Hollywood movie could be deemed a pernicious Co$ front group.

How many of these anti-vax groups have prominent Jewish members? By you own standards of evidence, why doesn't this make them pernicious Zionist front groups?

[stickdog99]

The whole Wakefield flap is INTERFERENCE. It is adding to the pervasive subversion of any reasonable discussion of the fact that a statistically significant group of parents and caretakers (some of whom are pediatricians) see very tangible and repeatable evidence of inflammatory bowel conditions in autistic children.

It was the Wakefield study, that was pivotal in legitimating the disease vector you describe. His work is null ergo it's time for you all to start over. From scratch. Let's have some evidence. Oh right, there is none.

BTW, I'm on the spectrum myself. That trumps your "I'm a caregiver."

Do you support primate research on the safety of the entire vaccination schedule that almost US infants are subjected to?

Can you suggest a reason why not a single experiment of this nature has ever been performed on primates?

[Plutonia]

IMHO, you should be ashamed of yourself for even broaching this heinous gambit.

Hey, what about me?

I'm the one who keeps pointing out the Co$ connections to anti-vaccine propaganda. Clever ruse, creating front groups and infiltrating once legitimate organizations.Unfortunately it's hard to pull it off with the internets being they way they are.

*************

@stickdog, you got in before me so to answer your Q:

I don't believe that vaccinations are prima facie safe, because, let's face it, who can trust those powerful interest groups with their money-making schemes? But that doesn't mean that vaccinations cause autism.

[stickdog99]

IMHO, you should be ashamed of yourself for even broaching this heinous gambit.

Hey, what about me?

Frankly, I don't know what to make of you.

First, you conflate the lack of a conclusive link between vaccination and autism with proof that no such link exists. This exact lack of intellectual rigor has served the opium, cocaine, tobacco, asbestos, nuclear waste, genetic modification, artificial sweetener and vermiculite industries very well throughout history, to name just a few.

Second, you seem to believe unquestioningly anything any skepdick website writes about any organization that questions vaccine safety.

Thirdly, you seem to believe that any organization that has a prominent member or associate who is a known or suspected Scientologist must be part of monolithic network of Co$ front groups. This exact lack of intellectual rigor has served the KKK, Nazi and McCarthyite movements very well throughout history, to name just a few.

[barracuda]

I'm arguing that anit-vax organizations are all being unfairly smeared as Scientology, this supposed relationship is the ultimate red herring, and your equivalence of anything these organizations write to "advocacy for Scientology" simply because some "known Scientologists" are associated with these groups is the profoundest of moronic guilt-by-association censorship, overtaking even McCarthyism by a wide margin.

IMHO, you should be ashamed of yourself for even broaching this heinous gambit.

I was answering a direct question from a forum member regarding the posting guidelines. Far from being something shameful, this is a function of being a mod here, and is a task that the site owner and admin has requested I perform. And as I said,

If you'd care to argue that an organisation is being unfairly smeared as Scientology, be my guest, and we'll see what we see.

So feel free to dispute the citations put forth in that regard, but I'm here to tell you that the posting guidelines are in effect regardless of whether or not you happen to like them. And though I appreciate your interest and interpretations of my activities, your opinions about them have almost no bearing on the discussion.

And I think if you'll take a moment to review the thread, you'll find that my current "gambit" is that your defense of Wakefield equates to a defense of unwarranted and invasive medical experiments upon children.

How many of these anti-vax groups have prominent Jewish members? By you own standards of evidence, why doesn't this make them pernicious Zionist front groups?

Maybe because "Jewish" doesn't equal "Zionist front group" unless one is an anti-semite.

[stickdog99]

Maybe because "Jewish" doesn't equal "Zionist front group" unless one is an anti-semite.

Of course it doesn't, which was exactly my point. But an organization's second (or even first) degree connection to a suspected Scientologist could somehow qualify that organization as an "advocate for Scientology" such that it would require censorship by this forum's rules?

Once again, you should be ashamed of yourself.

There are millions of Scientologists in the United States. As such, using guilt-by-association with Scientologists as your standard for censorship would basically make the entire internet off-limits. You are obviously more than intelligent enough to realize this, which is why I find your threat to invoke your right of censorship based on guilt-by-association (rather than any website content actually advocating for Scientology itself) so appalling.

[barracuda]

Okay, I'm ashamed of myself. Happy now? So tell me, how exactly has that changed the weakness of your position, or your ability to argue for the defense of Wakefield? Try addressing your own OP rather than my personal problems. You're trolling your own thread, dude.

There are millions of Scientologists in the United States. As such, using guilt-by-association with Scientologists as your standard for censorship would basically make the entire internet off-limits. You are obviously more than intelligent eough to realize this, which is why I find your threat to invoke your right of censorship based on guilt-by-association (rather than any website content actually advocating for Scientology itself) so appalling.

You know what? I don't care about any of that. The posting guidelines are still in effect. Don't use Scientology sources.

[undead]

There are millions of Scientologists in the United States. As such, using guilt-by-association with Scientologists as your standard for censorship would basically make the entire internet off-limits. You are obviously more than intelligent eough to realize this, which is why I find your threat to invoke your right of censorship based on guilt-by-association (rather than any website content actually advocating for Scientology itself) so appalling.

[stickdog99]

Okay, I'm ashamed of myself. Happy now? So tell me, how exactly has that changed the weakness of your position, or your ability to argue for the defense of Wakefield? Try addressing your own OP rather than my personal problems.

Again, my purpose here is not to defend Wakefield. To be frank, Deer has amassed so many charges against Wakefield, from completely trivial and biased to perhaps very salient but grossly overstated and slanted, that I really wouldn't even know where to begin. In any case case, the study Wakefield supposedly "sexed up" was basically meaningless anyway, so I don't really care about this issue in and of itself.

What I care about are the deeper political and scientific ramifications of this "press attack dog vs. scientist with the temerity to question anything about vaccination" battle. It's pretty clear to me is that if you gave Rob Deer seven years, unlimited resources and a bully pulpit, he could destroy the careers of tens of thousands of currently respected research scientists. What is also clear to me is that while we desperately need journalists like Rob Deer acting as watchdogs on corporate scientists, they act only as watchdogs on anti-corporate scientists. And when doing so, they are not just permitted but in fact commissioned to act as prosecutors, judge and jury, rather than as balanced journalists.

Furthermore, I care deeply that Deer's rabid dog attack on Wakefield was successful in nixing the very first controlled primate experiment on the safety of the entire US infant vaccination regime. It's criminal that no such experiments have ever been performed before, and doubly criminal that the first one that was ever performed has now been effectively killed, not because of it lacked scientific rigor or merit, but simply because of guilt-by-association with Wakefield's Deer-tainted name.