Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent

Post Reply New Topic

I think the point of the Wakefield study and the reasons why it is bad are being lost here.

In the Wakefield study the results were "fudged" to give the result he wanted.

The second thing is that getting immunisation shots is far better for you than not getting them. In fact I read that (I think it was) a woman getting Rubella while pregnant is a possible cause of autism, so rubella shots are one of the few known ways to prevent possible autism. Besides that not all cases of autism are debilitating. I think it is better to have an autistic kid than one that gets measles, whooping cough, polio and rubella and god knows what other nasty diseases later in life.

Lastly yes it is true big pharma companies do live to make a profit. The research on immunisations is independent though. Do you know what peer review means? It means you submit work, then other scientists pore over it and try to find inconsistencies, errors, mistakes, poor scientific process or other issues. If it passes this it then gets published. More than likely other scientists may also do the same experiments to confirm the results. Releasing a peer review document is incredibly slow and stressful because it gets picked to pieces. Wakefield's study did not pass the peer review process, not because the facts were wrong, but because the process was wrong, which means the results can't be certain. Not only that but it is the "consensus" of the scientific community that immunisations are a good way to prevent diseases.

It's amazing that you would say these two things in the same sentence.



Oh yes, I suppose anyone that is independent of the pharmaceutical companies is a quack. Only bodies that are bought and paid for- the FDA, CDC, AMA, NCI, AAP, GMC- can be trusted for Big Pharma to police itself.

As for your second comment, you've got it completely backwards. At the very least, you must admit a flagrant double standard is being used to discredit Wakefield et al.



Actually, as I've already pored over, the Wakefield results were not "fudged", but in fact many of the studies that have been used against him have been. I already did talk about the science, but SimianSimpleton started getting into the politics, so I went there.

Secondly, please take a look at the historical record. Infectious disease rates have not declined since the vaccine schedule was loaded up in the mid-'80s (they were already low). I refer you to this evidence, for example, that the media and vaccine promoters never bring up- ‘Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons’ (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 54/16/1815). However, the rate of neurological problems, autoimmune disease, childhood cancer/leukemia, and other "genetic" disorders have skyrocketed in correlation with higher vaccination rates.

Thirdly, Wakefield's study DID pass peer review and was published, nobody debates this.

Yes, Mercola seems to be doing very nicely out of quackery

Can't be any conflict of interests there can there? He's got to sell his krill oil, organic mushroom complex and "miracle" whey somehow, hasn't he?

Is this zombie thread still alive? It's like two years old, get over it already!

1 year Jellybean unless I've overslept and missed my alarm.

don't mind me... I can't count!

First of all, NOBODY comes up with more whacky-quacky (and overpriced) treatments than Big Pharma, such as coronary bypass surgery (which is far more expensive and dangerous than EDTA chelation of calcium deposits on the arteries)... carcinogenic chemo- and radiation "therapies" for cancer (for which the Essiac herbal mixture is one effective 'alternative' treatment, as I have already indicated with peer-reviewed studies - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1622 ... stractPlus , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15353028 - I wonder where the cat lady was when I posted that)... or shots containing viruses, diseased genetic material, and systemic toxins that do nothing to ADD to your immune system (as would, say, intravenous vitamin C--refer to http://www.orthomed.com/klenner.htm , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC431183/)

I posted the Mercola link because it contains references to other studies that have replicated Wakefield et al's findings (scroll down). Wakefield is a co-author in some of these studies, but it's not like he forced the other scientists to "falsify" data. Furthermore, many of the studies are completely independent of Wakefield. So it's not a cut-and-dry issue like you all seem to think it is.

Anyways, the reason I re-started this thread is because it was being used to spread slanderous lies about an ethical researcher. He deserves to have his name cleared. Furthermore, I remind you that NONE of the patients he worked with actually complained, only Brian Deer and the GMC, which is LOADED with conflicts of interest. The charges were clearly trumped up and baseless. Nobody has adequately addressed my points, so I assume you are unable to do so.

Last edited by bitterbonker on 12 Feb 2012, 9:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

bitterbonker, you appear to be getting more heated and snippy as this interminable thread continues to drag on.

You've accused StuartN of engaging in ad hominem attacks yet there are none - from him or anyone else, but I can find at least two from you: one where all posters are accused of being condescending and another veiled reference to StuartN as "SimianSimpleton". Now we have "the cat lady", when I suspect you know full well the poster's name yet choose not to use it.

If you're unable to engage in debate without getting angry and attacking people, and are unwilling or unable to reference accredited backup for your arguments beyond conspiracies, purveyors of magic tea and other woo-woo "science" - then I suggest you stop digging this particular hole.


As an aside, I'd like to add this:

But I have referenced numerous "accredited" sources, as well as sources that you would consider less valid, but the science is still unrefutable (at least by any of you). This is the reason why I get so frustrated.

Oh, and this is secondary to the point, but:

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there." http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

StuartN used ad hominem reasoning to blow off my arguments and references. If the science is flawed then he should be able to explain why; it doesn't matter where it comes from. Because he didn't do that, I started to make fun of him, but it wasn't part of my argument, it was just out of sheer exasperation.

PEACE

Last edited by bitterbonker on 12 Feb 2012, 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well I can think of a range of brain problems which might make a person unable to recognise people / faces, but I have never heard of lopside gait or weakness on one side being associated with autism. The asymmetric thing sounds to me more like a stroke, a whack to the head or a bullet in the brain (front to back path of projectile).

While some things like head ache pain might be common to many neurological disorders, I think that the symptoms which the woman listed does not suggest autism to me. It looks more like a stroke or one of the head injuries I mentioned.



I am trying to keep a straight face, I worked for years on the chemistry of heavy metals.



Well while I know that in many biological systems many trace and toxic metals get methylated (for example in selenium poisoning cases a garlic smell is oftein noticed due to the formation of dimethyl selenium) but I would say that the reason why methyl mercury is more toxic than inorganic mercury is likely to be due to the fact that methylmercury is more lipophilic than mercury. The addition of the ethyl group to the mercury is likely to make the mercury more lipophilic than methyl mercury.

So it is reasonable to assume that anything which slows down the loss of methyl mercury from the body is likely to be bad if you are exposed to a harmful level of ethyl mercury. But the great problem is that with almost all chemicals you can see a dose-response effect, the level of ethyl mercury in a vaccine is very very small, I think it is too small to cause an effect.

I think your comment that "Your last statement, that it would "make toxic metals move from the aqueous part of a person into the fatty parts of the body (such as the brain)", is completely unsupported by the literature." shows both your ignorance and arogance (typically ignorance is a comorbid condition associated with arogance). For a moment consider for a moment Cyanex-301 (https://www.cytec.com/specialty-chemica ... %20301.pdf), this is a classic sulfur compound which is known to convert metals such as zinc, cadmium and mercury into organic soluble species. I also suggest that you read up about the water-octanol partitioning of drugs and its relationship to the entry of drugs into the CNS.

This is basic solvent extraction chemistry, which has been known for donkey's years in the chemical community. Also elements of basic solvent extraction should be known by anyone working on medicinal chemistry or pharmacy / medicine.

THANK YOU, Woodpecker. Thanks for talking to me like a human being. Anyone who dismisses me, I'm just going to dismiss right back. But you, Woodpecker, have my respect. I apologize for getting mad.

As for that girl's injury, it seems to have some characteristics of autism, but more generally of CNS damage. I want to repeat that Russell Blaylock quote: “Most neurological disorders, both acute and chronic, have a common set of pathological events despite their varying clinical presentations.” I refer once again to this paper, or others by Dr. Blaylock, for more information: http://www.ana-jana.org/reprints/JANAau ... le6no1.pdf

As far as the dose-response effect, in a joint statement from The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service (FDA & CDC), July 7, 1999, it was admitted that from the former vaccine schedule, "some children could be exposed to a cumulative level of mercury over the first six months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines on methyl mercury." According to this Congressional report, which resulted from three years of research, this was estimated in 2000 to amount to 8,000 children a day! ( http://vaccines.procon.org/sourcefiles/ ... Report.pdf )

Granted, thimerosal is now present in only trace amounts (less than 1 microgram/kg, at least allegedly) in most vaccines, there is still 25 mcg/kg in the flu shot (according to the ingredients insert), which is now recommended annually for everyone, including children and pregnant women! To their credit, at least Thimerosal-free versions are available (in limited supply), but the fact remains that mercury is one of the most toxic substances known and has no business being in vaccines.

This is not about being anti-vaccine, it's about being responsible with what vaccines contain, and giving people accurate information about the risks and benefits. This is the philosophy Wakefield espouses, although most of his detractors don't seem to realize this. As someone with the experience and credentials to be able to understand, I urge you to reconsider your position on Thimerosal.

As for my statements about alpha lipoic acid, I was referring to my knowledge of that compound specifically, I don't know of it having the effect of causing metals to deposit in fatty areas. However, keep in mind that a responsible chelation therapist will use LA in conjunction with other chelators for their combined effect. Mineral supplements are also administered in order to offset loss of essential minerals by chelation. The therapy is not without drawbacks, however, it is critical to remove deposits of inorganic mercury that are known to accumulate in the brain of infant monkeys following Thimerosal exposure from vaccines (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/ ), so on a temporary basis I see it as very beneficial.

Thank you for sharing some of your expertise, I will consider what you have said, research the areas you suggested, and expand on this response if necessary.

Hear hear.

The science has been refuted, but you say that all of the refutations are disreputable hucksters for big pharma. After you do that, you claim that there is no refutation. You also cite well-known quacks and recommend quack treatments for autism and expect to be taken seriously.

Wakefield's reputation has been rightfully tarnished by his dishonest work. He doesn't need someone riding into year+ old threads like a white knight to defend his honor. Especially not someone who believes in the alleged efficacy of Essiac tea or that mercury toxicity resembles autism at all (it doesn't).

Verdandi, I'm baffled. Are you saying that you consider the PubMed database to be "peddling quackery"? Because I referenced that for many of my points, including the efficacy of Essiac, which you continue to pooh-pooh. Isn't anyone else seeing this??

Bad science is bad science. Name a study that you believe contradicts Wakefield, or the finding of thimerosal toxicity, or the connection of MMR, thimerosal, or vaccines to autism. I'll explain what is wrong with it. Or, if it happens to be a properly-conducted study, shoot! Maybe I was wrong. But I'm pretty sure I've seen 'em all.

And yes, I pointed out that Stephen Barrett is a "disreputable huckster", and you called me out on that. So I posted a direct rebuttal to Quackwatch's doublespeak-ridden lies about EDTA. Then you disappear, and all of the sudden you come back, keep repeating the same accusations of me as before, while totally ignoring the evidence I provided. So what exactly is the burden of proof you are looking for? It seems like your only criteria is how close it comes to confirming your existing point of view.

As for the year old thread thing, yeah, I probably should have started a new discussion, but oh well, too late now. Still, if the allegations are in dispute, then it deserves to be called out. It doesn't matter how old it is. You should still be able to defend your point of view, especially when the charges are so serious and the stakes are so high.

I don't wish to fight with you. I'm only asking you to have an open mind.

P.S. - I said "unrefutable" but I think the right word is "irrefutable". Or "unrefuted". lol

Well on the subject of Essiac,

I know that some studies (D. Seely et. al. Anticancer Research, 2007, vol 27, pages 3875) have been made on this "tea" which suggest it has some biological activity. But in an experiment using nude mice (E. Guns et. al. Nutrition and Cancer-An International Journal, 2007, volume 58, Pages 188-196) it was found that it had no anticancer effect. A 2006 paper suggests that essiac can stinulate the growth of breast cancer cells ( Kulp et. al. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2006, volume 98, pages 249 to 259).

Based on the abstracts of the papers I have seen so far, I think that this tea is not likely to be an effective treatment for cancer. The paper about breast cancer cells suggests it might make the cancer worse.

I am still sure that the amount of mercury in a vaccination is too small to damage the CNS.

That is priceless, and cheered me up at the end of a long day! When you get the GMC to reverse their findings and restore this ethical researcher to the medical register, we shall all be reading most attentively - just send us a scan of the GMC's response.