Andrew Wakefield published a study in 1998 It made us sicker

Post Reply New Topic

The swine flu vaccine in question was not approved in the US, and the US-approved vaccine showed no association with narcolepsy.

The Merck whistleblowers allege lack of effectiveness, not risk of autism or any other disability, disorder, or disease.

The CDC Whistleblower's data was totally flawed (now retracted), but even if it wasn't, it showed NO ASSOCIATION between timely administration of vaccines and autism. First of all, the association was only in african-american children, contrary to white anti-vaxxer parents saying this proves it caused their kids' autism. Second, the association was only present in african-american kids who got it late, not those who got it at the recommended time. If you're gonna accept the data as valid, which you shouldn't, it is a blow to the "too many too soon" argument.

Do you have a link for the whistleblower's retraction?

There was another doctor who retracted her statement that the cervical cancer vaccine was worse than cancer
http://www.naturalnews.com/027225_vacci ... vical.html
But maybe she folded due to pressure

He didn't retract it, the journal retracted the reanalysis he used as evidence.

heres another doctor who used to work for merck

he says the cervical cancer vaccine is useless and dangerous

http://central-pennsylvania.legalexamin ... -all-time/

Can't help but feel the Wakefield study also helped increase stigma of autistic people. I mean as long as autism is considered bad, we'll always be an easy target. (sigh)

absolutely

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptica ... vent-hero/

In other words... they're accidently being vaccinated against evidence?

Well, there's one vaccine that *is* bad...

Your link doesn't work. Here's the correct link:

http://www.upworthy.com/16-years-ago-a-doctor-published-a-study-it-was-completely-made-up-and-it-made-us-all-sicker?c=hpstream

So I'm interested in applying logic and objectivity to this: Here's a release from William Thompson through legal representation:
http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27- ... nd-autism/

This CDC insider says that he was part of the group at the CDC that allowed evidence to be suppressed which linked vaccines and autism. In this video he (or what may be a voice actor representing his view) says he bears great shame over the fact that he lied and they covered up the connection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q62DcaNs_0M

A specialist in investigating scientific fraud is interviewed who reviewed the papers and he says that what the CDC did is clearly fraud.

Here's another review of the press release: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjCpmdz3bA

Wakefield explains that the correlation was only found in those classified as Black/African-American for the study, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the CDC suppressed a finding of a correlation. The original post reminds us of the supposed fraud of Wakefield, but Wakefield was partially right. This graphic gives the impression he was completely wrong. But he was only believed to be wrong because part of the findings of the CDC investigating the possibility of a correlation were covered up, an in so doing committed an act which an investigator identifies as "fraud." So are they going to revise the graphic in light of this disclosure?

If I apply logic to this, it seems there's scientific basis for continuing to investigate at least the possibility of a correlation. And scientific literature backs such an approach: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

Or am I missing something?

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/c ... lQsGeYs.99

Believed when seen. As far as I know, all the studies so far seem to have suggested, rather conclusively I might add, that there is no connection between autism and vaccines.