onewheeldave Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I'm not really anti vaccines, some of them might have genuine benefits, though some would argue that resistance to disease is no greater than you'd expect from natural immunity. I'm more pro safer vaccines and don't think it right dangers be ignored or suppressed. It can make choosing very difficult, but life is full of difficult choices. Wouldn't you prefer a vaccine that doesn't contain potentially harmful chemicals? Yes. That's also an issue with several of the controversial issues that arise in connection with vaccines, in that, for example, many of the parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated, are not opposed to vaccines per se, but object to the new 'multi-vaccines' that also tend to have various metals in the ingedients. In many cases, those vaccines could be offered as single vaccines, or as vaccines without some of the objectional ingredients- unfortunately, the medical profession with it's usual arrogance, refuses to prioritise catering for such requests, or declines to do so on the basis of it costing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I do dispute that. The whole point of them is that they improve the immune system, in a selective manner. Yes selective in that they only (might) protect you from which ever flu was in the vaccine. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-485173/Are-flu-jabs-waste-time.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yes. That's also an issue with several of the controversial issues that arise in connection with vaccines, in that, for example, many of the parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated, are not opposed to vaccines per se, but object to the new 'multi-vaccines' that also tend to have various metals in the ingedients. In many cases, those vaccines could be offered as single vaccines, or as vaccines without some of the objectional ingredients- unfortunately, the medical profession with it's usual arrogance, refuses to prioritise catering for such requests, or declines to do so on the basis of it costing more. That's right, look what they did to Andrew Wakefield when he raised concerns about the MMR. I've read his book 'callous disregard' which is quite an insight into how they work, it's a vey corrupt industry, as is the FDA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 That's right, look what they did to Andrew Wakefield when he raised concerns about the MMR. . You mean they asked him for further evidence of his claim..? Why did the other 10 co-authors retract the interpretation of the results of the paper? Didn't Andrew Wakefield have a conflict of interest..wasn't he involved in a lawsuit with one of the MMR vaccinations' manufacturers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 You mean they asked him for further evidence of his claim..? Why did the other 10 co-authors retract the interpretation of the results of the paper? Didn't Andrew Wakefield have a conflict of interest..wasn't he involved in a lawsuit with one of the MMR vaccinations' manufacturers? There was a conflict in that he was trying to help get compensation for vaccine damaged children. That doesnt make him wrong. He never claimed to have proven a link but recognised that the MMR was causing a type of autism in some children, a view still supported by many doctors and other studies today. Why did the other ten change their minds? I don't know, under pressure perhaps, but the other doctor that stood by the findings has since been completely exonerated. There's info and an interview with Andrew Wakefield on here- http://m.naturalnews.com/news/035513_Andrew_Wakefield_vaccines_autism.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 There was a conflict in that he was trying to help get compensation for vaccine damaged children. That doesnt make him wrong. He never claimed to have proven a link but recognised that the MMR was causing a type of autism in some children, a view still supported by many doctors and other studies today. Why did the other ten change their minds? I don't know, under pressure perhaps, but the other doctor that stood by the findings has since been completely exonerated. As I understand it his was a small uncontrolled test on about 12 kids.. I know you're going to say it was some kind of conspiracy but I don't think so... This is a more likely scenario "In a BMJ follow-up article on 11 January 2011,[18] Deer said that based upon documents he obtained under Freedom of information legislation,[87] Wakefield—in partnership with the father of one of the boys in the study—had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing".[19][60] The Washington Post reported that Deer said that Wakefield predicted he "could make more than $43 million a year from diagnostic kits" for the new condition, autistic enterocolitis.[87] " From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Andrew Wakefield is not a pioneer against vaccination and vaccination-related autism- he has his own agenda to push and money to make, and his 'research' has been disproved, refuted and debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 As I understand it his was a small uncontrolled test on about 12 kids.. I know you're going to say it was some kind of conspiracy but I don't think so... This is a more likely scenario "In a BMJ follow-up article on 11 January 2011,[18] Deer said that based upon documents he obtained under Freedom of information legislation,[87] Wakefield—in partnership with the father of one of the boys in the study—had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing".[19][60] The Washington Post reported that Deer said that Wakefield predicted he "could make more than $43 million a year from diagnostic kits" for the new condition, autistic enterocolitis.[87] " From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield As Deer has been pretty underhand in his dealings with Wakefield I'll take that with a pinch of salt. Andrew Wakefield is not a pioneer against vaccination and vaccination-related autism- he has his own agenda to push and money to make, and his 'research' has been disproved, refuted and debunked. No it hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 No it hasn't. Yes it has, by anyone worth listening to. Wakefield is a liar and a fraud. He is single handedly responsible for the mental anguish of many thousands of parents. His lies also caused a steep rise in the number of cases of measles in the UK. Not bad work for an ex-doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 As Deer has been pretty underhand in his dealings with Wakefield I'll take that with a pinch of salt. Can you post any details of Andrew Wakefield's study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.