Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[onewheeldave]

An does the BMA support your position...

The BMA isn't aware of my position. It's clearly aware of Dr Peter Gøtzsches position though (that medical evidence is subject to criminal corruption by the pharma companies), and, by giving his book on that exact subject, first prize, would seem to be giving it a bit of support?

Not reason to believe every nutter and Quack on youtube.

I agree completely. You do realise that not everything on youtube these days is by 'nutters and cranks'? Peter Gøtzsche, for example, appears on youtube occasionally- does that mean he's a 'nutter/crank'?

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 14:57 ----------

 

The "highly credible" BMA Vaccinations and immunisation guidance includes the following:

 

 

Meningococcal B (Men B) vaccination infants

Meningococcal ACWY (MenACWY)

HPV booster

Meningococcal C Booster

Seasonal flu and pneumococcal vaccination programme

Meningococcal vaccination for university freshers

Shingles

Hepatitis B

MMR

Rotavirus

Pertussis for pregnant women

source

 

Your point being?

Edited April 3, 2016 by onewheeldave

[Obelix]

I have no reason to think, or care, what the Cochrane Foundation thinks on the matter.

 

Really?

 

So why say...

 

He's the Director of the Danish Cochrane Foundation- high level of credibility.

 

You can't dismiss an authority and then later rely on that authority without people laughing at you.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 15:09 ----------

 

Your point being?

 

You cannot make an appeal to authority and then choose which things that authority believes without destroying your arguments.

 

Either vaccines are dodgy, or the BMA is good. You cannot have both.

 

Which is it you want to believe please?

[Annie Bynnol]

Your point being?

 

The "highly credible" BMA promotes and guides the use of vaccinations and immunisation methods and the impact of Gøtzsches winning one of 20 categories in its book award in 2014 has had no effect.

 

ps The guest of honour at the event was Professor the Baroness Hollins, Chair of BMA Board of Science was educated at Notre Dame High School, Sheffield.

[onewheeldave]

Really?

 

 

 

 

You can't dismiss an authority and then later rely on that authority without people laughing at you.

 

 

READ WHAT YOU'RE QUOTING! Maybe you're unable to distinguish between the Cochrane institute, and, someone who works there, but I can.

 

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 17:13 ----------

 

 

Either vaccines are dodgy, or the BMA is good. You cannot have both.

 

Which is it you want to believe please?

 

Neither, I'll go with my actual beliefs if that's' OK. which are, that the alleged evidence from data churned out by demonstrably corrupt pharma companies, some of which has been used to 'prove' vaccines safe, is compromised.

 

I never said the BMA was 'good', as I'm not a 3 year old child

 

What I said was it had credibility.

 

For your future strawmanning, I'll point out I didn't say it had credibility in my eyes either.

 

But, the BMA most certainly has credibility. Perhaps mistaken here, but I assumned it would have credibility in your eyes, and, the eyes of most pro-vaxxers here?

 

That being the case, deal with the fact that they've given top book prize, despite the rather sensationalist title "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare " in which Dr Peter Gotzsche doesn't pussyfoot around saying 'pharma has some issues', but states the reality, which is that pharma is criminally corrupt.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 17:21 ----------

 

The "highly credible" BMA promotes and guides the use of vaccinations and immunisation methods and the impact of Gøtzsches winning one of 20 categories in its book award in 2014 has had no effect.

 

 

I didn't say it 'had an effect'. I was pointing out that a highly credible organisation (in the eyes of most pro-vaxxers, amongst others) voted "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime " first prize.

 

I'm assuming BMA book reviewers actually read the books they review, with a eye of keen medical expertise, and, therefore, think Dr Gotzsches claims therein (including the criminal nature of pharma company corruption, has some basis in fact.

 

In which case, in their eyes, it's feasible that much of modern trails 'evidence' is potentially flawed.

 

How do you feel about people of the expertise and experience of Dr Gotzsche casting doubt on the modern evidence system? He's far from the only one. The reason I'm pushing him is that, of all the experts I know of who are saying thousands of people are dying unnecessarily as a result of pharma corruption, is that, as director of the Cochrane Foundation, he should have credibility amongst the pro-vaxxers?

 

From the introduction of Dr Peter gotzsches book "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare "

 

 

 

 

The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs. This is what makes drugs so different from anything else in life … Virtually everything we know about drugs is what the companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors … the reason patients trust their medicine is that they extrapolate the trust they have in their doctors into the medicines they prescribe. The patients don’t realise that, although their doctors may know a lot about diseases and human physiology and psychology, they know very, very little about drugs that hasn’t been carefully concocted and dressed up by the drug industry … If you don’t think the system is out of control, then please email me and explain why drugs are the third leading cause of death … If such a hugely lethal epidemic had been caused by a new bacterium or a virus, or even one hundredth of it, we would have done everything we could to get it under control.​

Edited April 3, 2016 by onewheeldave

[Obelix]

READ WHAT YOU'RE QUOTING!"

 

It's rude to shout OWD, try not to.

 

I read that you didnt care about the cochrane foundation, and then you tried to use them as an eminent authority.

 

That's double standards. Maybe you dont think it is but most everyone else will.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 18:29 ----------

 

as director of the Cochrane Foundation, he should have credibility amongst the pro-vaxxers?

 

But you said you don't care about the Cochrane foundation...

 

So why should we care then?

[unbeliever]

READ WHAT YOU'RE QUOTING! Maybe you're unable to distinguish between the Cochrane institute, and, someone who works there, but I can.

 

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 17:13 ----------

 

 

Neither, I'll go with my actual beliefs if that's' OK. which are, that the alleged evidence from data churned out by demonstrably corrupt pharma companies, some of which has been used to 'prove' vaccines safe, is compromised.

 

I never said the BMA was 'good', as I'm not a 3 year old child

 

What I said was it had credibility.

 

For your future strawmanning, I'll point out I didn't say it had credibility in my eyes either.

 

But, the BMA most certainly has credibility. Perhaps mistaken here, but I assumned it would have credibility in your eyes, and, the eyes of most pro-vaxxers here?

 

That being the case, deal with the fact that they've given top book prize, despite the rather sensationalist title "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare " in which Dr Peter Gotzsche doesn't pussyfoot around saying 'pharma has some issues', but states the reality, which is that pharma is criminally corrupt.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 17:21 ----------

 

 

I didn't say it 'had an effect'. I was pointing out that a highly credible organisation (in the eyes of most pro-vaxxers, amongst others) voted "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime " first prize.

 

I'm assuming BMA book reviewers actually read the books they review, with a eye of keen medical expertise, and, therefore, think Dr Gotzsches claims therein (including the criminal nature of pharma company corruption, has some basis in fact.

 

In which case, in their eyes, it's feasible that much of modern trails 'evidence' is potentially flawed.

 

How do you feel about people of the expertise and experience of Dr Gotzsche casting doubt on the modern evidence system? He's far from the only one. The reason I'm pushing him is that, of all the experts I know of who are saying thousands of people are dying unnecessarily as a result of pharma corruption, is that, as director of the Cochrane Foundation, he should have credibility amongst the pro-vaxxers?

 

From the introduction of Dr Peter gotzsches book "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare "

 

The case of your opponents on this thread is largely that an evidence based conclusion is more sound than an authority based conclusion.

Quite simply that a large number of double-blind medical studies show no link between MMR and Autism or any other serious illness.

Your case has been largely appeal to authority of one kind or another.

If you're then inconsistent about whether one person/organisation or another is such an authority, i.e. their opinion should be trusted over evidence, then you're not even making an appeal to authority anymore; you're just flat-out cherry-picking.

 

Your case what desperately weak to start with. Now that you're flip-flopping between whether the same authority is to be believed or not based solely on whether they agree with you, your entire case has been reduced to a statement of your own opinion.

As you're not qualified (as far as we know) in the field; with the greatest respect you've naff all chance of persuading anybody. Even if you were so qualified, your opinion would not come close to balancing out the experimental data and you'd still lose.

 

We're not qualified either, but then we are using an experimental evidence based case, so it doesn't matter. That is one of the many virtues or basing an argument on data.

Edited April 3, 2016 by unbeliever

[onewheeldave]

It's rude to shout OWD, try not to.

 

I read that you didnt care about the cochrane foundation, and then you tried to use them as an eminent authority.

 

That's double standards. Maybe you dont think it is but most everyone else will.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 18:29 ----------

 

 

But you said you don't care about the Cochrane foundation...

 

So why should we care then?

 

Could one of the other pro-vaxxers here explain to your seemingly Intellectualy impaired associate, that the Cochrane foundation and Dr Peter Gotzsche are not identical please?

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 19:15 ----------

 

....We're not qualified either, but then we are using an experimental evidence based case, so it doesn't matter. That is one of the many virtues or basing an argument on data.

 

Including data that's corrupted by pharma companies behaving criminally, apparently.

 

Perhaps you should knock the prefix off your username, you seem quite gullible

Edited April 3, 2016 by onewheeldave

[unbeliever]

Including data that's corrupted by pharma companies behaving criminally, apparently.

 

If the data were single source, you might have a point.

It isn't so you don't.

 

Perhaps you should knock the prefix off your username, you seem quite gullible

 

I'm going to let that go as I don't want to get into a put-down contest.

[the_bloke]

So.. at almost 40 pages, have we any proof that the MMR vaccine causes autism? Or can I safely ignore this now, as the thread isn't going anywhere..

[andyofborg]

So.. at almost 40 pages, have we any proof that the MMR vaccine causes autism? Or can I safely ignore this now, as the thread isn't going anywhere..

 

its like the 43a bus - going nowhere