Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[unbeliever]

I have a lot of respect for 'scientific method'- not only is it logically sound, it's also been the basis for great advances in knowledge, and, their empirical confirmation.

 

Our 'scientific study system' however, I have diminishing respect for with each passing year. Unlike scientific method, our study system produces obscuration and confusion. It was used by the tobacco companies to produce obscuration and confusion, it's currently being used by the food industry and political lobbyists for the same purpose.

 

I'm not going to waste my time arguing for and providing evidence for the above, with people whose logical ability is so degraded that they are unable to differentiate 'scientific method' from the current study system.

 

However, here's one of your own taking a completely different approach, and publishing a paper expressing his opinion that "most published research findings are false":-

 

http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/RSS2015NegativeResults/pmed.0020124.pdf

 

(John P. A. Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences)

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2016 at 10:26 ----------

 

You've got a bit of a tense issue there. Obviously the truth is out now- however, due to the tobacco industry and lobbyists using the study system to create doubt, it took way longer than necessary for that truth to get out, and, consequently, millions died of illness caused by smoking, because, due to the doubt and confusion caused, they put off quitting.

 

 

This is damage to the credibility of science itself which I blame partly on the climate change lot.

Just because something has passed pier review, doesn't make it a proven fact.

In fact many peer review publications make no claim to be proving anything, merely usefully adding to the conversation.

 

You have to look at the detail. Look for independent repetition. Look at the sizes of the samples involved and evaluate the methods used. Blind, or better still double-blind studies are more convincing because nobody was in a position to let their own bias (conscious or otherwise) affect the results. All peer review tells you is that it's a valuable contribution to the debate and the methods used were reasonable.

 

In this case, we have a set of anecdotes entirely consistent with random coincidence; verses multiple large independent studies which and far as I can see were performed quite properly. The evidence favours rejection of the MMR causes autism hypothesis by a very wide margin and the hypothesis should therefore be rejected.

 

Now we need a new hypothesis as to the reason for the increase in autism which can be similarly tested. This process should repeat until the real cause is identified. Clinging onto a discredited hypothesis is not doing anybody any good.

 

I'm also curious: What does the pharmaceutical industry have to gain from hiding a problem with the MMR jab? Surely a problem with the MMR jab would be an opportunity for them to come up with a more expensive alternative and make more money.

[Orzel]

Hats cause autism? That's it, my kid ain't wearing no hat. I'd rather her ears got frostbite and fell off.

 

Remember that stunt they pulled to promote pillbox hats?

They just went too far with that Kennedy assassination.

Corrupt big hatters.

[Eric Arthur]

Our 'scientific study system' however, I have diminishing respect for with each passing year. Unlike scientific method, our study system produces obscuration and confusion. It was used by the tobacco companies to produce obscuration and confusion, it's currently being used by the food industry and political lobbyists for the same purpose.

If you can find me any normal person one who thinks that too much sugar and fat and not enough greens is good for you Ill agree with you. The food industry isn't pulling the wool over anyone's eyes,we just don't like the answer so we ignore it.

[Obelix]

You've got a bit of a tense issue there. Obviously the truth is out now- however, due to the tobacco industry and lobbyists using the study system to create doubt, it took way longer than necessary for that truth to get out, and, consequently, millions died of illness caused by smoking, because, due to the doubt and confusion caused, they put off quitting.

 

It's like arguing with toast this.....

 

The medical studies when done were never in doubt.

 

The advertising carried out by the tobacco companies was something else - but it wasn't corruption in the medical studies which is what you claimed in the first place.

 

But hey, we all know you won't EVER admit when you are wrong, as evidenced by red lights on a trailer....

[onewheeldave]

It's like arguing with toast this.....

 

The medical studies when done were never in doubt.

 

The advertising carried out by the tobacco companies was something else - but it wasn't corruption in the medical studies which is what you claimed in the first place.

 

Are you really that naive? or, are you just pretending?

 

Recently the British Medical Journal has announced they will no longer consider research that is funded by the tobacco industry. That's not particularly relevant to the discussion here, as, no-ones saying anything about the tobacco industries current practices.

 

However, their statement did address the tobacco industries past manipulations of the study system-

 

The tobacco industry, far from advancing knowledge, has used research to deliberately produce ignorance and to advance its ultimate goal of selling its deadly products while shoring up its damaged legitimacy. We now know, from extensive research drawing on the tobacco industry’s own internal documents, that for decades the industry sought to create both scientific and popular ignorance or “doubt.”

 

Maybe you consider the British Medical Journal to be a purveyor of crackpot conspiracy theories?

[JFKvsNixon]

Are you really that naive? or, are you just pretending?

 

Recently the British Medical Journal has announced they will no longer consider research that is funded by the tobacco industry. That's not particularly relevant to the discussion here, as, no-ones saying anything about the tobacco industries current practices.

 

However, their statement did address the tobacco industries past manipulations of the study system-

 

 

 

Maybe you consider the British Medical Journal to be a purveyor of crackpot conspiracy theories?

 

Due to smoking only really becoming popular towards the beginning of the 20th century, it wasn't until the 1950s that the link between the two started to become noticed.

 

That is when the research that suggested a link really started to come to light. The trouble is, the research only suggested a link, it couldn't find a definite cause, so people were sceptical of the medical research. Does this attitude ring any bells?

Edited February 16, 2016 by JFKvsNixon

[Spogs]

Back on the original topic of MMR

 

Worth a read but I don't think you can buy it in a book store in the UK. Why not....

Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines: The Truth Behind a Tragedy by Andrew J Wakefield.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Callous-Disregard-Autism-Vaccines-Tragedy/dp/1616081694

 

Review by Mary Holland, co-founder, Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy.

"Dr. Wakefield sets the record straight. It was not he who showed callous disregard towards vulnerable, sick children with autism. It was the British medical establishment, the General Medical Council, the media and the pharmaceutical industry that threw the children under the bus to protect the vaccine program.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Spogs

[woodmally]

How is this still a thing? Why does it seem to have had a resurgence lately?

Are any Sheffield Forummers "anti-vaxers", if so why?

 

Edit: title referring to the MMR vaccine hoax report that caused the original MMR/Autism scare

 

To a degree I'm anti vaccine based on science. If you over use vaccines it a) reduces the body's natural way of building up immunity and b) the virus will mutate. Some tribes who came into contact with westerners died out as they had no immunity to desiese that we are used to.

[onewheeldave]

Due to smoking only really becoming popular towards the beginning of the 20th century, it wasn't until the 1950s that the link between the two started to become noticed.

 

That is when the research that suggested a link really started to come to light. The trouble is, the research only suggested a link, it couldn't find a definite cause, so people were sceptical of the medical research. Does this attitude ring any bells?

 

Nope. That's not what the British Medical Journal are saying here. From the quote-

 

The tobacco industry, far from advancing knowledge, has used research to deliberately produce ignorance and to advance its ultimate goal of selling its deadly products while shoring up its damaged legitimacy. We now know, from extensive research drawing on the tobacco industry’s own internal documents, that for decades the industry sought to create both scientific and popular ignorance or “doubt.”

 

They're being very specific there- no mention of any strawmen such as advertising, or the public 'doubting' the reseearch- just outright condemnation of the tobacco industries manipulation of reasearch studies.

[JFKvsNixon]

Nope. That's not what the British Medical Journal are saying here. From the quote-

 

 

 

They're being very specific there- no mention of any strawmen such as advertising, or the public 'doubting' the reseearch- just outright condemnation of the tobacco industries manipulation of reasearch studies.

 

Um, I was giving you a brief history behind the discovery of the link between smoking and cancer which was made in the 1950s!!!!!!!!!!

 

Anyway your logic is seriously at fault, because you're talking about the tobacco industry, I was was talking about the medical research into making the discovery between smoking and cancer made by the medical industry.