Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[the_bloke]

Some workers are trying to expose the corruption. Dr Peter Gøtzsche is clearly one of them-

 

 

The CDC whistleblower and numerous other whistleblowers are clearly trying to get attention to where it needs to be.

 

Thing is, it's generally career suicide to speak out.

 

On the whole though, such people are very much the exception- most workers either don't see the 'bigger picture', or, if they are troubled, put their heads down and get on with doing the job that pays for their families home, food, healthcare and education.

 

Funny that Gøtzsche hasn't performed any research himself, but the Cochrane Library has a review carried out in 2012 by some other of it's members that concludes:

 

'Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections'

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=3850F5C139C2991A7648DF527856818E.f04t02

 

So that's an independent study carried out by the same institution that Gøtzsche is a member of saying there is no link.

 

The thing about proving something that doesn't exist, is that you can look for it forever and never find it.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2016 at 19:11 ----------

 

Thing is, it's generally career suicide to speak out.

 

The only way that could ever be career suicide is if you worked for a firm that had a vested interest. Even then, if you were found to be doctoring information in the lab or in any part of a study, being fired is the least of your worries, there are strong chances it would be considered criminal as well.

 

No reason for an independent body to come to the same conclusion as the pharma companies if the evidence was there to find.

[onewheeldave]

Funny that Gøtzsche hasn't performed any research himself, but the Cochrane Library has a review carried out in 2012 by some other of it's members that concludes:

 

'Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections'

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=3850F5C139C2991A7648DF527856818E.f04t02

 

So that's an independent study carried out by the same institution that Gøtzsche is a member of saying there is no link.

 

The thing about proving something that doesn't exist, is that you can look for it forever and never find it.

 

Do you realise Peter Gotzsche isn't claiming a link between MMR and autism? He's claiming that the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt. (plus the stuff he's said about mamograms and SSRIs).

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2016 at 19:16 ----------

 

 

No reason for an independent body to come to the same conclusion as the pharma companies if the evidence was there to find.

 

One consistent thing that most of the whistleblowers and other objectors point out, is that the pharma companies cultivate deep relationships with the organisations they work with. They have a profound influence on the decisions those organisations make (that's actually how corruption works)

 

As Dr Peter Gøtzsche explicitly points out in this video

 

[the_bloke]

Do you realise Peter Gotzsche isn't claiming a link between MMR and autism? He's claiming that the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt. (plus the stuff he's said about mamograms and SSRIs).

 

Then stop talking about him in the context of this thread then

 

Just because he claims the industry is corrupt it doesn't mean the industry is hiding some link between MMRs and autism, which is I gathered the tenuous link you were making is.

 

I feel like this thread is 30 odd pages in and no one has yet offered any proof of the original claims that MMR causes autism. Anyone would think there isn't one.

[JFKvsNixon]

What is the 'revolution'. We're the most technologically advanced civilisation ever, and obesity, diabetes, CHD and cancer are at epidemic levels.

 

Third world peasants, if they're not starving, or oppressed, and, have got access to clean water, have way better health, live longer active lives, and are not subject to epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, CHD and cancer.

 

Once more I have to ask the same question, are we using the same language? I was talking about healthcare, not lifestyle!

Edited April 2, 2016 by JFKvsNixon

[the_bloke]

One consistent thing that most of the whistleblowers and other objectors point out, is that the pharma companies cultivate deep relationships with the organisations they work with. They have a profound influence on the decisions those organisations make (that's actually how corruption works)

 

Of course, they would, in the same way the conspiracy theorists think man has not stepped foot on the moon or that a secret safe contains the formula for the cure to cancer. Conspiracies that require an ever expanding circle of thousands, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of individuals to profligate a lie.

 

There was only one man lying, and he's been found out; Andrew Wakefield.

Edited April 2, 2016 by the_bloke

[onewheeldave]

What OWD doesnt realise is there are a fair number of people on here that have actually done such research and know how it works.

 

What OWD does realise, is that Obelix and his cronies on this thread, however much 'research' experience they claim to have, are not in the same league as Dr Peter C Gøtzsche, head of the Danish Cochrane Foundation, when it comes to understanding research and how easy it is to corrupt

 

Speaking of whom- for any readers on this thread who dismiss Dr Gøtzsche's credibility (despite him being the head of the Danish Cochrane Foundation) purely because he's got the balls to state the truth about the big pharma companies (that they are criminally corrupt), reflect on the fact that his book-

 

"Deadly medicines and organised crime. How big pharma has corrupted healthcare"

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844

 

 

won first prize in the “Basis of Medicine” category of the 2014 British Medical

Association’s annual book awards.

[unbeliever]

What OWD does realise, is that Obelix and his cronies on this thread, however much 'research' experience they claim to have, are not in the same league as Dr Peter C Gøtzsche, head of the Danish Cochrane Foundation, when it comes to understanding research and how easy it is to corrupt

 

Speaking of whom- for any readers on this thread who dismiss Dr Gøtzsche's credibility (despite him being the head of the Danish Cochrane Foundation) purely because he's got the balls to state the truth about the big pharma companies (that they are criminally corrupt), reflect on the fact that his book-

 

"Deadly medicines and organised crime. How big pharma has corrupted healthcare"

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844

 

 

won first prize in the “Basis of Medicine” category of the 2014 British Medical

Association’s annual book awards.

 

And you conclude from this that all actual medical evidence should be discarded and we should start listening to Quacks and Snake Oil salesmen it seems.

 

That's the problem we have with you and Mac. There's room for reform no doubt, but you're proposing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

 

So the mainstream evidence is imperfect. There's no doubt some truth in that. Nobody in their right mind takes that as cause to abandon reason and start gathering evidence from random youtube vids.

[onewheeldave]

And you conclude from this that all actual medical evidence should be discarded and we should start listening to Quacks and Snake Oil salesmen it seems.

 

That's the problem we have with you and Mac. There's room for reform no doubt, but you're proposing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

 

So the mainstream evidence is imperfect. There's no doubt some truth in that. Nobody in their right mind takes that as cause to abandon reason and start gathering evidence from random youtube vids.

 

None of which distracts from the point that Dr Peter C Gøtzsche, head of the Danish Cochrane Foundation is not talking about the 'evidence being imperfect'- he's saying that there are criminal levels of corruption tainting the evidence, and that many patients are dying as a direct result.

 

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

 

His book ""Deadly medicines and organised crime. How big pharma has corrupted healthcare" won first prize in the “Basis of Medicine” category of the 2014 British Medical Association’s annual book awards.

 

The BMA is also a highly credible organisation, which, unlike most on this thread, actually read the book, and, presumably, had they thought the author to be exaggerating the situation, would not have given him first prize?

 

With that level of corruption, then yes, the evidence of that type, is compromised.

 

None of which means that I am, or have, 'given up on reason' or, listen to 'snake oil salesmen'.

 

Indeed, if Dr Peter C Gøtzsche is correct, those charges would be best laid at the people who, like yourself, blindly swallow the data outputs of the pharma industry, despite there being abundant evidence that said data is highly compromised.

[unbeliever]

None of which distracts from the point that Dr Peter C Gøtzsche, head of the Danish Cochrane Foundation is not talking about the 'evidence being imperfect'- he's saying that there are criminal levels of corruption tainting the evidence, and that many patients are dying as a direct result.

 

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

 

His book ""Deadly medicines and organised crime. How big pharma has corrupted healthcare" won first prize in the “Basis of Medicine” category of the 2014 British Medical Association’s annual book awards.

 

The BMA is also a highly credible organisation, which, unlike most on this thread, actually read the book, and, presumably, had they thought the author to be exaggerating the situation, would not have given him first prize?

 

With that level of corruption, then yes, the evidence of that type, is compromised.

 

None of which means that I am, or have, 'given up on reason' or, listen to 'snake oil salesmen'.

 

Indeed, if Dr Peter C Gøtzsche is correct, those charges would be best laid at the people who, like yourself, blindly swallow the data outputs of the pharma industry, despite there being abundant evidence that said data is highly compromised.

 

An does the BMA support your position that all existing medical evidence should be discarded and we should make our decisions based on selected youtube videos from experts. No of course not.

This is reason to reform and better regulate pharmacological research.

Not reason to believe every nutter and Quack on youtube.

[Annie Bynnol]

...The BMA is also a highly credible organisation,...

 

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