are vaccines safe?

[mike]

Maybe if we annotate the email for Pixie

“Dear Mr Crosby,” <– Common greeting. Means the email is addressed to you.

"Thank you for your letter of June 13, 2015, in which you request that the Lancet Editor reinstate the retracted paper Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children." <— He's thanking you for your concern. He's also pointing out when you sent your letter and what paper you're talking about. For reference, this is Wakefield's fraudulent case series.

"In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect." <— There are several elements in Wakefield's paper that are incorrect.

"In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment [sic] procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based." <—- There are two main reasons for why it was incorrect. First, the enrollment procedure. Wakefield had kids volunteered from a party by their parents. Remember from your epidemiology training that this is selection bias, Jake.
Second, ethical clearance. While ethical clearance was given, it was given based on incorrect information from Wakefield.
There are other reasons why the paper is incorrect, the "other elements on which the decision was based." Basically, even if he had no recruitment issues and no ethical clearance issues, the paper would still be incorrect due to those other elements.

"Having considered all of the relevant material, I can see no sufficient reason for reinstatement of the Wakefield paper. I do not believe that COPE’s guidelines have been violated by retraction of the paper in question, or by failure to reinstate it." <— He then went to look at the whole of the evidence against Wakefield, and he doesn't find a reason — a single damned reason — why the paper should be reinstated. Furthermore, the retraction of the paper doesn't violate COPE's guidelines. Failing to reinstate it doesn't violate COPE's guidelines.

"I do not believe there is justification for any further debate about this extensively discussed article." <— In other words, please go do something more useful with your time and respect his time.

"Yours sincerely," <— This does not mean that you own him, by the way.

"Prof Malcolm Molyneux, Lancet Ombudsman" <— His name and what he does there at The Lancet.

Now, please tell me where he states that Wakefield has been exonerated?

 

[pixelsmith]

You have failed to make any case here whatsoever.

Why do you desperately want to believe vaccines harmed your children?

I'm not desperate. I know.
You have not made your case at all.

I provided a top vaccine safety CDC scientist admitting a cover up of the MMR autism link. I think that makes a pretty good case.

 

[pixelsmith]

Brian Deer May 3, 2017




For anyone who missed the whole Wakefield thing, this in a nutshell is what happened.

He was hired by a lawyer (at an hourly rate) to find a new syndrome, with a specific pathology, and with the first symptoms closely following MMR.

So with the lawyer and a campaign group, he admitted a disparate group of children with developmental disorders, had them subjected to a barrage of tests, in a hunt for said syndrome.

Trouble was, there is no syndrome, and he got what you’d expect recruiting in the way he did: a bunch of constipated kids.

So, setting aside the findings of a child psychiatrist (kids not “regressive” and pathologists (no enterocolitis), he changed the results and reported a new syndrome of regressive autism and enterocolitis, with the first symptoms 14 days after MMR.

And, just for a laugh, here is one of Wakefield’s own submissions to his GMC case, as presented on his behalf by Kieran Coonan QC:

“We say that the reality of the position is that heads of charge 3 and 4 amount to an allegation of fraud against the Legal Aid Board whether or not the prosecution is prepared to characterise it as such.”

Sadly for the twerp, the finding was proven, and stands unchallenged by anyone but twerps, in English law, with nothing from ANY judge setting it aside. Indeed, the judge who criticised the GMC for failing to set out its reasoning in its findings against Wakefield’s clinical accomplice, pointed out that Wakefield’s Lancet paper carried a false claim of ethical approval. That alone would be enough for retraction, and that alone would be enough for any person with an IQ above Mr Crosby’s wrist circumference, to know that The Lancet has never, and will never, say anything to the effect that Wakefield has been “exonerated”. The claim is simply a lie.

Yet the co author on the paper who had insurance to cover court costs was exonerated. Hmmm.

 

[mike]

1) John Walker-Smith appealed his conviction and striking off, and only his. He did not appeal the findings against or sentences of Andrew Wakefield or Simon Murch. The appeal thus only ruled on Walker-Smith’s conviction and striking off, not on Wakefield’s conviction or striking off.
2) John Walker-Smith threw Wakefield under a bus, claiming that he (Wakefield) had deceived him (Walker-Smith) about the nature of what they were doing. This makes things worse (not better) for Wakefield.
3) Walker-Smith’s own lawyer in the appeal labelled the MMR causes autism hypothesis as discredited.

Here is the judge’s words on Wakefield’s false claim of ethical approval:

‘The wording in the published paper which neither Dr. Murch nor Professor Walker-Smith saw before publication was,

‘”Ethical approval and consent

Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent.”

‘This statement was untrue and should not have been included in the paper.’

And, of course, there’s our old favorite, which I assume Pixel accepts, along with the rest of the judgment:

“There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Wakefield’s] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.”

 

[mike]

I provided a top vaccine safety CDC scientist admitting a cover up of the MMR autism link

The “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory is based on the story of CDC scientist William Thompson, who in 2013 apparently contacted biochemical engineer turned incompetent antivaccine epidemiologist Brian Thompson to vent about a study he co-authored in 2004 that examined whether there was a correlation between vaccination with MMR and subsequent risk of autism. Not surprisingly, the study failed to find a correlation. However, there was one subgroup, African-American boys, in which the unadjusted data showed a 3.4-fold increased risk of autism. (I’m simplifying for space considerations in providing background, obviously; if you want the gory details, read here and here for a contemporaneous account of the origin of a new conspiracy theory, as well as my review of the book Vaccine Whistleblower and Andrew Wakefield’s fraudumentary VAXXED.) Thompson had had disagreements with how the data were presented and how he thought the CDC has “suppressed” the unadjusted data. Unfortunately for him, Thompson didn’t realize that Hooker was recording their conversations, and Andrew Wakefield found out about it. Thus, he became the “CDC whistleblower” who seemingly validated what I like to call the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement, specifically that the CDC “knows” that vaccines cause autism but covered it up. It didn’t matter one whit that the correlation was found only in a small subgroup (African-American boys)

If the correlation was only found in one small subgroup of African American boys, then its genetic not vaccines duh.........
Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism

So why did we not see this in the other ethnic groups or in girls? The answer here is simple, again. Hooker had a limited dataset to work with when he boiled it down to African-American baby boys. For example, he tells us that he had to modify the analysis to 31 months instead of 36 because he had less than 5 children in that group. It’s the same goddamned mistake that Andrew Jeremy Wakefield wanted to pass off as legitimate science. You cannot, and must not use small numbers to make big assertions…

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Not that I want to stop this in its tracks, but I find it hard to believe that people are still debating this, and climate change.

I accept the fact that nothing is perfect, and everything has its risks. But there has to come a time when we settle the science, and just try to make things work better rather than revisit old, disproven arguments. I know it'll never happen.

 

[mike]

Not that I want to stop this in its tracks, but I find it hard to believe that people are still debating this, and climate change.

I accept the fact that nothing is perfect, and everything has its risks. But there has to come a time when we settle the science, and just try to make things work better rather than revisit old, disproven arguments. I know it'll never happen.

I know i wont ever be able to educate Pixel on the reality, so all i can do is post the good science/data to refute his nonsense.

 

[pixelsmith]

The “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory is based on the story of CDC scientist William Thompson, who in 2013 apparently contacted biochemical engineer turned incompetent antivaccine epidemiologist Brian Thompson to vent about a study he co-authored in 2004 that examined whether there was a correlation between vaccination with MMR and subsequent risk of autism. Not surprisingly, the study failed to find a correlation. However, there was one subgroup, African-American boys, in which the unadjusted data showed a 3.4-fold increased risk of autism. (I’m simplifying for space considerations in providing background, obviously; if you want the gory details, read here and here for a contemporaneous account of the origin of a new conspiracy theory, as well as my review of the book Vaccine Whistleblower and Andrew Wakefield’s fraudumentary VAXXED.) Thompson had had disagreements with how the data were presented and how he thought the CDC has “suppressed” the unadjusted data. Unfortunately for him, Thompson didn’t realize that Hooker was recording their conversations, and Andrew Wakefield found out about it. Thus, he became the “CDC whistleblower” who seemingly validated what I like to call the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement, specifically that the CDC “knows” that vaccines cause autism but covered it up. It didn’t matter one whit that the correlation was found only in a small subgroup (African-American boys)

If the correlation was only found in one small subgroup of African American boys, then its genetic not vaccines duh.........
Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism

So why did we not see this in the other ethnic groups or in girls? The answer here is simple, again. Hooker had a limited dataset to work with when he boiled it down to African-American baby boys. For example, he tells us that he had to modify the analysis to 31 months instead of 36 because he had less than 5 children in that group. It’s the same goddamned mistake that Andrew Jeremy Wakefield wanted to pass off as legitimate science. You cannot, and must not use small numbers to make big assertions…

If you bothered to look you will find studies around the world that have duplicated Wakefields work.

 

[pixelsmith]

Check it out.
Co-Author of Lancet MMR-Autism Study Exonerated on All Charges of Professional Misconduct - Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law & Advocacy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

So Wakefield is a fraud but the coauthor on the very same paper is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

So Wakefield is a fraud but the coauthor on the very same paper is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ive already addressed that. Wakefield lied to Walker Smith so Walker Smith gets a pass. The liar Wakefield does not.

1) John Walker-Smith appealed his conviction and striking off, and only his. He did not appeal the findings against or sentences of Andrew Wakefield or Simon Murch. The appeal thus only ruled on Walker-Smith’s conviction and striking off, not on Wakefield’s conviction or striking off.

2) John Walker-Smith threw Wakefield under a bus, claiming that he (Wakefield) had deceived him (Walker-Smith) about the nature of what they were doing. This makes things worse (not better) for Wakefield.

3) Walker-Smith’s own lawyer in the appeal labelled the MMR causes autism hypothesis as discredited.

Here is the judge’s words on Wakefield’s false claim of ethical approval:

‘The wording in the published paper which neither Dr. Murch nor Professor Walker-Smith saw before publication was,

‘”Ethical approval and consent

Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent.”

‘This statement was untrue and should not have been included in the paper.’

And, of course, there’s our old favorite, which I assume Pixel accepts, along with the rest of the judgment:

“There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Wakefield’s] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked

 

[mike]

Someone posted a good analogy elsewhere

One brother says to the other can you run me downtown to the bank i need to withdraw some money.
While his brother waits in the car the guy robs the bank at gunpoint.
Police arrest and charge both brothers.
At the trial its shown the driver did not know his brother was robbing the bank, he gets acquitted. The guy with the gun gets 10 years.

Your logic is that neither are guilty since one was acquitted .

 

[pixelsmith]

Here is the real story.
How the case against Andrew Wakefield was concocted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

If you bothered to look you will find studies around the world that have proved the world is only 6000 years old

Well bugger me with a broom handle..............
If you do the research the evidence is there.

The Earth Is 6000 Years Old

Were Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?

It must be true right ?

 

[mike]

If you bothered to look you will find studies around the world that have shown the world is flat

Goddammnit hes right , clearly the earth is flat, the studies linked below prove it.

Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment performed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat. It did not conform to the curvature of the earth that round earth proponents teach.

Many other experiments demonstrating the lack of curvature in the earth may be found in Earth Not a Globe, by Samuel Rowbotham.

The Bedford Level Experiment was a series of observations carried out along a six-mile length of the Old Bedford River on the Bedford Level, Norfolk, England.

The experiment was often performed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Most results have served to prove Flat Earth Theory, and although a few have claimed otherwise they have been soundly disproved by Flat Earthers. The Bedford Level Experiment remains one of the most widely-accepted examples of Flat Earth proof.

 

[mike]

And since this is now moved beyond rational debate into the realms of farce.

We are not laughing at you Pixel, we are laughing with you.....Honest.

 

[mike]

 

[mike]

Print this and then start at page one of this thread........

This is too funny............

 

[mike]

If you bothered to look you will find studies around the world that have shown Santa can deliver those presents in 31 hours

ONE man, one night and almost a billion children across the world — Santa’s abilities were always magical, but physicist Dr Katy Sheen has worked out how the jolly man in red manages to deliver all those presents, and how he squeezes down chimneys.

Dr Sheen said that, taking into account different time zones, Santa would have 31 hours to deliver gifts to every child in the world, and he and his reindeer would need to travel at 10 million km/h.

Using Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, this would “shrink” Santa, making him small enough to slip down chimneys.

Santa Claus is real and here's the proof.

Of course Father Christmas exists, and he can visit arbitrarily as many children has he pleases in as short a time as is convenient, barring mid-air reindeer pile- ups. The reason is that Father Christmas is a Macroscopic Quantum Object.

Proof that Santa exists

 

[mike]

So according to Pixel:
911 was an inside job, mankinds Co2 emissions are doing no damage. Fukushima is not a problem even if it kills us all. Vaccines are giving everyone autism.the earth is Flat, and only 6000 years old and Santa is real.

I wouldn't buy a bridge or a used car off this guy if i were you.