The Fuhrer Has Just Seen The New Jag...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Have you read the latest on Wakefield?
68 Answers
Those of you who still think, against all the evidence, that there is a link between the MMR jab and autism should read the double-page spread in the Sunday Times today about that doctor's devious methods.
Among many other things, we learn that the 'facts' he published in his Lancet article (which the editor has disowned and apologised for) were not the real facts which came out of his research. Most damning is this:
Wakefield never claimed to have produced evidence of a MMR/autism link, merely the convictions of the parents of 12 (carefully selected) children he investigated. That conviction was based on an alleged very short time between the jab and the onset of the autism (not that that proves anything anyway, as I have explained before).
Now it turns out that many of those 12 had been displaying symptoms of autism and other mental problems, and were being treated by their own doctors for them, even before they had even received the MMR jab!
Read it and despair. I have tears in my eyes when I think of all those parents (some of whom are quoted) who still blame themselves for their child's condition when it had nothing to do with the MMR jab at all.
I am far from being a violent man but I'm not sure that I'd be responsible for my actions if Wakefied walked into this room.
Among many other things, we learn that the 'facts' he published in his Lancet article (which the editor has disowned and apologised for) were not the real facts which came out of his research. Most damning is this:
Wakefield never claimed to have produced evidence of a MMR/autism link, merely the convictions of the parents of 12 (carefully selected) children he investigated. That conviction was based on an alleged very short time between the jab and the onset of the autism (not that that proves anything anyway, as I have explained before).
Now it turns out that many of those 12 had been displaying symptoms of autism and other mental problems, and were being treated by their own doctors for them, even before they had even received the MMR jab!
Read it and despair. I have tears in my eyes when I think of all those parents (some of whom are quoted) who still blame themselves for their child's condition when it had nothing to do with the MMR jab at all.
I am far from being a violent man but I'm not sure that I'd be responsible for my actions if Wakefied walked into this room.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chakka, when someone is proposing to take a substance they've concocted in a lab and inject it into my chiildren, the onus is on them to prove it's safe and beneficial before I'll let them do it. It's not up to me to prove it's dangerous in order to justify not letting them do it. Why is that so hard to understand?
Chakka, you see that as an excellent summary? It tells us how much he sold his house for, and amongst his supporters it's revealed an ex-Playboy model, and a member of a rock group - and David Aaronovitch has also mentioned 'know-nothing celebrities'. Why would The Times include such trivialities if not to attempt to denigrate this man's reputation? This is not objective reporting - it's gutter journalism far more worthy of less reputable publications, and I'm surprised you find anything to admire in it, because I certainly don't.
George Hastings is hedging bets. Odd how no one will actually say MMR is positively safe. However, to give The Times its due, the article does mention that cases of autism have risen over recent years, the causes of which remain poorly understood. The next questions then must be 'why are cases of autism rising, and what is the common factor?' MMR, by your own admission, is widely used, and since doubt has been levelled at it, perhaps the medical profession and the government, should muster the moral integrity to investigate it a great deal more thoroughly, and a great deal more responsibly. Having said that, it's no surprise they don't. After all, perhaps when the main aim is to save money, a bit of collateral damage in the shape of a few lives destroyed is acceptable.
We have yet to see anything from you or the other supporters of MMR that constitutes proof of any kind. There is little point in continuing to offer the views of biased journalists - that's not evidence, it's not proof - and it's not encouraging.
George Hastings is hedging bets. Odd how no one will actually say MMR is positively safe. However, to give The Times its due, the article does mention that cases of autism have risen over recent years, the causes of which remain poorly understood. The next questions then must be 'why are cases of autism rising, and what is the common factor?' MMR, by your own admission, is widely used, and since doubt has been levelled at it, perhaps the medical profession and the government, should muster the moral integrity to investigate it a great deal more thoroughly, and a great deal more responsibly. Having said that, it's no surprise they don't. After all, perhaps when the main aim is to save money, a bit of collateral damage in the shape of a few lives destroyed is acceptable.
We have yet to see anything from you or the other supporters of MMR that constitutes proof of any kind. There is little point in continuing to offer the views of biased journalists - that's not evidence, it's not proof - and it's not encouraging.
Ludwig, I think Chakka understands perfectly well. He'll be the first to say that those who believe in God must produce their proof to convince him they're right, but like them, he can't produce the evidence he says exists because it doesn't, and so he is hoping to turn the tables. Nice try, Chakka, old chap, but it won't work. If you want our children to have the triple vaccine as opposed to separate vaccines, convince us you're right.
OK, so no evidence. Naturally I didn�t expect any. I just wanted to remind people where the onus lay.
Yet you, naomi, still get it the wrong way round. You are right to equate it to my attitude to God, which is that until someone produces evidence that God exists, there is no requirement for the rest of us to prove that he doesn�t. Similarly, with no-one having produced any evidence that MMR causes autism (not even Wakefield claimed that) there is no onus on anyone to disprove it. Try this for size:
CHAKKA: Eating bananas causes Alzheimer�s.
INTELLIGENT ABer: But chakka, there is no justification for that claim. Of course some peope who eat bananas do suffer that way but then a lot of people eat bananas. No-one in the world has found any causal connection between the two. Where is your evidence?
CHAKKA: Evidence? Evidence? Why should I produce evidence? You are the one who is saying that bananas don�t cause Alzheimers, so go on, prove it!
I don�t think so, naomi. In fact I think John McEnro had a saying that covers it.
The rest of your posts merely pursue the general issues that we covered last year. You may remember that I gave a thorough list of the reasons why separate jabs are rightly not supplied by the NHS, the main ones being that they have no point and are inadequate protection. Your suggestion that money is the issue is too cynical to take seriously.
ludwig, using that old clich�, you ask what it is I don�t understand, so I�ll tell you. I don�t understand why you single out MMR from all those thousands of medical drugs and treatments which have been tested for safety to the limits of man�s ability to do so. Would you refuse to give your children Calpol or Dinneford�s, or rub their teething gums with Bonjela? Do you yourself refuse to take paracetamol, ibuprofen or Rennies?
Cont�d�.
�cont�d
Do you scorn all surgeries and pharmacies? If so, then you are certainly consistent in shunning MMR � though you might remember that it is your children�s health that you are gambling with, not your own. If not, then why distrust MMR in particular?
Surely not because of Wakefield, but, if so, I suggest you do some research into how thoroughly that man�s work, and the man himself, have been discredited.
As I said before, what matters now is the health of our children. As the uptake of MMR slowly increases let us hope that we reach the herd-immunity level before there are any more deaths from measles (or any cases of blindness, deafness or permanent brain damage) and no cases of sterility, barrenness and deformed births from mumps and rubella.
Australia must have been very proud to have been able to announce last week that that country is now a measles-free zone. The UK was almost there before Wakefield started his mischief.
I�ve finished on this site, the only aim of which was to bring folks up-to-date with the latest news about Wakefield. See you around.
Tomorrow to fresh threads and questions new.
Chakka, Nope, sorry. You have it the wrong way around. You want to vaccinate my child, then before I allow you to do that, it is up to you to prove to me that you are doing no harm. With all due respect, your banana analogy is rather silly. You herald MMR as preventative - but your bananas are hypothetically causal, so it doesn�t work.
You don�t take the issue of money as a serious suggestion? Sorry, with this government�s track record (and the last Conservative government�s, come to that) I do. I well recall what�s happened since 1993 when so-called Care in the Community came into being. Care went out of the window, and money went elsewhere. Yes, I am cynical about that - and with first hand experience of the effects of the changes, with good and valid reason.
Incidentally, Chakka, your reasons for denying separate vaccines don�t work either. There is no good reason why separate vaccines can�t be administered. It�s hype.
You don�t take the issue of money as a serious suggestion? Sorry, with this government�s track record (and the last Conservative government�s, come to that) I do. I well recall what�s happened since 1993 when so-called Care in the Community came into being. Care went out of the window, and money went elsewhere. Yes, I am cynical about that - and with first hand experience of the effects of the changes, with good and valid reason.
Incidentally, Chakka, your reasons for denying separate vaccines don�t work either. There is no good reason why separate vaccines can�t be administered. It�s hype.
@naomi - "Incidentally, no one has answered my question yet. Why would a respected doctor ruin his reputation and his career for a theory he knows to be false?" - because he was paid to.
Excellent news that he was struck off. Unfortunately, he will no doubt continue his career in the US where he is idiotically lionised.
Excellent news that he was struck off. Unfortunately, he will no doubt continue his career in the US where he is idiotically lionised.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.