Gene Frenkle Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Autism-vaccine study was 'fraud' says journal PARIS (AFP) – A 1998 study that linked childhood autism to a vaccine was branded an "elaborate fraud" by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Thursday, but its lead author said he was the victim of a smear campaign by drug manufacturers. In an interview late Wednesday with CNN, Andrew Wakefield denied inventing data and blasted a reporter who apparently uncovered the falsifications as a "hit man" doing the bidding of a powerful pharmaceutical industry. "It's a ruthless pragmatic attempt to crush any investigation into valid vaccine safety concerns," Wakefield said. He insisted the "truth" was in his book about the scandal: "The book is not a lie, the study is not a lie...I did not make up the diagnoses of autism." Blamed for a disastrous boycott of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in Britain, the study was retracted by The Lancet last year and Wakefield was disgraced on the grounds of conflict of financial interest and unethical treatment of some children involved in the research. Wakefield, then a consultant in experimental gastro-enterology at London's Royal Free Hospital, and his team suggested they had found a "new syndrome" of autism and bowel disease among 12 children. They linked it to the MMR vaccine, which they said had been administered to eight of the youngsters shortly before the symptoms emerged. http://news.yahoo.co..._20110106104725 Not that I've ever seen any of you promoting this crap...still interesting example of science disproving dogma. However, if you read some comments on this at various spots on the web, you'll see that good science is never enough to convert some from their dogma... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://news.yahoo.co..._20110106104725 Not that I've ever seen any of you promoting this crap...still interesting example of science disproving dogma. However, if you read some comments on this at various spots on the web, you'll see that good science is never enough to convert some from their dogma... It's also a good example of science perverted and falsely creating the dogma to begin with. So you might want to keep your secular elitism to a dull roar. This is a truly ridiculous level of scientific fraud, though. The guy basically wrote a work of complete fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 It's also a good example of science perverted and falsely creating the dogma to begin with. So you might want to keep your secular elitism to a dull roar. This is a truly ridiculous level of scientific fraud, though. The guy basically wrote a work of complete fiction. I'm not trying to start anything with this - unless someone wants to defend the Vaccine/Autism "link". I look at this as an obvious example of the scientific method winning out. Science is better at self-correction than the free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'm not trying to start anything with this - unless someone wants to defend the Vaccine/Autism "link". I look at this as an obvious example of the scientific method winning out. Science is better at self-correction than the free market. Not sure I would even call that process the "scientific method". Last time I checked, blatant fraud wasn't part of the scientific method. But continue saying your prayers to Isaac Newton, hanging pictures of Einstein in your house, and reading your Origin of Species every night. Religion's got nothing on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 Not sure I would even call that process the "scientific method". Last time I checked, blatant fraud wasn't part of the scientific method. But continue saying your prayers to Isaac Newton, hanging pictures of Einstein in your house, and reading your Origin of Species every night. Religion's got nothing on you. This is not about religion...it's about conspiracy theorists - anti-vaccination people who are bringing back nearly-defeated diseases based on non-scientific bull ****. And this IS an example of what's great about the scientific method. It corrected itself even though some jackass abused it severely. This is the only way the truth is virtually guaranteed to win out, because as soon as an existing theory is disproven, science automatically accommodates that disproof by changing itself. Which, like I said, has nothing to do with religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Does this disprove global warming climate change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 Does this disprove global warming climate change? Not yet, because the science isn't complete enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Good. I heard a snow storm is coming my way. Maybe it'll just rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 This is not about religion...it's about conspiracy theorists - anti-vaccination people who are bringing back nearly-defeated diseases based on non-scientific bull ****. And this IS an example of what's great about the scientific method. It corrected itself even though some jackass abused it severely. This is the only way the truth is virtually guaranteed to win out, because as soon as an existing theory is disproven, science automatically accommodates that disproof by changing itself. Which, like I said, has nothing to do with religion. The problem is that that **** got through peer review and published in a top-shelf journal to begin with. That doesn't say much for the scientific method. But really, all it boils down to is: the world isn't perfect, !@#$ing deal with it. I do hope, though, that this jackass gastroenterologist gets hit with a !@#$load of class-action lawsuits from parents whose unvaccinated kids died of measles or mumps. Not yet, because the science isn't complete enough. How come when I say that conner calls me a fact-hating Fox News parrot? Is it because I use too many big words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Not yet, because the science isn't complete enough. Excellent. The very next time conner starts demanding that we believe in his religion, I expect you to bring the same exact bile you bring to every other religious discussion. The funny part is: there used to be a lot more global warming acolytes around here. Looks like they all ran and hid, just like most of the Obama supporters that don't dare show up here anymore. How come when I say that conner calls me a fact-hating Fox News parrot? Is it because I use too many big words? (Bah! Looks like Tom beat me to it again. ) The answer Tom: you are attacking his religious beliefs. conner demands that you take what he says on faith. The fact that the economy destroying changes that the environtologist faith demands we immediately implement, will have a negligible effect on global warming, does nothing to modulate the demand that you submit to the one and only true faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Almost a year to the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The problem is that that **** got through peer review and published in a top-shelf journal to begin with. That doesn't say much for the scientific method. But really, all it boils down to is: the world isn't perfect, !@#$ing deal with it. I do hope, though, that this jackass gastroenterologist gets hit with a !@#$load of class-action lawsuits from parents whose unvaccinated kids died of measles or mumps. How come when I say that conner calls me a fact-hating Fox News parrot? Is it because I use too many big words? That's not the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I wonder if Don Imus and his !@#$ wife are going to admit they were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I wonder if Don Imus and his !@#$ wife are going to admit they were wrong. Fat chance. Just last week they had two guys on the program who were still claiming that there was a recent report (without disclosing what that source was) that showed that 75% of all clinical studies conducted on thimerosal proved there was a link to autism. Nice. Never mind that the only people who go on his show to push the vaccine link are associated with lawyer groups and any and all medical or science types on the show claim that they know of no proven or tangential link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 How come when I say that conner calls me a fact-hating Fox News parrot? Is it because I use too many big words? You're not usually very diplomatic about things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) The problem is that that **** got through peer review and published in a top-shelf journal to begin with. That doesn't say much for the scientific method. But really, all it boils down to is: the world isn't perfect, !@#$ing deal with it. Exactly, thats the most disappointing thing about this. I'm sure you know that the whole editor to associate editor to reviewer process is very political and is based more on who you know and what asses you kiss than competence. The pool of available qualified reviewers is small. The people that should be reviewing papers like this are busy with their own research and University requirements and duties. Most reviewers don't even read through the statistical and data analysis sections of the manuscript. Edited January 7, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts