The Cellar
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Andrew Wakefield found to have faked research on vaccines/autism. Murder? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19564)

xoxoxoBruce 03-21-2009 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint (Post 547530)
I'm gonna swing a boom arm over, and, during the middle of a song, insert that statement in the form of soulful gospel-style background lyrics.

Do you think I could pass it off--have people assume they misheard me during the general noise of the whole band playing? Would they confront me?
Does the term crucify ring a bell?
The nigger faggots will be pounding the nails. :thepain3:

lumberjim 03-21-2009 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint (Post 547506)
Then the time has come. For me to stand up in the middle of a church and say "GOD IS A NIGGER FAGGOT!"
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=17227

for those of you that missed this thread

TheMercenary 03-22-2009 08:20 AM
:zzz:

classicman 02-01-2010 05:07 PM
Doc Who Tied Vaccine to Autism Ruled Unethical
 
Quote:
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a gastroenterologist at London's Royal Free Hospital, published a study in the prestigious medical journal Lancet that linked the triple Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism and bowel disorders in children. The study - and Wakefield's subsequent public statements that parents should refuse the vaccines - sparked a public health panic that led vaccination rates in Britain to plunge.

Wakefield's study has since been discredited, and the MMR vaccine deemed to be safe. But now medical authorities in the U.K. have also ruled that the manner in which Wakefield carried out his research was unethical. In a ruling on Jan. 28, The General Medical Council, which registers and regulates doctors in the U.K., ruled that Wakefield acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" during his research and with "callous disregard" for the children involved in his study. (See the year in health 2009.)

After the finding, Wakefield, who now heads an autism research center in Austin, Texas, described the decision as "unfounded and unjust." He added that he had "no regrets" over his work.

The General Medical Council, which will now decide whether to revoke Wakefield's medical license, highlighted several areas where Wakefield acted against the interest of the children involved in the 1998 study. It criticized Wakefield for carrying out invasive tests, such as colonoscopies and spinal taps, without due regard for how the children involved might be affected. It also cited Wakefield's method of gathering blood samples - he paid children at his son's birthday party $8 to give blood - and said that Wakefield displayed a "callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer."

The panel also criticized Wakefield for failing to disclose that, while carrying out the research, he was being paid by lawyers acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR jab.

The panel's ruling follows a refutation of Wakefield's research from the scientific community. Ten of 13 authors in the Lancet study have since renounced the study's conclusions. The Lancet has said it should not have published the study in the first place, and various other studies have failed to corroborate Wakefield's hypothesis. (Watch a video on the story of an uninsured woman.)

Despite this, the effects of the media frenzy surrounding Wakefield's research - a study found that MMR was the most written about science topic in the U.K. in 2002 - continue to be felt in Britain.

Vaccination rates among toddlers plummeted from over 90% in the mid-1990s to below 70% in some places by 2003. Following this drop, Britain saw an increase in measles cases at a time when the disease had been all but eradicated in many developed countries. In 1998, there were just 56 cases of the disease in England and Wales; by 2008 there were 1,370.
Link

Clodfobble 02-01-2010 06:07 PM
*shrug*

There are many responses, clarifications and salient points that could be offered for the UK ruling and several other factually incorrect points in that article.

But I've been instructed by my therapist to stay the fuck out of these threads, as they are "negatively affecting my ability to cope" with my shitty life right now. So I'll have to defer to jinx indefinitely.

No worries classicman, it's not about you. Just bowing out for the time being.

jinx 02-01-2010 08:30 PM
I'm so sorry clobber... I wish there was something I could do to help. I really do.

Clodfobble 02-01-2010 11:06 PM
It's cool. I just need to practice keeping my mouth shut and keeping my distance from the topic. There's a light at the end of the tunnel, I just gotta get through it.

lumberjim 02-01-2010 11:13 PM
I'm in your corner.

let me know if i get in the way.

DanaC 02-02-2010 05:54 AM
You're in my way. Does that count?

skysidhe 02-02-2010 07:35 PM
In 5 posts this thread took me from heartfelt sympathy to lol'ing.

sheesh reading the cellar is sometimes like being bipolar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

@ clodfobble - I'm sorry you are having a tough time. :(

Things will get better.

Pico and ME 02-02-2010 09:14 PM
Clod has mucho fortitude, but she is allowed to let it all get to her at times. Im glad you are seeking the help of a therapist, Clod. Being able to let it all out and having someone else try to sort it out can be reassuring even if it doesn't really answer the problem at hand. Although I was rooting for you all the way, I think staying away from this fight for a while is an excellent idea. Having to defend your side of the fight ad nauseam is quite fatiguing.

Clodfobble 02-02-2010 10:01 PM
The best part is that this therapist, by complete coincidence, turned out to have a previously-autistic teenage daughter who has recovered from about 95% of her symptoms through biomedical treatments. If I believed in signs...

lumberjim 02-02-2010 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 631671)
You're in my way. Does that count?
*puts his butt on dana and farts*

Griff 02-03-2010 05:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 631908)
The best part is that this therapist, by complete coincidence, turned out to have a previously-autistic teenage daughter who has recovered from about 95% of her symptoms through biomedical treatments. If I believed in signs...
Wow.

Clodfobble 02-03-2010 08:10 AM
There's tons of them out there. They're just too tired of fighting; they figure they saved their kids and that's enough. That's basically what she's telling me to do, but I've only agreed to it for the short term for now.

Flint 02-03-2010 12:20 PM
They announced on the morning news that some study that had linked autism to some kind of vaccines, they had changed their mind and now want to take that back. This was a short blurb on the local morning news. I don't have any details other than that.

Happy Monkey 02-03-2010 12:26 PM
That was classicman's link. The Lancet, the journal that originally published the study, is retracting it.

classicman 02-03-2010 04:02 PM
I saw that on the morning crawl on MSNBC, Flint.

Wait what They retracted it already?

Happy Monkey 02-03-2010 04:26 PM
The journal is retracting the original 1998 paper.

Clodfobble 02-04-2010 04:32 PM
A complete dissection of every issue surrounding the ruling, written by a man with both a PhD and a JD. It's long, but of course if this situation were simple enough to be explained by a run-of-the-mill AP article, it wouldn't have remained controversial for the last 11 years.

DanaC 02-04-2010 05:49 PM
The way this story broke (and has continued to break) in the 90s has been damaging to everyone, on both sides. For a start we now have 'sides'. The initial story frightened thousands of parents into not vaccinating their children and we've consequently seen an exponential rise in dangerous childhoos illnesses, which had previopusly been all but wiped out. The way the rebuttal occurred (not helped by the shortcuts the original researcher took) has led people who should be looking at it dispassionately to batten down the hatches and 'take a side'. Anybody attempting to look into it properly, is labelled a crackpot and effectively becomes a pariah in scientific and medical circles.

It shouldn't be a matter of 'sides'.

There are two 'needs' at play here and there is no logical reason for them to be mutually exclusive.

There is a 'need' to prevent the high levels of infant mortality caused by such illnesses as measles and Rubella. Tackling that has to happen at a massified, societal level: vaccinations work against this need.

There is also a 'need' to ensure that individual children are not adversely affected by those vaccinations.

Now we have a situation where the vaccination is suspect enough, to enough people, that levels of vaccination have fallen below the 'critical mass' required for them to be effective at a mass level. And at the same time, all research into the individual effects of vaccination seems stymied.

The same people who advocate mass vaccination should be at the forefront of investigating how to ensure it is safe at an individual level. mass vaccination is beneficial at a mass level; but if yours is the child who is harmed so that we as a society can reduce infant mortality; that's pretty cold comfort.

jinx 02-04-2010 07:19 PM
Quote:
The initial story frightened thousands of parents into not vaccinating their children and we've consequently seen an exponential rise in dangerous childhoos illnesses, which had previopusly been all but wiped out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx
Keep in mind that (in the US) we do not vaccinate for typhus, typhoid, TB, and one of the biggest pre-vaccine era killers: scarlet fever. Yet, their prevalence decreased right along with the diseases we do vaccinate for.

The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, and as the CDC points out, it reduced measles deaths from about 400-500 per year to 1 or 2 - although there were epidemic years in 1970-72, 1976-78, and 1989-91.

According to the Vital Statistics of the United States, in the 63 years prior to the measles vaccination introduction, death rates declined from 13.3 per 100,00 to 0.2 per 100,000.
They used to blame the epidemic years on vaccine failure. Now they blame it on Wakefield.


Whooping cough in NJ

Quote:
All of the infected children had been vaccinated, but Hunterdon officials said the immunity to the vaccine can wane between ages 7 and 9 and that there is no licensed vaccine for children in that age group.

DanaC 02-04-2010 07:29 PM
From the BBC news site in 2008:
Quote:
Measles cases in England and Wales rose by 36% in 2008, figures show.

Confirmed cases increased from 990 in 2007 to 1,348 last year - the highest figure since the monitoring scheme was introduced in 1995.

Health Protection Agency experts said most of the cases had been in children not fully vaccinated with combined MMR and so could have been prevented.

Immunisation expert Dr Mary Ramsay said the rise was "very worrying", adding measles "should not be taken lightly".
More than 600 of the 2008 measles cases occurred in London, where uptake of the vaccine for MMR - measles, mumps and rubella - is particularly low.

Public confidence in the triple MMR vaccine dipped following research - since discredited - which raised the possibility that the jab may be linked to an increased risk of autism.

It led to some parents opting to pay privately for single vaccines.

Across the UK, 84.5% of two year olds have been immunised with their first dose of MMR.

But by age five, when children are recommended to have a second dose, the latest uptake figures are 77.9%.
There are still many children out there who were not vaccinated as toddlers over the past decade and remain unprotected

Dr Mary Ramsay, Health Protection Agency


Q&A: Measles
Since 2005, the number of cases of measles has been rising year on year. There have also been sporadic outbreaks of mumps in recent years.
This isn't a case of an 'epidemic year' this is a progressive rise in the number of cases: year on year. Particularly noticeable in areas where take up of vaccines is at its lowest.

jinx 02-04-2010 07:35 PM
Quote:
Health Protection Agency experts said most of the cases had been in children not fully vaccinated with combined MMR and so could have been prevented.
Quote:
It led to some parents opting to pay privately for single vaccines.
??

SamIam 02-04-2010 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by jinx
Quote:
Keep in mind that (in the US) we do not vaccinate for typhus, typhoid, TB, and one of the biggest pre-vaccine era killers: scarlet fever. Yet, their prevalence decreased right along with the diseases we do vaccinate for.

The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, and as the CDC points out, it reduced measles deaths from about 400-500 per year to 1 or 2 - although there were epidemic years in 1970-72, 1976-78, and 1989-91.

According to the Vital Statistics of the United States, in the 63 years prior to the measles vaccination introduction, death rates declined from 13.3 per 100,00 to 0.2 per 100,000.
Please keep in mind that typhus and typhoid are often water born diseases. Strides in public health have reduced the incidence of these diseases considerably. TB is in fact on the rise again, and many strains are now immune to the drugs once used to treat them. This is true here in the US and even more so in the third world. Finally, doctor report the drop in scarlet fever to be in part due to better diagnostics now available. Measles and diptheria among others were often misdiagnosed as scarlet fever.

jinx 02-04-2010 09:36 PM
Quote:
Strides in public health have reduced the incidence of these diseases considerably.
Yes I agree. I'm a big fan of sanitation and nutrition. :)

lumberjim 02-04-2010 11:26 PM
and paper cups

DanaC 02-05-2010 06:00 AM
@ Jinx: the option to use singlew vaccines is available but not on the NHS. One of the problems with it has been that parents have started out getting the single vaccines, but not completed the programme.

Personally, i think if the single vaccine were available on the NHS and parents better supported in that option we could have saved a lot of trouble. As it is the medical profession are so completely wedded to the idea that the MMR vaccine is safe and does not cause autism that all parents who have concerns ion that area are treated as if they're an over-credulous, superstitious awkward squad.

It was specifically the MMR vaccine that was linked to autism originally, I believe.

Pie 05-25-2010 08:30 AM
Let me know if anyone wants the full article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEDIATRICS
Published online May 24, 2010
PEDIATRICS (doi:10.1542/peds.2009-2489)
Articles

On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes

Michael J. Smith, MD, MSCE, Charles R. Woods, MD, MS
Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky

Objectives
To determine whether children who received recommended vaccines on time during the first year of life had different neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years of age as compared with children with delayed receipt or nonreceipt of these vaccines.

Methods
Publicly available data, including age at vaccination, from a previous VaccineSafety Datalink study of thimerosal exposure and 42 neuropsychological outcomes were analyzed. Vaccine receipt was defined as timely when each vaccine was received within 30 days of the recommended age. Associations between timeliness and each outcome were tested in univariate analyses. Multivariable regression models were constructed for further assessment of the impact of timeliness on neuropsychological outcomes after adjustment for potential confounders. Secondary analyses were performed on a subset of children with the highest and lowest vaccine exposures during the first 7 months of life.

Results
Timely vaccination was associated with better performance on 12 outcomes in univariate testing and remained associated with better performance for 2 outcomes in multivariable analyses. No statistically significant differences favored delayed receipt. In secondary analyses, children with the greatest vaccine exposure during the first 7 months of life performed better than children with the least vaccine exposure on 15 outcomes in univariate testing; these differences did not persist in multivariable analyses. No statistically significant differences favored the less vaccinated children.

Conclusions
Timely vaccination during infancy has no adverse effect on neuropsychological outcomes 7 to 10 years later. These data may reassure parents who are concerned that children receive too many vaccines too soon.

jinx 05-25-2010 06:25 PM
Would love to see one that compares vaccinated kids to unvaccinated kids, instead of differently vaccinated kids if you come across one.

jinx 05-25-2010 07:18 PM
Wakefield's observations replicated:

Japanese study

NJ Medical School study

Clodfobble 05-26-2010 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pie's study
Publicly available data, including age at vaccination, from a previous VaccineSafety Datalink study of thimerosal exposure and 42 neuropsychological outcomes were analyzed.
I wonder if that's one of the several studies done by the "researcher" who has now disappeared along with $2 million dollars of the CDC's money. Re-using the same (bad) data isn't my idea of ethical methodology.

Aliantha 05-26-2010 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 658568)
I wonder if that's one of the several studies done by the "researcher" who has now disappeared along with $2 million dollars of the CDC's money. Re-using the same (bad) data isn't my idea of ethical methodology.
Well you'd be able to find out by looking at the bibliography.

Happy Monkey 07-06-2010 11:12 AM
Wakefield story in cartoon form.

Clodfobble 07-06-2010 08:02 PM
Hey, you guys wanna hear something funny that happened to me? Just today, I got an email from a family that I've gotten to know very well over the last year. The bittersweet news they shared is that they are moving away to California, because they just got back the full neuropsych evaluations on their sons--and the verdict is that both boys are 100% fully recovered from autism, not a single hint of a symptom. So they're packing up and starting over in a new place, where no one knows their boys ever had a diagnosis.

If I get the time, maybe I'll draw up a cartoon about it so you can understand what I'm saying.

Flint 07-06-2010 09:59 PM
Cartoons are fine, but I only believe stuff if you get that movie trailer guy, with the voice... you know, he'd be all like "IN A WORLD... WHERE NUCLEAR BOMBS... AND JIM CARREY" etc. etc. "ONE MAN..." and then put the part there where you tell me what's what. You get that guy with the voice on there and I am SOLD.

Oh, and Clod, I'm sorry about how the nuclear bombs and the Jim Carreys made the terrorists win against your email friends who are moving to California where all the crazies live.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.