Whistleblower exposes MMR Autism link

[Spy Bee]

a) All clinical trials aren't published - which is patently false

Try as I might, I can't find that written anywhere in this thread.

[Stu Monty]

I agree in some cases it has happened - particularly since the rampant financialisation of the corporate world in the 80s - and there are obviously examples of short term stupidity by execs in the pharmaceutical industry to support this.

 

However that wasn't your claim - those were:

 

a) All clinical trials aren't published - which is patently false

 

and

 

B) That was a proof of science being corrupted by profit. 

I was arguing along AoTs line's that it was some scientists rather than the method of science itself and offered the fact that scientific testing of medicines once they are on the market continues so that science is carrying on.  Again, not anything you have disagreed with.

 

I've negged to for deliberately lying.

 

I never stated that all clinical trials are not published, obviously, because I'm not a cretin.

 

Nothing more annoying that people inventing a line of argument you aren't actually taking to argue against because the actual one you are taking is a bit tougher to debate. Especially when it's people with little history of being total arsewipes.

[Spy Bee]

"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool"

 

Plato 427 BC

[Phoenix]

A very dangerous conspiracy theory without proof. Not only for the people choosing not to immunise their children but for herd immunity.

 

A comprehensive Finnish study following 1.8 million having the MMR jab for 14 years found no links. On top of that there was cross over study of 1200 twins with one given the MR jab and the other not. 

 

Again no links to Autism.

[Jose Jones]

I've negged to for deliberately lying.

 

I never stated that all clinical trials are not published, obviously, because I'm not a cretin.

 

Nothing more annoying that people inventing a line of argument you aren't actually taking to argue against because the actual one you are taking is a bit tougher to debate. Especially when it's people with little history of being total arsewipes.

Alright maybe I have been a bit of a thread cock.

 

Here's the thing. Science doesn't really pay well, maybe it does once you get to exec level at big pharma companies, but most scientists have a much higher level of qualifications, brains and experience to get anywhere near the pay you get for finance or IT for example.

 

Most medical scientists are in it for the following reasons, mostly in order; it's still a job, they're really interested in what they are studying, they want to make life better for others, they want to discover something to get rich.

 

As all ready stated clinical trials are run by research institutes, universities, charities, small and big companies.

 

Before any new medicine can be first tested in people it has to have reams of data from the lab and then be passed by independent ethical review committees.

 

Even those trials run by evil big pharma by the time they get to phase 2 (does it work) and phase 3 (does it work in all sorts of different conditions) are mostly managed by independent doctors in the public health arena, because they have access to the sick patients. These are normally the smartest, best qualified and most highly respected doctors in their fields. And their first responsibility is to their patients. Not only that the trials are run in a number of different hospitals and facilities all over the world, so it's not just one tame doctor or hospital, and the great majority are run in the most sophisticated health care systems in the US, Europe, Japan etc.

 

The organisations that then decide whether a drug can be used in treatment and sold are independently government appointed, with no direct government or industry participation. They require hundreds and hundreds of thousands of data points on the safety and efficacy of the medicine on different disease states, patients of different age, ethnicity, other underlying ailments, in combination with other common medicines, etc. Etc. And each different country around the world has their own different set of requirements. Whilst they will share some, or a lot, of similarities, each country's approval body is responsible for the well being of people in their own jurisdiction, so they all make their own investigations and decisions.

 

Then once a medicine has been approved it undergoes continual monitoring and reporting to assess it's positive effects and any potential safety issues. Both mandated by law and also through normal scientific procedure from health professionals.

 

Simple question really - if this is the process that is corrupted science, how are you going to make it better?

[Stu Monty]

By ensuring ALL trial data is available to GPs and the public, not allowing some to be hidden away.

 

I don't claim to be an expert but Ben Goldacre sounds pretty clued up on it and has sold me a pretty convincing argument.

[VladimirIlyich]

All trials have to be funded dont they?

Where there is money there is always a vested interest,its about separating the wheat from the chaff in that respect which is the problem.

[Stu Monty]

All trials have to be funded dont they?

Where there is money there is always a vested interest,its about separating the wheat from the chaff in that respect which is the problem.

 

Even without getting into specifics the need to find economically viable applications that will come out of any project corrupts where resources are allocated.

[VladimirIlyich]

Even without getting into specifics the need to find economically viable applications that will come out of any project corrupts where resources are allocated.

Very true.

An abundance of pills for erection problems versus very few for unimportant things like breast cancer or other types of that horrific disease.

[Rico1304]

Very true.

An abundance of pills for erection problems versus very few for unimportant things like breast cancer or other types of that horrific disease.

I'm assuming you're joking here - wasn't Viagra a drug for heart disease that when tested was found to give blokes iron cocks?

 

(I remember when these came out in the 90's, a 24 hr hard on was fun for 4 hours. Agony for the next 20)

[Skidfingers McGonical]

I'm assuming you're joking here - wasn't Viagra a drug for heart disease that when tested was found to give blokes iron cocks?

 

(I remember when these came out in the 90's, a 24 hr hard on was fun for 4 hours. Agony for the next 20)

No, it's primary function is for limp dicks.

 

It is also used for the rare pulmonary arterial hypertension but that was not it's main purpose.

 

It can also be used to treat altitude sickness.

[Strontium]

I'm assuming you're joking here - wasn't Viagra a drug for heart disease that when tested was found to give blokes iron cocks?

 

Correct.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil#Origins

 

 

 

Sildenafil (compound UK-92,480) was synthesized by a group of pharmaceutical chemists working at Pfizer's Sandwich, Kent, research facility in England. It was initially studied for use in hypertension (high blood pressure) and angina pectoris (a symptom of ischaemic heart disease). The first clinical trials were conducted in Morriston Hospital in Swansea.^[42] Phase I clinical trials under the direction of Ian Osterloh suggested that the drug had little effect on angina, but that it could induce marked penile erections.^[2][43] Pfizer therefore decided to market it for erectile dysfunction, rather than for angina. The drug was patented in 1996, approved for use in erectile dysfunction by the FDA on March 27, 1998, becoming the first oral treatment approved to treat erectile dysfunction in the United States, and offered for sale in the United States later that year.^[44] It soon became a great success: annual sales of Viagra peaked in 2008 at US$1,934 million.^[45]

[AngryOfTuebrook]

[Arl arse]

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/time-magazine-accidentally-reveals-greater-autism-fraud/

[AngryOfTuebrook]

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/time-magazine-accidentally-reveals-greater-autism-fraud/

Hmm...  Some disingenuous "reasoning" there, to say the least.

 

In the first half, he quotes Time magazine “Now one of the authors of a 2004 study that found similar vaccination rates among children with and without autism…” 

He quite rightly concedes that "conventional medical researchers" would conclude that this proves that rates of vaccination have no effect on rates of autism.  Logically, there is no other conclusion.  That's why he has to resort to a false analogy to try to draw a different conclusion.  

 

"But suppose you proved that a virus in the bodies of 1000 children caused actual illness in only 160. Would you then say the virus couldn’t be the cause of illness, because some children didn’t get sick?"

 

A truer analogy would be two groups of children: one group with the virus and the other without.  You would then compare the rates of children in each group who got sick, in order to determine whether there might be a link between the virus and the illness.  If there is (as in the case of MMR and autism) no difference in the illness rates between the two groups, then the virus is not the cause of the illness. 

 

The second half of that blog rests entirely on his unsupported assertion

"Researchers conveniently assume that autism is one condition with one and only one cause in all cases."

 

That may be true (in which case, they would be failing as scientists).  Or it may be false.  I genuinely don't know.  But seeing how he spent the first half of his blog trying to mislead people, I'm not prepared to take his word for it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/time-magazine-accidentally-reveals-greater-autism-fraud/

I added a comment to this blog (much in the same vein as my post above) which is now awaiting moderation.  Let's see how committed to truth and free-speech Rappaport is.

 

While we're waiting, let's ponder his credentials.  He states

Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health

so he sounds like a real journalist.  What he doesn't state is that his nomination had nothing to do with medicine and health.  His magazine (LA Weekly) nominated him in 1982 for an interview with the president of El Salvador University.  The piece was not shortlisted.  The Pulitzer organisation discourages people from using their name in connection with anything that was no shortlisted.  (Understandably so; otherwise, TLW could nominate Tom R for his "Poosflash" and he could then swan around using their name as a badge of credibility.)

 

In fact, he's not a journalist.  (A journalist wouldn't have blogged an imaginary conversation, filling in what a "conventional researcher" would say.  A journalist would have interviewed a "conventional researcher" and reported what s/he did say.)  He's just a promoter for the tin-foil hat industry.

"Over the last 30 years, Jon's independent research has encompassed such areas as: deep politics, conspiracies, alternative health, the potential of the human imagination, mind control, the medical cartel, symbology, and solutions to the takeover of the planet by hidden elites."

He's also a painter and a poet, apparently. 

 

http://nomorefakenews.com/aboutjon.html

[Arl arse]

[Arl arse]

[Rico1304]

Less than a minute before I had to turn it off, was it done by a 6th former?

 

If you are an Arl Arse the chances are you've had the full range of immunisations, that's kept you alive, but conversely is the strongest argument you've made for them affecting people.

[Arl arse]

Less than a minute before I had to turn it off, was it done by a 6th former?

If you are an Arl Arse the chances are you've had the full range of immunisations, that's kept you alive, but conversely is the strongest argument you've made for them affecting people.

Nice, watch 1 minute of a presentation that lasts over two hours. Guess that would explain your ignorance then.

 

[Rico1304]

Nice, watch 1 minute of a presentation that lasts over an hour. Guess that would explain your ignorance then.

I watched one minute of shit intro music, flying graphics and distorted voices, it didn't fill me with confidence. I then skipped into the main body and it was bollocks. You're fast turning into a crank of epic proportions. Tell me your views on homeopathy, that's my ultimate crank test.

[Arl arse]

I watched one minute of shit intro music, flying graphics and distorted voices, it didn't fill me with confidence. I then skipped into the main body and it was bollocks. You're fast turning into a crank of epic proportions. Tell me your views on homeopathy, that's my ultimate crank test.

Your crank test, I'm surprised you can even spell it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Fucking hell, I've let the MF slip. I used to crack the whip against crank-ness, now I just read it. I'm going to dust of my cape.

[Rico1304]

Your crank test, I'm surprised you can even spell it.

Yes, me too. That duck for auto correct.

[Arl arse]