Latest CDC Vaccine Cover-Up

[steveh_131]

Which is without basis? The failure of the peer review process? Hank Campbell: The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility - WSJ

As to the motivations of the retracting journal, I think there's plenty of basis. If there was enough pressure to cause prominent CDC researchers to commit fraud, there's certainly enough to get a small journal to retract a politically inconvenient study.

 

[Alpo]

Steve: I really am done with this. There is a flaw in your model that you will likely never get beyond. If you find support for an exception, you believe the exception and extrapolate to a new, negative, rule. You also need to consider the motives of those providing the exception.

There is give and take in any system. If we come to the point where nothing can be relied upon, you may as well pull yourself off grid and for God's sake turn off your computer.

 

[steveh_131]

There is give and take in any system. If we come to the point where nothing can be relied upon, you may as well pull yourself off grid and for God's sake turn off your computer.

It's really not quite as dramatic as you make it out to be. I rely on plenty of experts. Just not the ones who do dishonest things.

 

[T.Lex]

BBC:
What's behind the 'anti-vax' movement? - BBC News

 

[JettaKnight]

BBC:
What's behind the 'anti-vax' movement? - BBC News

The people interview in that article are obviously shills of big Pharma.

 

[steveh_131]

The people interview in that article are obviously shills of big Pharma.

You're actually not far off. Let's dig in.

Per the article: "Brian Deer is an investigative journalist for the British newspaper The Sunday Times."

False.

"It is quite clear that you do not understand English. Brian Deer is not a member of the Sunday Times staff. He is a freelance journalist who runs his own website and blog and is not under the control or direction of the Sunday Times. Mr. Deer should not represent himself as a Sunday Times journalist. He is not a member of staff, does NOT have a regular salary from us, is not on our pension scheme and pays his own tax as a freelance. If he says that he writes for the Sunday Times that would be correct. He is a contributor to The Sunday Times on an occasional basis but again we have no control over him ..."


- Alaistair Brett, Legal Manager, Sunday Times

So who is Brian Deer? Is he qualified to be an "expert witness" in this article? He's basically a nobody who showed up on the scene for the sole purpose of destroying Andrew Wakefield, with claims that I have completely and totally debunked. His claims were so ridiculous, that on appeal, one of his lesser-known victims was completely vindicated.

Justice Mitting’s impartial judicial decision marks a turning point in a long campaign to discredit 1998 Lancet article and Dr. Andrew Wakefield in particular. To date, international media have failed to probe the GMC’s ruling or to explore the many connections between Brian Deer, the Rupert Murdoch media empire, Glaxo Smith Kline, the British Medical Journal and numerous other medical bodies.

One of his more recent articles was in the British Medical Journal, run by the British Medical Association, with close ties to big pharmaceutical companies and with a lot at stake if Vaccines really do have dangers.

Who paid Deer during his years spent attacking Wakefield? We don't know. We know that it wasn't the Sunday Times, he straight up lied about that. Who paid him to be a journalistic assassin? I'll let that simmer.

He's also a particularly nasty individual, by all accounts, resorting to insults and name-calling. He even published names and medical information of several of the [child] patients in Wakefield's study. His comment, when questioned on this: "The cranks and malicious liars need to beware. Medical confidentiality is not absolute."

Expert witness? Please.

Do I need to continue debunking this article?

 

[HoughMade]

BBC:
What's behind the 'anti-vax' movement? - BBC News

So...they've gotten to you too.

 

[T.Lex]

So...they've gotten to you too.

If loving the BBC is wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

[steveh_131]

T.Lex, I feel like you posted that drivel just to get me spun up. I am not a toy to be played with!

 

[T.Lex]

T.Lex, I feel like you posted that drivel just to get me spun up. I am not a toy to be played with!

haha

No, any steveh-spinup is an unintended consequence.

I felt like the BBC article offered a different perspective - indeed, several different perspectives - that are valuable to consider. The one from the former anti-vaxxer was particularly insightful, IMHO.

 

[HoughMade]

If loving the BBC is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Statist!

 

[steveh_131]

I felt like the BBC article offered a different perspective - indeed, several different perspectives - that are valuable to consider. The one from the former anti-vaxxer was particularly insightful, IMHO.

Perspectives:

Brian Deer, pharmaceutical shill, journalistic assassin is sticking to his guns. No surprise.

Unknown Pediatric Doctor wants us all to think only of 'the herd' when we make decisions for our children. Also no surprise.

Expert Single Mom was ignorant in her decision to oppose vaccines and equally ignorant in her decision to support them. Wakefield's study, which she obviously didn't read or understand, convinced her not to vaccinate? Even Wakefield didn't tell people not to vaccinate based on that study, but to separate the MMR. Then she changes her tune when her daughter becomes autistic without a vaccine. That's proof of something, to her? This woman needs a course in basic logic.

Heidi Larson was the only person with anything to contribute.

"The reason that [people] get more entrenched [in their opposition to vaccination] is they feel like they're not being listened to. So you don't throw information at the problem. Instead you learn to listen."

"We can't keep finger pointing at the public and think they're the issue."

She's sort of right. Vaccine pushers are steadily losing this debate. The lies, the insults, the fraud... they're not helping your cause. Vaccination rates are still dropping. If you want that to change, stop blaming the vaccine skeptics and start blaming the people who are gathering around trash cans disposing of evidence. They're the reason we are skeptical.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, I'm a bona fide Doubting Thomas. Skepticism comes as naturally to me as breathing.

My wife and I did the risk/reward analysis based on available information and did the MMR and other childhood vaccines.

I do not fault anyone for skepticism. I do fault people for hysterical overreaching.

 

[steveh_131]

I do fault people for hysterical overreaching.

So do I.

Do you think that top CDC researchers disposing of evidence of vaccine damage (even if you consider the evidence to be flaky) is indicative of a larger problem of integrity?

Or do you think that is overreaching?

 

[rambone]

BBC:
What's behind the 'anti-vax' movement? - BBC News

I'm not directing this at you, T.Lex.

What an insulting piece of propaganda. Basically the author (anonymous) attempts to make the case that the only things behind the objection movement are (1) ignorance; (2) belief in lies or "bad science"; (3) selfishness.

I have read dozens of articles like this, framing up the arguments of vaccine objectors. They come off like a broken record of the same strawmen arguments, designed to ridicule the opposing side. None of it accurately portrays what real people are concerned with or their arguments. But then again, the article never had any interest in telling people the reality of "what's behind" the movement.

My objections didn't come from some a study from the 90's. Or from a celebrity. Try again.

 

[T.Lex]

Do you think that top CDC researchers disposing of evidence of vaccine damage (even if you consider the evidence to be flaky) is indicative of a larger problem of integrity?

Or do you think that is overreaching?

Scientists should do science and report the results. Those reports should be discussed and analyzed.

Where scientists' science is dubious, that should be part of the discussion. As unemotionally as possible.

After that, people need to make their own decisions and not ***** about the consequences.

I have read dozens of articles like this, framing up the arguments of [the other side]. They come off like a broken record of the same strawmen arguments, designed to ridicule the opposing side. None of it accurately portrays what real people are concerned with or their arguments. But then again, the article never had any interest in telling people the reality of "what's behind" the movement.

Without a bit of irony, that applies to both sides of this argument, IMHO.

 

[steveh_131]

Without a bit of irony, that applies to both sides of this argument, IMHO.

If I have misrepresented an opposing argument or have participated in 'hysterical-overreach' then I'd ask you to point out where.

I think it's a big deal that top vaccine researchers at the CDC feel pressure to alter the results of their studies whenever those results might indicate something negative towards vaccines. I think it matters more than the zero mentions it has received in the mainstream news.

That doesn't strike me as hysterical.

 

[T.Lex]

If I have misrepresented an opposing argument or have participated in 'hysterical-overreach' then I'd ask you to point out where.

And... voila.

I think it's a big deal that top vaccine researchers at the CDC feel pressure to alter the results of their studies whenever those results might indicate something negative towards vaccines. I think it matters more than the zero mentions it has received in the mainstream news.

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, is that a misrepresentation or an overreach, in your opinion?

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, is that a misrepresentation or an overreach, in your opinion?

Yes.