Posted in Corruption

A Second Opinion

   September 23, 2015

Sancheq has started a conversation about vaccines and autism and has said what he wants is open debate. Given that it was the work of Andrew Wakefield that took this issue global back in 1998, I think this video is worth a look.

Share:

Related Articles

14 thoughts on “A Second Opinion”

  1. Wakefield is a quack! Trying to pitch his book was a true tell and shows what it’s really all about.

  2. I don’t see how anyone can watch this video and see it as anything other than a continuation of the smear campaign. Cooper did not even get to Wakefield until the last part of the video, and then he interrupted the man in every sentence.
    (a) Wakefield’s co-author in this study, Prof. John Walker-Smith MD, has been completely exonerated and had his medical license restored. The world-renowned pioneer in the field of pediatric gastroenterology won his appeal before the UK’s High Court of Justice. John Walker-Smith received funding to appeal the GMC decision from his insurance carrier, his co-author Andrew Wakefield did not — and was therefore unable to mount an appeal in the high court.
    (b) This year, however, Dr. Wakefield, who now conducts his research in the US, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal for falsely accusing him of “fraud.” The suit is currently underway in Texas, where Wakefield now lives. The ruling today bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s suit against Deer, on whose reporting the entire GMC hearing was based.
    (c) The work that Walker-Smith and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital did was medically necessary and above reproach. No patient complained, and the charges against the Royal Free team came only from a freelance journalist writing for a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. Meanwhile, the findings reported in the Lancet paper have been replicated in numerous scientific publications and reported by thousands of parents all over the world.
    (d) There are clear ties between Brian Deer, publisher James Murdoch, and GlaxoSmithKline, where Murdoch is on the Board of Directors.
    All of this is clearly spelled out in the FULL TEXT of my report which is referenced here ==>> http://www.daveworld.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=12

  3. Simply, point me in the direction of any other legitimate medical study that only uses 12 subjects. I suppose there was no need for a control group. Based on this alone I conclude Wakefield is a quack.

    1. You miss the point, Waukesha Blue. These twelve children were brought in to the Royal Free Hospital’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group for treatment. Following their examinations and treatment, the thirteen doctors involved decided to present their findings for review and possible further study. They did not set out to manufacture a tainted study. They simply found it pertinent that the viruses found in the children’s gastrointestinal tracts could be identified by genotype as the same ones in the manufacture of the MMR vaccines the children had received. In all cases it was the parents of these children who insisted that the vaccinations had closely predated and, in their views, caused the maladies.
      Once again, I implore you to take the time to read the full text of my report. It is simply closed minded of you to not do so. You’re smart. It will only take a half hour or less. Then you will really have something to either pick apart or at least partially agree with.
      http://www.daveworld.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=12

  4. No matter how they presented themselves for the study, the fact remains that no legitimate study can be based on only 12 subjects with no control group.

    Again, I have read the full text. Since you insist on me picking it apart let’s start with…

    1) “If this vaccine injuries my child, who is responsible?”
    Although there is a level of manufacturer immunity from legal action they are not resistant. Compensation is regularly awarded. The United States government acts is our legal guardian in most cases. As we see happen with the auto industry, the Department of Transportation steps in, with the help of the Department of Justice. Huge fines and penalties can be handed down for their negligence. The United States Department of Health and Human Services has established the national vaccine injury compensation program. Victims of injury from vaccines can be compensated. Most cases are settled by doctors suppliers and manufacturers before it ever goes to the ineffective “vaccine court” or before the NVICP. ThUs, it never becomes “a matter of public record”. With 139 flu vaccine related cases settled in four months that would mean approximately 500 to 600 cases settled per year. With 175,000,000 flu vaccines distributed per year you have a better chance of winning the Powerball then getting sick from a flu vaccine. I admit there are flaws in the compensation process however compensation is available. Furthermore, let me add just because these manufacturers appear to have a level of immunity nobody is completely resistant from legal action. When deliberate malicious negligence can be shown believe me the right attorney will bring them into a court of law and hold them accountable.

    We can proceed to number 2) upon your response.

    2. One hundred and seventy five billion flu vaccines in the US alone? I don’t think so. And, the manufacturers don’t have “a level of immunity” from prosecution. They are completely indemnified from any liability at all. The comparison to auto manufacturers is not relevant, comparing apples to oranges.

      Where did you get “Most cases are settled by doctors suppliers and manufacturers before it ever goes to the ineffective “vaccine court” or before the NVICP.” this from. Give me an instance where the doctors [sic] suppliers settled a case.

    3. But, the number of cases settled is a small fraction of those actually occurring for real. Most (about 98%) never get reported, and of those that attempt to seek compensation, the majority never make it through the very strict requirements to even be adjudicated. They have to be “table injuries”.

  5. There will be no showing you anything different. Obviously, you spent a long time and great effort in compiling your data. I appreciate your efforts. After becoming consumed with the “FULL TEXT” your mind is now closed to any other opinions. I have conceded on many good points that you have made. It’s clear, for some reason, that you can’t see the other side. One of the most important parts of having an educated, scientific debate is to consider all of the data, statistics, theories, facts, thoughts and opinions on a subject. With all do respect, I believe you have and continue to fail to give any thought to the other side of the debate. Simply discounting studies, data and statistics from some of the worlds top experts and organizations by reciting what you already stated in the “FULL TEXT” really isn’t enough. Prove the CDC, WHO and the HHS are all wrong. You can’t just say you are right. Science is about eliminating all that is wrong not just saying… Hey look at me I studied 12 kids and wrote a paper. This is kind of like the climate change argument. The majority of scientists believe and have proven through study after study, data on top of data and statistic after statistic that it is happening but there are still a few people who can’t see past there own personal interests (religion mostly- dinosaur riders). So, what’s got you so he’ll bent against vaccinations?

  6. Cooper did not give Wakefield an opportunity to state any case at all. Being a professional journalist he attacked every comment Wakefield made before he finished, this was not a debate, but another “hit.”

    Like all drug related issues, there’s too much money involved, (and whatever other issues there may be) to finally get to the truth. It may be that, in the scope of millions of children involved, the number of actual cases may be insignificant.

    And, of course, the compensation involved for these insignificant numbers could be substantial and steamrole like the catholic priest abuse issue.

    Thus, you have the formal denial and subsequent polarization (exaggeration) on the two sides of the issue.

  7. Thank you Cat Kin. One of the logical fallacies I frequently run up against is “false balance”. Like the global warming deniers who bring up a few unqualified or bought-off scientists to raise doubts, and then say both sides are equal, therefore nothing is definite…that is false balance. When I was Development Director of the Chippewa Indian-owned, award winning public radio station, WOJB, we were accused of being extremely biased in our presentations of Native matters. We didn’t feel the need to present White Man’s side of things. That is done everywhere, all of the time, forever. We just presented what needed to be said.

    The same is true of my writing about vaccines. The whole world of corporate media has the populace so brainwashed that “everybody knows that vaccines are good for you”, and that “one in a million injuries or deaths are worth it for the greater good”. Yeah, but how about one in 100,00…or one in 10,000…or one in 1,000…or one in 100? When are the odds bad enough that the choice to avoid such risks becomes not just an option, but a CIVIL RIGHT?

  8. The facts that Cooper presents to Wakefield were not addressed by Wakefield at all. If you’re going to hang your hat on the work of this guy you’ll get nowhere. The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s study. Ten of his twelve co-authors removed their names. And Wakefield refuses to address the British Medical Journal report, preferring instead to focus solely on Brian Deer.

    The evidence is overwhelming that Wakefield’s original research was extremely shoddy science at best, outright fraud at worst.

    If you can produce credible, peer reviewed scientific research that establishes a link between MMR and autism then by all means post a link. If you can’t then this issue is settled as far as I’m concerned.

    And don’t bother responding that I need to read your piece Jim. You’re not a scientist. Post a link to credible research that supports your claims.

Comments are closed.