Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
@natasa778 I've been reading about this in Mike Adams' newsletter the last couple of days. When I search, I can only find 3 other sources covering this story: Health Impact News Daily; Global Research; and Age of Autism. I'm inclined to trust the story, as it aligns w/ my prejudices. But why isn't anyone else picking up on it? Not necess mainstream, but sources such as Guardian or Mother Jones, or others who are into exposing fraud? Any thoughts? thx, ahmo
Seems rather one-sided, actually. The new group analyzing the data is condemned by the author because supposedly only someone with an axe to grind (and hence bias) would bother to re-examine data!Heres a very good analysis of the situation
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/
That's some pretty weird-ass logic (if you can even call it logic) there.Seems rather one-sided, actually. The new group analyzing the data is condemned by the author because supposedly only someone with an axe to grind (and hence bias) would bother to re-examine data!
Even better, the author argues that a re-analysis of trial data basically never results in a contradictory conclusion compared to that of the original researchersThat's some pretty weird-ass logic (if you can even call it logic) there.
Yeah you're right. I did a skim read the first time round but have read it slower this time and it does seem very biased. Kind of a bit glib tooSeems rather one-sided, actually. The new group analyzing the data is condemned by the author because supposedly only someone with an axe to grind (and hence bias) would bother to re-examine data!
Since when? Does this author know anything about real research? Not that medical research seems to follow the same ethical patterns as scientific research in other areas.Even better, the author argues that a re-analysis of trial data basically never results in a contradictory conclusion compared to that of the original researchers
Seems rather one-sided, actually. The new group analyzing the data is condemned by the author because supposedly only someone with an axe to grind (and hence bias) would bother to re-examine data!
That's some pretty weird-ass logic (if you can even call it logic) there.
@natasa778 But why isn't anyone else picking up on it? Not necess mainstream, but sources such as Guardian or Mother Jones, or others who are into exposing fraud? Any thoughts? thx, ahmo
Limiting the scope of reference to essentially unimportant questions will signal a whitewash.
The CNN one was an "iReport" which is stuff submitted by readers and voted good or inappropriate by other readers. So not really an indication of mainstream reporting of the story yet.This thing is really starting to take legs. CNN did a report on it which has now been removed. The Autism Media Channel web page which apparently had the story first is down. Twitter is fairly hopping with speculation