Why does 5AZA matter?
- Thread starter Lee
- Start date
lee just watch the video, it;s 30 mins of your time.
then you can make up your mind.
there were different strains/brands of vaccine and one was causing illness. the info you are citing has possibly been redacted.
let Dr. W explain his side before you rush to judgment, and then feel free to maintain your position. Dr W finds the merck one to be fine, though he recommends separating the three for immunocompromised patients.
please do not "oh come on" me. there are always two sides to a story. i have looked at both sides before forming my opinion.
i am inviting you to do the same.
then you can make up your mind.
there were different strains/brands of vaccine and one was causing illness. the info you are citing has possibly been redacted.
let Dr. W explain his side before you rush to judgment, and then feel free to maintain your position. Dr W finds the merck one to be fine, though he recommends separating the three for immunocompromised patients.
please do not "oh come on" me. there are always two sides to a story. i have looked at both sides before forming my opinion.
i am inviting you to do the same.
leela, I have listened to Wakefield, and read him, many times. I'm done - its a waste of my time. the man is not honest. He got paid almost a half million pounds by lawyers suing vaccine manufacturers, while he was doing alleged research and publishing since-withdrawn fraudulent papers creating evidence that the vaccines were harming people. Without disclosing it.
For starters. He did risky, painful, invasive, medically unnecessary tests on autistic kids, to suport a hypothesis that he was getting paid to support. Without getting medical subjects approval for it.
These are facts - they are well established. What Wakefield says in his self-serving continuing attempts to justify it, don't change those facts - and I've head him enough, I don't need to waste another half hour on his attempts to justify himself.
For starters. He did risky, painful, invasive, medically unnecessary tests on autistic kids, to suport a hypothesis that he was getting paid to support. Without getting medical subjects approval for it.
These are facts - they are well established. What Wakefield says in his self-serving continuing attempts to justify it, don't change those facts - and I've head him enough, I don't need to waste another half hour on his attempts to justify himself.
As it turns out, I have read the paper. From PubMed:
This is the background or where historical references would come into play.
This is the conclusion:
So, yes, Wakefield would have to be cited in the references.
I just don't see how Kent H. came up with his conclusions in his blog. It looks like quite a leap, IMHO. Yes that last sentence is my opinion folks.
Ain't it funny how resistant some folk are to listening to the full story? This video is of Dr. Wakefield speaking at the recent 68th Annual Meeting of AAPS. (American Association of Physicians and Surgeons).
Brian Deere, the Tabloid Journalist with an Agenda, carries more weight than this? Really? Follow the money, and never mind the collateral damage...
[video=youtube;l67fWVrw8xU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l67fWVrw8xU[/video]
Brian Deere, the Tabloid Journalist with an Agenda, carries more weight than this? Really? Follow the money, and never mind the collateral damage...
[video=youtube;l67fWVrw8xU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l67fWVrw8xU[/video]
Please everyone, take the time to listen to what Wakefield has to say.
In my opinion, this video illustrates how massively powerful and sinister the campaign can be to protect financial and business interest at all cost even where it conflicts with the welfare of individuals (children!) these products are supposed to protect.
What a difference it makes when Wakefield, vilified as he is, is able to speak freely in his own defence.
What interest do those have who so readily and violently denigrate him?
And what does this say about our predicament, when we see a similar smear campaign being mounted against Ruscetti and Mikovits?
In my opinion, this video illustrates how massively powerful and sinister the campaign can be to protect financial and business interest at all cost even where it conflicts with the welfare of individuals (children!) these products are supposed to protect.
What a difference it makes when Wakefield, vilified as he is, is able to speak freely in his own defence.
What interest do those have who so readily and violently denigrate him?
And what does this say about our predicament, when we see a similar smear campaign being mounted against Ruscetti and Mikovits?
Firestormm
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,055
- Location
- Cornwall England
Odd how these threads develop isn't it? From AZA to Wakefield. Thanks Barb for taking the time to read and comment on that paper - I couldn't be arsed I have to admit - though I did glance at Kent's article. I will may well try to watch your video Jace/Currer thank you. Again though - I am ever tempted to follow the science and not the [cough] scientist I am afraid. If there is more to it then it will all come to light. Yes that is my opinion too. One has to believe in that or else one will not believe in anything!
Wonko
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- The other side.
Thank you Lee, whilst today i'm not well enough to follow up on this, check the patent application myself etc. hopefully i will be in the near future and willg et back to this then.
Firestormm;212696I will may well try to watch your video Jace/Currer thank you. Again though - I am ever tempted to follow the science and not the [cough said:
There is plenty of science in the video, firestormm. Thanks for saying you will watch it. Quiz on your understanding of it coming up!
Firestormm
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,055
- Location
- Cornwall England
I have to do mucho reading first Currer! As ever I am so damned slow with all the science stuff. Just not enough hours in my ME day!! 
free at last
Senior Member
- Messages
- 697
When the status quo is upset, Black sheep is what you become. Mistakes may have happened, it certainly looks that way. But why oh why is there so much calling to move on. Would it hurt at all if we could humour JM just a little, Just to see if what she strongly belives in, could actually have some substance. The status quo really likes things black and white it seems. Sorry guys breakthroughs often dont come from black and white. It often comes from some unlikely research. People would be very happy just to let research go in new directions. Shouldnt we be doing both ? who wants to spend the next twenty years, only to find a retrovirus is hurting many on here, but was neglected because mistakes happened ? I read earlier how did we all get infected with a retrovirus. What a silly question. ERM condoms anyone, saliva sneezing. Try not to ask the hiv community, you really shouldnt be infected. Because how did you get infected ? surely you couldnt. could you ? My god. My illness started with viral attack. immune dysfucntion. Something with flu symptoms. If yours didnt fine. But i belive judy is closer than some are. if you do not then fine.
With regard to what free at last says, I also believe that we should keep a broad perspective and avoid being diverted (to our detriment) into minor points most of us do not have the information to assess fairly.
The growth in prostate cancer, breast cancer and lymphoma mirrors the spread of ME through the population.
We need to look for a common factor here. Shooting the messengers,- Ruscetti and Mikovits, will avail nothing.
The sequencing of Dr Snyderman's lymphoma virus which will be done soon should be very interesting
The growth in prostate cancer, breast cancer and lymphoma mirrors the spread of ME through the population.
We need to look for a common factor here. Shooting the messengers,- Ruscetti and Mikovits, will avail nothing.
The sequencing of Dr Snyderman's lymphoma virus which will be done soon should be very interesting
Just a quick sidebar to remind everyone of the pitfalls inherent in a corporate-profit-driven science/medicine world.
Our previous faith in science as pure and totally trustworthy must be reassessed:
From PLOSblogs:
http://blogs.plos.org/takeasdirected/2010/10/31/put-yourself-in-the-shoes-of-big-pharma/
Our previous faith in science as pure and totally trustworthy must be reassessed:
From PLOSblogs:
http://blogs.plos.org/takeasdirected/2010/10/31/put-yourself-in-the-shoes-of-big-pharma/
OK, I watched the video - another 40 minutes wasted on Andrew Wakefield. What a load of dishonest self-serving crap.
I'm not going to take the time to dissect all of it it. Instead, I'll make a couple of points. Wakefield repeatedly says that Brian Deer mischaracterized, misrepresented, and even committed 'fraud' against Wakefield, and that the medical council followed his lead.
Wakefield sued Brina Deeer for libel, in the British courts, where it is extraordinarily easy to win a judgement for libel. e then, having filed the suit, field to stay it - have the suit put on hold. Brian Deer opposed that, went to the court and said, no, I stand accused of libel, lets go to trial. Wakefield lost the argument, the judge ordered the case to move forward. Shortly after, the evidence came out that Wakefield had been paid nearly a half million pounds by attorneys suing the MMR manufacturer, a conflict of interest which he was required to disclose and did not disclose when he published that paper. Wakefield dropped the suit. Not only dropped it, he agreed to pay Deer's attorney and court costs.
Brian Deer has repeatedly said that he is happy to take this to court - if Wakefield thinks Deer libeled him, file the suit, in England where the Libel standards are very strict and it is very easy to win a Libel suit. Wakefield has not done so.
Wakefield makes a big point that he had human-research approval for the biopsies. What he had was approval to take two extra samples, during medically necessary colonoscopies. What the medical council found was that Wakefield performed unapproved medically-unnecessary RESEARCH colonoscopies, without adequate informed consent form parents, and during those research colonoscopies (not covered by the approval for samples during routine colonoscopies), took the samples. He is being dishonest.
Wakefield salso does not touch on the lumbar punctures - for which he had no approval in any form, and which were absolutely unnecessary - he did them to look for virus from the MMR, for his 'research' purposes.
He continues to claim that he 'doesn't know the answer'. And yet, as I showed above in the patent, he was clearly stating that 'it has been demonstrated that' MMR causes autism. A lie He also has claimed, elsewhere, that he never patented a vaccine, that it was a 'dietary supplement. And yet, if you read the patent, it clearly says 'vaccine' and the method describes the preparation of a vaccine. A lie
Wakefield speaks well. He hits just the right mix of outrage and concern. He's lying through his teeth. Don't be taken in.
I'm not going to take the time to dissect all of it it. Instead, I'll make a couple of points. Wakefield repeatedly says that Brian Deer mischaracterized, misrepresented, and even committed 'fraud' against Wakefield, and that the medical council followed his lead.
Wakefield sued Brina Deeer for libel, in the British courts, where it is extraordinarily easy to win a judgement for libel. e then, having filed the suit, field to stay it - have the suit put on hold. Brian Deer opposed that, went to the court and said, no, I stand accused of libel, lets go to trial. Wakefield lost the argument, the judge ordered the case to move forward. Shortly after, the evidence came out that Wakefield had been paid nearly a half million pounds by attorneys suing the MMR manufacturer, a conflict of interest which he was required to disclose and did not disclose when he published that paper. Wakefield dropped the suit. Not only dropped it, he agreed to pay Deer's attorney and court costs.
Brian Deer has repeatedly said that he is happy to take this to court - if Wakefield thinks Deer libeled him, file the suit, in England where the Libel standards are very strict and it is very easy to win a Libel suit. Wakefield has not done so.
Wakefield makes a big point that he had human-research approval for the biopsies. What he had was approval to take two extra samples, during medically necessary colonoscopies. What the medical council found was that Wakefield performed unapproved medically-unnecessary RESEARCH colonoscopies, without adequate informed consent form parents, and during those research colonoscopies (not covered by the approval for samples during routine colonoscopies), took the samples. He is being dishonest.
Wakefield salso does not touch on the lumbar punctures - for which he had no approval in any form, and which were absolutely unnecessary - he did them to look for virus from the MMR, for his 'research' purposes.
He continues to claim that he 'doesn't know the answer'. And yet, as I showed above in the patent, he was clearly stating that 'it has been demonstrated that' MMR causes autism. A lie He also has claimed, elsewhere, that he never patented a vaccine, that it was a 'dietary supplement. And yet, if you read the patent, it clearly says 'vaccine' and the method describes the preparation of a vaccine. A lie
Wakefield speaks well. He hits just the right mix of outrage and concern. He's lying through his teeth. Don't be taken in.
Undisclosed
Senior Member
- Messages
- 10,157
Exactly, Wakefield does hit the right mix of outrage and concern. Yes, he is lying through his teeth. There is a ton of good information about the spin Wakefield, people like Jenny McCarthy have put on autism and vaccines. Paul Offit is an excellent source. It's really sad what he is doing. I know many parents who have children on the autistic spectrum disorder. They have long forsaken Wakefield and his quackery. The vaccine/autism connecton should be finished with, but alas it's not.
- Messages
- 877
Holly guacamole **********
NO, Dr Andrew Wakefield has had a character assassination just like many other well meaning scientists out there. Where are the facts people? Please show me the links for how you know Dr Wakefield is "lying through his teeth"?
NO, Dr Andrew Wakefield has had a character assassination just like many other well meaning scientists out there. Where are the facts people? Please show me the links for how you know Dr Wakefield is "lying through his teeth"?
Why the excessive reaction to evidence in favour of Dr Wakefield?
The parents of the children Dr Wakefield is accused of "harming" themselves wanted to speak in his defence saying he was a good caring doctor and that they had no complaint about him.
They state they have been following the GMC hearings with distress, as "we, the parents, have had no opportunity to refute the allegations".
You would assume that in a case of medical malpractice the parents would be the very people to bring the case, and not be speaking in the defence of the accused doctor, and using terms such as "the utmost professionalism and respect" and "great improvement on treatment" as here.
They state that the complaint brought against Wakefield does not in any way reflect their perception of the treatment offered to their sick children, and that no parent has brought any complaint against any of the doctors who are the subject of this protracted investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHrgYxqcU0w
I really think anyone with any doubts should take a look at this short video.
The parents of the children Dr Wakefield is accused of "harming" themselves wanted to speak in his defence saying he was a good caring doctor and that they had no complaint about him.
They state they have been following the GMC hearings with distress, as "we, the parents, have had no opportunity to refute the allegations".
You would assume that in a case of medical malpractice the parents would be the very people to bring the case, and not be speaking in the defence of the accused doctor, and using terms such as "the utmost professionalism and respect" and "great improvement on treatment" as here.
They state that the complaint brought against Wakefield does not in any way reflect their perception of the treatment offered to their sick children, and that no parent has brought any complaint against any of the doctors who are the subject of this protracted investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHrgYxqcU0w
I really think anyone with any doubts should take a look at this short video.
This is anctedotal evidence. The plural of anctedotal does not equal data. Even the authors of Wakefield's paper, wanted their names taken off and did not want to be associated with it.
This is a good summary of what happened in cartoon form yet it contains a lot of good information.
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html
Wonko
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- The other side.
So.....something spoken by someone is anecdotal evidence and irrelevant, something written down is also anecdotal evidence and also irrelevant - unless the person saying or doing it has letters after their name? or is a psyche? seems the entire "science"'s of psychology and psychiatry are based entirely on anecdotal evidence - but no one says they are invalid (part from victims of course but their complaints are based on anecdotal evidence so irrelevant).
There is more than one interpretation as to why people would want their names taken off Wakefiels paper, possibly they saw what was happening to him, saw which way the wind was blowing, and decided that they didnt feel like being ruined and having their names dragged through the mud might be a factor just as importnt as any possible doubts they might have about the paper?
not that I am particulary defending Wakefield or ny papers at this point, as I havent had a chance to read up on the "evidence" supplied by your side yet - I only have my own recollections - I'm just stating that their are other possible interpretations.
There is more than one interpretation as to why people would want their names taken off Wakefiels paper, possibly they saw what was happening to him, saw which way the wind was blowing, and decided that they didnt feel like being ruined and having their names dragged through the mud might be a factor just as importnt as any possible doubts they might have about the paper?
not that I am particulary defending Wakefield or ny papers at this point, as I havent had a chance to read up on the "evidence" supplied by your side yet - I only have my own recollections - I'm just stating that their are other possible interpretations.
I cannot take what you say seriously, Barb.
Are you really suggesting that THE PARENTS of these children cannot have any credence given to their evidence?
Are you aware that parents of children with ME also suffer because their knowledge that their child is ill is dismissed and their child can be taken away from them or sectioned and subjected to damaging and abusive "treatments"? The children sometimes became mute from the trauma.
Are you really suggesting that THE PARENTS of these children cannot have any credence given to their evidence?
Are you aware that parents of children with ME also suffer because their knowledge that their child is ill is dismissed and their child can be taken away from them or sectioned and subjected to damaging and abusive "treatments"? The children sometimes became mute from the trauma.