Comments on: What more do the MMR/anti-vaccers want? http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/ Contains Reason. Not Excuses. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:02:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: » Callous, unethical and dishonest Wakefield finally gets struck off. http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-15386 » Callous, unethical and dishonest Wakefield finally gets struck off. Sun, 30 May 2010 07:01:28 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-15386 [...] ten of the twelve authors on the Lancet paper withdrew their names from the publication stating; “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link established between MMR [...] [...] ten of the twelve authors on the Lancet paper withdrew their names from the publication stating; “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link established between MMR [...]

]]> By: » Wakefield’s paper vindicated “again”? Not likely. http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-14491 » Wakefield’s paper vindicated “again”? Not likely. Wed, 12 May 2010 13:09:06 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-14491 [...] made a complete retraction of the paper, six years after the majority of the authors had already disassociated themselves from it in 2004. Another paper, accepted and due to be published in NeuroToxicology, showing that [...] [...] made a complete retraction of the paper, six years after the majority of the authors had already disassociated themselves from it in 2004. Another paper, accepted and due to be published in NeuroToxicology, showing that [...]

]]> By: » MMR doctor “unethical, callous and abused trust” http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-9095 » MMR doctor “unethical, callous and abused trust” Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:19:39 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-9095 [...] ten of the twelve authors on the paper withdrew their names and the Lancet also retracted the paper. “we wish to make it clear that in this paper no [...] [...] ten of the twelve authors on the paper withdrew their names and the Lancet also retracted the paper. “we wish to make it clear that in this paper no [...]

]]> By: » Cherry picking now extends to photographs too. http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-6837 » Cherry picking now extends to photographs too. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:20:18 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-6837 [...] recall that the Lancet publication which started the whole autism/MMR controversy has since been retracted by the journal, and 10 of the 12 authors also stated unequivocally in a publication in 2004 [...] [...] recall that the Lancet publication which started the whole autism/MMR controversy has since been retracted by the journal, and 10 of the 12 authors also stated unequivocally in a publication in 2004 [...]

]]> By: bernice l. http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-3045 bernice l. Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:54:17 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-3045 Fellow skeptics, have you read the original Wakefield paper from beginning to end. To quote: "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue." and "We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine." What exactly did they retract? They retracted that which the paper never said in the first place. I can not find any reference in the paper to a finding of causal association between MMR and autism. There was certainly a (parent) reported temporal association between MMR and onset of regression. The skeptic in me says it "it reeks of politics(Peter Garrett)" Are you not sceptical about the real purpose of this retraction. As an aside, Dr Wakefield is pro-vaccine! Fellow skeptics, have you read the original Wakefield paper from beginning to end.

To quote:

“We did not prove an association between measles,
mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.
Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve
this issue.”

and

“We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children
that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In
most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles,
mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations
are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible
relation to this vaccine.”

What exactly did they retract? They retracted that which the paper never said in the first place. I can not find any reference in the paper to a finding of causal association between MMR and autism. There was certainly a (parent) reported temporal association between MMR and onset of regression. The skeptic in me says it “it reeks of politics(Peter Garrett)” Are you not sceptical about the real purpose of this retraction. As an aside, Dr Wakefield is pro-vaccine!

]]> By: » A brief report from today’s debate. http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-1471 » A brief report from today’s debate. Sat, 02 May 2009 14:03:49 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-1471 [...] some of the data been faked but amongst other flaws, the study only involved 12 children and had since been retracted by the the [...] [...] some of the data been faked but amongst other flaws, the study only involved 12 children and had since been retracted by the the [...]

]]> By: Clifford G Miller http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-163 Clifford G Miller Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:29:00 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-163 That's funny, so do the other side. Have you taken a look here:- "MMR/Autism Cases Win In US Vaccine Court" http://tinyurl.com/ahprxd That’s funny, so do the other side. Have you taken a look here:-
“MMR/Autism Cases Win In US Vaccine Court”
http://tinyurl.com/ahprxd

]]> By: BastardSheep http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-106 BastardSheep Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:22:34 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-106 Over at washington post via /. today is some good news. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/12/1851203 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021201391.html A court has ruled that vaccines do not cause autism. So now we have the big three on our sides - science, evidence, and the law! Over at washington post via /. today is some good news.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/12/1851203
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021201391.html

A court has ruled that vaccines do not cause autism. So now we have the big three on our sides – science, evidence, and the law!

]]> By: Sean the Blogonaut http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-99 Sean the Blogonaut Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:22:01 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-99 Don't you know that it's a big pharma / government conspiracy :) Don’t you know that it’s a big pharma / government conspiracy :)

]]> By: Brian Deer Discusses Andrew Wakefield in the Sunday Times: Many Updates « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/09/what-more-do-the-mmranti-vaccers-want/comment-page-1/#comment-95 Brian Deer Discusses Andrew Wakefield in the Sunday Times: Many Updates « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:31:11 +0000 http://scepticsbook.com/?p=447#comment-95 [...] of Sceptics’ Book asks: What more do the MMR/anti-vaccers want?. They reproduce a crucial part of the partial retraction of the paper by 10/13 of the original [...] [...] of Sceptics’ Book asks: What more do the MMR/anti-vaccers want?. They reproduce a crucial part of the partial retraction of the paper by 10/13 of the original [...]

]]>