Comments on: And so it begins to unravel for Wakefield

By: Sean the Blogonaut

Sean the Blogonaut — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:49:58 +0000

John,

I can testify to Maggie’s fairness in allowing comment. Often have I seen the variety of verbal diarrhea that you seem to be spouting here.

Perhaps you need to step back and rethink the false dichotomy of alt med vs big pharma and realize they are both industries, made up of companies – some of whiich have a hand in each pie, and that it’s not skeptics vs nutbags, but rather the consumer vs the producer.

By: Myk

Myk — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:48:27 +0000

@John: The difference is that the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies declare their bias/funding. Wakefield hid his bias. Major difference in ethics.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:43:12 +0000

@john, Who is “Mr Skeptic”?

By: Maggie

Maggie — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:41:08 +0000

Hi John, I moderate comments for spam which can be a big problem, as I’m sure you understand. Moderation does not mean censorship!

Interesting that you claim I am funded by pharmaceutical companies, prey tell, where is your evidence for such?

Cheers

By: John

John — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:02:10 +0000

Ha, just saw that your comments are moderated. People like you amaze me; you act like you’re some voice of unbiased reason but you ride the ‘party line’ of the academic science that is by-and-large funded by pharmaceutical companies and salesmen-like federal grants and ostracize your detractors.

By: John

John — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:55:18 +0000

You’re full of shit. How many “legit” medicine studies have been published by pharmaceutical companies? And that’s less of a ‘conflict of interest’ than being part of some class-action lawsuit?

You are not a skeptic, you’re simply adhering to your own pre-accepted notions. The vast majority of vaccine research has been funded by their manufacturers. Let’s call it like it actually is, Mr. Skeptic.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:16:28 +0000

Hi David, I saw an exchange on your blog about that – was it with Orac? Would you mind putting a link here so we can all take a look?

Good job BTW! You surely deserve some of the credit.

By: David N. Brown

David N. Brown — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:02:02 +0000

I wrote to Neurotoxicology telling them the needed to withdraw the paper last November, and saying if they didn’t I would advocate boycotting their journal out of existence. Three months later, they actually do it. Some conspiracy!

By: » Wakefield resigns in disgrace as the AVN entices with booze

» Wakefield resigns in disgrace as the AVN entices with booze — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:05:15 +0000

[...] Deer said; I always wondered what the reaction to the GMC verdict would be. As the Neurotoxicology withdrawal (taking with it a big chunk of Liz Birt’s hard-raised money, which Wakefield still controls) [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:02:17 +0000

See http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/andrew_wakefield_resigned_from_thoughtfu.php