dorlomin Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 6 hours ago, The Minertaur said: My brother in law just shared this on Facebook. I don't even know where to start with this. Couple of weeks ago he sent me a video about Isaac Kappy which was full of a load of shite. There were a number of posts on here back in late February early March to that effect on this forum on the Covid 19 thread. Including by some well known individuals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 2 hours ago, GordonS said: The BBC and others treating the claim that MMR caused autism (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in their usual he said, she said style lent it a credence that it didn't deserve. This led to children dying. The BBC killed children did it. If only they had listened to you. Wakefield et al was published in 98 in The Lancet. (the original study that claimed to find a link) It was officially withdrawn in February 2010. Reporting between those dates would have been on very safe ground stating a study in a high profile journal had raised an issue when explaining why there was as controversy. Virtually no reporter would have been qualified to read research and state that it was wrong. They could report on the issue and state that the vast majority disagreed with it. Reporting by credible news sources after this point would be on solid ground to point out there was no credible research suggesting a link between MMR and Autism. If you can show when the BBC reporting a credible link after February 2010 then the floor is yours. I bet you have never read a single science paper in your life, let alone have to follow as contradictory evidence is worked through in a contentious topic. Lancet referees let the paper through. Lancet, BMJ and NEJM are the top journals in medicine (although Nature, Science and PNAS will take medical papers). Papers appearing in those journals have met the fields highest standards for entering the scientific discussion. The fault lies with and has been acknowledged by The Lancet (in that the paper was withdrawn). Reporting research of interest to the public from the very top journals in the world is acceptable. So long as you explain there is a body of opposition. We live in a world where people want simple stories that make themselves to be the heroes who can see through the dumbarsed scientists giving out dangerous vaccines or dumbarsed science reporters who's weeks of research into a complex topic where there is contradictory evidence can be attacked with self congratulatory smugness by people 15 years later who's sole understanding of the 22 year long controversy is they can spell MMR. Welcome to our future. Dumb and dumber. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Private Eye were big supporters of the MMR-autism theory as well, I think it was the only story they’ve ever withdrawn without libel actions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Massive amount of compo paid out by the US for vaccine f**k-ups. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 The Lancet article was only officially withdrawn in 2010. It was known for years before then that it was bogus. The process (it is a long-winded one) to start withdrawing it started in 2006 or 2007 I believe. His financial conflict of interests were known far earlier, about 2003 IIRC. Any 'journalist' reporting on this beyond the mid-2000s was knowingly contributing to the lie. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 I have just found another thread about real conspiracies that are of real concern. This thread is a decoy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, MixuFruit said: aye pretty sure it was getting pelters very much earlier than 2010. I have not seen peer reviewed science "getting pelters" before. Can your describe the great many fields you pretend to be an expert in and your long history of identifying which "pelters" are good science and which are just poorly constructed critiques. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 hour ago, dorlomin said: There were a number of posts on here back in late February early March to that effect on this forum on the Covid 19 thread. Including by some well known individuals. Coward's move. Name names. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 39 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: Massive amount of compo paid out by the US for vaccine f**k-ups. Go on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, dorlomin said: Wakefield et al was published in 98 in The Lancet. (the original study that claimed to find a link) It was officially withdrawn in February 2010. 12 minutes ago, MixuFruit said: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70321-4/fulltext There you go. It's in the Lancet and it hasn't been retracted. Thank you for repeating what I already said. It helps the slow ones keep up. Edited July 28, 2020 by dorlomin -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, MixuFruit said: that's from 98 my dude. Me Quote Wakefield et al was published in 98 in The Lancet. (the original study that claimed to find a link) Thank you for confirming what I said. Quote It sounded like you were meaning to say it was fine for the news to quote it between 98 and 2010 because it was still notionally published Kind off. It was withdrawn in February 2010. I did not say "fine" but I am sure that nuance is not the objective here. I will explain (and be ignored). Science is not someone produces a paper and suddenly everyone agrees (no matter what our wanna be clever posters say). When people disagree they produce contrary papers. These fight it out until a consensus appears. (See Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). What we had here was a controversial paper that the press had to report on. Then after it was released more science was released that challenged it In 2010 this was withdrawn. I am sure that the 20 plus posts a day types will be convinced they win. But they are buffoons out their depth on science. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge (2011) -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Hero to villain. Quote In December 1961, the Australian obstetrician William McBride warned in a letter to the Lancet that he had observed “multiple severe abnormalities” in babies delivered from women who had taken the drug thalidomide during pregnancy.1 He concluded his letter by asking: “Have any of your readers seen similar abnormalities in babies delivered of women who have taken this drug during pregnancy?” The letter, thought to be the first published suggestion from a doctor of teratogenicity of thalidomide in humans, was brief—only five sentences. McBride’s concerns about thalidomide were subsequently confirmed by researchers in Europe, and the drug was banned around the world, saving countless infants from being born with birth defects. An article in The BMJ in 2016 about a documentary film chronicling the lives of people who had birth defects as a result of the drug stated: “The thalidomide scandal stands as one of the worst ever medical disasters.”2 Global recognition For helping alert the world to the dangers of thalidomide taken during pregnancy, McBride gained global recognition. In his native Australia he was hailed as a national hero, and a glow of honour hovered over him for the following three decades. He had a thriving practice in Sydney, and he received a CBE in 1969 and the Order of Australia in 1977. But a later chapter of McBride’s life was not so pleasant. In 1993, at the age of 65, McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud by a medical tribunal for knowingly publishing false and misleading research. He was removed from the medical register. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415.full Quote In 1981 he published a paper indicating that the drug Debendox (marketed in the US as Bendectin) caused birth defects. His co-authors noted that the published paper contained manipulated data and protested[11] but their voices went unheard. Multiple lawsuits followed by patients and McBride was a willing witness for the claimants. Eventually, the case was investigated and, as a result, McBride was struck off the Australian medical register in 1993 for deliberately falsifying data.[12] An inquiry determined "we are forced to conclude that McBride did publish statements which he either knew were untrue or which he did not genuinely believe to be true, and in that respect was guilty of scientific fraud." He was reinstated to the medical register in 1998.[13][14][15] The Bendectin case, and the subsequent removal of the drug from the US market, has had a number of consequences.[16] Firstly, there was an immediate increase in the rates of hospitalization for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.[17] Secondly, it created a treatment void in terms of having a safe medication that could be used for alleviating morning sickness in US pregnant women, a condition which, in the most severe form, called hyperemesis gravidarum, could be both life-threatening and cause women to terminate their pregnancy.[18] The lack of availability of a safe and effective drug for the treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy resulted in the use of other, less studied drugs in pregnancy.[16][19][20] Thirdly, it has been claimed that subsequent to the Bendectin experience, drug companies stayed away from developing medications for pregnant patients.[21] As a result, only a few medications were approved by the FDA for obstetrical indications in the past several decades.[22] Lastly, the perception that all medications are teratogenic increased among pregnant women and healthcare professionals.[23] The unfounded fear of using medications during pregnancy has precluded many women from receiving the treatment they require.[23] Leaving medical conditions untreated during pregnancy can result in adverse pregnancy outcomes or significant morbidity for both the mother and baby.[23] Ongoing education of physicians and the general public has resulted in improvements in the perception of medication use in pregnancy; however, further advances are required to overcome the devastating effects of the Bendectin saga.[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_(doctor)#Debendox_case 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 29 minutes ago, dorlomin said: Me Thank you for confirming what I said. Kind off. It was withdrawn in February 2010. I did not say "fine" but I am sure that nuance is not the objective here. I will explain (and be ignored). Science is not someone produces a paper and suddenly everyone agrees (no matter what our wanna be clever posters say). When people disagree they produce contrary papers. These fight it out until a consensus appears. (See Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). What we had here was a controversial paper that the press had to report on. Then after it was released more science was released that challenged it In 2010 this was withdrawn. I am sure that the 20 plus posts a day types will be convinced they win. But they are buffoons out their depth on science. Is this what it looks like when the gloves are off? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: Is this what it looks like when the gloves are off? Dorlomin would only take a glove off to challenge an intellectual equal to a duel. Fortunately for them he hasn't met one yet, I'm sure he'd be ferocious. Edited July 28, 2020 by welshbairn -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 23 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: Is this what it looks like when the gloves are off? Dorlominsplainin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, dorlomin said: What we had here was a controversial paper that the press had to report on. Then after it was released more science was released that challenged it In 2010 this was withdrawn. This man disagrees. The press ignored all the mass of evidence that contradicted the Lancet paper, because panic sells more papers. I include the Lancet in that, though they got the jitters in 2004 and phoned Wakefield's boss who reassured them that he was a fine chap, nothing to worry about, and sat on it for another 6 years. Short version. https://www.badscience.net/2010/01/the-wakefield-mmr-verdict Longer version. https://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/ Edited July 28, 2020 by welshbairn -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieKTID Posted July 29, 2020 Share Posted July 29, 2020 On 28/07/2020 at 06:30, MONKMAN said: There's people who believe that bigfoot is widely found in the Pacific North West of America, although any evidence of their existence is being systematically covered up by the US and Canadian governments. These idiots (the believers, not bigfoot) actually live amongst us, and are allowed to vote. We did a road trip a few years ago through South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee, we were walking a section of the Appalachian trail, we came to a clearing and a hundred or so metres away was a bear standing upright rubbing its back against a tree, for a second my brain couldn't process what i was seeing, by the time I got my camera out it had moved on. A few hours later we're in Gatlinburg eating bbq and get sauce all down my white t shirt so i popped into the first clothing store i found and the t shirt below was right there as i entered i had to get it, weirdly the tag said it was a large but it turned out to be a medium but it fitted perfectly. Don't know if there is a bigfoot sightings/wrong clothing label crossover theory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger29 Posted July 29, 2020 Share Posted July 29, 2020 The weirdest conspiracy I've heard recently was a postman saying that Covid-19 had something to do with 9-11. As in some kind of retaliation by god knows who, trying to harm god knows who.Also heard the classic Covid linked to 5G towers and the flat earth shite. All from different people I might add.My gran thinks Covid-19 has some kind of link to nuclear and spaceships but surprisingly she's never been able to go into more detail.For me the most irritating part about conspiracy theories is there is so much other horrendous stuff out there, with evidence attached, which just gets ignored. People like being the edgy outsider with "incredible" information not being discussed by mainstream media. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted July 29, 2020 Share Posted July 29, 2020 Here's Brian Deer's documentary about the MMR controversy, for those who are interested 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.