Sectorgame

I stumbled upon this by accident flicking across the web, but it's left me thoroughly disgusted.

Some people might be familiar with the 'allegation' (thoroughly discredited by a load of medical investigation and a weight of evidence, and made by a man with a financial interest in seperate vaccine manufacturers) that the MMR vaccine causes autism. One apparent, frequently quoted publisher of 'studies' to support this bunkum claim is the 'Association of American Physicians and Surgeons'.

This gives a bit more information about this association; http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/articl ... bedfellows

Here's some brief highlights;
- against any form of federal (state) regulation of medicine (including laws to protect patients, and any provision of free or national healthcare, which is compared to communism)
- against abortion, the morning after pill or over the counter contraception
- against any type of vaccination
- against doctors or people advising gun owners to keep their weapons safe from children accidentally finding or using them
- creationist / fundamental (intolerant brand) christian
- AIDs denialist, views homosexuality as a disease causing (!) crime, disease and reduced lifespan by 20 years
- Against the principles of the Hippocratic oath (more or less literally stated)

It's a group of incredible, vile propaganda - and from people supposed to be carers? What in the name of f### is wrong with the world?

forget taka, those are morons.

aldo wrote:Some people might be familiar with the 'allegation' (thoroughly discredited by a load of medical investigation and a weight of evidence, and made by a man with a financial interest in seperate vaccine manufacturers) that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

I'd not heard that the guy behind the claims was involved with the direct competitor of the MMR jab. Have you got a link to that? I'd like to keep that bookmarked for future shouting matches against the stupidity of resistance to the MMR jab

karajorma wrote:

aldo wrote:Some people might be familiar with the 'allegation' (thoroughly discredited by a load of medical investigation and a weight of evidence, and made by a man with a financial interest in seperate vaccine manufacturers) that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

I'd not heard that the guy behind the claims was involved with the direct competitor of the MMR jab. Have you got a link to that? I'd like to keep that bookmarked for future shouting matches against the stupidity of resistance to the MMR jab

It was in, I think, a Horizon (could be another programme) or somesuch documentary from when the Danish study results were released. I can't find a link, though, and it may have been one of the funders of his study - or I may be mistaken. Albeit handy info on why his research was flawed is in the transcript for what may or may not have been the one I watched - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/program ... rans.shtml

What I do know, though, is that when he was doing the study that led to the 'MMR is bad' paper, he was also doing a study on behalf of solicitors looking to sue MMR manufacturers. Some of the same children were even used in both studies.

www.badscience.net is always handy for these things, though.

Bad Science should be required reading for anyone entering a scientific debate.

On the subject of Wakefield;
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

To be honest I think the Lancet acted disgracefully in this matter.

They spent ages defending Wakefield and then only turned on him when it was revealed that he had a conflict of interest.

f### conflicts of interest. The science was fatally flawed and as soon as they realised that they should have published a full retraction. It is ridiculous that they would continue to defend a flawed paper and then only at the end say "Well we didn't know he was a bit of a cheat". Scientific matters should be judged on the evidence NOT the character of the scientist. Wakefield's character may have some bearing on whether his research could be trusted or not but the fact is that the original paper was full of shocking flaws and the Lancet continued to defend it.