Pippy, you put down two links to the same article. That article was written by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. Do not deny that.
I mentioned the paper in the article in my response. I said it hadn't been published yet, nor had it been peer-reviewed, nor had it been subjected to testing. I then said:
The facts are, Pippy, that there is currently no evidence to suggest that any vaccines have harmful effects on children. The current vaccines we administer (yes, all 36) are the result of years of efforts in studies to create safe ways of immunising people against disease. If there was an accurate study that was published and peer-reviewed that showed some of the vaccines were dangerous, steps would be taken to investigate further threats. However, as it stands currently, no such paper has been published.
The article hints that this latest paper of Dr Wakefield is going to be censored, but then provides absolutely no evidence to suggest this. All it does is go on about how he was tried and found guilty of ethics violations, and then calls the court that convicted him a "kangaroo court". Well, I don't care to speculate upon that, but did you read about the kinds of things he did? Paying children at his son's 5th birthday party £5 in return for a blood sample? What on earth was he thinking?!?
All Dr Wakefield has shown is that he doesn't know how to perform a basic fair trial in science, and anything else he publishes should be scrutinised and tested in a rigorous manner that is expected of all scientific studies.
As for mentioning the UofK and UofPittMed, you might be interested to know that 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors of his original paper issued a retraction one they realised that their data was inconclusive, and the paper should not have been published. They were from top universities as well. People make mistakes; the honest ones correct them.
Like I've said, I have no problems if this new paper is peer-reviewed, tested, and verified. What I have a problem with is people like yourself and Jenny McCarthy jumping the gun and claiming some sort of victory when nothing has even been published yet.
I mentioned the paper in the article in my response. I said it hadn't been published yet, nor had it been peer-reviewed, nor had it been subjected to testing. I then said:
Tiberius Wrote:This is science we are talking about. You don't just go along with whatever someone in a white lab coat says...you have to publish a study that can be tested repeatedly and come up with the same results.
The facts are, Pippy, that there is currently no evidence to suggest that any vaccines have harmful effects on children. The current vaccines we administer (yes, all 36) are the result of years of efforts in studies to create safe ways of immunising people against disease. If there was an accurate study that was published and peer-reviewed that showed some of the vaccines were dangerous, steps would be taken to investigate further threats. However, as it stands currently, no such paper has been published.
The article hints that this latest paper of Dr Wakefield is going to be censored, but then provides absolutely no evidence to suggest this. All it does is go on about how he was tried and found guilty of ethics violations, and then calls the court that convicted him a "kangaroo court". Well, I don't care to speculate upon that, but did you read about the kinds of things he did? Paying children at his son's 5th birthday party £5 in return for a blood sample? What on earth was he thinking?!?
All Dr Wakefield has shown is that he doesn't know how to perform a basic fair trial in science, and anything else he publishes should be scrutinised and tested in a rigorous manner that is expected of all scientific studies.
As for mentioning the UofK and UofPittMed, you might be interested to know that 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors of his original paper issued a retraction one they realised that their data was inconclusive, and the paper should not have been published. They were from top universities as well. People make mistakes; the honest ones correct them.
Like I've said, I have no problems if this new paper is peer-reviewed, tested, and verified. What I have a problem with is people like yourself and Jenny McCarthy jumping the gun and claiming some sort of victory when nothing has even been published yet.
