Rick Reuben wrote: Andrew Wakefield is being prosecuted to scare away other researchers.

What evidence do you have for this?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Josef K wrote:Wakefield based his findings on the study of something like 12 patients, not enough to confirm his findings.

His Lancet article didn't 'confirm findings', or even argue a causal link. Andrew Wakefield is being prosecuted to scare away other researchers.

Prosecuted or persecuted?

C'mon his research was funded by drugs companies. The accusation was that he was being funded to prove a link between the 3 shot MMR and Autism because it was cheaper than the individual shots.

If he'd done it properly and not cut corners he'd have found what the others have found and we wouldn't be having this exchange.

Rick Reuben wrote:

johnnyshape wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote: Andrew Wakefield is being prosecuted to scare away other researchers.

What evidence do you have for this?

The fact that you think it is impossible confirms it.

Well, that's one way of spelling 'none', I suppose.

Rick Reuben wrote:

johnnyshape wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote: Andrew Wakefield is being prosecuted to scare away other researchers.

What evidence do you have for this?

The fact that you think that such motives would be spoken about openly explains why you ask such questions about motives.

Ah, that old chestnut. If you can't actually answer the question, bat back some sort of meta-question about the motives of the questioner, and hope like fuck the discussion wanders off in another direction.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Yngwie Einstein wrote:At best, you can say the link between vaccines (some, particularly mercury-based ones) and autism needs to be rigorously studied.

Except that you will only listen to research that is beholden to the medical establishment, so your blah blah blah about 'we must rigorously study' is about as serious as someone like Newberry's is.

Last I saw, publications like Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine were pretty well respected for their peer-review process throughout the medical field.

Again, what medical degree do you hold? I guess all those doctors other than the ones you cherry pick to support flimsy articles must have gotten their degrees by mail order.

You are the saggiest tit in this whorehouse. You only believe information that supports your preconceived notions of the world around you and then talk smack about others who disagree.

Measles outbreak?. I thought they had a vaccine for that.

Rick Reuben wrote:These babies aren't developing their own antibodies in response to the challenges.

What? This makes no sense.

A vaccine provokes antibody seroconversion as though you had the disease.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Josef K wrote:The vaccination strategy is called Herd vaccination or something and requires something like 90% of the population to be vaccinated for it to be effective.

If the vaccine itself is effective as claimed, then it's effective if 20, 40, 60, or 80% take it- for those who take it. If the vaccine is effective as claimed, then one person can take it, and everyone else can not take it, and the one who does is protected- if the vaccine is effective as claimed.

Wow. Herd immunity is about protection for the other 10%, those who don't receive the shot.

Herd immunity theory proposes that, in diseases passed from person-to-person, it is more difficult to maintain a chain of infection when large numbers of a population are immune. The more immune individuals present in a population, the lower the likelihood that a susceptible person will come into contact with an infected individual

Rick Reuben wrote:Unrelated: if you let your daughter get the Gardasil vaccine, you're ignoring growing evidence that it is both unnecessary and dangerous.

Gardasil is fucking awesome. Two thumbs up.

Rick Reuben wrote: you have no business asking for evidence...

Rampantly hilarious megalomania. What are you, some feudal lord of the internet?

Rick Reuben wrote: You are motivated to ask by your shame over your refusal to consider any contradictory evidence.

Nah. I'm motivated by a skeptic worldview that is occasionally irritated with the paranoid, web-grabbed nonsense you attention-seekingly spray around this board, which you then defend with obnoxious zeal, unsubstantiated opinion, and tedious keyboard-warrior sophistry.

johnnyshape wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote: you have no business asking for evidence...

Rampantly hilarious megalomania. What are you, some feudal lord of the internet?

Nah, he just bombards you with clippings and 90-minute videos so he doesn't have to explain it. That way he can pretend to be an authority by searching for articles that support his foregone conclusions, while ignoring differing viewpoints presented in such articles.

Like this little ditty from above.

new york times 8-21-08 wrote:Two vaccines against cervical cancer are being widely used without sufficient evidence about whether they are worth their high cost or even whether they will effectively stop women from getting the disease, two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine conclude.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/healt ... ne.html?hp

After reading the article, I am at a loss for how this supports his views on the NEJM and Lancet. I must be too stupid. Dang, Ricky Bobby pulled one over on me again. Drat.

Chicken pox or varicella vaccine: same mechanism.

They go to work in your lymph nodes, not your brain, kitten.