Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The science should care about conflict of interest, because the "science" is performed by humans. You may not care, but I assure you scientist and others do care.
The profound irony of that statement given the context of this thread is delicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
To deny conflict of interest has no bearing on outcomes is absurd in the extreme.
To use the logical fallacy of tu quoque to defend egregiously bad science is worse than absurd, It's actually dishonest.
Anecdotes always merit scientific consideration based on what they are.
Reactions go to the point about the broad labeling of "Autism" and its wide-range of symptoms. Unlike you, who seem to imply that data is all in, I think more independent and proper research needs to be done.
Too many people are giving validity to information, which does, in fact have conflicts of interest, while they hypocritically complain about it elsewhere.
I think Vaccinations should be by choice, not forced. I also think good information, unbiased needs to be out there.
Research that means something. Not reseach meant to provide fake ammunition so ill informed people can sue companies and endanger public health.
Vaccines should be by choice. But non-vaccination should be discouraged as much as possible. Non-vaccination is not without serious consequences. Our young infants should not be in danger of whooping cough because of someone else's ignorance nor should our cancer patients should be in danger of measles because some people choose to ignore history and science.
I have no idea why you think good, unbiased information is not out there already. Or why someone as ill informed as Claud Hopper is providing it.
Anecdotes always merit scientific consideration based on what they are.
Sorry. No. They don't. Anecdotes have done more damage to the ability of people to evaluate risk than any other source of alleged "information." This is why science is excruciatingly rigorous to avoid them.
The science should care about conflict of interest, because the "science" is performed by humans. You may not care, but I assure you scientist and others do care.
To deny conflict of interest has no bearing on outcomes is absurd in the extreme.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of vaccines as they are vetted by well regarded scientists. If you believe otherwise please tell us which vaccines you would like to get rid of and which vaccine preventable diseases you want back as a result.
be informed and don't let them force you into anything. Do not trust anyone. Read everything you can and make up your own mind.
Well-Baby Checkups = Excuse to Vaccinate
The main reason for all those “well-baby” checkups during the first year or year and a half of your child’s life can be summed up in one word: vaccines. I think your typical parent is intelligent enough to notice if her baby isn’t eating enough or gaining weight or is sick (pulling at ears, throwing up, coughing, feverish). In other words, she knows when her baby needs to go to the doctor. Sure, a nurse or pediatrician will weigh and measure your child at a well-baby checkup, give him a once-over, and ask you a few questions. But you can bet those syringes are ready when you walk in the door.
If you vaccinate according to the recommended schedule, your child will receive 49 doses of vaccines by the time he is 6 years old. 49 doses. You can choose not to vaccinate—there are exemptions for children of school age. If your doctor discharges you from the practice for not vaccinating, there are doctors who will see your child. See my previous article, “You Can Say No to Vaccines … But Your Child May End Up with No Pediatrician.”
be informed and don't let them force you into anything. Do not trust anyone. Read everything you can and make up your own mind.
Well-Baby Checkups = Excuse to Vaccinate
The main reason for all those “well-baby” checkups during the first year or year and a half of your child’s life can be summed up in one word: vaccines. I think your typical parent is intelligent enough to notice if her baby isn’t eating enough or gaining weight or is sick (pulling at ears, throwing up, coughing, feverish). In other words, she knows when her baby needs to go to the doctor. Sure, a nurse or pediatrician will weigh and measure your child at a well-baby checkup, give him a once-over, and ask you a few questions. But you can bet those syringes are ready when you walk in the door.
If you vaccinate according to the recommended schedule, your child will receive 49 doses of vaccines by the time he is 6 years old. 49 doses. You can choose not to vaccinate—there are exemptions for children of school age. If your doctor discharges you from the practice for not vaccinating, there are doctors who will see your child. See my previous article, “You Can Say No to Vaccines … But Your Child May End Up with No Pediatrician.”
Because giving birth comes with an advanced medical degree!
I know I always take advice from someone who works at home for an educational publisher over a pediatrician oh yes!
Any parent dumb enough to read nonsense like this and refuse basic medical precautions for her baby SHOULD see a doctor!
How bout that Denmark study?
(NaturalNews) CDC researcher Poul Thorsen, who famously headed up the "Denmark Study" that many claim disproved any link between autism and vaccines, has been indicted in Atlanta by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, money laundering and defrauding research institutions of grant money
Learn more: CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme
He didn't head up that study. NaturalNews are, bluntly put, lying to you. Now, does that make you change your mind as regards their reliability as a source? We both know the answer to that, don't we?
Fascinating that you will reject the CDC out of hand, and embrace a proven charlatan who has even lost his medical license for fraud.
This is the very point that continues to astound me. I cannot comprehend the mindset of those that continue to have faith in Wakefield despite the fact that we know his study was rigged, and he has been exposed as a fraud. Mindboggling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
