Harry Leggs
Super Member
Yeah ignore and you still are ignoring.Ignore?
Right and what was ignored was 13 authors. Three got in hot water. One got off right away. Another was overturned on appeal for two reasons. Wakefield never appealed. So the ruling stands. If it was all as disastrous as you state then.I responded to the broken peer-review process of Wakefield's initial paper --- here.
1) why did it pass peer review?
2) why only three got in trouble when it was a collaboration of 13?
3) why did the other two get off and the process reprimanded for making errors?
4) No parents interviewed nor did any parents complain of abuse. The abuse allegations came from the pro vaccers against Wakefield. Not the parents who supported Wakefield. They were not allowed to contribute in the inquisition process. Why is that? Then you have the audacity to conclude Wakefield is greedy and everything else? You do know false accusations is bearing false witness and we are not to follow the mob in doing evil. The malicious witness is in Dt. 5:15-21.
------------------------
That means the process was flawed in the first place and these are all facts that you ignored.
Again, it only became a problem when parents started complaining and the reputation of pro vaccers was threatened. What did they do. They vilified Wakefield to cover their behinds. It is the timing that gives it all away because if it was that bad then it should have been exposed at peer review. These are all facts you continue to ignore. The truth will come out eventually, even if it takes to judgment. Cannot do damage to children without facing consequences from God.
The mother identified as a JABs activist.No. I quoted what researchers have written and provided the referenced documents*. - It's history now.
''Another child was enrolled by his brother's mother who is reported to be a JABS activist* and blamed the vaccine for the child's condition asking for legal aid before admission. The child was 6 when admitted and was previously assessed with possible Asperger’s syndrome at Guy’s Hospital, London. However, the final diagnosis was only “an impairment in respect of language”.
........
* JABS is an anti-vaccination group''
----------------------------
The insinuation here is the mother is a kook. That comes across as slimy dismissing a mother of a disabled child. Then you bring up John Birch.
You communicate thru logic fallacies and then reference science process. It is both sides of mouth.The fact that you and I can communicate on this very platform is an example of how the scientific method works. It continues to work well.
Last edited: