No - ten of the thirteen authors
retracted the fraudulent paper.
Someone messed up.
Again, there were 10 of 13 individuals that retracted the paper. They wrote:
"
We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism..."
No. Again - ten of the thirteen retracted the fake science.
When and why? After Wakefield got into trouble? That may mean they did not want to happen to them what happened to Wakefield. None retracted before Wakefield and it passed peer review. The cite you, the science process worked and the paper had merit.
"...no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism..."
Yeah that is the party line. The fact being children come down with Autism after the shot is coincidental. By the by MMR is three shots in one. You must believe in coincidences.
I believe that statement above is true.
If no parent complained of abuse then who brought about the abuse charges and with what merit? This is all exculpatory for Wakefield. Besides there is plenty of corroboration for the Wakefield paper which did not recieve attention.
---------------------------
A current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) senior scientist has made an unprecedented admission: he and his colleagues--he says-- committed scientific misconduct to cover up a meaningful link between vaccines and autism in African American males before 36 months. Sounds like they are administering the three in one vaccine to toddlers. Idiots. This will be ignored. It will not be ignored forever.
Just as startling, the CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson, says the study co-authors "scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, and reviewed and went through all the hardcopy documents that we had thought we should discard, and put them into a huge garbage can."
"The...co-authors...brought a big garbage can into the meeting room... [and put the documents]...into a huge garbage can." --CDC Senior Scientist Dr. William Thompson
Despite this whistleblower testimony, which Dr. Thompson provided to Rep. Bill Posey, R-Florida, there is little chance of a meaningful hearing or investigation.
History records a different scenario.
Which refutes nothing. What about the future?
The referees should have performed their job. They obviously did not.
Well then the science process did not work and that is exculpatory evidence in favor of Wakefield. If the process failed then the process which convicted Wakefield was flawed. In two ways. Do i need to draw pictures with crayons?
- The scientific method works.
Yeah you keep saying that in spite of assumptions to the contrary. If the process did work and the paper passed peer review then the science process did work and the conviction of Wakefield was political, not scientific. You can't have it both ways.
This quote provides an accurate history of the events. Understanding the bias in their faked science is an important factor.
If is was faked science then why did two out of three get off and why was the process faulted in two ways? Walefield did not challenge the flawed process which convicted him. So what is the tripe about faked science? They also yell and scream about mercury in coal plants and are silent about mercury in vaccines. Why? Is it political or science?
The only way that history comes across is understanding that the brother's mother required financial aid - before admission.
SO? It costs money when you have a disabled child. Why bring that up?
Even after admission, the only real diagnosis was an impairment of language -not- a causal link to the MMR vaccine.
You don't know what conditions the child suffered. Or if the three in one vaccine (how old when administered?) caused the illnesses. Besides there were plenty of parents who contacted Wakefield about their children and vaccines. You are talking about one. IOWs a cherry pick.
The mention of the John Birch Society is an observation from Crowcross's videos that provide commercials for this right-wing group.
Which has not one thing to do with science and you keep dragging it up, again and again. It is a logic fallacy you keep repeating. Isolating it all to right wing when the very posts on this thread identify other groups who choose to refuse.
Since I referenced scientific papers, your accusations are with the many authors of the papers I provided.
The context of my post here was your logic fallicies, which you keep repeating and ignore when confronted and your response is a dodge.
