cathyb wrote:
Clinton wrote:

cathyb wrote:
This person's research is being looked at primarily because he caused a
huge public health scare, which certainly was a cause in vaccination
rates dropping, and may therefore have been a factor in subsequent
measles and mumps outbreaks.

And that is the point. That is not a valid reason for doing whatever
the medical powers are doing.

If his research had any validity, that might be so. But as it turned
out, it did not. I note that you have both the remarkable lack of data
on which he based his conclusions, and the in-your-face conflict of
interest he attempted to cover up. You know, the one where he came up
with a conclusion that indicted vaccines on the basis of eight case
studies of kids involved in a case suing vaccine manufacturers.

Ooops. That should have been 'I note that you have ignored both...'




That is what conformism means, you
act according to whether an action is going to "rock the boat",
not based on its own merits. In fact under such a system leaps
forward are less likely to be made because no one wants to take risk
and be the nail sticking up which gets pounded down by the hammer.

We 'conformists' would prefer that affairs like Vioxx and this
Wakefield controversy couldn't happen because of better regulation in
research and publication. If you're quite happy for fraud and
scientific dishonesty to go unheeded, then enjoy living with the
results.

If your definition of "fraud" is getting funding and having that
source of funding be biased the entire federal government is
guitly of fraud and should be thrown in jail (even though I
think this happened in britian).

Yes, it did. The fraud was his not telling anyone about...

**** it. Bloody read about the case before you start pontificating over
other's reasons for criticising the good doctor.

That goes for the politicians
too and most private doctors who conduct "fraudulent" and "biased",
"funded" research for industry.

And you think that's ok?

It's not me who's the lackey then.