If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Clinton" wrote in message oups.com... Rich wrote: "Clinton" wrote in message oups.com... Doing lumbar punctures on children who can derive no benefit from them is beyond unethical; it is criminal. It seems the bulk of the "accusations" are "political" charges of conflict of interest which as already pointed out could be leveled at any doctor doing research or working for the government. And suppose a link was or is found. He would be hero. I have no idea what a lumbar puncture is so I don't know if this and other tests done on the children, were ethical or not. A lumbar puncture, popularly known as a "spinal tap" is an invasive procedure that entails inserting a needle between the 4th and 5th lumbar vertibrae into the spinal canal for the purpose of withdrawing specimens of cerebrospinal fluid. When indicated for the diagnosis of disease, it is an immensely valuable tool, but it is not without risks. To expose children to those risks, simply in the hope of gathering ammunition for an anti-vac agenda, when the procedure has no diagnostic value whatsoever for the children, is abuse of the most vile sort. -- --Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote:
"Clinton" wrote in message oups.com... Rich wrote: "Clinton" wrote in message egroups.com... Doing lumbar punctures on children who can derive no benefit from them is beyond unethical; it is criminal. It seems the bulk of the "accusations" are "political" charges of conflict of interest which as already pointed out could be leveled at any doctor doing research or working for the government. And suppose a link was or is found. He would be hero. I have no idea what a lumbar puncture is so I don't know if this and other tests done on the children, were ethical or not. A lumbar puncture, popularly known as a "spinal tap" is an invasive procedure that entails inserting a needle between the 4th and 5th lumbar vertibrae into the spinal canal for the purpose of withdrawing specimens of cerebrospinal fluid. When indicated for the diagnosis of disease, it is an immensely valuable tool, but it is not without risks. To expose children to those risks, simply in the hope of gathering ammunition for an anti-vac agenda, when the procedure has no diagnostic value whatsoever for the children, is abuse of the most vile sort. Agreed. YS had a LP to test his response to Baclofen before he had major surgery. While invasive, it is far less invasive than the major surgery. If there was no response to Baclofen, we would have gone home to search for more treatments. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Rich" wrote in message ... "Clinton" wrote in message oups.com... Rich wrote: "Clinton" wrote in message oups.com... Doing lumbar punctures on children who can derive no benefit from them is beyond unethical; it is criminal. It seems the bulk of the "accusations" are "political" charges of conflict of interest which as already pointed out could be leveled at any doctor doing research or working for the government. And suppose a link was or is found. He would be hero. I have no idea what a lumbar puncture is so I don't know if this and other tests done on the children, were ethical or not. A lumbar puncture, popularly known as a "spinal tap" is an invasive procedure that entails inserting a needle between the 4th and 5th lumbar vertibrae into the spinal canal for the purpose of withdrawing specimens of cerebrospinal fluid. When indicated for the diagnosis of disease, it is an immensely valuable tool, but it is not without risks. To expose children to those risks, simply in the hope of gathering ammunition for an anti-vac agenda, when the procedure has no diagnostic value whatsoever for the children, is abuse of the most vile sort. -- I've seen anti-vax folks wonder why no one did the same studies as Wakefield. I'll make the conjecture that not only was the premise flawed, BUT that it violated a few rules pertaining to human subjects. --Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cash inmediatly/ cancela tus deudas | maggie | General | 0 | July 18th 05 08:54 PM |
FAQ: How do spammers get people's email addresses? | Pop | Foster Parents | 4 | June 4th 05 01:09 PM |
Misc.kids MEMBERSHIP LIST | [email protected] | General | 4 | March 15th 05 06:01 PM |
Ilena Rosenthal, Bart Ross and Joe McCarthy | Mark Probert | Kids Health | 6 | March 12th 05 02:39 PM |
MONEY IS NOT just FOR CHRISTMAS!!!! | Rebecca Richmond | Twins & Triplets | 0 | December 13th 03 09:08 PM |