Vile, disgusting, anti-science, pro-ignorance film
This movie celebrates idiocy, fear, and ignorance.
Andrew Wakefield belongs in prison. Or hell if it exists.
--
^Signature is below here
Americans have the right to burn the flag. π₯πΊπΈπ₯
Have you watched Vaxxed? I have a quiz for you if you claim that you have.
The film is an examination of the influence on the CDC by the pharmaceutical industry and the effect of that influence on the "official" reporting of health statistics concerning the MMR vaccine.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
From people with retracted papers on the topic.
shareWe've discussed this previously. The authors did not retract the papers. They were pulled by organizations with ties to Big Pharma.
Still haven't watched the film, have you?
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
That was your interpretation. The papers were retracted by the journals.
shareWhich have ties to Big Pharma.
You really have no business discussing anything on this board until you have watched the film.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
"Have ties to" is quite vague. Who exactly caused the paper to be retracted? Which company and why and how? And why was it published in the first place?
shareYou tell me. You published the link first.
Asking questions is not argumentation.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
The journal published the article, after it was seen by a wider audience, someone (I don't know who) raised questions regarding its content. The journal looked into it and then retracted it. This happens occasionally, on different topics, in different journals. I have no reason to think it was anything more than that. You said it was because they have ties to Big Pharma (not sure what type of ties exactly) but I see no proof of that.
shareI'll look up the details when I have more time this evening.
The journal which retracted the article was owned by a company which itself was owned by another company which provided, among other services, marketing for pharmaceutical manufacturers.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
But that would make the pharmaceutical manufacturers clients (which, depending on the company, might not even have any interest in the MMR vaccine) and since when do clients call the shots.
sharesince when do clients call the shots.
When they order and pay for the services. Your statement suggests that you have no concept of how business actually works. Have you really never heard the maxim "The customer is always right"?
Of course you have. But when you're being paid to play stupid I guress you have to go all the way.
I'm done with this exchange.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!" share
So you won't give me these details to prove those connections and how they influenced the decision to retract the paper? What a surprise.
I am not paid to play stupid, I am not playing stupid and I am not stupid, so no idea what you want from me.
The client is paying for a service, that doesn't give him the right to decide what papers are published or the content of books the company publishes. He pays for marketing and not for total control over every aspect of the company. Might also be difficult in case the company has more than one client, they cannot all buy control over the company at the same time.
The customer might be always right but when I order food in a restaurant I have control over my food and can make complaints/suggestions about it, but I cannot decide what the restaurant serves to another customer, that's none of my business.
in a restaurant I have control over my food
Do you actually believe that? Because you're the kind of person that could easily piss off the server, you should probably rethink your statement. share
You know nothing about me. I am pretty sure the server won't be coming to the table spewing BS about vaccines so I see no reason why we would have a problem with each other.
shareYou know nothing about me.
Wrong! I know you're the kind of person who writes what you write. IOW, an *beep* *beep* bring out the worst in people, some of whom wouldn't hesitate to spit in your food. share
Maybe you should seek some help for your anger issues? And I am sure people like to spit on your food but that is your problem, not mine.
What if the waiter is not an anti-vaxxer? He is much more likely to spit on your food then.
[deleted]
You obviously have some issues. You invented some backstory for me, based on nothing but your disturbed mind and now constantly refer to things that only exist/happen in this invented story.
shareYou invented some backstory for me, based on nothing but your disturbed mind and now constantly refer to things that only exist/happen in this invented story.
The creep has demonstrated its inability to comprehend simple English, even when it was written by the creep itself. share
Do you have any proof that I am shilling for criminal corperations or even that I am a man? You constantly say "he", so you know me really well, I guess?
shareWhether or not the creep is compensated for its shilling is irrelevant.
shareAnd how do you know that I am a man? Maybe your invented backstory has a few errors. Just for fun, in your backstory did you also invent a job for me? And in what country I live?
shareThe BMJ, the journal that retracted Wakefield's article, is owned by the British Medical Association. Not by a "company."
shareZwergin said:
The journal looked into it and then retracted it. This happens occasionally, on different topics, in different journals. I have no reason to think it was anything more than that. You said it was because they have ties to Big Pharma (not sure what type of ties exactly) but I see no proof of that.
Reed Elsevier is the publishing house of The Lancet, they retracted the study. The CEO of Elsevier at the time, Sir Crispin Davis, also sat on the board of GlaxoSmithKline in a non-executive director position making Β£70,000/annually. GlaxoSmithKline manufacture the MMR vaccine in the UK.
https://www.council.ox.ac.uk/people/sir-crispin-davis
Generally speaking, GSK is considered part of "Big Pharma"
share
But when the study was retracted in 2010, after the GMC hearing, he was not the CEO of Reed Elsevier.
Also 70000 a year doesn't sound very much, at least not enough to jeopardize the position as CEO of Reed Elsevier by randomly retracting papers because someone tells you to.