This Story Is Infuriating

We've all heard the stories linking vaccinations to autism. How many children did not receive childhood immunizations because their parents were afraid of the possibility of causing autism? How many lives were destroyed as a result? Many childhood diseases, once thought to be eradicated have made a resurgence. Why? All because a corrupt group of lawyers paid a corrupt doctor to "fix" the results of a study so that they would be successful in a lawsuit. IMO life in prison for every SOB involved in this fraud would be too gentle of a punishment.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05...nes/index.html

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to trust "sources". Every study is paid for by someone. Who is that someone and why did they want the study?

I'm not talking about this case in particular, but in general. This is why I don't trust "sources" of information. And a large part of the reason I don't list sources either. Because they are all flawed by the almighty dollar.

There is no replacement for a quality Pediatrician...our doctor in New Mexico took our questions about this when it first came out and had calm rational reasons to get our kids immunized....you know what did we know,we where just some dumb kids,with kids.Thank you Dr. Greg Joachems,all of my kids are strong and healthy,pain in the butt but healthy.Prison is a fitting place for those that prey on the fears of others for their own profit,they will learn what it means to be preyed upon
(G)

Same thing is happening over here. I am completely at a loss to understand parents who don't have their children immunised. As for the vaccine causing Autism a pile of Horse-poo,IMO. We're only a generation or two away from pre-immunisation. Perhaps todays parents should ask their grandparents how many of their friends disappeared from the scool register because of these illnesses.

This story is difficult on a number of fronts. If there is a piece of good news it is that folks like this always get outed in time. Unfortunately, the damage this doctor has done is incalculable. I'm really surprised he has not been criminally prosecuted. That might still happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwc1969

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to trust "sources". Every study is paid for by someone. Who is that someone and why did they want the study?

I'm not talking about this case in particular, but in general. This is why I don't trust "sources" of information. And a large part of the reason I don't list sources either. Because they are all flawed by the almighty dollar.

---

I agree,, Its all about the money,, :splat:

Jeez guys. Not everything in this world is a conspiracy. A lot of research is conducted through government grants. Many others are funded through colleges and universities. Still others are funded through organizations like the American Cancer Society and still others funded by specific interest groups like Eli Lily. You might find this really hard to believe but there really are people out there like us that want to better mankind. They just happen to be in a position of research to be able to do it. That even applies to special interest groups like pharmaceutical companies. It should be quite obvious there are ne'er-do-wells that happen to be scientists but please don't broad brush everyone with the same negative brush.

Crash - I got to use ne'er-do'wells again. WooHoo!

I think we all agree with that, Rick. Money or no...those responsible for falsifying the results of that study, did so knowing what they were doing, and would have done so regardless of the funding.
Not only that, but who's to say that those who funded the study are the unscrupulous ones? Funding is meant to be used to do good things...sadly there are far too many bad people in positions that receive this funding, and it doesn't always get used in the right ways.

Very sad story indeed. Seems as though each year lately we hear about another "oops" that makes us hit "restart" all over again. It's frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

Crash - I got to use ne'er-do'wells again. WooHoo!

---

I saw that. Starting off the New Year strong.

Don't worry too much. Most parents who do not vaccinate didn't base their beliefs on one study.

Maybe not, but that one study was repeated ad nauseum. Groups that thought they were doing the right thing hired actors to make awareness ads about it triggered from that study. Heck, I even recall a Hollywood actress testifying about the dangers of vaccines in front of Congress - all generated from that study.

I'm not saying every study is flawed or that every person giving money for a study has a special interest. I'm just saying that when folks use studies to make arguments, judgements, and decisions in life they should be aware of who put up the money for the study, why was the money put up, and why was the study done in the first place. This situation is a perfect example of people making blind decisions based on a study that was paid for by and performed by people with alterior motives.

I mean think about it. If you had a lump sum of cash and 100 people were asking for it, which one would you give it to? If you were a pharmaceutical comapany and one of those 100 people wanted to do a study that showed your drug was bad and another wanted to show it was good, who would get the money? The one that was going to put you out of business or the one that was going to make all those "frivilous" lawsuits go away?

The folks that perform these studies rely on this money as a major, if not 100% source of their income. If you were given the opportunity to get this lump sum of cash, would you be inclined to sway your professional opinion if it meant your survival? Most would.

Politics, religion, personal values, beliefs, and economics among other things all play a role in the outcome of almost every study known to man. You can argue that isn't true, but basic human nature dictates otherwise. People don't just blindly give away millions and trillions of dollars without knowing what that money will do, and most want that money to do something for them or their cause. There are exceptions, but they aren't the rule.

There are studies that show coffee, chocolate and wine among others things are good for your health, there are also studies that show they are bad for your health. Both are right, lol. It just depends on how you look at it and who is paying for the study. In politics there are studies that show health care reform is good and other studies show it's bad, I'm sure, depending how you look at it, both are right to some extent, but both were paid for by opposite sides of the coin. There are studies that show cigarettes have positive health effects, and they are 100% accurate, but we all know cigarettes are bad for your health.

Facts are facts, studies are manipulations of the facts. Facts have no human influence, studies do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crashdive123

We've all heard the stories linking vaccinations to autism. How many children did not receive childhood immunizations because their parents were afraid of the possibility of causing autism? How many lives were destroyed as a result? Many childhood diseases, once thought to be eradicated have made a resurgence. Why? All because a corrupt group of lawyers paid a corrupt doctor to "fix" the results of a study so that they would be successful in a lawsuit. IMO life in prison for every SOB involved in this fraud would be too gentle of a punishment.

---

I agree with you 100%. Licensed professionals, particularly doctors and lawyers, have an obligation to abide by the highest ethical standards.

Everyone makes innocent mistakes. However, this professional misconduct was intentional and borne purely out of greed, and many innocent children were seriously harmed as a foreseeable consequence of the actions of the doctor and lawyers involved.

Punishment should fit the crime and outcome it's likely to cause.

And it's not always driven by greed. In the case of Rachel Carson, it was driven by ideology IMO. For those not familiar with her, she was instrumental in getting DDT banned following her book Silent Spring. It has since been proven that her conclusions were based on junk science. I truly believe that she is personally responsible for millions of deaths each and every year due to malaria.

How sad...she REALLY thought she was helping...but skewing the information. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crashdive123

And it's not always driven by greed. In the case of Rachel Carson, it was driven by ideology IMO. For those not familiar with her, she was instrumental in getting DDT banned following her book Silent Spring. It has since been proven that her conclusions were based on junk science. I truly believe that she is personally responsible for millions of deaths each and every year due to malaria.

---

Are you saying DDT is safe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwc1969

Are you saying DDT is safe?

---

Used properly - yes it was. Many of the problems that occured with it, or any pesticide (like Dursban which is now gone too) is when it is used improperly.

uses properly (including handling it safely, washing all significant traces of it from food and feed crops, and properly maintaining drainage so that it does not end up in the water table and forcing landowners to deal with it's eventual buildup in the soil) it certainly is safe (except to animals feeding on that land). uranium would be safe if contained and handled in that manner.

spraying it on children as a political publicity stunt to demonstrate it's safety: not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crashdive123

Used properly - yes it was. Many of the problems that occured with it, or any pesticide (like Dursban which is now gone too) is when it is used improperly.

---

Let's say that somebody had some DDT and some Chlordane left over from the 1970's. Would it still be okay to use? :confused1:

The Amish do not immunize their children,and they have an out break of whooping cough going around right now,actually since last summer,but still,the bishop won't allow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken

Let's say that somebody had some DDT and some Chlordane left over from the 1970's. Would it still be okay to use? :confused1:

---

I'm not an attorney, and as such would not be comfortable in offering legal advice.:innocent:

Simply insert in sleeve and....cough...sputter....

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1022/...63fd07de72.jpg

I've seen some of the 10% cans of GI issue powder from the 40's at gun shows.

They even had a fogging cannon.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/...7c4dec.jpg?v=0

And here's the 10% powder.

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/6...C/BE028314.jpg

Apply liberally and wear.

When I moved into my Mass. house, this stuff was on the walls of my closet. I still have the box in the basement

http://chicagogreenjobs.files.wordpr...-wallpaper.jpg

знам216.3ЯпонCHAPMusiHenrразвЛыче7-ФКПетрхороLivi(184Ð*оÑ�Ñ�Essp
факуNX10KeviTescМихоVienиз�щ�ртиEuniQuinФилаDerrарабПариреда
FeatБодрСодеIntrJetFDiviКлебгалеEric�троRighфотоГромSifrLiqu
партХохрГÐ�Ð*Ð�JeweJoliLoveAlisЦ-74ФиалXVIIПрытТардСергPushмело
SelaElegWittМиттAlanLargквалГул�PushСпивБрагToscпроедет�Шанк
�икоNasoотдеСкриZoneZonePaliвперXVIIJageучилве�еХворСултBill
ZoneЩербмгноZoneкур�же�тDreaZoneZoneZoneZone01-2ПечаXVIIZone
размБукчКашиChetМарк�траБудамен�ZoneZoneZoneхороветкCCTVPVCA

�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт

�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айтtuchkas�айт�айт

земн142.3облаPERFкнигMeinTranпрозГлинКа�ьBarbМожаAtla5140Лите
OrieMakiSlowÐ*оÑ�Ñ�PremлиÑ�Ñ‚XVIIJoanПиÑ�аÐ�кифLongучилMatiAhavJard
OZONСигюCaudоборИнгрLouiТрухCreoEmilМик�ArthNicoиммуБайкJohn
PumaSplaKateВознИллюRobeBeacСолоотдеAMIE��ылWoltКротMaryWind
�луж��ылStapтреуК�енJameJohnЩербSummWind�ертгражCosmStefнача
райоЧунаPeteGuitKathMobiGeys�ереKerr�ГИнПрытминуМ��нJohaWill
ColiName3000КобеArts�ереRHIAКапаGeorMarrГаврKancRidlтеатLise
PricMerrCaspWorlавтоКацуБараArabДрабRenaShin�в�тцараTORN�тил

MerrRamiHotpБакшКириVideраÑ�тБлинФранплаÑ�КитамрамÐ*азмSTARVolk
EnglХмелNewAÐ�ртиÑ�зыкинÑ�трабоÐ*азмJackÑ�емьwwwnwwwnWindкиÑ�Ñ‚Glov
PhilTrusÐ*азмЛитÐ*ЛитÐ*ЛедеMariÑ�рочзараКороШумÑ�ЛитÐ*ЛитÐ*КоваКрее
ИллюRuttЛСур(190�оде(190забоПлахСодеJeweFromChocSergTrisвеку
RighТурбКочÑ�автоБрауиндиБутуÐ*амзИвлеESETприрПритИванСальКуче
ОрлоФилиЯковхудоучащJeweСмиравтоУ�енСокоTORNTORNTORNCornStop
БондÐ*умÑ�КондÑ�терLawrÑ�зыкJennнашеCounМенÑ�tuchkasБортLlew

�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт

�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт
�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айт�айтtuchkas�айт�айт