http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/bri...m_medium=email

Suffocation by those who cannot stand any questions as to the dogma of science ; say the wrong thing, even if the wrong thing wasn't said as in this case and a reasonable doctor is vilified with his shop shuttered .

The question becomes: what window I go to to get my reputation and loss of professional time ? They didn't just question his findings but pilloried him with an emotional onslaught, not a scientific presentation.

So much for the keepers of the gates.

The article (and especially its interpretation) may have killed many. But even so it's good to have re-evaluations of guilt.

fyp

To add further important information, the causal link between having a first birthday and developing symptoms of autism shortly thereafter is quite strong. Good parents do everything they can to avoid having birthday parties so as to not cause their children to develop autism. Also, none of this has anything to do with "scientific dogma" - it has everything to do with simple math (odds of developing autism if vaccinated compared to odds of developing autism if not vaccinated).

That's amazingly inflammatory with the use of the word "may" . The question is not whether they brought forth a "truth' that MMR causes autism but that they noted what might be a correlation and that this should be studied further.

The companies GlaxcoSmithKline and Merc which are monstrous in size proceeded to disparage the doctors as if they said that "everyone stop taking MMR" which is not what they did. This is the inevitable morass of business in medicine where the doctors scientific rationality plays a secondary role to corporate profits. Everyone knows this.

And oh yes, I am not a socialist and avow the business world, in the USA or otherwise .

The use of "may" is horribly simplistic ; read the PDR or Physicians Desk Reference and note the difficulties with any and all medications . Try a simple one like Penicillin and look at the precautions and adverse reactions and ask whether you'd like to take that medication again or for the first time.

http://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/Peni...potassium-1150

From the 2012 High Court decision to which this article refers:

It's about proportions. Especially vaccines but also antibiotics have made and are making much good, little bad in comparison.

You're speaking to medicine, which is reasonable, but I'm speaking to the mob or social mentalities with the evident destructive effect upon the individual.

By the way,this is not always realized in full consciousness, but all remedies are poisons;vaccines, antibiotics, hypertensives, etc..., and in fact their healing effects are consequential to this poisonous character.

I suppose we need a mob of individuals to observe ITT to see for ourselves?

Speaking of such, I saw an apparent mass delusion unfold not too long ago. A whole lot of folks and screenames appeared convinced about a federal law existing which could not be found for citation. That was wild. Apparently, an authority-figure provoked the delusion by driving it by narrative from an official podium, while invoking religion. The indications of mass delusion began appearing soon after.

A federal law which can’t be cited doesn’t exist, right?

The answer depends on what theory of law you accept. Many legal scholars accept some version of natural law theory such that some of the content of some laws - especially constitutional laws - are based on legal or moral principles that are not or need not be stated in the document itself.

Oh if only it were such and academic scenario. The individuals in question I saw shared an assertion of a specific law which demanded very specific behaviors. It would have been funny if anyone of them I confronted responded with a ‘natural law’ argument.

What were the specifics of the law and behavior that they asserted?



PairTheBoard

Wakefield didn't get pilloried for being wrong, he got pilloried for fabricating the data that got published, ignoring contradictory data, lying about everything, and doing it for personal profit. He got off far too easily.

Pilloried is a great word. Used judiciously it never becomes threadbare.

Look for news articles from early June about family separations. And then look in the comments for “it’s the law” type comments.

Protecting your offspring is so deep down in the evolved human mind, that any scary quackery involving unseen dangers to children will immediately cause mass delusional responses.

This is so predictable, I would consider it akin to psychological terrorism.

Tim Wakefield was an excellent knuckleballer.

The satanic panic of the 80’s is a new classic.

Denial seems to be the impetus in the situations such of the law that ain’t. However, imagined fears of something heinous and denial of something heinous aren’t that far apart when the heinous events occurred because of imagined fears also denied.

Or- people are strange and occasional heinous. Whatever is fit to be described.

There's also a fun anecdotal bias. It was found (sorry I cant be bothered to look for links but I did once spend a lot of time on this after a huge argument in the pub) that it wasn't uncommon for parents to later claim their child developed symptoms after the jab even when they had reported the symptoms before the jab.

They're probably not lying either. it's just cognitive bias in how memories work.

I use the word:

stupid.

Simple. Direct. Honest. Unnecessary.

Mainly unnecessary.

Good point. Smart people don't have cognitive biases or false memories.

Stupid can be described intelligently or it’s being used stupidly.