To: RickofEssex; sistergoldenhair
Bump; ping.
2 posted on
02/21/2004 3:46:38 PM PST by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: RickofEssex
Well, well, well.
The Trial Lawyers strike again.
So9
To: RickofEssex
Unfortunately, this is a very difficult topic...There has been such an increase in autism (and varying 'degrees' of autism) over the years, that the 'trigger' needs to be found (whether it is vaccines, environmental, or genetic)... There has been a HUGE increase in California over recent years.
My nephew has been diagnosed with it, and several people I know are also dealing with the problem. In my nephew's case, it is severe delayed speech. He is 5 years old, can say words, but not sentences. He is very smart, can use the computer for games and things. He is very loveable, and isn't totatally 'withdrawn' as you think of an autistic person. We pray that he will be able to lead a normal life.
To: RickofEssex
The proper issue is not whether the research was paid for by an interested party, but whether the research was done correctly and the results reported truthfully. That's what peer review is supposed to sort out.
5 posted on
02/21/2004 4:29:56 PM PST by
JoeFromSidney
(All political power grows from the barrel of a gun. -- Mao Zedong. That's why the 2nd Amendment.)
To: RickofEssex
The proper issue is not whether the research was paid for by an interested party, but whether the research was done correctly and the results reported truthfully. That's what peer review is supposed to sort out.
6 posted on
02/21/2004 4:30:36 PM PST by
JoeFromSidney
(All political power grows from the barrel of a gun. -- Mao Zedong. That's why the 2nd Amendment.)
To: RickofEssex
This is a difficult topic. But frankly if I were a medical researcher and a team of lawyers came around to my office and offered to pay for research, I would have to be pretty stupid not to guess what they had in mind.
8 posted on
02/21/2004 4:54:29 PM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: RickofEssex
I can see how junk science like this gets into newspapers -- scientifically speaking, the average reporter has a second-grade education -- but how in the hell does it get into a mainstream, peer-reviewed medical journal?
Anyone got the answer?
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
To: FormerLurker; Alpha One; longshadow; TomGuy; discostu; hellinahandcart; dighton; woofie
16 posted on
02/21/2004 9:20:03 PM PST by
Sabertooth
(Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
To: RickofEssex
...didn't reveal that they were being paid by a legal aid service looking into whether families could sue over the immunizations...Why wasn't this put as a paragraph at the end of publication. In all my publications, I have put my affiliation and source of funding. Not doing so would be indicative of dishonesty.
24 posted on
02/22/2004 9:02:53 AM PST by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: aruanan; RadioAstronomer; discostu
So Wakefield was lying, who'd a thunk it?
Another one bites the dust.....
26 posted on
02/23/2004 4:36:57 AM PST by
TomB
To: RickofEssex; TomB
The editor of the Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton (search), said Dr. Andrew Wakefield and a team of British scientists who conducted the study on the triple measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine didn't reveal that they were being paid by a legal aid service looking into whether families could sue over the immunizations.
Not only did these guys not bite the hand that feeds them, they threw in a good measure of leg hound to boot.
32 posted on
02/23/2004 6:13:54 AM PST by
aruanan
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
