Nanny state taking things a step too far or a policy to applaud?

[vetran]

good analogy, but
the problem with analogies, is that people focus on the analogy, not on the substantive argument.

5
4
3
2
1
...

thanks. I wanted people to stop posting irrelevant 'I got vaccinated' posts (however interesting) because it detracted from the point I was trying to make that it was all a bit fishy the way it was implemented.

seems soupy has conceded.

[SueEllen]

thanks. I wanted people to stop posting irrelevant 'I got vaccinated' posts (however interesting) because it detracted from the point I was trying to make that it was all a bit fishy the way it was implemented.

seems soupy has conceded.

There have been scares over different vaccines and common drugs over the years.

The problem with the MMR scare that the original research by the ex-doctor was flawed. It wasn't even good enough to be case studies.

Anyone with a knowledge of statistics should always try and get hold of the original research and not rely on journalists.

[minestrone]

thanks. I wanted people to stop posting irrelevant 'I got vaccinated' posts (however interesting) because it detracted from the point I was trying to make that it was all a bit fishy the way it was implemented.

seems soupy has conceded.

The Mayan's end of the world in 2012 claim was about as credible as what Wakefield was suggesting.

Clearly you have been found out to be a gullible crackpot zoomer on this who believes anything you read in the paper.

[vetran]

The Mayan's end of the world in 2012 claim was about as credible as what Wakefield was suggesting.

Clearly you have been found out to be a gullible crackpot zoomer on this who believes anything you read in the paper.

Bit like the Lancet and The American Journal of Gastroenterology with similar crackpots then?

On 2 February 2010, The Lancet formally retracted Wakefield's 1998 paper.[99][100] The retraction states that, "The claims in the original paper that children were 'consecutively referred' and that investigations were 'approved' by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false."[16]

The following day the editor of a specialist journal, Neurotoxicology, withdrew another Wakefield paper that was in press. The article, which concerned research on monkeys, had already been published online and sought to implicate vaccines in autism.[101]

In May 2010, The American Journal of Gastroenterology retracted a paper of Wakefield's that used data from the 12 patients of the article in The Lancet.[102]

On 5 January 2011, BMJ editors recommended that Wakefield's other publications should be scrutinized and retracted if need be.[50]