Society Meeting: Vaccine Hysteria | SAKSYNT
Tags: anti-vaccine lecture hpv Pandemrix Society Trondheim vaccine resistance 83 Comments On Saturday August 30th I had the pleasure of getting hold a lecture on in Trondheim. The theme of this "Society meeting" were Vaccine Hysteria and in the lecture I took for me ...
On Saturday August 30th I had the pleasure of getting hold a lecture on in Trondheim. The theme of this "Society meeting" were Vaccine Hysteria and in the lecture I took me a number peak consulting group of myths surrounding vaccines. I talked about both "dangerous ingredients" in vaccines, about the HPV vaccine, about massevaksinasjonen in 2009, about the dangers of vaccine resistance, and much more. The lecture lasted around an hour, and afterwards there was a small round of questions.
Related blog posts Lecture in August and September HPV vaccination in Japan Trude Jeffrey Hole raises questions about vaccines. I reply. Lecture on Doomsday A mother goes in kausalitetsfellen Video: James Randi in Trondheim Reply Gro Lystad about Skavlan and vaccines James Randi to Norway! Judith Levine - Kids, Sex & the State An anthropological introduction to YouTube
In assessing the GMC says nothing about fraud and deception. It is about "serious misconduct Professional", where it is argued unspecified conflicts of interest and ethical violations.
"On Wednesday Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at the high court in London ruled That the GMC decision" can not stand. " He quashed the 2010 finding of professional misconduct and the striking off. Calling for changes peak consulting group in the way GMC fitness two practice panel hearings are Conducted, the judge said of the flawed action of Walker-Smith's case: "It would be a Misfortune if this were two happen again. '"
"The judge said the GMC fitness two practice panel's Conclusion That Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct peak consulting group was flawed in two respects. There had BEEN "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong Conclusion '".
It was the dubious journalist Brian Deer who first claimed that Wakefield peak consulting group was convicted of fraud, not inferior in an article in the BMJ. Both Deer and Fiona Godlee, editor in BMJ, has since stated that there is no basis for this claim. It was rather Deer yourself who committed deception here.
"Serious professional misconduct" may well overstates the good Norwegian word "fraud." Besides cheating with statistics, illegal, risky and Painful experiments with children comprised peak consulting group this also conflicts of interest (Wakefield failed to inform that he had økonmiske interests in another vaccine project, and that the MMR vaccine was linked to autism), which although it was severe enough, was the mildest accusation point against Wakefield.
"Serious Professional misconduct" can not be translated into fraud. Scams can however fall under this umbrella. In this case, Wakefield field of conflicts of interest and ethical violations. The publication is never found to be fraud.
"Calling for changes in the way GMC fitness two practice panel hearings are Conducted, the judge said of the flawed action of Walker-Smith's case:" It would be a Misfortune if this were two happen again. "
"There had BEEN" inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong Conclusion. "" No comments on that GMC's handling of the matter being criticized?
Some questions for you Rolf: 1. Do you think that it is still not sufficiently refuted that there is a link between MMR and autism? 2. Do you find it likely that Wakefield published his results peak consulting group in good faith that these were correct? 3. Do you consider the results of Walker-Smith's right round like a recognition that research results may not have been manipulated? 4. If this was only a preliminary study, why claimed Wakefield (a pressekonfernase before publication in Lancet) that all MMR vaccination should be stopped immediately due. His findings?
1. My point is that Tjomlid lied about Wakefield is guilty of fraud. Your question is therefore irrelevant. Recalling that there is talk of a preliminary study to promote a hypothesis that needs tested, and it has been tested.
2. Why should he not? GMC does not put questions peak consulting group to the accuracy of data and results in its calculation. It was not he who analyzed peak consulting group the samples, but the team to Walker-Smith, foremost expert in their field. http://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2012/08000/Editorial_Announcement_Regarding_Professor_John.2.aspx
3. GMC's case against Wakefield went on conflicts of interest and ethics, it had nothing to do with the manipulation of results to do. Analyses were done by Walker-Smith and his team. That the results are manipulated is propagated by a certain journalist. He justifies this by
Tags: anti-vaccine lecture hpv Pandemrix Society Trondheim vaccine resistance 83 Comments On Saturday August 30th I had the pleasure of getting hold a lecture on in Trondheim. The theme of this "Society meeting" were Vaccine Hysteria and in the lecture I took for me ...
On Saturday August 30th I had the pleasure of getting hold a lecture on in Trondheim. The theme of this "Society meeting" were Vaccine Hysteria and in the lecture I took me a number peak consulting group of myths surrounding vaccines. I talked about both "dangerous ingredients" in vaccines, about the HPV vaccine, about massevaksinasjonen in 2009, about the dangers of vaccine resistance, and much more. The lecture lasted around an hour, and afterwards there was a small round of questions.
Related blog posts Lecture in August and September HPV vaccination in Japan Trude Jeffrey Hole raises questions about vaccines. I reply. Lecture on Doomsday A mother goes in kausalitetsfellen Video: James Randi in Trondheim Reply Gro Lystad about Skavlan and vaccines James Randi to Norway! Judith Levine - Kids, Sex & the State An anthropological introduction to YouTube
In assessing the GMC says nothing about fraud and deception. It is about "serious misconduct Professional", where it is argued unspecified conflicts of interest and ethical violations.
"On Wednesday Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at the high court in London ruled That the GMC decision" can not stand. " He quashed the 2010 finding of professional misconduct and the striking off. Calling for changes peak consulting group in the way GMC fitness two practice panel hearings are Conducted, the judge said of the flawed action of Walker-Smith's case: "It would be a Misfortune if this were two happen again. '"
"The judge said the GMC fitness two practice panel's Conclusion That Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct peak consulting group was flawed in two respects. There had BEEN "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong Conclusion '".
It was the dubious journalist Brian Deer who first claimed that Wakefield peak consulting group was convicted of fraud, not inferior in an article in the BMJ. Both Deer and Fiona Godlee, editor in BMJ, has since stated that there is no basis for this claim. It was rather Deer yourself who committed deception here.
"Serious professional misconduct" may well overstates the good Norwegian word "fraud." Besides cheating with statistics, illegal, risky and Painful experiments with children comprised peak consulting group this also conflicts of interest (Wakefield failed to inform that he had økonmiske interests in another vaccine project, and that the MMR vaccine was linked to autism), which although it was severe enough, was the mildest accusation point against Wakefield.
"Serious Professional misconduct" can not be translated into fraud. Scams can however fall under this umbrella. In this case, Wakefield field of conflicts of interest and ethical violations. The publication is never found to be fraud.
"Calling for changes in the way GMC fitness two practice panel hearings are Conducted, the judge said of the flawed action of Walker-Smith's case:" It would be a Misfortune if this were two happen again. "
"There had BEEN" inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong Conclusion. "" No comments on that GMC's handling of the matter being criticized?
Some questions for you Rolf: 1. Do you think that it is still not sufficiently refuted that there is a link between MMR and autism? 2. Do you find it likely that Wakefield published his results peak consulting group in good faith that these were correct? 3. Do you consider the results of Walker-Smith's right round like a recognition that research results may not have been manipulated? 4. If this was only a preliminary study, why claimed Wakefield (a pressekonfernase before publication in Lancet) that all MMR vaccination should be stopped immediately due. His findings?
1. My point is that Tjomlid lied about Wakefield is guilty of fraud. Your question is therefore irrelevant. Recalling that there is talk of a preliminary study to promote a hypothesis that needs tested, and it has been tested.
2. Why should he not? GMC does not put questions peak consulting group to the accuracy of data and results in its calculation. It was not he who analyzed peak consulting group the samples, but the team to Walker-Smith, foremost expert in their field. http://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2012/08000/Editorial_Announcement_Regarding_Professor_John.2.aspx
3. GMC's case against Wakefield went on conflicts of interest and ethics, it had nothing to do with the manipulation of results to do. Analyses were done by Walker-Smith and his team. That the results are manipulated is propagated by a certain journalist. He justifies this by
No comments:
Post a Comment