General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

When did it start?

Mark Probert-Fe · 2004-02-27T10:40:09+00:00

When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering? According to this article 1998, after money changed hands.... http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156 Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for.... I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being vaccinated sues his shorts off.

Started by Mark Probert-Fe · 27 February 2004 · Last activity 28 February 2004 · 11 posts · 1,133 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postWhen did it start?Mark Probert-Fe · 27 Feb 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–11Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #11Gymmy Bob · 28 Feb 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 27 February 2004
Last activity: 28 February 2004
Original author: Mark Probert-Fe
Posts: 11
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 1,133
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Mark Probert-Fe
Archived post

27 February 2004, 10:40 UTC #1

When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being vaccinated sues his shorts off.

Report
Jg
Archived post

27 February 2004, 10:40 UTC #2

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" 
wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed, it clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's
conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to
carry out a second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism." (Note the word
"second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉 theory of an MMR-autism link existed
*before* he (they?) received any legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier, independent study.
Quoted message said:
I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated
Quoted message said:
sues his shorts off.
No rational lawyer would touch such a case: "The authors clearly state in the paper's discussion
that 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome
described.'" (Did you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone from being
vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a parent's choice.

Report
Jan
Archived post

27 February 2004, 10:40 UTC #3

Quoted message said:
Subject: Re: When did it start?
From: "JG" [email hidden]
Date: 2/26/2004 4:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement.
An example of *gang* twisting.
Quoted message said:
Indeed, it clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000
($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry out a second study on the relationship (if any)
between MMR and autism." (Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received any legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier, independent study.
Quoted message said:
I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated
Quoted message said:
sues his shorts off.
No rational lawyer would touch such a case: "The authors clearly state in the paper's discussion
that 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome
described.'" (Did you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone from being
vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a parent's choice.
As usual, Mark is trying to deceive.
Jan

Report
Mark Probert-Fe
Archived post

27 February 2004, 14:51 UTC #4

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed, it clearly states, "Dr
Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-
aid board to carry out a second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism." (Note
the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉 theory of an MMR-autism link
existed *before* he (they?) received any legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier, independent study.
Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially suported by someone/thing that
ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering his cover-up of his funding for the second study,
the funding of that first study should be carefully reviewed.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated
Quoted message said:
sues his shorts off.
No rational lawyer would touch such a case:
Chuckle...rational lawyers? Like the ones who brought the Ritalin class action? The thimerosal class
action? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. BWHAHAHAHAHA..if there is money to be made....
"The authors clearly state
Quoted message said:
in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and
rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'" (Did you even read the Economist article?)
Wakefield didn't prevent anyone from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and
remains, a parent's choice.
A scared parents choice...

Report
Mark Probert-Fe
Archived post

27 February 2004, 15:11 UTC #5

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Subject: Re: When did it start? From: "JG" [email hidden] Date: 2/26/2004 4:19 PM Pacific
Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement.
An example of *gang* twisting.
Quoted message said:
Indeed, it clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000
($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry out a second study on the relationship (if
any) between MMR and autism." (Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his
colleagues'😉 theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received any legal aid
funds.
Quoted message said:
economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier, independent study.
Quoted message said:
I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated
Quoted message said:
sues his shorts off.
No rational lawyer would touch such a case: "The authors clearly state in the paper's discussion
that 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome
described.'" (Did you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone from
being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a parent's choice.
As usual, Mark is trying to deceive.
As usual, Jan does not comprehend...

Report
Jg
Archived post

27 February 2004, 17:13 UTC #6

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" 
wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" 
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....

No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000 ($90,000)
from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism." (Note the word "second."😉
Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:

economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
independent study.
Quoted message said:
Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by
Quoted message said:
someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his
Quoted message said:
cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first
Quoted message said:
study should be carefully reviewed.
It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside funding at all, but rather was
initiated when Wakefield and some of his colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting
correlation between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I suppose they
used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they worked), so I guess you could say the RFH
"funded" the study.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated
Quoted message said:
sues his shorts off.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
No rational lawyer would touch such a case:
Quoted message said:
Chuckle...rational lawyers? Like the ones who brought the Ritalin

class
Quoted message said:
action? The thimerosal class action? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. BWHAHAHAHAHA..if there is money
to be made....
Quoted message said:
"The authors clearly state
Quoted message said:
in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association

between
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'"

(Did
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent

anyone
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains,

a
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
parent's choice.
Quoted message said:
A scared parents choice...

Report
Mark Probert-Fe
Archived post

27 February 2004, 18:12 UTC #7

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" 
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000
($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism." (Note the word "second."😉
Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>

economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
independent study.
Quoted message said:
Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by
Quoted message said:
someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his
Quoted message said:
cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first
Quoted message said:
study should be carefully reviewed.
It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside funding at all, but rather
was initiated when Wakefield and some of his colleagues noticed what they thought was an
interesting correlation between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they worked), so I guess you
could say the RFH "funded" the study.
I would rather see some proof at this point. I hope it comes out in the investigation of
this affair.
snip

Report
Jg
Archived post

27 February 2004, 19:12 UTC #8

"Mark Probert-February 27, 2004" 
wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" 
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> "Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" 
Quoted message said:
> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
> > When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> > According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
> No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement.

Indeed,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
it
Quoted message said:
> clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he

had
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to

carry
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
out a
Quoted message said:
> second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and

autism."
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> (Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉
Quoted message said:
> theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?)

received
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
any
Quoted message said:
> legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> > Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,
Quoted message said:
> independent study.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by
Quoted message said:
someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now,

considering
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
his
Quoted message said:
cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first
Quoted message said:
study should be carefully reviewed.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have

outside
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
funding at all, but rather was initiated when Wakefield and some of

his
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting correlation between chronic intestinal
disease and (what most would term)

autism. I
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where

they
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
worked), so I guess you could say the RFH "funded" the study.
Quoted message said:
I would rather see some proof at this point.
Yes; let's hope it, if it does exist, is forthcoming. Until such time, there's no point in
speculating (right, Jonathan? <g>😉.
I hope it comes out in the
Quoted message said:
investigation of this affair.

Report
Jeff
Archived post

28 February 2004, 00:12 UTC #9

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed, it clearly states, "Dr
Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-
aid board to carry out a second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism." (Note
the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉 theory of an MMR-autism link
existed *before* he (they?) received any legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier, independent study.
And the reason why he didn't taint his first study so he could get funds for the second
study is what?
Please answer this the same way you would if he were a pro-vaccine researcher who got a grant to
continue his work from drug companies.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated
Quoted message said:
sues his shorts off.
No rational lawyer would touch such a case: "The authors clearly state in the paper's discussion
that 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome
described.'" (Did you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone from being
vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a parent's choice.

Report
Jonathan Smith
Archived post

28 February 2004, 03:52 UTC #10

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" 
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000
($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism." (Note the word "second."😉
Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>

economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
independent study.
Quoted message said:
Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by
Quoted message said:
someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his
Quoted message said:
cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first
Quoted message said:
study should be carefully reviewed.
It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside funding at all, but rather
was initiated when Wakefield and some of his colleagues noticed what they thought was an
interesting correlation between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they worked), so I guess you
could say the RFH "funded" the study.
I'm still looking for the publication of the first study.
js

Report
Gymmy Bob
Archived post

28 February 2004, 04:32 UTC #11

"Jonathan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> "Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" 
Quoted message said:
> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
> > When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?
Quoted message said:
> > According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
> No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it
Quoted message said:
> clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had received £55,000
> ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a
Quoted message said:
> second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism." (Note the word "second."😉
> Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉
Quoted message said:
> theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any
Quoted message said:
> legal aid funds.
Quoted message said:
> >

economist.comdisplaystory.cfm
Quoted message said:
> > Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

sure?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
> It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,
Quoted message said:
> independent study.
Quoted message said:
Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by
Quoted message said:
someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his
Quoted message said:
cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first
Quoted message said:
study should be carefully reviewed.
It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside funding at all, but rather
was initiated when Wakefield and some of his colleagues noticed what they thought was an
interesting correlation between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they worked), so I guess you
could say the RFH "funded" the study.
I'm still looking for the publication of the first study.
js

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread