The hidden agenda, the more I read, the more I am becoming a conspiracy theorist!!

[Yeddi]

Wow. So it's alright for Wakefield to perform lumbar punctures on autistic kids AND to have a conflict of interest with his funding (being paide by solicitors to actively find a link between MMR & autism), but not ok for samples to be taken in the 1950's (as was the custom at the time, even though it's not now) & for MSD (in the capacity of education funding) to join hands with two of the most reputable journals?

I see your cevical cancer cells, & raise you lumbar punctures and colonoscopies in children (austistic children, none the less).

I think you are missing the fundamental point, which is how a conflict of interest leads to censorship. I'm trying to understand how Wakefield (who was given as an example) changes this, and why it would be a major factor in your response.

[entreat]

Because it is still a conflict of interest, just on a different scale. But its the other side of the fence, which I assume makes it wrong to the anti-vax camp?

Wakefield has been raised above as some kind of anti-vax martyr when he was clearly doing exactly the things most anti-vaxers detest about doctors (variously being funded the medicos): being paid by people with agendas! In addition, Wakefield created an IBS like disorder for which he held the patent for the testing. He stood to personally make MILLIONS of dollars out of it. Of course - that's if his results weren't a figment of his greed-driven imagination.

I'm sorry, but it's the same thing! Conflict of interest on ANY side of the fence will only lead to some seriously dodgy dealings. I have experienced many times in my own field (geology and mining) - none of it is pretty, and it all involves an element of greed & the worst kind of pride.

[Yeddi]

I actually agree with your last post. I'm not a Wakefield fan myself. I measure all research by the same pole (so to speak) and find any conflict of interest to make the research junk science, on both sides of the fence. My response was in regard to your original post which made it out as if his conflict of interest and the war therein, was somehow worse then any other conflict of interest within the multibillion dollar industry of health . I see there being no difference between a researcher who is funded by or goes on to be a top dollar consultant for a pharma company within a month of conducting a study on vaccine safety, and Wakefield's conflict of being involved in multi-milion dollar law suits. I see no difference in a vaccine study that choses to measure toxic levels in a way that is illogical, deliberately misleading and rigged to give the results they want, and tampering with IBS/autism results. To me, the kettle and the pot are both black, and I'm desperately waiting to see a toaster, if you'll excuse the analogy.

[Arcadia]

I think the issue of research funding is always fraught, because it's only those with an interest in obtaining certain results that fork out the cash for the research. Government funding for independent research is one answer, as is more funding for universities, but neither seem to be able to compete with the dollars of big pharma... It's a vicious cycle and one seen in many fields (journalism in general is often critiqued for 'stories' that play into the hands of sponsors).

[tinkerbelle]

I havent looked into the Wakefield controversy enough to comment any further, though I would agree with all that Yeddi has said. I only gave the example as a point to make how the medical field seems to have double standards, not only in relation to their own kind and anyone who doesn't seem to support their greedy agendas, but also for other health professionals - they are quick to shoot down any treatment that is not 'evidence-based', but then they go around promoting these treatments which are not even properly evidence-based, but somehow managing to convince the public that they are.

[entreat]

wow... a vax thread that finally opens some common ground. Never before have I seen it!

Yes: bring on the toaster. We need a new appliance to set both side straight. Wouldn't it be nice if that was an amalgamation of science and complementary medicines?

[Yeddi]

wow... a vax thread that finally opens some common ground. Never before have I seen it!

Unfortunately, that is the nature of such emotive topics (circumcision is another) and that is in enacts Newtons third law of motion - For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. If one says it's absolutely this and wont even consider that, then the other will say it is absolutely that and wont consider this. It provokes the odd human perception that the loudest person or the last word makes it the authority and correct. I think that's the reason why it's called a vaccine WAR. Taking the middle ground is a vulnerability. I know I come across completely anti-vax but the truth is I wouldn't have an issue with vaccination if it didn't work against the bodies natural systems and contained toxic substances. In other words, if was postponed to when a child was 2 and had developed their blood brain barrier and CYP450 enzyme system fully, if it was oral and a spray that didn't by-pass the gut and followed the normal process of a pathogen, and didn't contain toxic and damaging substances I'd have no problem with them at all. Geez, I would even have more respect (most probably still wouldn't do it but would still have more respect) if they took them down to one pathogen at a time, but they've even taken away that option.

Wouldn't it be nice if that was an amalgamation of science and complementary medicines?

That would be awesome but a very slow process, because some people would have to take a pay cut if people realised they could heal themselves by eating more of a certain food rather than pop a pill.