Profiteering at its worst?

RDW

mamba80 wrote:

so the parents that shunned Thalidimide were wrong? the single jab vaccines served the general population very well, it was its replacement that caused the confusion and allowed the doom mongers space to pursue their own agendas.

Thalidomide was a very different case. The drug was withdrawn within months of the first reports of birth defects. Before then, nobody (neither parents nor doctors) knew there was any risk to the foetus, so there was no media campaign. With MMR, Wakefield's paper was quickly refuted, even before it became clear he'd manipulated the data, but unfortunately large segments of the media promoted his false theory. The combined vaccination is in fact safer and more effective, for reasons that have already been posted in the HPA link:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Infectious ... formation/

I wouldn't say single vaccines were serving the population 'very well' before MMR - e.g., there was no routine vaccination against mumps, an unpleasant disease that can cause miscarriage, male sterility, hearing loss, etc.

Cleat Eastwood

I came across this today - interesting

MountainMonster

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

I came across this today - interesting

That was a very interesting watch! It is hard to say who is in the right, the wrong or where the middle ground lays in these cases as both sides present compelling stories. However, knowing of how governments work when it comes to medicinal trials, pay offs inside governments for leniency on policies and application procedures and the way large pharmaceutical companies work I am compelled to believe Wakefield, especially in light of silencing attempts which should never happen.