Re: Wakefield Discredited

The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
On Feb 7, 10:09 am, Lefty <Jusle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The One True Zhen Jue wrote:

On Feb 6, 8:54 am, Lefty <Jusle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
On Feb 4, 2:33 pm, Lefty <Jusle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:16:06 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:17:04 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So far, I have found no reason to trust or believe the authorities
about much of anything. I have found the "follow the money" method to be
extremely accurate in searching for truth. So, who makes money from all
There is no doubt that Wakefield made a great deal of money out of it,
vastly more than if he had stayed a researcher in the UK and more than
any other individual involved. Far from being the "rising star" he
has sometimes been described as his career had been unremarkable. He
was late in the promotion process and without a spectacular discovery
his future would have been mundane. He had rather pinned his hopes on
finding a link between Crohn's disease and measles but it didn't work
out so an MMR/autism link was rather important to him. He was given
some £400,000 for his work for the solicitors and his move to the USA
has significantly increased both his present salary as well as future
earnings and extra financial opportunities.
Ah yes, OK, I still wonder how much money was made or at risk in
all this though. He made some, who else had a dog in this fight? I like
to see both sides of any good story.
Let me recap the money trail for you:
- Wakefield got a lot of money, really a lot, from trial lawyers for
his 'research'
- Wakefield had filed for a patent for a replacement vaccine and would
have made a fortune from this patent
- Wakefield is now making a very, very nice income from Thoughtfull
House and has people worshipping him with religious fever. It's sad,
but his current income is not going to be hurt by any of this I'm
afraid. Even if the authorities in the US shut him down all he has to
do is move to Mexico.
There is no financial interest on "the other side" in this matter.
It's not even a fight. Wakefield acted dishonest and the people
responsible for overseeing doctors' behaviour did their job.
Wakefield btw started Thoughtfull House in the US and according to the
latest tax papers from this non-profit organization, they pay him the
princely sum of $ 250 K a year. I think the people on the GMC don't
even get all their expenses covered.
Further, the whole sordid affair makes "the other side" look pretty
bad. It's very clear that there were loads of red flags concering
Wakefields paper, but it made into the most prestigious medical
journal none the less. That makes the editors of the Lancet look like
idiots. The GMC took years to even start a hearing against a man who
performed invasive procedures on children, a thing that should have
been a thing of the past since the Nazi's did that. Even the Tuskegee
experiment was done on adults. That does not make the GMC look very
competent, now does it? And there is plenty more. What do you think of
the journalists who fawned over Wakefield? Brian Deer made them all
look like fools by doing actual journalism.
Oh, and vaccine manufacturers? I never understood that argument. There
is so much more money to be made in treating disease then in
preventing them. I find the fact that Big Pharma even makes vaccines
somewhat puzzling, from a business point of view.
Thanks for all the info. Still another question though. If Big Pharma
See? When you use such verbiage as "BigPharma" some people conclude
that you are anti-science based medicine and anti-vaccination.
is not making much money with vaccines, then why ARE they making them? I
doubt they are motivated by some charitable reason. Seems that some
important part of the story is still missing.
They make money, and they are entitled to do so. They invest millions
to develop vaccines, often spending millions to not produce an
effective vaccine. If you did not have this, what would you have?
So in your opinion "BigPharma" is not accurate? Are they not big? Do
they not make and sell pharmaceuticals? I was not the first to use the
term here by the way.
So what is it? Do they make money or not? Why would they invest in
something that according to some here, makes little? Since so much more
can be made from other products, why mess with something making
little? Do you have the numbers? I would like to see how much profit
is made from vaccines. I would also like to see how much is made from
other products. Your argument makes little sense from an
investment view. - Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Lefty, did you know that well over half of all the nutritional
supplements (vitamins, herbs, etc) are made by (wait for it....) Big
And your point is?- Hide quoted text -

Whoooosh! That is the sound of the obvious going right over your

There is much more profit in supplements than in vaccines, but we
don't hear you complaining about that.
We also don't hear from you why you don't call those same companies
Big Supplement or such. They control the supplement market and have
far less oversight over that part of their business.

- Show quoted text -

Supplements don't seem to have anywhere near the potential hazard.