Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News1 min ago
Mmr Jab And The Non-Existent Link With Autism
http://
It would seem that there still some people that believe that there is a link between the MMR jab and autism. Why is this urban myth taking so long to die ?
It would seem that there still some people that believe that there is a link between the MMR jab and autism. Why is this urban myth taking so long to die ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Burzynski's treatment has no clinical trials to back it up, but I'm not sure it's been wholly discredited. Having avoided saying that it's discredited and covering my bases should the treatment prove useful in future, the evidence such as it is is pretty damning. The only significant clinical trial featured nine patients, eight of whom died due to "tumour progression". Not exactly a promising sign... Even worse, Burzynski has apparently registered sixty Phase II trials and published results from none of them.
http://
Antineoplaston treatment, then, is at best unproven, and at worst pointless or even dangerous. And a rather brilliant money-spinner for Burzynski, at approximately $30,000 - $60,000 per course of treatment...
More research is needed, to be sure, before it's ruled out entirely. But in current evidence, it's just a matter of time before antineoplastons are indeed shown to be ineffective.
http://
http://
http://
Antineoplaston treatment, then, is at best unproven, and at worst pointless or even dangerous. And a rather brilliant money-spinner for Burzynski, at approximately $30,000 - $60,000 per course of treatment...
More research is needed, to be sure, before it's ruled out entirely. But in current evidence, it's just a matter of time before antineoplastons are indeed shown to be ineffective.
http://
http://
@cllrchris Introducing Burzynski into this conversation adds nothing to this particular argument, and certainly does not give your suppositions regarding Wakefield and some global conspiracy against him any additional credence. It sounds much more like attempting to derail the original discussion.
And it sounds very much as if you have drunk of the Kool Aide of Woo if you think Burzynski, on the evidence to date and after 30- odd years of treating people in stage 1 clinical "trials"-to avoid publishing data and to get around FDA regulations - is anything other than a charlatan, or that water fluoridation is some sort of health conspiracy ;worse, maybe you think it a communist plot?
What next? Chemical Contrails? EM Hypersensitivity?
Rather than me being representative of the repressive medical orthodoxy, perhaps it is you that is just a contrarian who instinctively rejects the consensus, then tries to find reasons to rationalise that stance?
There is a huge difference between being "reasonably open minded", as you no doubt view yourself, and so open-minded your brains fall out.
And it sounds very much as if you have drunk of the Kool Aide of Woo if you think Burzynski, on the evidence to date and after 30- odd years of treating people in stage 1 clinical "trials"-to avoid publishing data and to get around FDA regulations - is anything other than a charlatan, or that water fluoridation is some sort of health conspiracy ;worse, maybe you think it a communist plot?
What next? Chemical Contrails? EM Hypersensitivity?
Rather than me being representative of the repressive medical orthodoxy, perhaps it is you that is just a contrarian who instinctively rejects the consensus, then tries to find reasons to rationalise that stance?
There is a huge difference between being "reasonably open minded", as you no doubt view yourself, and so open-minded your brains fall out.
@ Jim - I think you are attempting to be fair, which is a laudable instinct - but in Burzynskis case the evidence is very much against ANP. Even Burzynski himself appears to be minimising his claims over ANP now, with the FDA virtually camping out at his clinic.
http://
http://
"Does the jovial bonhomie never end on this site?"
I don't know about LG, but I'm not particularly "unjovial" about all this. I mean, it would be nice if we could persuade you, and others, to be more open to mainstream Science and Medicine than is clearly the case at the moment. Equally, it seems unfortunate that of the two of us your views carry more weight, being as you are in a position of "power", to some extent.
In a lot of such matters it seems as if medicine suffers from its own uncertainty. Since, after all, the human body is far too complex a system to be fully understood, ever, that leaves room open for other ideas that can never fully be discounted -- like you said earlier yourself, no-one can prove a negative (not in the real World, anyway). But even while such ideas can't be ruled out completely, they can certainly be tested, and nearly always fail to pass the test, or never have been stringently tested in the first place. The two ideas discussed in this thread fail one of these tests: MMR causes autism (which is the main gripe I have with Wakefield's work; links between Autism and other diseases fall well outside my area of expertise) has been tested and no link has been observed; Antineoplaston treatment has failed what tests have been applied, and pretty badly, but hasn't been tested properly enough to rule out yet. The only person really in medicine who promotes the treatment is the inventor himself, but as he gets a lot of money out of it and has never released any Phase II or III trial results to the public, that's hardly surprising.
The world would benefit greatly from adopting the viewpoint that: (1) Mainstream Medicine (and Science in general) isn't always right, but (2) It is "right" -- or successful -- far more often than not, while (3) alternative therapies are far less trustworthy than conventional ones, because (4) there is an accepted standard of testing, and everything that has passed that standard becomes conventional.
I don't know about LG, but I'm not particularly "unjovial" about all this. I mean, it would be nice if we could persuade you, and others, to be more open to mainstream Science and Medicine than is clearly the case at the moment. Equally, it seems unfortunate that of the two of us your views carry more weight, being as you are in a position of "power", to some extent.
In a lot of such matters it seems as if medicine suffers from its own uncertainty. Since, after all, the human body is far too complex a system to be fully understood, ever, that leaves room open for other ideas that can never fully be discounted -- like you said earlier yourself, no-one can prove a negative (not in the real World, anyway). But even while such ideas can't be ruled out completely, they can certainly be tested, and nearly always fail to pass the test, or never have been stringently tested in the first place. The two ideas discussed in this thread fail one of these tests: MMR causes autism (which is the main gripe I have with Wakefield's work; links between Autism and other diseases fall well outside my area of expertise) has been tested and no link has been observed; Antineoplaston treatment has failed what tests have been applied, and pretty badly, but hasn't been tested properly enough to rule out yet. The only person really in medicine who promotes the treatment is the inventor himself, but as he gets a lot of money out of it and has never released any Phase II or III trial results to the public, that's hardly surprising.
The world would benefit greatly from adopting the viewpoint that: (1) Mainstream Medicine (and Science in general) isn't always right, but (2) It is "right" -- or successful -- far more often than not, while (3) alternative therapies are far less trustworthy than conventional ones, because (4) there is an accepted standard of testing, and everything that has passed that standard becomes conventional.
\\\\\The world would benefit greatly from adopting the viewpoint that: (1) Mainstream Medicine (and Science in general) isn't always right, but (2) It is "right" -- or successful -- far more often than not, while (3) alternative therapies are far less trustworthy than conventional ones, because (4) there is an accepted standard of testing, and everything that has passed that standard becomes conventional.\\\
Very well put.....but that is the way medicine works and highlights the attitude of "most" medical academics in their attitude to science v.anecdotal evidence.
Can't think of a better way.......and for what it is worth, i consider LazyGun to be one of the "fair minded" academics.
Link between MMR and Autism.......I cannot convince myself that there is a link....mind you, I am, or was, a clinician, so my opinion is of little importance.
Very well put.....but that is the way medicine works and highlights the attitude of "most" medical academics in their attitude to science v.anecdotal evidence.
Can't think of a better way.......and for what it is worth, i consider LazyGun to be one of the "fair minded" academics.
Link between MMR and Autism.......I cannot convince myself that there is a link....mind you, I am, or was, a clinician, so my opinion is of little importance.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Listener 4842 For Me And You By...
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Technology13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.