Quacks & Pseudoscience

[Millsy_Yiddo]

No.

The pathologist did not lie. He did not say he had measles. Surprising as it was the cause of death.

From the court room:

Consultant pathologist Dr Maurizio Brotto told the inquest that 5ft 8ins tall Mr Colfer-Williams was "very underweight" at just 7st 7lbs.

Dr Brotto told the inquest Mr Colfer-Williams was positive for measles and died from giant cell pneumonia caused by the disease.

He said: "Measles is a viral infection which doesn't kill you but it can lead to giant cell pneumonia."



I've now come to the conclusion that you have to be a troll.

 

[JPBB]

From the court room:

Consultant pathologist Dr Maurizio Brotto told the inquest that 5ft 8ins tall Mr Colfer-Williams was "very underweight" at just 7st 7lbs.

Dr Brotto told the inquest Mr Colfer-Williams was positive for measles and died from giant cell pneumonia caused by the disease.

He said: "Measles is a viral infection which doesn't kill you but it can lead to giant cell pneumonia."



I've now come to the conclusion that you have to be a troll.

Well. maybe. I certainly get some relief from the pain by shouting into the ether. I am not sure it makes much difference. Either way. Frankly, we are like two bald men fighting over a comb. No one is listening to either of us. (Other than a handful of equally metaphorically bald men)

As for the quote it is not really supported by the "inconclusive" pathology report.

 

[milo]

As for the quote it is not really supported by the "inconclusive" pathology report.

I thought that you hadn't been able to obtain a copy of the pathology report?

Obviously the most useful evidence would be the pathology, autopsy and the reports.

I made a FOI request. Have a guess what the response was?

 

[scaramanga]

Well. maybe. I certainly get some relief from the pain by shouting into the ether. I am not sure it makes much difference. Either way. Frankly, we are like two bald men fighting over a comb. No one is listening to either of us. (Other than a handful of equally metaphorically bald men)

As for the quote it is not really supported by the "inconclusive" pathology report.

On what grounds do you object to the suggestion that measles killed the guy? Is it because it wasn't measles that directly killed him?

Because old age and AIDS don't directly kill either, but they both kill a lot of people.

 

[milo]

I think that you (or the websites where you get this from) are getting confused between cause of death and the measles diagnosis. The WHO link that @braineclipse shared with you a few pages back clearly said that pneumonia can be a side effect of measles. I found this looking for more information and I think that it might be where you got the idea that the post-mortem was inconclusive, of course, we know subsequently that the cause of death was confirmed and it clears up any confusion as to whether he had measles.

Public Health Wales said on Friday that laboratory tests confirmed a diagnosis of measles but further tests were needed to determine the cause of death.

http://bbc.wsgsi.cc/news/uk-wales-22299596

 

[milo]

And as you don't like the BBC, here is what the Independent had to say:

Last week, PHW revealed that tests are to be carried out on the body of Gareth Colfer-Williams, 25, who died at his home in Swansea last Thursday.

While Mr Colfer-Williams had measles, officials are still trying to establish whether it was the disease that killed him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...es-jumps-by-78-in-just-five-days-8584631.html

 

[Bullet]

I've now come to the conclusion that you have to be a troll.

Ha! I saw this thread had moved on 7 pages since I last looked, and wondered what was on the 7th page. Bingo!

 

[JPBB]

On what grounds do you object to the suggestion that measles killed the guy? Is it because it wasn't measles that directly killed him?

Because old age and AIDS don't directly kill either, but they both kill a lot of people.

Well. We haven't got to the bit as to what really killed him yet.

I know that measles is the most virulent and dangerous disease in the World (passim) but I didn't realise that you could catch it after you were dead and it could kill you again.

That is impressive.

Perhaps we should give dead people the MMR. .

 

[JPBB]

He was illegally paid £40,000 by Wakefield using legal funds during his flawed study. In fact there isn't a single scientist that worked with him that didn't benefit financially.

100 vaccinated kids = $40,000 bonus = no conflict of interest



Professor gets paid for his expert opinion = conflict of interest.

I don't understand your logic

if seems you will only accept an opposite view if they have never been paid but you are happy for your experts to be paid. Seems unfair.

 

[milo]

Well. We haven't got to the bit as to what really killed him yet.

I know that measles is the most virulent and dangerous disease in the World (passim) but I didn't realise that you could catch it after you were dead and it could kill you again.

That is impressive.

Perhaps we should give dead people the MMR. .

You are either stupid or deceitful. I don't think that you are stupid.

There is no point having a conversation with someone who refuses to support their claims, will not respond rationally to alternative arguments and will not accept that statements they have made are false when it has been clearly been proved to be the case.

If you came here to further your cause, you've failed. I pity any parent who is dealing with an ill or disabled child who has their head filled with lies by you.

 

[JPBB]

He did not have measles before he died.

He did not have measles after he died

He did have measles a few months later at the inquest

Ergo he got measles when he was dead. (Or they exaggerated - why won't they release the reports?)

And he even taking your argument at its highest. Your causal relationship used so often to deny vaccine damage is not made out here. This man have serious underlying conditions. He had was diagnosed with an reaction to his drugs immediately before death, he had been in hospital only a week before with respiratory issues, he was seriously underweight, he was a hopeless drunk, etc

At best you could say (and this word is so annoying) it was a coincidence.

You wont apply the same standards to the argument to deny vaccine damage but for your arguments you apply the loosest standards.

A bit like vaccine testing...

Are you ready to discuss Gardasil? A vaccine that rolled out without ever having to prove that it could prevent cervical cancer...

Side effects are devastating though...

 

[milo]

There is no point discussing this with you @JPBB because you are not prepared to consider any evidence that does not fit with your view.

 

[JPBB]

There is no point discussing this with you @JPBB because you are not prepared to consider any evidence that does not fit with your view.

I'd say the same about you. That is the problem with this debate. It is polarised.

The provaxxers will not concede that there are any issues at all with vaccines. And that health authorities and big Pharma do not understate the risks or the extent of the damage.

Whilst I accept that some vaccines reduces some diseases, I say their devastating side effects raise significant concerns and those concerns are not addressed or answered by pharma. Other than to tell us we are stupid and that the vaccine damage is the parents fault

You do not accept that there is anything to be concerned about. So keep filling your kids with this brick. I say there are significant risks. Your kid. Your choice.

You wont let them eat McDonalds but you fill them with this unnecessary and dangerous poison. I don't get it.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

100 vaccinated kids = $40,000 bonus = no conflict of interest

View attachment 2923

Professor gets paid for his expert opinion = conflict of interest.

I don't understand your logic

if seems you will only accept an opposite view if they have never been paid but you are happy for your experts to be paid. Seems unfair.

It's the fact that he was paid with money obtained from a legal fund that was used to make a 'case' for the MMR causing autism previous to the study being started that I have issue with. I have no issue with people getting paid for their expert opinion if their expert opinion is unbiased.

If the study had been a legitimate study run through funding sourced by the correct routes and everyone had been paid I would have no issue no matter what the outcome of the study was.

 

[milo]

I'd say the same about you. That is the problem with this debate. It is polarised.

I am quite open to being persuaded to change my mind by evidence. So far you have not provided any. Your argument relies on anecdotes and misreprenting information. Every claim that you have made so far has crumbled when it has been looked at. I see no point in continuing this discussion unless you are prepared to up your game.

 

[scaramanga]

He did not have measles before he died.

Source.

He did not have measles after he died

Source.

He did have measles a few months later at the inquest

Source

Ergo he got measles when he was dead. (Or they exaggerated - why won't they release the reports?)

Impossible to tell unless you can post a source

And he even taking your argument at its highest. Your causal relationship used so often to deny vaccine damage is not made out here. This man have serious underlying conditions. He had was diagnosed with an reaction to his drugs immediately before death, he had been in hospital only a week before with respiratory issues, he was seriously underweight, he was a hopeless drunk, etc

Source, source, source, etc.

At best you could say (and this word is so annoying) it was a coincidence.

Why are coincidences so annoying? Because they happen all the time but completely ruin your timeline-based diagnosis?

You wont apply the same standards to the argument to deny vaccine damage but for your arguments you apply the loosest standards.

@milo (and @braineclipse for that matter) has been posting his source for every claim. Until you do, you're not applying any kind of standard of evidence at all.

A bit like vaccine testing...

Are you ready to discuss Gardasil? A vaccine that rolled out without ever having to prove that it could prevent cervical cancer...

Side effects are devastating though...

Not unless you're ready to start posting sources to back your claims, no.

 

[scaramanga]

I'd say the same about you. That is the problem with this debate. It is polarised.

The provaxxers will not concede that there are any issues at all with vaccines. And that health authorities and big Pharma do not understate the risks or the extent of the damage.

I'm not sure how you can even begin to make that statement considering there's 4 or 5 of us that have all been telling you, for a number of pages now, that vaccines do carry a very slight risk of harm as with all medicine.

The risk from that vaccine though, is far, far lower than that of not vaccinating.

Whilst I accept that some vaccines reduces some diseases, I say their devastating side effects raise significant concerns and those concerns are not addressed or answered by pharma. Other than to tell us we are stupid and that the vaccine damage is the parents fault

Why does a disease or condition have to be someone's fault? Sounds to me as if we're getting to the bottom of your failure to understand medicine and probability.

You do not accept that there is anything to be concerned about. So keep filling your kids with this brick. I say there are significant risks. Your kid. Your choice.

You wont let them eat McDonalds but you fill them with this unnecessary and dangerous poison. I don't get it.

We have all, repeatedly, admitted there is a small risk with all treatments. Continuing to repeat it doesn't make it true.

 

[JPBB]

Why does a disease or condition have to be someone's fault? Sounds to me as if we're getting to the bottom of your failure to understand medicine and probability.

When you put a vaccine into a kid and you know it is not as safe as you say it is then I say you are criminally negligent. And my cause, going back to a previous question, is to make sure those people who are responsible are punished for it.

 

[milo]

When you put a vaccine into a kid and you know it is not as safe as you say it is then I say you are criminally negligent. And my cause, going back to a previous question, is to make sure those people who are responsible are punished for it.

Source

 

[JPBB]

Source

Hundreds of vaccine damage kids