Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
later in the patent application
"What is needed is a safer vaccine that does not give rise to these problems... I have now discovered a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer to neonates and others by way of vaccination, but which can also be used to treat IBD whether as a complete cure or to alleviate symptoms."
|
Then I guess it looks like he had a small conflict of interest, in that he
might make money by the removal of the MMR, just like the people on the other side had a large conflict of interest in that they stood to lose billions in existing MMR shots, not to mention a loss in overall vaccination rates with their other products after the trust was gone.
On the other hand, it's been over ten years. As far as I can tell he wasn't awarded the patent, and certainly the prophylactic treatment he was working on didn't pan out because if it had they would be using it at his clinic. He is not a billionaire like his opponents still are (and still stand to lose.) And
yet, he hasn't stopped his research, hasn't stopped putting himself out as a figure of public abuse as he tries again and again to get the message out there. Surely you must acknowledge that whether or not you believe his theories are right,
he obviously believes he is doing the right thing. If he were motivated by money he would have moved on long ago to something that actually produced it for him, don't you think?
Here's my question, Tony. Can you, or can you not admit that "science," "medical research," "scientific standards," and every other ideal you keep holding up on a pedestal, are corruptible? Not in an ideal world, of course, we all know they're supposed to transcend that pettiness to find the golden
truth in their pure white lab coats. But we don't live in an ideal world. Science is politics and money, just like every other institution that man has ever created.
Congress ordered the CDC to do a study of unvaccinated children in the early 1980s. They haven't done it. There are thousands of children who have recovered from their disease, with video proof of their symptoms before and after, and they all say they used the same set of treatments. Yet the CDC won't even acknowledge the treatments, let alone research them. Half a dozen other countries have found results, using "scientific standards," that completely contradict ours. The CDC ignores them. Please explain to me how any of this is possible, if we're adhering even loosely to these idealized standards you think you are witnessing. Don't scientific standards call for
investigating these discrepancies?