2011-02-04, 10:06 PM
kanevaldier Wrote:I find it funny how the rest of you expect us to answer your questions and respond in a manner that you deem necesary when none of you even replied to this. Everyone just ignored it and it is a very valid point. It is easy to say what you do when it is affecting others, but when something happens to you or someone you care about, it becomes the perverbial double standard.
No lol. I don't know about other people, but I deliberately ignored it because I deemed it beyond stupid.
And I was not trying to prove or even accuse Andrew Wakefield of plagiarism. We got from the point where he was a complete fraud to where his work obviously was not a standalone product of fairy tales, at which point it awaits evidence to further show whether he:
- Actually conducted a genuine studies with completely honest results; or
- Copied it off Walker-Smith and God-knows-who-else; or
- Collaborated with Walker-Smith; or
- Let Walker-Smith use it 2 years prior to test the water
After all, we only know for sure that Andrew Wakefield is not the only one coming up with those "shady" (to be determined) results. Anything further is only guest-work without proof, unless otherwise presented.
Also, I was going by the article. Half of Wakefield's saviors (as mentioned, and I presume, one would choose the most effective way to make themselves look good - a.k.a listing every scientist that can save Wakefield and their mother) had their credibility questioned, and that, to me, is enough to cast more than a shadow of doubt over the whole bunch.

