Comments on: The MMR sceptic who just doesn’t understand science

By: Vaccinations != Autism | Obfuscated Reality

Vaccinations != Autism | Obfuscated Reality — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 02:35:06 +0000

[...] Goldacre (a real doctor, unlike that quack Wakefield) www.badscience.net/2005/11/comment-the-mmr-sceptic-who-just-doesnt-understand-science/ www.badscience.net/2006/06/mmr-is-back/ [...]

By: wayscj

wayscj — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:26:57 +0000

ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing ed hardy shop ed hardy shop christian audigier christian audigier ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet ed hardy sale ed hardy sale ed hardy store ed hardy store ed hardy mens ed hardy mens ed hardy womens ed hardy womens ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

By: Apathy Sketchpad » Blog Archive » If Science Cannot Do Without Nutt…

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:04:12 +0000

[...] Phillips’ views on science are almost uniformly opposed to reality. Take, for example her butchering of the Cochrane report on MMR or her support for ‘intelligent design’. Incidentally, Nutt’s speech cites the [...]

By: Conservative la-la land: the top seven fictions swollowed by the right « Frank Owen’s Paintbrush

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:05:47 +0000

[...] The MMR-Autism link. An odd one I’ll admit, but it’s been a pervasive debate in the Daily Mail for donkey’s years. Why it is such a right-wing hobby horse I have no idea; I’m tempted to say that their sheer hatred of the MMR-autism link sceptics it implies a worrying mistrust of all scientists and the norms of scientific methodology. Melanie Phillips loves to froth at the mouth about it; As the ever-brilliant Ben Goldacre points out, most of what she says is absolute bobbins. [...]

By: sciencefan

sciencefan — Sat, 20 May 2006 21:14:21 +0000

I’ve just checked out the Badscience shop and find what I consider to be a disturbingly ‘unscientific’ statement on every item, e.g. “MMR is safe …tell your friend/parent etc “.

Is the statement “MMR is safe” actually true?

I’d have thought that it needed at least some form of qualification, along the lines of e.g.” MMR is safe (in at least 99.99% of cases – so your child should be OK)” or “MMR is safe (usually)” or “MMR is generally regarded as safe ” or perhaps even “MMR is pretty damn safe (but not in all cases)”.
Perhaps these (more accurate?) slogans would interfer with the bold, stark design of the T-shirts, mugs etc and reduced their impact somewhat, but surely in the interests of Goodscience …

By: Mick James

Mick James — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:10:58 +0000

“There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”

This is unfortunately where the debate ends and veers off into conspiracy theory. Once you accept that powerful vested interests will do “almost anything” then you will see any contrary finding as the result of bribery, fakery and worse.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:01:59 +0000

You may have noticed that Melanie and The Mail on Sunday are back on the MMR theme.

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=376203&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=

Does anyone more about Dr. Peter Fletcher?

By: Jeff Took

Jeff Took — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:47:53 +0000

The real action is still in brian deer’s investigation. Its fascinating:

briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

By: Commonplace Book » Britain’s top Stupid Intellectual

Commonplace Book » Britain’s top Stupid Intellectual — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:24:48 +0000

[...] Instead of actually making an effort to understand the evidence presented to her in very simple (yes, patronising) language, Phillips instead attacked Goldacre and science generally, and complained that Goldacre had said she was stupid. Unfortunately if one says stupid things one must allow that other people may call you stupid as a result. [...]

By: Penta_Water_UK

Penta_Water_UK — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:02:48 +0000

T-Shirt idea!

How about:

“Why worry about MMR?
Colour Nation has a relitivistic heavy ion collider out the back!…
Tell your friends.”

Only you will need very long slieved t-shirts or very small print…or both!

By: Dean Morrison

Dean Morrison — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:29:30 +0000

I’ve just nominated Melanie Phillips to:

www.crank.net

“Cranks, Crackpots and Loons on the net” –

I hope she gets in…..

By: Anthony Cox

Anthony Cox — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:50:32 +0000

Is he touring? The parallels with George Galloway grow.

By: MC

MC — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:07:57 +0000

This could be an interesting evening…

www.mmrthequestions.com/

Hillingdon Autistic Care and Support

present

AN EVENING WITH DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD

Dr Wakefield will present an update on the gastrointestinal association with developmental disorders and regressive autism in particular. He will discuss the role of environmental factors in the cause of developmental disorders and examine the claims for and against a role for childhood vaccines in this process. Dr Wakefield will also describe the work in progress at Thoughtful House, a new centre for the care of children with developmental disorders in Austin, Texas.

Wednesday 23rd November 2005
7.30pm entry for 8.00pm start

L .C. Theatre F
Brunel University
Kingston Lane
Hillingdon
UB8 3PH

Â£15 per ticket

By: MikeTheGoat

MikeTheGoat — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:24:18 +0000

Looks like she’s not just getting science offensively wrong at the moment….

www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1641463,00.html

By: Stu

Stu — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:33:50 +0000

A Mel P-esque piece in The Onion: www.theonion.com/content/node/42384

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:01:15 +0000

I would like to add my congratulations to Ben for his column and this website. I have a an additional small point. From the headlines and much of the discussion you would think that the Cochrane report was primarily about MMR and autism. However, I believe that only 6 out of the 31 studies assessed in the Cochrane report relate to autism. In fact the majority of the studies took place well before 1998.

This makes Melanie’s statement:

â€œit said that no fewer than nine of the most celebrated studies that have been used against him were unreliable in the way they were constructedâ€

look very strange and suggests that she didn’t even read the paper properly – much less understand the science.

Am I right – or are some of these studies more closely related to Wakefield’s work than it appears?

Cheers

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:03:49 +0000

Readers may be interested in this: MMR: A pictorial guide to the reporting of science in The Daily Express

By: CaptainT

CaptainT — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 01:48:55 +0000

So did the Guardian “put her up to it” as well? Actually I guess in a way they probably did.

By: tc

tc — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:17:36 +0000

I think the Daily mail put her up to this. She’s probably kicking herself for not sticking to a subject where refutations are harder to come by. Immigration, terrorism, or baiting a religious minorty perhaps?

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:18:58 +0000

Good stuff. Did anyone of these studies consider the possibility of autism causing gastrointestinal symptoms for other reasons? For example, many autism sufferers live on limited idiosyncratic diets.