Comments on: MMR: the scare stories are back

By: diudiu

diudiu — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:11:10 +0000

links of london links of london links london links london links of london jewellery links of london jewellery links of london sale links of london sale links london sale links london sale links of london bracelet links of london bracelet links of london charms links of london charms links of london necklace links of london necklace links of london bangle links of london bangle links of london earrings links of london earrings links of london ring links of london ring

By: cajsa_lisa

cajsa_lisa — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:56:31 +0000

Gossip from Sweden:

One of the most aggressive anti-vaccination doctors in Sweden was interviewed in Sweden’s largest newspaper (Dagens Nyheter) a couple of years ago – and I so wish I could find the original article, so I could give you the doctor’s name and be sure the following would be correctly cited:

To me the most interesting in this article was not his connection to the antroposophic hostpital (www.vidarkliniken.se/). Neither his claim that vaccination can cause autism, and that sickness is a natural crisis in a childs development (antroposofi.org/vaccination.htm). (Sickness furthermore helps the karma and improves the child’s next life: www.vof.se/folkvett/20022antroposofisk-medicin—en-granskning) No news there.

In this interview, his four children are mentioned. It turns out that, despite them never having had any vaccinations, two of his children have autism, and one is diagnosed with Asperger. I don’t know what this says really. But I have to admit I smirked. And felt the need of gossiping about it.

By: SPig

SPig — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:13:30 +0000

re: hairnet “hardon-hadron collisions”. It was only a matter of time for scientists already trying to understand semions..

prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v63/i20/p2295_1

By: Mojo

Mojo — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:43:54 +0000

www.badscience.net/?p=238

By: Don Cox

Don Cox — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:13:55 +0000

One problem is that once a simple figure such as 1 in 58 has lodged itself in the public mind, it is almost impossible to eradicate, like a religious belief. Another example is the “600,000 deaths in Iraq”, which I have seen quoted everywhere as fact.

By: dbhb

dbhb — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:02:47 +0000

A metastudy of Observer staff views on MMR.

Just discovered a 5-year old article describing assorted views of Observer staff on the MMR issue. Fascinating stuff…
observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,647859,00.html

I thought I spotted a pattern so I tried to break it down a bit- it’s a rush job but hey.

In “writer/reporter” category, 4 were pro-MMR (including, interestingly, not just the ‘science writer’ but also the ‘arts writer’ and the ‘sports writer’), 2 against and 3 inbetween.
The two “researchers” were both pro-MMR.
However out of 6 “editors/ sub-editors” and 1 “manager”, 5-6 were anti-MMR, and 1-2 were undecided.

Now this is all preliminary and I haven’t done the stats, but I think there’s a strong pattern emerging here!

Special credits go to Antony Barnett (reporter) who is “pretty sceptical of the scientific community (funded by drug companies, etc)”, Martin Love (sub-editor) who claimed that “in just five years the medical profession has gone from total denial to telling us the MMR is dangerous” (?!), and Kate Edgley (sub-editor) who was turned off MMR by the opinions of her ‘homeopath’.

By: peningda

peningda — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:57:08 +0000

The more I learn about this, the more it looks like Carol Stott must be the source of Denis Campbell’s story.
She was presumably part of the Cambridge team in 2005, she would have received Prof Baron-Cohen’s email, she’s still an MMR-Autism believer, and she has a strong personal and financial interest in Andrew Wakefield not being struck off.

By: pv

pv — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:25:04 +0000

And here are a few prats:
www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15611171

By: pv

pv — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:15:20 +0000

One of this paper’s authors didn’t have to try at all:
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=167457

By: Gimpy

Gimpy — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:34:44 +0000

There is also the knobhead mutation in Arabidopsis

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12226189

By: SPig

SPig — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:07:44 +0000

Here’s an active and aggressive ( perhaps also justified) use of twat (just after the advert).

icrenfrewshire.icnetwork.co.uk/pde/news/tm_headline=double-trouble-for-daft-driver%26method=full%26objectid=19445281%26siteid=63858-name_page.html

By: Dyscolus

Dyscolus — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:19:26 +0000

Got some arses here:
www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=10943

By: le canard noir

le canard noir — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:03:34 +0000

Hats off to this paper who managed to sneak a ‘cunt’ into their abstract…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=6775371&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

By: DrSteve

DrSteve — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:44:45 +0000

His all

Some of you may be interested in some work a colleague of mine did for her PhD about parents understanding of risk and evidence in the MMR ‘scare’. It also covers topics on who holds the publics’ trust. The article in BMC Public Health is open source so freely available to all and sundry.

You can look at the abstracts in PubMed.

Dr S

————–

Hilton S, Petticrew M, Hunt K.
Parents’ champions vs. vested interests: who do parents believe about MMR? A qualitative study.
BMC Public Health. 2007 Mar 28;7:42.

Hilton S, Hunt K, Petticrew M.
MMR: marginalised, misrepresented and rejected? Autism: a focus group study. Arch Dis Child. 2007 Apr;92(4):32

Hilton S, Petticrew M, Hunt K.
‘Combined vaccines are like a sudden onslaught to the body’s immune system’: parental concerns about vaccine ‘overload’ and ‘immune-vulnerability’.
Vaccine. 2006 May 15;24(20):4321-7.

By: Gimpy

Gimpy — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:00:19 +0000

John A 12.

Brilliant. Proof indeed that scientific journals aren’t censored. Let’s see the conspiracy mongers worm their way out of that one.

By: John A

John A — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:05:30 +0000

I believe this paper wins.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16754552&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

By: Generali

Generali — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:23:45 +0000

I read that bansturbation piece. Very good.

By: Teek

Teek — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:57:46 +0000

pv – well said. aside from the ‘won’t somebody please think of the children’ aspect of how much damage shoddy reporting can do (i.e. rises in measles infection rate following lower uptake of MMR attributable to wakefield et al), there’s the press regulation side of things.

e.g if a political correspondent wrote that the rt hon XYZ MP eats children and sells crack to OAPs, and it turns out that’s not true, the correspondent gets their ass sued. if a “science correspondent” (who doubles as health/lifestyle reporter, cat-stuck-up-tree writer and freelance bullshitter) writes that 1/58 kids have autism and that’s due to MMR, he not only keeps his job but syndicates the piece of crap journalism to 100 outlets.

grrr…

why isn’t there adequate press regulation in terms of an obligation for journos to check their effing facts with an expert…?!

By: SPig

SPig — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:25:02 +0000

I agree with j l regarding the misrepresentation of Professor Baron-Cohen’s email. It just adds to the overall impression that the “research” for the article had more in common with a conspiracy theorists notebook, than the front page article of the national press.

The swearing is good though. If Quentin Tarantino makes a film about the affair, that’s the bit that would be on the trailer.

By: pv

pv — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:24:32 +0000

A dysfunctional British media, eh. I think the Observer’s response to criticism, just like the BBC with Panorama and wifi, is symptomatic of something fundamentally wrong here.
Without being overly dramatic I find the view that the news media presents of itself and its purpose to be very disturbing.
Through journalistic illusions one might be forgiven for thinking the popular press are altruistic protectors of the public interest. And many people seem to buy that line. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. Most of the news media are businesses whose principal, if not only, obligations are to the shareholders. Circulation is everything.
Health scare stories are great for circulation, and the MMR fiasco is one of the best ever. The press attitude generally seems to be, “fuck the truth, fuck the public, fuck the public purse, fuck the victims of disease and disability, fuck the families and professionals who care for them”. “We in the press are mighty and important and we have a job to do – which is to fuck you about”!
I know this isn’t fair to all journalists. I know there are many who care deeply about their professionalism and the dreadful state of their industry. But there are very many who don’t.