Comments on: “Try Me, Sh*thead” – the strange case of Carol Stott, Wakefield, and the Observer – including bizarre update http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/ Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column from the Guardian and more... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:24:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: diudiu http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-30205 diudiu Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:54:01 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-30205 ed hardy <a title="ed hardy" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy</strong></a> ed hardy clothing <a title="ed hardy clothing" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy clothing</strong></a> ed hardy jeans <a title="ed hardy jeans" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy jeans</strong></a> christian audigier <a title="christian audigier" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com/christian-audigier.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian audigier</strong></a> ed hardy t shirts <a title="ed hardy t shirts" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy t shirts</strong></a> ed hardy uk <a title="ed hardy uk" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy uk</strong></a> ed hardy bags <a title="ed hardy bags" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy bags</strong></a> ed hardy hoodies <a title="ed hardy hoodies" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy hoodies</strong></a> ed hardy mens <a title="ed hardy mens" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com/mens.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy mens</strong></a> ed hardy womens <a title="ed hardy womens" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com/womens.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy womens</strong></a> ed hardy kids <a title="ed hardy kids" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com/kids.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy kids</strong></a> ed hardy kids ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy jeans ed hardy jeans
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy t shirts ed hardy t shirts
ed hardy uk ed hardy uk
ed hardy bags ed hardy bags
ed hardy hoodies ed hardy hoodies
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

]]> By: pv http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14750 pv Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:29:25 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14750 RS @49 The figures come from a questionnaire known as the "Childhood Asperger Syndrome Test" (CAST) sent out to parents. The purpose was to try to find which children are at risk of childhood developmental problems. From there I presume they go on to more specific tests for each child at risk to identify where, if anywhere, within the autism spectrum they fit in. Obviously not all those at risk fall within the spectrum so it's easy to see where the superbrains of the Observer got it completely wrong. If they are sincere they "interpreted" their information through a fog of arrogant ignorance, probably assisted by a bath of alcohol. It's a pity the Observer don't do something more useful, difficult even, like investigate the problem parents who probably make up a significant proportion of the anti-MMR/anti-vaccine tifosi. Why are they so obsessed? It's not unknown for some parents of difficult children to want a medical label to pin on them just so that can get some free childcare. RS @49
The figures come from a questionnaire known as the “Childhood Asperger Syndrome Test” (CAST) sent out to parents. The purpose was to try to find which children are at risk of childhood developmental problems. From there I presume they go on to more specific tests for each child at risk to identify where, if anywhere, within the autism spectrum they fit in. Obviously not all those at risk fall within the spectrum so it’s easy to see where the superbrains of the Observer got it completely wrong. If they are sincere they “interpreted” their information through a fog of arrogant ignorance, probably assisted by a bath of alcohol.
It’s a pity the Observer don’t do something more useful, difficult even, like investigate the problem parents who probably make up a significant proportion of the anti-MMR/anti-vaccine tifosi. Why are they so obsessed? It’s not unknown for some parents of difficult children to want a medical label to pin on them just so that can get some free childcare.

]]> By: Robert Carnegie http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14652 Robert Carnegie Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:02:18 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14652 I think the 1 in 58 of population on autistic spectrum statistic is a test of 116 children that found 2 on autistic spectrum. If so, there's a word for what's wrong with multiplying up but I've forgotten or never knew it. I think the 1 in 58 of population on autistic spectrum statistic is a test of 116 children that found 2 on autistic spectrum. If so, there’s a word for what’s wrong with multiplying up but I’ve forgotten or never knew it.

]]> By: RS http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14647 RS Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:47:55 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14647 Oh yeah, something I've been wondering, these autism figures from Baron-Cohen and co, are they the results from some instrument they've been using or recorded diagnoses? Cos otherwise we have no idea what the previous incidence of autism under their instrument was in the past, and even it it is real clinical diagnoses there is still a question of changing awareness and shifting criteria. Oh yeah, something I’ve been wondering, these autism figures from Baron-Cohen and co, are they the results from some instrument they’ve been using or recorded diagnoses? Cos otherwise we have no idea what the previous incidence of autism under their instrument was in the past, and even it it is real clinical diagnoses there is still a question of changing awareness and shifting criteria.

]]> By: RS http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14646 RS Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:45:28 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14646 Anyone see Channel 4 news today? John Snow managed to get it comprehensively wrong by trying to blame the whole MMR-autism link controversy on them not testing the MMR properly (not sure where he got that from) and ended by saying something about it being far from being resolved or some such implying a sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other situation. I think that shows there is essentially no hope for sensible coverage. Anyone see Channel 4 news today? John Snow managed to get it comprehensively wrong by trying to blame the whole MMR-autism link controversy on them not testing the MMR properly (not sure where he got that from) and ended by saying something about it being far from being resolved or some such implying a sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other situation. I think that shows there is essentially no hope for sensible coverage.

]]> By: Deano http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14606 Deano Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:27:21 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14606 That wasn't an opinion piece pv - it was a response to a survey. I'd respond to a survey by Spiked, although somehow I doubt they'd ask me in the first place. You'll notice that Anjana Ahuja's views on you know what are not those of 'Spiked' here she attacks their buddies in the 'Scientific Alliance: http://tinyurl.com/2ftzj7 Incidentally - even Spiked would find it hard to be wrong about everything all the time - although they have a bloody good go at it. ............ To get back on the rails - they are discussing Wakefield stuff on Radio 5 this morning - and the subject of the Observer story was raised. Shelagh Fogarty actually asked whether the reported rise in Autism was down to a change in diagnosis - but their 'expert' replied that the rise was probably real - just not connected with MMR... That wasn’t an opinion piece pv – it was a response to a survey. I’d respond to a survey by Spiked, although somehow I doubt they’d ask me in the first place.

You’ll notice that Anjana Ahuja’s views on you know what are not those of ‘Spiked’ here she attacks their buddies in the ‘Scientific Alliance:

tinyurl.com/2ftzj7

Incidentally – even Spiked would find it hard to be wrong about everything all the time – although they have a bloody good go at it.

…………

To get back on the rails –

they are discussing Wakefield stuff on Radio 5 this morning – and the subject of the Observer story was raised. Shelagh Fogarty actually asked whether the reported rise in Autism was down to a change in diagnosis – but their ‘expert’ replied that the rise was probably real – just not connected with MMR…

]]> By: pv http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14605 pv Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:10:24 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14605 Re Anjana Ahuja here is a nice, short opinion piece with which I wholeheartedly agree. If it were published anywhere else even Deano would agree with it - but as it's on Spiked... :-) http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/surveys/2024_article/933/ Re Anjana Ahuja here is a nice, short opinion piece with which I wholeheartedly agree. If it were published anywhere else even Deano would agree with it – but as it’s on Spiked… :-)

www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/surveys/2024_article/933/

]]> By: Dr Aust http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14593 Dr Aust Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:09:10 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14593 re Dubby's #42 - Anjana Ahuja is definitely a she. http://www.the-ba.net/the-ba/ScienceinSociety/_EventsandProgrammes/x-change/_Biography_Anjan_Ahuja.htm This is the same article andyandy was referring to in #39, and it's seriously good stuff. I cannot believe what a bunch of tripe the original Observer article was. Anjana A nails most of the arguments that have been floating about here. As an Observer reader for 30+ years , this is the only article they have run that has ever made me seriously consider switching to a Murdoch paper like the Sunday Times. Even repeated doses of Christina Odone's scientific misinformation has never done that. Do the Observer not employ any proper science / health correspondents these days? And who blagged them into running this pile of tripe? Any word from the inside, Ben? re Dubby’s #42 – Anjana Ahuja is definitely a she.

www.the-ba.net/the-ba/ScienceinSociety/_EventsandProgrammes/x-change/_Biography_Anjan_Ahuja.htm

This is the same article andyandy was referring to in #39, and it’s seriously good stuff.

I cannot believe what a bunch of tripe the original Observer article was. Anjana A nails most of the arguments that have been floating about here.

As an Observer reader for 30+ years , this is the only article they have run that has ever made me seriously consider switching to a Murdoch paper like the Sunday Times. Even repeated doses of Christina Odone’s scientific misinformation has never done that.

Do the Observer not employ any proper science / health correspondents these days?

And who blagged them into running this pile of tripe?

Any word from the inside, Ben?

]]> By: Dubby http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14557 Dubby Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:12:56 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14557 Just re-read my posting. It looks nasty! Superburger , no insult intended: it was meant to be mildly funny. Sorry. Just re-read my posting. It looks nasty!
Superburger , no insult intended: it was meant to be mildly funny. Sorry.

]]> By: Dubby http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14556 Dubby Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:05:40 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14556 Seen Today's Times? A long article by Anjana Ahuja shows that some journalists have higher standards than Campbell. He/she? makes some effort to interpret the numbers and implicitly warns that a)"crunching" is difficult and b)it's easy but wrong to grab at one relationship and puff it up as important. In the article the journalist points the finger at Stott and Scott as the cause of the renewed interest. (Scott denies that she believes in a link between MMR and autism.) Ben, you're no longer alone! Also congrats on your new cyberhome. I agree with Superburger about *. I don't know if he is a tedious c*. Seen Today’s Times?

A long article by Anjana Ahuja shows that some journalists have higher standards than Campbell.
He/she? makes some effort to interpret the numbers and implicitly warns that a)”crunching” is difficult and b)it’s easy but wrong to grab at one relationship and puff it up as important.

In the article the journalist points the finger at Stott and Scott as the cause of the renewed interest. (Scott denies that she believes in a link between MMR and autism.)

Ben, you’re no longer alone! Also congrats on your new cyberhome.

I agree with Superburger about *. I don’t know if he is a tedious c*.

]]> By: simongates http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14554 simongates Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:51:41 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14554 SteveNaive: you're probably right. Maybe "barking" was a bit harsh for some of them, misguided or desperately misinformed (by Wakefield and his ilk) would be nearer the mark. SteveNaive: you’re probably right. Maybe “barking” was a bit harsh for some of them, misguided or desperately misinformed (by Wakefield and his ilk) would be nearer the mark.

]]> By: igb http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14543 igb Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:09:52 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14543 ``I’d love to know who the source of the article is. I see four suspects: - Wakeford and associates trying to affect his GMC hearing - Richard Halvorsen trying to pre-publicise his book “to be published this month” - Carol Stott or - Fiona Scott'' The first two, of course, would have no direct access to the draft report and therefore require an intermediary to leak it. “I’d love to know who the source of the article is. I see four suspects:
- Wakeford and associates trying to affect his GMC hearing
- Richard Halvorsen trying to pre-publicise his book “to be published this month”
- Carol Stott or
- Fiona Scott”

The first two, of course, would have no direct access to the draft report and therefore require an intermediary to leak it.

]]> By: SteveNaive http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14530 SteveNaive Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:47:11 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14530 "a bunch of totally barking comments (are these a representative cross-section of telegraph readers?" I feel that the comments there fairly represent the range of views of all middle class parents in this country (Telegraph, Guardian, Independent readers - any really). For people who work and socialise primarily within medical or scientific worlds, that may be hard to stomach, but its true! “a bunch of totally barking comments (are these a representative cross-section of telegraph readers?”
I feel that the comments there fairly represent the range of views of all middle class parents in this country (Telegraph, Guardian, Independent readers – any really). For people who work and socialise primarily within medical or scientific worlds, that may be hard to stomach, but its true!

]]> By: Robert Carnegie http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14529 Robert Carnegie Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:36:59 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14529 I think a Fiona Scott appeared in tonight's [Paul Temple and The Margo Mystery] on BBC 7, but I'm not dead sure. Paul Temple is confusing. I think she was up to no good, may even have been "Margo". Of course both names are fairly common. I expect there are several Robert Scotts. I think a Fiona Scott appeared in tonight’s [Paul Temple and The Margo Mystery] on BBC 7, but I’m not dead sure. Paul Temple is confusing. I think she was up to no good, may even have been “Margo”.

Of course both names are fairly common. I expect there are several Robert Scotts.

]]> By: mch http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14524 mch Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:13:06 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14524 I can't help thinking Brian Deer comes out of looking it a bit slimy. He (quite rightly) castigates those who are misleading the public, including some unnecessary but entertaining abuse. But when he gets some hassle in return (abusive? Nothing special. Threatening? Hardly) he goes whining to the teachers. I can’t help thinking Brian Deer comes out of looking it a bit slimy. He (quite rightly) castigates those who are misleading the public, including some unnecessary but entertaining abuse. But when he gets some hassle in return (abusive? Nothing special. Threatening? Hardly) he goes whining to the teachers.

]]> By: simongates http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14523 simongates Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:05:13 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14523 More on this in the Torygraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/09/nmedic109.xml#form ... with response from Dr Scott and a bunch of totally barking comments (are these a representative cross-section of telegraph readers?). Interesting to speculate on how Denis Campbell got hold of information on this unpublished study. Most likely from someone involved in it, but it could also have been from somebody who heard a presentation about it, maybe at a conference or a departmental research seminar. More on this in the Torygraph:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/09/nmedic109.xml#form

… with response from Dr Scott and a bunch of totally barking comments (are these a representative cross-section of telegraph readers?).

Interesting to speculate on how Denis Campbell got hold of information on this unpublished study. Most likely from someone involved in it, but it could also have been from somebody who heard a presentation about it, maybe at a conference or a departmental research seminar.

]]> By: Kovich http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14518 Kovich Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:19:51 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14518 Hi Ben, loving the site - it's such a breath of fresh air. One question though: Re: the update on the 8/7: Surely the press release says exactly what would be hoped...could you clarify what you consider 'vauge' about it, and what clarifications you are hoping to get though your 'various emails and phone call'? I'm all for putting quacks through the wringer, but their response seemed fairly sensibly-worded to me... Hi Ben, loving the site – it’s such a breath of fresh air. One question though:

Re: the update on the 8/7: Surely the press release says exactly what would be hoped…could you clarify what you consider ‘vauge’ about it, and what clarifications you are hoping to get though your ‘various emails and phone call’?

I’m all for putting quacks through the wringer, but their response seemed fairly sensibly-worded to me…

]]> By: peningda http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14517 peningda Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:30:12 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14517 I'd love to know who the source of the article is. I see four suspects: - Wakeford and associates trying to affect his GMC hearing - Richard Halvorsen trying to pre-publicise his book "to be published this month" - Carol Stott or - Fiona Scott The only direct quotes in the article are good science pro-MMR vaccine from Professor Baron-Cohen and Dr David Salisbury. It only describes Stott & Scott's position. That makes me suspect it was triggered by Wakeford or Halvorsen providing a story to Denis Campbell. I’d love to know who the source of the article is. I see four suspects:
- Wakeford and associates trying to affect his GMC hearing
- Richard Halvorsen trying to pre-publicise his book “to be published this month”
- Carol Stott or
- Fiona Scott
The only direct quotes in the article are good science pro-MMR vaccine from Professor Baron-Cohen and Dr David Salisbury. It only describes Stott & Scott’s position. That makes me suspect it was triggered by Wakeford or Halvorsen providing a story to Denis Campbell.

]]> By: le canard noir http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14515 le canard noir Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:17:26 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14515 more autism stuff and how the blame is now moving to Wi-Fi Magic. http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/autism-if-you-cant-blame-mmr-lets-try.html more autism stuff and how the blame is now moving to Wi-Fi

Magic.

www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/autism-if-you-cant-blame-mmr-lets-try.html

]]> By: SteveNaive http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/try-me-shithead-the-strange-case-of-stott-wakefield-and-the-observer/comment-page-1/#comment-14511 SteveNaive Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:35:20 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=445#comment-14511 I see that the Mail yesterday just picked up the Observer story almost word for word. Of course, they couldn't resist adding their own little extra vague and useless paragraph: "Their [Stott & Scott] fears follow claims from experts that injecting children with the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine - rather than three separate jabs - can cause autism" No names are provided for the other 'experts' of course. Is it just sheer laziness? I see that the Mail yesterday just picked up the Observer story almost word for word. Of course, they couldn’t resist adding their own little extra vague and useless paragraph:

“Their [Stott & Scott] fears follow claims from experts that injecting children with the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine – rather than three separate jabs – can cause autism”

No names are provided for the other ‘experts’ of course. Is it just sheer laziness?

]]>