4 ms·

The true scandal was the championing of the original story by the UK and worldwide media. If it had been reported responsibly and not sensationalised hardly any

The true scandal was the championing of the original story by the UK and worldwide media. If it had been reported responsibly and not sensationalised hardly anyone would have heard about the supposed link between vaccines and autism - read Ben Goldacre for a good discussion - http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax.

room606 17y ago
I was just about to post that link but you beat me to it. It's more than a little unfair that Wakefield is being blamed for the MMR scare when the mainstream media in the UK did everything they could to fan the flames yet remain for the most part innocent
- anamax 17y ago
  > when the mainstream media in the UK did everything they could to fan the flames yet remain for the most part innocent What definition of "innocent" are we using? They may not be liable, but they're not innocent.
  - carbocation 17y ago
    From my read of your post and that of the parent, the two of you are in agreement on that point.
    - room606 17y ago
      Yes, carbocation is correct, we are in agreement. The mainstream media still refuses to acknowledge their complicity in all of this. When all of this was going on in the UK, MMR scare stories were front page news but not once did I see a headline on the cover of newspaper proclaiming "MMR Hoax, Sorry My Bad" says . As Goldacre says, it's crazy to think that one man created this entire mess.
- bootload 17y ago
  "... I was just about to post that link but you beat me to it ..." Goldacre also came to my mind. I listened to an interview with Ben Goldacre and Robin Williams, his uncle discussing examples from his newly published book, "Bad Science" and MMR was the lead example ~ http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2403358.htm http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2403358.ht... Goldacre made the observation that while vaccination scares occurred in various countries a different layman explanation as to why it was scary occurred for each country. In the UK it was the link between MMR and Autism. In other countries it is something different. It's sad that mums are irrational on the subject of vaccination. It saves lives. From memory the story wasn't helped by the UK PM appearing to dither vaccinating his own child, "Blair signals support for MMR" ~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1803609.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1803609.stm and "My son has had MMR jab, says Brown (in dig at Blair)" ~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509845/My-son-has-had-MMR-jab-says-Brown-in-dig-at-Blair.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509845/My-son-has-ha... In the period January to September 2002, 32% of the stories written about MMR mentioned Leo Blair, as opposed to only 25% which mentioned Wakefield. [0] So the lack of firm leadership was also a factor. [0] The above quote is cited in wikipedia ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#cite_note-Goldacre-2008-19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#cite_no... and is from an article by Goldacre in the Guardian, "The MMR hoax" ~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/30/mmr.health.media http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/30/mmr.health.med... which has conveniently been pulled for copyright reasons.
sown 17y ago
This is an issue when uninformed persons tried to present a "complete" and fair coverage of an issue th ey k now nothing about.
jackfoxy 17y ago
Agreed about the true scandal. NS only mentions 3 charges, an undisclosed conflict of interest, a slip-up (intentional or unintentional) in his methodology (and how he wrote it up), and drawing blood from children outside of a medical facility. Without knowing more about the charges (and being a layman) revoking his license seems extreme. I'll bet a lot of published papers have similar problems. It's been determined the East Anglia University climate researchers broke the law by obfuscating data, but the statute of limitations has run out. Let's see if any of them lose their positions.
- handelaar 17y ago
  Absolute cobblers. There's no such thing as a "statute of limitations" in England and Wales, and if you're going to accuse people of criminal behaviour you'd better back it up with a reference, sonny.
  - jackfoxy 17y ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-... "Statute of Limitations" was my wording for the following from the article "But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago." Excuse me if I used a technical law term incorrectly. Someone decided (outside of the law?) that more than 6 months deserves forgiveness. There you go...gramps.
    - handelaar 17y ago
      You claimed "It's been determined the East Anglia University climate researchers broke the law by obfuscating data". Your link says that UEA failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request within the required time limit. UEA is the body legally required to make that response, not any of its individual employees. That detail is the same in the US. So, in short, "broke the law by obfuscating data" is an outright falsehood, for which you should now apologise.
bendtheblock 17y ago
A while ago on Newswipe, there was a fantastic segment also by Dr Ben Goldacre (author of the Bad Science column in The Guardian), on the same issue. About 3 mins in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8trMXe8ok&videos=uwLZJHGvCWE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8trMXe8ok&videos=uwLZJH...

room606 17y ago

I was just about to post that link but you beat me to it. It's more than a little unfair that Wakefield is being blamed for the MMR scare when the mainstream media in the UK did everything they could to fan the flames yet remain for the most part innocent

anamax 17y ago
> when the mainstream media in the UK did everything they could to fan the flames yet remain for the most part innocent What definition of "innocent" are we using? They may not be liable, but they're not innocent.
- carbocation 17y ago
  From my read of your post and that of the parent, the two of you are in agreement on that point.
  - room606 17y ago
    Yes, carbocation is correct, we are in agreement. The mainstream media still refuses to acknowledge their complicity in all of this. When all of this was going on in the UK, MMR scare stories were front page news but not once did I see a headline on the cover of newspaper proclaiming "MMR Hoax, Sorry My Bad" says . As Goldacre says, it's crazy to think that one man created this entire mess.
bootload 17y ago
"... I was just about to post that link but you beat me to it ..." Goldacre also came to my mind. I listened to an interview with Ben Goldacre and Robin Williams, his uncle discussing examples from his newly published book, "Bad Science" and MMR was the lead example ~ http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2403358.htm http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2403358.ht... Goldacre made the observation that while vaccination scares occurred in various countries a different layman explanation as to why it was scary occurred for each country. In the UK it was the link between MMR and Autism. In other countries it is something different. It's sad that mums are irrational on the subject of vaccination. It saves lives. From memory the story wasn't helped by the UK PM appearing to dither vaccinating his own child, "Blair signals support for MMR" ~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1803609.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1803609.stm and "My son has had MMR jab, says Brown (in dig at Blair)" ~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509845/My-son-has-had-MMR-jab-says-Brown-in-dig-at-Blair.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509845/My-son-has-ha... In the period January to September 2002, 32% of the stories written about MMR mentioned Leo Blair, as opposed to only 25% which mentioned Wakefield. [0] So the lack of firm leadership was also a factor. [0] The above quote is cited in wikipedia ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#cite_note-Goldacre-2008-19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#cite_no... and is from an article by Goldacre in the Guardian, "The MMR hoax" ~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/30/mmr.health.media http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/30/mmr.health.med... which has conveniently been pulled for copyright reasons.

sown 17y ago

This is an issue when uninformed persons tried to present a "complete" and fair coverage of an issue th ey k now nothing about.

jackfoxy 17y ago

Agreed about the true scandal. NS only mentions 3 charges, an undisclosed conflict of interest, a slip-up (intentional or unintentional) in his methodology (and how he wrote it up), and drawing blood from children outside of a medical facility. Without knowing more about the charges (and being a layman) revoking his license seems extreme. I'll bet a lot of published papers have similar problems. It's been determined the East Anglia University climate researchers broke the law by obfuscating data, but the statute of limitations has run out. Let's see if any of them lose their positions.

handelaar 17y ago
Absolute cobblers. There's no such thing as a "statute of limitations" in England and Wales, and if you're going to accuse people of criminal behaviour you'd better back it up with a reference, sonny.
- jackfoxy 17y ago
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-... "Statute of Limitations" was my wording for the following from the article "But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago." Excuse me if I used a technical law term incorrectly. Someone decided (outside of the law?) that more than 6 months deserves forgiveness. There you go...gramps.
  - handelaar 17y ago
    You claimed "It's been determined the East Anglia University climate researchers broke the law by obfuscating data". Your link says that UEA failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request within the required time limit. UEA is the body legally required to make that response, not any of its individual employees. That detail is the same in the US. So, in short, "broke the law by obfuscating data" is an outright falsehood, for which you should now apologise.

bendtheblock 17y ago

A while ago on Newswipe, there was a fantastic segment also by Dr Ben Goldacre (author of the Bad Science column in The Guardian), on the same issue. About 3 mins in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8trMXe8ok&videos=uwLZJHGvCWE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8trMXe8ok&videos=uwLZJH...