5 ms·

This is absolutely fantastic. The sooner we put this vaccine/autism bullshit to rest the better.

by philk 16y ago

rythie 16y ago
Don't you see the wider message on the last page? This destined to happen again, since journalists don't fact check, don't have relevant expertise and the press favour sensationalism over accuracy.
- philk 16y ago
  Yes, and nifty cartoons like this are a great tool to make the truth more accessible to people. (On a side note we as a public get the press we deserve. If decent investigative reporting got more readers than Brad and Angelina On The Rocks!!! we might get more of it done.)
- chris_j 16y ago
  The last page is very poignant. "Is this too much to ask?" My fear that it might be. A cynic would suggest that a newspaper's primary responsibility is not to report the news accurately to its readers but to make as much money as possible for its shareholders. It does this by selling as many papers as possible. Fact checking, expertise and accuracy are only useful when they help to sell papers.
  - weego 16y ago
    newspapers sell their reader demographic to advertisers. The actual news is an annoyance and in the past quite a costly one, which is why they are now happy just quoting twitter/blogs and cut out anyone with real journalism skills.
    - philk 16y ago
      Very good point. I find it interesting, however, that they're pursuing a strategy that will eventually render them irrelevant.
- weego 16y ago
  And as importantly the pressure to sell paper copies leading to more and more sensationalist stories with no regard to the future beyond the next pay cheque.
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  There's a lot of hate here for Wakefield's paper (much deserved) and for mainstream journalists (also much deserved), but the fact that it got published in the supposedly prestigious and rigorously peer-reviewed Lancet goes by nearly unmentioned. Journalists notoriously screw up their interpretations of scientific papers, but that doesn't seem to be the case here -- they accurately reported what was published in the Lancet. The problem was that it was published in such a journal at all -- once that cat was out of the bag, the rumor had all the credibility it needed.
  - nollidge 16y ago
    Surely you noticed the part of the article where Wakefield falsified data? That the paper he submitted to the Lancet was at odds with the actual clinical records at the hospital? And the fact that his damning financial connection was not disclosed to the journal? What is the journal supposed to do? They certainly couldn't have predicted that a tiny 12-person study would blow up in the way it has. In the end, they retracted the paper, which is exactly how it should have worked. Sometimes bad papers get published--peer review can't catch everything.
    - jdminhbg 16y ago
      I noticed the part where Wakefield falsified data, as well as the part where the author criticized his sample size and methodology... so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. Why would the journal even consider publishing an article making claims as big as Wakefield's on the basis of a dozen study participants? The "in the end" where they retracted the paper was like six months ago, right?
      - nollidge 16y ago
        > so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? Because peer review, like every other human endeavor, is not perfect? > I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. But the study did not conclude that. The paper stated "we did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described". It reported interviews with the parents talking about MMR, but did not conclude that itself. The conclusion was more about the relationship between gastrointestinal issues and autism (also false, but less obviously so). No decent scientist would draw a sweeping conclusion like "autism is caused by universal vaccination" from this study. One study--especially one so small, with no controls and no randomization--does not demonstrate causation no matter how significant the correlation. The Lancet study (false, but still subtle enough) was misinterpreted due to Wakefield's spin machine and a gullible media. And to be honest, I have no idea why they didn't retract sooner. I do hold them at fault for that.

This is absolutely fantastic. The sooner we put this vaccine/autism bullshit to rest the better.

by philk 16y ago

This is absolutely fantastic. The sooner we put this vaccine/autism bullshit to rest the better.

Don't you see the wider message on the last page? This destined to happen again, since journalists don't fact check, don't have relevant expertise and the press favour sensationalism over accuracy.

philk 16y ago
Yes, and nifty cartoons like this are a great tool to make the truth more accessible to people. (On a side note we as a public get the press we deserve. If decent investigative reporting got more readers than Brad and Angelina On The Rocks!!! we might get more of it done.)
chris_j 16y ago
The last page is very poignant. "Is this too much to ask?" My fear that it might be. A cynic would suggest that a newspaper's primary responsibility is not to report the news accurately to its readers but to make as much money as possible for its shareholders. It does this by selling as many papers as possible. Fact checking, expertise and accuracy are only useful when they help to sell papers.
- weego 16y ago
  newspapers sell their reader demographic to advertisers. The actual news is an annoyance and in the past quite a costly one, which is why they are now happy just quoting twitter/blogs and cut out anyone with real journalism skills.
  - philk 16y ago
    Very good point. I find it interesting, however, that they're pursuing a strategy that will eventually render them irrelevant.
weego 16y ago
And as importantly the pressure to sell paper copies leading to more and more sensationalist stories with no regard to the future beyond the next pay cheque.
jdminhbg 16y ago
There's a lot of hate here for Wakefield's paper (much deserved) and for mainstream journalists (also much deserved), but the fact that it got published in the supposedly prestigious and rigorously peer-reviewed Lancet goes by nearly unmentioned. Journalists notoriously screw up their interpretations of scientific papers, but that doesn't seem to be the case here -- they accurately reported what was published in the Lancet. The problem was that it was published in such a journal at all -- once that cat was out of the bag, the rumor had all the credibility it needed.
- nollidge 16y ago
  Surely you noticed the part of the article where Wakefield falsified data? That the paper he submitted to the Lancet was at odds with the actual clinical records at the hospital? And the fact that his damning financial connection was not disclosed to the journal? What is the journal supposed to do? They certainly couldn't have predicted that a tiny 12-person study would blow up in the way it has. In the end, they retracted the paper, which is exactly how it should have worked. Sometimes bad papers get published--peer review can't catch everything.
  - jdminhbg 16y ago
    I noticed the part where Wakefield falsified data, as well as the part where the author criticized his sample size and methodology... so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. Why would the journal even consider publishing an article making claims as big as Wakefield's on the basis of a dozen study participants? The "in the end" where they retracted the paper was like six months ago, right?
    - nollidge 16y ago
      > so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? Because peer review, like every other human endeavor, is not perfect? > I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. But the study did not conclude that. The paper stated "we did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described". It reported interviews with the parents talking about MMR, but did not conclude that itself. The conclusion was more about the relationship between gastrointestinal issues and autism (also false, but less obviously so). No decent scientist would draw a sweeping conclusion like "autism is caused by universal vaccination" from this study. One study--especially one so small, with no controls and no randomization--does not demonstrate causation no matter how significant the correlation. The Lancet study (false, but still subtle enough) was misinterpreted due to Wakefield's spin machine and a gullible media. And to be honest, I have no idea why they didn't retract sooner. I do hold them at fault for that.