More MMR

Oh for crying out loud......

I'll tell you something though, I keep hearing on the radio about how it's been 'revealed' that it was a crap study with a pitiful sample group and piss-poor design and on that basis alone the Lancet should never have published. Revealed? Hasn't that always been apparent? I read a lot of research papers for work etc, and can't get an objective take on this - is it that hard to appreciate?

I really am getting the rage!!

Hasn't Dr Wakefield been struck off now?

I think your average joe absolutely wouldn't get that, JK, especially the way it was reported in the mainstream meeja.

Ffs?

so Cryshame is it a site to inform about different theories on MMR or just a " we think hes right" site?

Half of me almost wishes that they did get their independant formal enquiry.....which would show *yet again* that his study was flawed beyond all measure, he had a conflict of interest and his peer reviews also slated it.

Average joe, no, but any scientist should have been screaming "only 12 samples" at the paper. Seem to remember much of the assertion was in associated press conference not paper but still cannot understand how it got through peer review.

I suppose so Sophie. Actually this is the kind of thing my mother would ring me about, I'd diss it, and Mum would say "oooh but there's no smoke without fire, is there?"

So frustrating. Maybe we need a broadcast, like a party political jobbie, where Ben Goldacre explains exactly how research should be run, and exactly how Wakefield's was bobbins, regardless of the Big Fat Lies.

WJKs, even about the mum part ?

I was just reading the comments from people who signed the petition and they really are unreal. I had to close it down as steam started coming out of my ears.

Unfortunately we know from past experience with science comms that the deficit model ("if only they knew more they'd change their minds") doesn't work. It's got to be about engagement but even then I think some people are just too entrenched. Many anti-vax people distance themselves from Wakefield but still have plenty of "facts" and "research" to back them up*. They're unlikely to change their opinion. Hopefully we can engage those with lngering doubts about Wakefield though.

Eg am currently "discussing" on another forum how cancer was apparently unheard of in 18th century and is all down to vccinations. You can imagine my response.

[Princess Layabout] Don't forget your tin foil hat! [/Princess Layabout]

Am about to say that in response to "but all research is funded by govt so it's all a conspiracy"

I'm guessing it's turning into a "lively" "discussion".

Have you read The Victorian House, Hazel? Later than 18th cent, obviously, but there is a simply chilling description in there abou what it would be like to die of breast cancer in those happy days.

I haven't Soph but I can imagine. It must have been horrendous, just awful.

I did point out how many cancers are caused by the sun and asked if that was invented before 1700.

Which forum is this H? Shall we all pile in?

Tempting but it's a subscription one - and for many other things it's quite useful so don't want to burn all bridges. Though will consider if it gets worse ?

Well, I've just gone very 'Daily Mail and I've just emailed GMTV in shouty capitals to ask them why they haven't covered this HUGE news. They've covered nearly everything about MMR so far.....oh yes with that woman from JABS <<sigh>>

Good work!

I am well and truly gobsmacked, II don't know how you reach these people they are so entrenched with their misguided beliefs it's untrue, everything I read about this is just making me seethe

It's enough to make me cry with frustration. I've just received a letter from my toddler's nursery saying they've had an outbreak (a sibling rather than an actual attendee though so not too worried for us - but the baby who has caught measles is only 5m old, poor little thing).

Those CryShame people wrote something very favourable about one of my colleagues recently and my boss was very keen for me to plaster the "good news" all over our website. He took some dissuading.

Well, on the positive side, Neil Gaiman (writer and internet goth-magnet) has now joined in the fight on the side of the angels, ie us and Ben Goldacre.

Very disappointed to see that Jeni Barnett censored all the comments on her blog. Outrageous behaviour.

If you go to her website, that blog post is no longer linked - last entry is Feb 3rd. The post itself is still there if you have the whole address.

Nice to see she's prepared to stand up for herself, and have the courage of her convictions to leave it up there for all to see.

To my mind, these are the actions of a great big coward.

Ahhhhhh [wistful sigh] We love Stephen.

I work with someone who is adament that MMR caused her nephew's autism. I feel for her, I really do - and wouldn't pick an argument with her - but I feel forced into it. She is quite senior, well respected and in all other respects a sane and sensible person - and she preaches her anti-mmr stance to all and sundry - as soon as she realises they have a child of mmr-able age. Drives me nuts.

I do love Stephen. And him a humanities graduate and all*

* my tongue is in my cheek as I type

Not sure if you're aware but here's another article in Times about this issue:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5696902.ece

Unfortunately some idiotic comments down the page...

Waaaaaaaaaaaah! Advert at the top of the page is now for "Bad Science" book on Amazon ?

JABS, aha, that's the site that my friend tried to pressure me into looking up. I didn't.

Those Times comments have got me really cross.

Gah, what utter twunts.

I'm not reading them. I've done my bit for the pro-vaccination types today.

I guess you have already seen Melanie "fuckface" Phillips: https://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3346281/the-witchhunt-against-andrew-wakefield.thtml