Excellent Daily Mail MMR U-turn

I really don't know where to start , total hypocrisy (even if on this occasion they are correct).

I was reading the health section of the Mail the other day in a cafe and it actually managed to contradict itself several times in a couple of pages (mostly relating to diet advice).

Where do they think these middle class parents got the idea MMR was dangerous from in the first place? Grrr.

I have submitted the following comment to the website:

As the newspaper that (through scientific incompetence) championed the whole MMR scare story and largely caused this problem, do you not think this article a touch hypocritical ?

I wonder what the chances are of this getting added to your website.

May I suggest others do likewise. They won't pay any attention, but it may make you feel better.

Hmm. Well I suppose it is good they are FINALLY doing the right thing. I've been saying the thing about vaccinations being compulsory for state nursery/school etc for ages and most people have bleated on to me about how it's taking away the parents' choice and how wrong it would be bla bla. I also don't agree with the comment saying people should get the choice of single vaccines. Er no, the NHS provides you with a safe free 3-in-1 MMR vaccine, you want anything else, you pay for it. I don't see why the NHS should pander to paranoid parents.

And am I the only one ? at the name Silas? Poor wee bugger.

Wasn't that the name of the baddy in The Da Vinci Code?

While their claims that the middle classes are to blame, may be becoming more true, historically it has been the lower classes that have had the lowest immunisation uptake.

One large US study found maternal education of high school or less at the time of the child’s birth, maternal age <21 years at the time of the child’s birth, participation in the federal food stamp program, and incorrect knowledge of the recommended age for MMR significantly elevated the chance of delayed immunization.

Miller LA et al, Risk factors for delayed immunization against measles, mumps, and rubella in Colorado two-year-olds, Pediatrics 1994; 94 (2 Pt 1): 213-9.

In a similar study in the UK, the strongest correlation was found with one parent family status.

Li J et al, Factors affecting uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation, BMJ 1993; 307 (6897): 168-71.

I have already posted a comment similar to this accusing them of hypocrisy, I don't think they'll print mine either.

My favourite quote:

nobody trusts 'experts' any more, and the 'experts' have only themselves to blame for that given their track record

?

I think you'll find the blame lies with the media's frequent lack of scientific understanding, and strong bias towards only publishing sensationalist scaremongering, unproven miracle cures, and spurious formulas for how to make the perfect cup of tea.

Grrrrrr !

:torms off to see what BG has to say on the subject::

They're both pre-Wakefield though - the landscape has changed somewhat

The Daily Mail's hypocrisy is so utterly flagrantly shameless that I don't think there's any point in pointing it out: believe me, the people who write the paper are well aware of it!

I still have very fond memories of when they were trying to get David Cronenberg's film Crash banned. When the BBFC announced that they were passing it without cuts, and that they'd consulted forensic psychologist Dr Paul Britton, the Mail jumped to conclusions and spent two days enthusiastically rubbishing Dr Britton's career and trashing pretty much every decision he'd ever made in the past. But after a justifiably peeved Dr Britton issued a statement saying that he had actually opposed the BBFC's decision to pass the film, the Mail immediately did a U-turn and started referring to him as "a leading clinical and forensic psychologist", berating the BBFC for not listening to his advice!

And there's also the classic "The Brass Eye paedophile special is the sickest thing ever broadcast on British television, and we can't even fathom the minds of people who would allow something like this to be broadcast. Oh, and here are some pictures of twelve-year-old girls in bikinis".

And I still remember Private Eye's legendary Diana memorial edition - which amongst other things highlighted the fact because Diana died in the early hours of Sunday morning, her death made the front pages of the later editions of the Sunday papers, but it was too late to do anything about the columns and feature articles inside the paper. So you'd get "Shock horror the Princess of Hearts is dead what a wonderful saintly adornment to humanity" on the first three pages and "Why oh why is this mentally unstable woman allowed to be in charge of children?" columns later on. (To be fair, I can't blame the Daily Mail for this one, but I'm sure the Mail on Sunday was one of the offenders).

I'd love to see how Melanie Phillips spins this, though - she's gone so far down the "MMR causes autism" route (even as recently as a few days ago, she was defending Andrew Wakefield after pretty much the final plank of his original study was demolished) that I can't see how she can do a U-turn without massive professional embarrassment. Then again, she does seem completely incapable of being embarrassed about anything much, so who knows?

Oh, I know Hazel, and thought I acknowledged that at the start.

I guess it was more an example of the Mail's ongoing crusade against anything that can be perceived as middle class. I ceratinly don't remember them berating working class families when they were the ones failing to get kids immunised.

Gah, I'm <speechless>

Well, it's 24 hours on, and my comment still hasn't appeared, so I'm guessing it never will.

I began with effusive praise for the Daily Mail and its valuable campaign, so I hoped that the moderators would skim that and approve it - without noticing the second bit, where I urged the paper to continue its commitment to public service by naming and shaming the irresponsible journalists, columnists and publications responsible for creating the scare in the first place.

But they obviously did. ?

<speechless> Well, almost...I know the Daily Mail lot aren't strangers to U-turns, but this is unbelievable. God, I hate, hate, hate, hate this paper.