• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism

Great so a major newspaper (with a very good investigative reputation) now runs with this story; talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has left.
 
tkingdoll said:
Nothing to do with copyright, newspapers hate covering other paper's exclusives for many reasons including a) they don't have access to the source material so can't print any other angle except what they've read in the competitor and b) because in that case they're obliged to point out that their source is another newspaper and you plain old don't mention the competition unless it is owned by the same company as you.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, but one would have thought that this would be at least worth a mention given the almost blanket support that much of the press gave Wakefield for the best part of a decade. Er, maybe not then...
 
Mojo said:
Well, yes, but one would have thought that this would be at least worth a mention given the almost blanket support that much of the press gave Wakefield for the best part of a decade. Er, maybe not then...
Click to expand...

*Looks for a newspaper editor with any concept of ethics*

Nope, nothing. :(
 
Mojo said:
Well, yes, but one would have thought that this would be at least worth a mention given the almost blanket support that much of the press gave Wakefield for the best part of a decade. Er, maybe not then...
Click to expand...

The press cares about "the story." You have to tell a compelling narrative to get a lot of media attention.

"Crackpot doctor uses badly conducted study to rail against established medicine" is not a story. "Brave doctor reveals danger ignored by callous and arrogant medical establishment" is a story. So is "controversy rages over ...."

The flaws of Wakefield's study don't become a worthwhile story by themselves until he's gained enough influence to justify a different but equally compelling narrative. "Did fraudulent medical study lead to children dying of measles?" IS a story. Until the newspapers can use that kind of headline, the flaws in Wakefield's work are only worth a quote in the fourth paragraph of a "controversy rages" story.

The anti-vax reaction to this would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Before, it was an outrage that the Medical Establishment wasn't totally changing its recommendations in light of Wakefield's groundbreaking and stunning work. Now, everyone knew all along it wasn't supposed to be a persuasive study, and it's the Medical Establishment's "overreaction" to it that somehow proves something.
 
mummymonkey said:
The media will turn on Wakefield like the pack of dogs they are. They are the real villains of this sorry tale.
Click to expand...

and why shouldn't they? If what is alleged is true, he should have his license revoked...PERMANENTLY! It is a gigantic breach of ethics, both to his patients, and society as a whole.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
and why shouldn't they? If what is alleged is true, he should have his license revoked...PERMANENTLY! It is a gigantic breach of ethics, both to his patients, and society as a whole.

TAM
Click to expand...
Because they, the media, are even more to blame. They had it in their power to expose Wakefield's nonsense right at the start but instead chose to fan the flames and push the scares in order to sell more papers and get more viewers. To a large extent this whole affair has been media-driven and in my view it's the likes of Melanie Phillips who should be in the dock beside Wakefield.
But that's not what will happen; what will happen is that with not an ounce of shame the same journalists and TV presenters who fearlessly brought us the lone mmr hero will now pin the blame squarely on him, and him alone, for the thousands of mumps and measles cases we are now seeing.
 
mummymonkey said:
But that's not what will happen; what will happen is that with not an ounce of shame the same journalists and TV presenters who fearlessly brought us the lone mmr hero will now pin the blame squarely on him, and him alone, for the thousands of mumps and measles cases we are now seeing.
Click to expand...


Or alternatively, they'll just ignore the whole thing.
 
mummymonkey said:
Because they, the media, are even more to blame. They had it in their power to expose Wakefield's nonsense right at the start but instead chose to fan the flames and push the scares in order to sell more papers and get more viewers. To a large extent this whole affair has been media-driven and in my view it's the likes of Melanie Phillips who should be in the dock beside Wakefield.
But that's not what will happen; what will happen is that with not an ounce of shame the same journalists and TV presenters who fearlessly brought us the lone mmr hero will now pin the blame squarely on him, and him alone, for the thousands of mumps and measles cases we are now seeing.
Click to expand...

I dunno, to me better late then never. Perhaps they are partly to blame, as they are (if you think that way) for almost everything they report, but in the end this man has disgraced himself, and his profession (if the allegations are true), and he should pay for it both in a court of law, and in the court of public opinion.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I dunno, to me better late then never. Perhaps they are partly to blame, as they are (if you think that way) for almost everything they report, but in the end this man has disgraced himself, and his profession (if the allegations are true), and he should pay for it both in a court of law, and in the court of public opinion.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I don't think the criticism of the media is intended to be interpreted as a request for clemency for Wakefield.

It's more an outrage that so many reporters made good coin with what they knew were falsehoods, and yet are not being held accountable, and not even admitting their culpability.
 
blutoski said:
I don't think the criticism of the media is intended to be interpreted as a request for clemency for Wakefield.

It's more an outrage that so many reporters made good coin with what they knew were falsehoods, and yet are not being held accountable, and not even admitting their culpability.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Any decent journalist worthy of the name would have been all over Wakefield's claims. Wakefield used the media and they used him.
 
Dunstan said:
"Crackpot doctor uses badly conducted study to rail against established medicine" is not a story. "Brave doctor reveals danger ignored by callous and arrogant medical establishment" is a story. So is "controversy rages over ...."

The flaws of Wakefield's study don't become a worthwhile story by themselves until he's gained enough influence to justify a different but equally compelling narrative.
Click to expand...


Which he went straight out to try to achieve even before the original study was published, by calling a press conference to announce it. See also Bob Park's Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science, No. 1 (No. 2 may also be relevant here).

mummymonkey said:
Wakefield used the media and they used him.
Click to expand...
 
kookbreaker said:
Seems that Wakefield has made a reply of sorts. I didn't have tim eo tgo through it: Its a pdf

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer-response.pdf
Click to expand...

That link doesn't work for me. (It is also here if that's the case for others)

Wakefield's response is extremely tepid IMO.
If the allegations were untrue, he would surely have strongly refuted all the individual points raised by Brian Deer (as well as slapping a massive law suit on the Times).

Instead he seems to be saying "Yada yada It wasn't me it was my coauthors My contract with the lawyer ..er..umm... I didn't get as much money as you have shown I did You're a nasty man I only did it for the children Fingers in ears lalalala It wasn't me I can't hear you!"
 
Last edited:
Deetee said:
...as well as slapping a massive law suit on the Times.
Click to expand...


There's still plenty of time for a libel action (although I suppose he could have tried for an injunction to prevent publication, as he was contacted about it a couple if days beforehand).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom