ChatterBank0 min ago
When A Link Between The Mmr Vaccine And Autism Was First Mooted Government Refused To Let Parents...
30 Answers
... have their children vaccinated for each seperately. Was that a mistake?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Sqad - Sorry, but - whats your point?
The Lancet and its then Editor have held their hands up to their own culpability, and have held internal reviews over what went wrong with their own peer review process, not least of which how was it they accepted a paper about a study that had not passed the ethids committee at the institution the researcher worked at.
The point was not that the study itself was especially controversial, but that Wakefields conclusions and public statements about the meaning of his findings were grossly exaggerated and sensationalist - and with hindsight and further investigation, we now have a good idea as to why - money.
No one is blaming the public for their initial reaction, although you can point the finger at the sensationalist reporting of many of the media outlets - I haven't suggested that, or at least I didn't think I had - if you can point me to something I wrote that implies that, show me and i will change it, because thats not what I meant.
However - the lazy reporting by the media on this issue, their desire to report a controversy for ratings, and the obsession they have with "presenting the argument" has led to decades of misinformation being fed to the public, along with deluded quacks promoting their own obsessions upon the public. And many, apprehensive about doing damage to their kids, have bought into this rubbish.
The Lancet and its then Editor have held their hands up to their own culpability, and have held internal reviews over what went wrong with their own peer review process, not least of which how was it they accepted a paper about a study that had not passed the ethids committee at the institution the researcher worked at.
The point was not that the study itself was especially controversial, but that Wakefields conclusions and public statements about the meaning of his findings were grossly exaggerated and sensationalist - and with hindsight and further investigation, we now have a good idea as to why - money.
No one is blaming the public for their initial reaction, although you can point the finger at the sensationalist reporting of many of the media outlets - I haven't suggested that, or at least I didn't think I had - if you can point me to something I wrote that implies that, show me and i will change it, because thats not what I meant.
However - the lazy reporting by the media on this issue, their desire to report a controversy for ratings, and the obsession they have with "presenting the argument" has led to decades of misinformation being fed to the public, along with deluded quacks promoting their own obsessions upon the public. And many, apprehensive about doing damage to their kids, have bought into this rubbish.
LazyGun...your first paragraph IS my point.
Flawed research was published in an eminent medical journal and the public reacted accordingly. If one cannot trust the Editor (s) of such a journal, then the question "may" arise..."what other flawed work has been passed and printed?"
To be honest, i feel that i am overstating the situation, but you take my point........
Flawed research was published in an eminent medical journal and the public reacted accordingly. If one cannot trust the Editor (s) of such a journal, then the question "may" arise..."what other flawed work has been passed and printed?"
To be honest, i feel that i am overstating the situation, but you take my point........
People are poorly equipped to evaluate scientific information.
They tend to form opinions not from the Lancet or other journals but from News paper reports what their peers say all washed down with a huge chunk of cynicism.
The newspaper reports at the time were at some times quite irresponsible
You see the same with Climate change now - despite the massive scientific consensus the Telegraph (especially) but also the Mail and others keep printing climate change skepticism articlles mostly by people without any qualification to comment - and the result is plain to see on AnswerBank forums whenever the question arises.
As for Gordon Brown - he was always absolutely rigorous in keeping his familly out of politics in any and all ways - Compare to Gummer's famous burger stuffing exercise!
I'm pretty sure whatever he did the answer with regard to anything to do with his familly would have been - 'No comment' and rightly so IMHO
They tend to form opinions not from the Lancet or other journals but from News paper reports what their peers say all washed down with a huge chunk of cynicism.
The newspaper reports at the time were at some times quite irresponsible
You see the same with Climate change now - despite the massive scientific consensus the Telegraph (especially) but also the Mail and others keep printing climate change skepticism articlles mostly by people without any qualification to comment - and the result is plain to see on AnswerBank forums whenever the question arises.
As for Gordon Brown - he was always absolutely rigorous in keeping his familly out of politics in any and all ways - Compare to Gummer's famous burger stuffing exercise!
I'm pretty sure whatever he did the answer with regard to anything to do with his familly would have been - 'No comment' and rightly so IMHO
Jake-the-peg
\\People are poorly equipped to evaluate scientific information. \\\
Exactly and i cannot agree more, as even many scientists cannot adequately interpret scientific data and particularly statistics.
Many, if not most scientists are incapable if converting their language into simple, "to the point" explanations.
The media then have a heaven sent opportunity to step in and give their own interpretation with or without any relevant Political bias.
One often wants to say to say to expert pundits "come on lad, spit it out in simple terms, we haven't got all day."
\\People are poorly equipped to evaluate scientific information. \\\
Exactly and i cannot agree more, as even many scientists cannot adequately interpret scientific data and particularly statistics.
Many, if not most scientists are incapable if converting their language into simple, "to the point" explanations.
The media then have a heaven sent opportunity to step in and give their own interpretation with or without any relevant Political bias.
One often wants to say to say to expert pundits "come on lad, spit it out in simple terms, we haven't got all day."
@Sqad - Ok, I see the point you were making.
Regardless of the faults of the Lancet, I really do not think the public were scared by the paper being published in it, a specialist magazine primarily directed at the medical and biomedical community.
It was Wakefields own public pronouncements and the media hyping up the scariness factor that were responsible for the dent in public confidence.
I do worry though that the general public as a whole seem poorly equipped to evaluate basic science and medicine, or to evaluate sources of infomation. I have lost track of the number of people who claim to have researched something, only to find on closer questioning that they have googled a few references and apparently not applied any critical analysis of those sources.
I also wonder whether the earlier scandal about BSE and CJD back in the 1990s had predisposed the public to distrust scientific/medical advice from the Government, and more inclined to believe "the maverick lone investigator"....
Regardless of the faults of the Lancet, I really do not think the public were scared by the paper being published in it, a specialist magazine primarily directed at the medical and biomedical community.
It was Wakefields own public pronouncements and the media hyping up the scariness factor that were responsible for the dent in public confidence.
I do worry though that the general public as a whole seem poorly equipped to evaluate basic science and medicine, or to evaluate sources of infomation. I have lost track of the number of people who claim to have researched something, only to find on closer questioning that they have googled a few references and apparently not applied any critical analysis of those sources.
I also wonder whether the earlier scandal about BSE and CJD back in the 1990s had predisposed the public to distrust scientific/medical advice from the Government, and more inclined to believe "the maverick lone investigator"....
LazyGun
\\I also wonder whether the earlier scandal about BSE and CJD back in the 1990s had predisposed the public to distrust scientific/medical advice from the Government, and more inclined to believe "the maverick lone investigator"..\\
Perhaps that question could be answered from my reply to JTP above which said:
\\\\\One often wants to say to say to expert pundits "come on lad, spit it out in simple terms, we haven't got all day." \\\\
I was concerned that around the 1970's emphasis was put on publications when applying for the post of Consultants in the NHS. There was an upsurge of registrars submitting papers for publication. to improve their CV;s which were totally inappropriate and in many cases ...just rubbish.
\\I also wonder whether the earlier scandal about BSE and CJD back in the 1990s had predisposed the public to distrust scientific/medical advice from the Government, and more inclined to believe "the maverick lone investigator"..\\
Perhaps that question could be answered from my reply to JTP above which said:
\\\\\One often wants to say to say to expert pundits "come on lad, spit it out in simple terms, we haven't got all day." \\\\
I was concerned that around the 1970's emphasis was put on publications when applying for the post of Consultants in the NHS. There was an upsurge of registrars submitting papers for publication. to improve their CV;s which were totally inappropriate and in many cases ...just rubbish.
@Sqad
I'll take your word for it. That same effect has taken root across all of the professions directly and indirectly involved in medicine, unfortunately, to the detriment of the service that is being offered.
Biomedical Sciences became graduate only entry back in the 1990s in an effort to boost their standing and presumably aid in salary and wage negotiations, one imagines.
Nursing too became graduate only entry,and I think that has been to the detriment of the profession as a whole.
Radioology and other allied professions the same,
And as far as surgeons are concerned- well obviously clinical studies, research and academic papers are necessary to advance the practice - but you should never forget that at the end of the say, a surgeon is effectively a skilled plumber/carpenter/joiner with, one hopes, a very deft touch - knowlegeable, of course... :)
I'll take your word for it. That same effect has taken root across all of the professions directly and indirectly involved in medicine, unfortunately, to the detriment of the service that is being offered.
Biomedical Sciences became graduate only entry back in the 1990s in an effort to boost their standing and presumably aid in salary and wage negotiations, one imagines.
Nursing too became graduate only entry,and I think that has been to the detriment of the profession as a whole.
Radioology and other allied professions the same,
And as far as surgeons are concerned- well obviously clinical studies, research and academic papers are necessary to advance the practice - but you should never forget that at the end of the say, a surgeon is effectively a skilled plumber/carpenter/joiner with, one hopes, a very deft touch - knowlegeable, of course... :)
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank32 mins ago
News34 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.