Leave a comment

trystero February 8 2009, 21:52:44 UTC
There was never any good evidence pointing to a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in the first place, so verification here seems rather like icing on the cake. But there was a hugely effective populist lobby pushing for the vaccine to be dropped, whipped up by media scare stories. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science, among many others, has written about the sheer frustration of dealing with this whole saga.

Reply

xinie February 8 2009, 22:10:51 UTC
Absolutely frustrating. All the pseudoscience kept pointing back at this one study, though, so I don't get why it took so long to pull the rug out from under it.

At least, I guess, they are publicizing it to celebrate Charles Darwin's 200th birthday... I guess no solace to the parents whose children have died from measles.

Reply

mikecap February 9 2009, 00:28:34 UTC
But why would the guy do it in the first place??

Reply

xinie February 9 2009, 02:21:17 UTC
That would be a great place to start researching the psych behind pseudoscience and what Colbert termed "truthiness"- believing something in your gut or "on faith" or anecdote being more valuable to so many people than actual facts.

Reply

trystero February 10 2009, 14:24:13 UTC
It may not have been purely a psychological issue. There are some damning details mentioned in this Times follow-up piece:

"...before the examination of any of these children Wakefield was already employed by a lawyer for the anti-vaccination pressure group, Jabs, to establish a case against the manufacturers of vaccines. One month before the first child in the study arrived at Wakefield's hospital, Wakefield had already filed a confidential document stating that the object of his research was to discover evidence 'acceptable in a court of law' of a link between MMR vaccines and 'certain conditions' reported by families seeking compensation."

Reply


Leave a comment

Up