MMR does NOT cause autism

[EvilPie]

No-one here is qualified to comment on any of this stuff anyway, people should just disregard the opinions on here and if it affects you directly go ask someone who is qualified.

That's the point though isn't it?

I hope so. I work in a medicine related field, and there is nothing worse than this sort of tittle tattle that people read that could influence what they end up doing. Go see your GP if your unsure.............

But your GP doesn't know either. He/she only has access to the same studies that Dan has so can only ever give an opinion.

Nobody knows for certain.

He knows better than anyone on here and will have been given specific advice by the Dept of Health based on the best available evidence.

...and they'll definitely know more than the Daily Mail.

Sorry but why does a GP know more about this? GP's only know what they are taught and practice daily.

There is nothing a GP knows that I can't find out for myself with a bit of research. The daily mail have access to the same text as GP's so they have the same knowledge available.

If I was to ask 2 random people for health advice and one happened to be a GP then obviously I'll go with the GP as he has the knowledge in his head. If I'm asking people questions who have time and inclination to go out and access the same knowledge base that the GP has then surely their advice is just as good?

[kinboshi]

Of course, science cannot state categorically that one thing doesn't cause another (as Jon kindly extrapolated with regards to god).  But when false studies state categorically that there is a direct causation between MMR & Autism, and these are repeated in the media, then a statement saying that there's no current evidence that suggests there is a correlation and that the studies that have been put forward are inaccurate isn't really going to sway many of the general public into reconsidering their opinion on something as important as this.

As for the studies Matt, you can read a lot of what's out there and you're intelligent enough to interpret the statistics and make an educated decision based on that.  Unfortunately, these studies don't make as interesting headlines as the scare stories and so they don't get the public's attention.  The title of this thread was a parody of the tabloid headlines that surrounded the Wakefield study (I use the word study loosely), but maybe I should have gone for the catchier "Numerous studies provide strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism. Discuss."

[EvilPie]

I can't fault you for the title of the thread. It was designed to bring attention to the subject and did it very well.

Rather than being 100% truthful it was intended to generate interest and so it achieved it's goal.

Just like the tabloids do I suppose.....

[kinboshi]

I can't fault you for the title of the thread. It was designed to bring attention to the subject and did it very well.

Rather than being 100% truthful it was intended to generate interest and so it achieved it's goal.

Just like the tabloids do I suppose.....

..yes.  Although they then disregard the science and write according to their agenda.  They adopt a position to start (such as being anti-vax) and then cherry-pick the research to suit that argument (or ignore the overwhelming evidence contradicting their view) and talk about it as though it's undeniable truth.  This is the opposite way round to how science should work, and how science reporting should work as well.

Byron posted an interesting link to someone arguing about saturated fats not being a contributory factor towards heart disease.  This goes against the mainstream thinking (obviously), but seemed to be from a source that wasn't a quack denialist.  I don't know about the science involved and if it's flawed or not, but I'm investigating the 'evidence' and trying to see how the science backs up each side of the argument.  That's how science works.

[thetank]

Matt, you were saying on the RED thread that the bankroll was your pet. Is kinboshi your pet now also?

[kinboshi]

Matt, you were saying on the RED thread that the bankroll was your pet. Is kinboshi your pet now also?

Thought you'd had enough of reading my thoughts on this and this thread?

[thetank]

because I agree with you on this and this it's much harder to disagree with you 

[kinboshi]

Shall I start another thread?  What subject can we disagree to agree on?

[thetank]

militant atheism I'm not too big a fan of but that's been kind of hashed out to death already.

I'm probably to the right of you on abortion, cctv and female genital mutilation in Africa. I don't usually come across very well in those debates though so I'll stick with live straddles today thx.

[kinboshi]

militant atheism I'm not too big a fan of but that's been kind of hashed out to death already.

I'm probably to the right of you on abortion, cctv and female genital mutilation in Africa. I don't usually come across very well in those debates though so I'll stick with live straddles today thx.

Live straddles it is then.  Then we can move on to female genital mutilation.  When I say move on, I mean the debate.

[Woodsey]

No-one here is qualified to comment on any of this stuff anyway, people should just disregard the opinions on here and if it affects you directly go ask someone who is qualified.

That's the point though isn't it?

I hope so. I work in a medicine related field, and there is nothing worse than this sort of tittle tattle that people read that could influence what they end up doing. Go see your GP if your unsure.............

But your GP doesn't know either. He/she only has access to the same studies that Dan has so can only ever give an opinion.

Nobody knows for certain.

He knows better than anyone on here and will have been given specific advice by the Dept of Health based on the best available evidence.

...and they'll definitely know more than the Daily Mail.

Sorry but why does a GP know more about this? GP's only know what they are taught and practice daily.

There is nothing a GP knows that I can't find out for myself with a bit of research. The daily mail have access to the same text as GP's so they have the same knowledge available.

If I was to ask 2 random people for health advice and one happened to be a GP then obviously I'll go with the GP as he has the knowledge in his head. If I'm asking people questions who have time and inclination to go out and access the same knowledge base that the GP has then surely their advice is just as good?

Apologies Matt but your wrong. Your GP will have been given advice by the Dept of Health on this issue based on best available evidence, I know this is the case. It maybe ok for you or the Daily Mail or yourself to access the information, but understanding and interpreting it correctly is the important thing. If you don't want to take my word for it fine, I'm not going to argue about it.............

[kinboshi]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7133807.ece

Wakefield to be struck off tomorrow.  Vile, dangerous man motivated by selfish greed.

[kinboshi]

Not a case of 'bad science' but deliberate and elaborate fraud by Wakefield.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

Anyone who is not sure about the lack of validity of his so-called study should read that.

[neeko]

Not a case of 'bad science' but deliberate and elaborate fraud by Wakefield.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

Anyone who is not sure about the lack of validity of his so-called study should read that.

Its interesting that of the UK websites only the telegraph mentions it (if you search very hard), there is nothing on the BBC, sky, mail, guardian.

But it is story 4th on fox"news", 1st on ABCnews, 5th on NSNBC, 1st on CNN international, 3rd on CBSnews.

I wonder why the UK press is so scared about writing about it.

[kinboshi]

Not a case of 'bad science' but deliberate and elaborate fraud by Wakefield.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

Anyone who is not sure about the lack of validity of his so-called study should read that.

Its interesting that of the UK websites only the telegraph mentions it (if you search very hard), there is nothing on the BBC, sky, mail, guardian.

But it is story 4th on fox"news", 1st on ABCnews, 5th on NSNBC, 1st on CNN international, 3rd on CBSnews.

I wonder why the UK press is so scared about writing about it.

Yes, it is interesting.

The media were culpable for creating the mass hysteria and giving Wakefield a platform he didn't deserve.  The time when the hysteria was the greatest (and there was the lowest take up of the MMR jab in the UK) wasn't when Wakefield first produced and published his report - but when the media went mad on the Blairs and whether their son had the jab or not.  It shows their role in this.

The point of this thread was to highlight the media's lack of massive headlines and report after report when Wakefield was discredited compared to their mass coverage in the first place.