The role of the media in the measles outbreak

[dismal]

Also, most people seem to have this attitude that anything that is published can be considered a reliable conclusion, when in fact getting published is the start of the peer review process. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing here, but if you are you should know that most papers that get published in medical journals turn out to be wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not well. The loss of his medical license was linked to his research findings by the GMC, in order to discredit them, when it was technically the result of his treatment of patients, thus leaving it open to accusations of political interference in medical research. The 'system' was pretty much a balls up from start to finish. It's hard to pin that on the media, which was (in the UK) only as inconsistent as the information they had access to. There was the usual scaremongering in the usual places, but it only went beyond that because hard information was inconsistent or unavailable.

I'm not aware the peer review was particularly flawed. Do you have examples?

The peer review was an obvious problem but no one could duplicate Wakefield's results.

Which should have been the central point. This guy has a theory, no one has yet confirmed it, let's not all panic here. Instead it turned into a public witchhunt against Wakefield personally, which helped to publicise the event as a 'controversy'.

All I was saying is that Wakefield's paper had to pass through peer review in order to be published. The peer review should have caught at least a whiff of impropriety. Especially given the controversial nature of the findings. The journal and most of the co-authors disavowed the paper.

The General Medical Council found that large parts of the paper was falsified. The loss of his medical license was based on his mistreatment of his patients, the disabled children who participated in the study. I don't remember the details but he preformed procedures on his research subjects that had no apparent connection to the research.

First of all, the nature of the fraud Wakefield committed was relatively new. As a direct result of Wakefield's paper, peer review panels now know what to look for.

Also, most people seem to have this attitude that anything that is published can be considered a reliable conclusion, when in fact getting published is the start of the peer review process. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing here, but if you are you should know that most papers that get published in medical journals turn out to be wrong.

Exactly. Just about finished reading up on a book on Antimatter. People publish stuff all the time. It isn't accepted science the second the ink reaches the paper. Heck, the Nobel Prize usually takes several years to reach them if the breakthrough is significant enough to warrant such.

It was fraud, it was exposed as fraud. The system isn't perfect, but it is effective.

 

[dismal]

Not well. The loss of his medical license was linked to his research findings by the GMC, in order to discredit them, when it was technically the result of his treatment of patients, thus leaving it open to accusations of political interference in medical research. The 'system' was pretty much a balls up from start to finish. It's hard to pin that on the media, which was (in the UK) only as inconsistent as the information they had access to. There was the usual scaremongering in the usual places, but it only went beyond that because hard information was inconsistent or unavailable.

I'm not aware the peer review was particularly flawed. Do you have examples?

The peer review was an obvious problem but no one could duplicate Wakefield's results.

Which should have been the central point. This guy has a theory, no one has yet confirmed it, let's not all panic here. Instead it turned into a public witchhunt against Wakefield personally, which helped to publicise the event as a 'controversy'.

All I was saying is that Wakefield's paper had to pass through peer review in order to be published. The peer review should have caught at least a whiff of impropriety. Especially given the controversial nature of the findings. The journal and most of the co-authors disavowed the paper.

The General Medical Council found that large parts of the paper was falsified. The loss of his medical license was based on his mistreatment of his patients, the disabled children who participated in the study. I don't remember the details but he preformed procedures on his research subjects that had no apparent connection to the research.

First of all, the nature of the fraud Wakefield committed was relatively new. As a direct result of Wakefield's paper, peer review panels now know what to look for.

Also, most people seem to have this attitude that anything that is published can be considered a reliable conclusion, when in fact getting published is the start of the peer review process. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing here, but if you are you should know that most papers that get published in medical journals turn out to be wrong.

Exactly. Just about finished reading up on a book on Antimatter. People publish stuff all the time. It isn't accepted science the second the ink reaches the paper. Heck, the Nobel Prize usually takes several years to reach them if the breakthrough is significant enough to warrant such.

It was fraud, it was exposed as fraud. The system isn't perfect, but it is effective.

But in the meantime, we got this sort of thing:

[YOUTUBE]yE0aKBiVvEQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[dismal]

Researchers immediately began to study Wakefield’s hypothesis, but could not duplicate his outcomes. In part, this was because the study itself was flawed, with only twelve subjects handpicked by its author, which prompted many to wonder why Lancet had published it at all.

This article suggests Wakefield's study had only 12 non-randomized subjects. I don't see how a respectable journal could publish that. That's anecdote not science.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/02/05/How-Discredited-Report-Turned-Parents-Anti-Vaxxers

 

[bilby]

Not well. The loss of his medical license was linked to his research findings by the GMC, in order to discredit them, when it was technically the result of his treatment of patients, thus leaving it open to accusations of political interference in medical research. The 'system' was pretty much a balls up from start to finish. It's hard to pin that on the media, which was (in the UK) only as inconsistent as the information they had access to. There was the usual scaremongering in the usual places, but it only went beyond that because hard information was inconsistent or unavailable.

I'm not aware the peer review was particularly flawed. Do you have examples?

The peer review was an obvious problem but no one could duplicate Wakefield's results.

Which should have been the central point. This guy has a theory, no one has yet confirmed it, let's not all panic here. Instead it turned into a public witchhunt against Wakefield personally, which helped to publicise the event as a 'controversy'.

All I was saying is that Wakefield's paper had to pass through peer review in order to be published. The peer review should have caught at least a whiff of impropriety. Especially given the controversial nature of the findings. The journal and most of the co-authors disavowed the paper.

The General Medical Council found that large parts of the paper was falsified. The loss of his medical license was based on his mistreatment of his patients, the disabled children who participated in the study. I don't remember the details but he preformed procedures on his research subjects that had no apparent connection to the research.

First of all, the nature of the fraud Wakefield committed was relatively new. As a direct result of Wakefield's paper, peer review panels now know what to look for.

Also, most people seem to have this attitude that anything that is published can be considered a reliable conclusion, when in fact getting published is the start of the peer review process. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing here, but if you are you should know that most papers that get published in medical journals turn out to be wrong.

Exactly. Just about finished reading up on a book on Antimatter. People publish stuff all the time. It isn't accepted science the second the ink reaches the paper. Heck, the Nobel Prize usually takes several years to reach them if the breakthrough is significant enough to warrant such.

It was fraud, it was exposed as fraud. The system isn't perfect, but it is effective.

But in the meantime, we got this sort of thing:

[YOUTUBE]yE0aKBiVvEQ[/YOUTUBE]

I dunno. Something about that video seems all backwards to me.

 

[Underseer]

Not well. The loss of his medical license was linked to his research findings by the GMC, in order to discredit them, when it was technically the result of his treatment of patients, thus leaving it open to accusations of political interference in medical research. The 'system' was pretty much a balls up from start to finish. It's hard to pin that on the media, which was (in the UK) only as inconsistent as the information they had access to. There was the usual scaremongering in the usual places, but it only went beyond that because hard information was inconsistent or unavailable.

I'm not aware the peer review was particularly flawed. Do you have examples?

The peer review was an obvious problem but no one could duplicate Wakefield's results.

Which should have been the central point. This guy has a theory, no one has yet confirmed it, let's not all panic here. Instead it turned into a public witchhunt against Wakefield personally, which helped to publicise the event as a 'controversy'.

All I was saying is that Wakefield's paper had to pass through peer review in order to be published. The peer review should have caught at least a whiff of impropriety. Especially given the controversial nature of the findings. The journal and most of the co-authors disavowed the paper.

The General Medical Council found that large parts of the paper was falsified. The loss of his medical license was based on his mistreatment of his patients, the disabled children who participated in the study. I don't remember the details but he preformed procedures on his research subjects that had no apparent connection to the research.

First of all, the nature of the fraud Wakefield committed was relatively new. As a direct result of Wakefield's paper, peer review panels now know what to look for.

Also, most people seem to have this attitude that anything that is published can be considered a reliable conclusion, when in fact getting published is the start of the peer review process. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing here, but if you are you should know that most papers that get published in medical journals turn out to be wrong.

Exactly. Just about finished reading up on a book on Antimatter. People publish stuff all the time. It isn't accepted science the second the ink reaches the paper. Heck, the Nobel Prize usually takes several years to reach them if the breakthrough is significant enough to warrant such.

It was fraud, it was exposed as fraud. The system isn't perfect, but it is effective.

But in the meantime, we got this sort of thing:

[YOUTUBE]yE0aKBiVvEQ[/YOUTUBE]

Yep, there's idiots on both sides promoting this nonsense. In fact the vaccine issue is precisely why I stopped listening to RFKjr.

To this very day, RFKjr continues to insist that parents should ask for vaccines that are MMR-free, and Tom Hartmann agrees with him on this issue.

 

[Axulus]

Most helpful positive review
1,597 of 1,648 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars If you enjoyed this book..., January 28,
2015
By Michael J. Gogulski "nostate.com"
This review is from: Melanie's Marvelous Measles (Paperback)
If you enjoyed this book, check out these other fine titles
from the same author:

Abby's Absolutely Abundant Abscess
Addie's Adorable Adenoma
Adelia's Addled Alzheimer's
Andys Amazing AIDS
Anne's Incandescent Anorexia
Annette's Astonishing Aneurysm
Annie's Awesome Asthma
Arnie's Artful Addiction
Barack's Baroque Barbiturate Overdose
Barry's Bitchin Beri Beri
Beatrice's Bawdy Bronchitis
Bella's Beloved Bell's Palsy
Bennett's Breathtaking Boil
Bertha's Blossoming Bulimia
Billy's Bodacious Botulism
Bobby's Bitchin Bubonic Plague
Bobby's Bubbling Buboes
Bob's Bodacious Bone Break
Boris's Big Blister
Bradley's Brilliant Bradycardia
Candy's Candid Candida
Carl's Chewy Cancer
Carl's Cool Cauliflower Ear
Carol's Calm Coma
Carol's Colorful Chlamydia
Carol's Copacetic Chlamydia
Carrie's Cavernous Caries
Carrie's Cordial Complications
Christian's Crazy Creutzfeldt-Jakob Syndrome
Chuck's Champion Chickenpox
Clarissa's Classy Klippel–Trénaunay Syndrome
Cole Herb's Heavenly Herpes
Colin's Copacetic Common Cold
Connie's Conquering Conjunctivitis
Cyril's Crunchy Celiac
Danielle's Dainty Dahlberg Borer Newcomer Syndrome
Dan's Dandy Dandy–Walker Malformation with Mental
Retardation, Macrocephaly, Myopia, and Brachytelephalangy
Daphne's delicate distention
Dave's Darling Deformity
Diana's Diaphanous Diaphragm Disorder
Dolly's Desirable Death
Dominic's Domineering Dementia
Dorothy's Dominating Discharge
Doug's Daring Dengue
Doug's Delightful Dysentery
Edward's Excellent Eczema
Ellen's Elegant Alopecia
Emma's Exalted Emphysema
Ephraim's Ebullient Ebola
Ferdinand's Fabulous Fractured Femur
Flo's Favorite Flu
Freddie's Fantastic Fibromyalgia
Fred's Fabulous Fracture
Freya's Fabulous Fainting
Freya's Far-out Farber's Lipogranulomatosis
Gary's Gallant Gangrene
Gary's Grand Granulomatosis
George's Gorgeous Gonorrhea
Gloria's Golden Goiter
Greg's Glorious Gout
Hank's Hearty Hemophilia
Hannah's Hysterical Hantavirus
Harlan's Harmonious H1N1
Harry's Handsome Halitosis
Harry's Happy Hernia
Harry's Haughty Hemorrhage
Hilary's Heavenly Hashimoto's Hypothyroidism
Hilary's hilarious hydrocelphallic-myocarinoma!
Hillary's Hilarious HIV
Homer's Humdinger Homicidal Ideation
Ida's Inscrutable Idiopathy
Iggy's Infamous Ischemia
Imogene's Inimitable Immunodeficiency
Inga's Incredible Ingrowth
Irene's Incredible Ichthyoallyeinotoxism
Iris's Irrestiable Itch
Isabel's Interesting Infarction
Jane's Genial Genetic Anomalies
Jayoh's Jumpin' Jaundice
Johnny's Jocular Jock Itch
Kyle's Copacetic Keratoacanthoma
Kyle's Crispy Keloids
Larry's Lordly Laryngitis
Larry's Lovely Lymphoma
Leroy's Lavish Leprosy
Lisa's Lovely Lassa Fever
Lucy's Lucious Lupus
Luke's Lucid Leukemia
Luther's Lucky Lupus
Mal's Mad Malaria
Mandie's Mega Mucus
Manuel's Magnificent Meningitis
Margie's Memorable Mononucleosis
Marie's Miraculous Marburg
Melanie's Mellifluous Malaria
Michael's Mighty Migraine
Mike's Magnificent Mumps
Milo's Marvelous Malignant Mass
Molly's Malignant Melanoma
Ned's Neato Nearsightedness
Nestor's Non-Stop Nystagmus
Nudge's Numinous Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
Oprah's Opulant Oppositional Defiant Disorder
Orrin's Ornamented Ornithosis
Oscar's Awesome Osteoporosis
Pam's Panaroamic Pathology
Pauline's Prescient Parasites
Paul's Pumpin' Priapism
Percy's Perspicacious Pustule
Perry's Peerless Peritonitis
Perry's Precious Porphyria
Peters Perfect Polio
Polly's Polychromatic Polyuria
Polly's Pretty Polyps
Presley's Precious Presbyopia
Priscilla's Precocious Preeclampsia
Prunella's Practically Preventable Prion
Quentin's Quiescent Quarantine
Randy's Roaring Ringworm
Rhea's Really Remarkable Rheumatism
Rhonda's Racing Rheumatism
Ricky's Rockin' Rickets
Robbie's Rad Ass Rabies
Rocco's Raging Rash
Rosie's Rotating Rosacea
Ruth's Radical Rubella
Sally's Serendipitous Sarcoidosis
Sam's Saintly Schizophrenia
Sam's Smart Smallpox
Samuel's Stupendous Sleep-apnea
Sandra's Superb Sickle Cell
Sandy's Salient Sclerosis
Sandy's sensational syphilis
Sarah's Sentient Sarcoma
Sarah's Serene Sarcosinemia
Sarah's Stunning Salmonella
Scott's Scrumptious Scabies
Sir Sergio's Serene Cirrhosis
Spencer's Splendid Sprain
Stanley's Strapping Strongyloidiasis
Susan's Superlative Supraumbilical Midabdominal Raphe and
Facial Cavernous Hemangiomas
Tarzan's Transcendant Transitional Cell Carcinoma
Terence's Terrific Teratoma
Terry's Tempting Tinea
Terry's Trippy Tremor
Timmy's Triumphant Tumors
Tipper's Tilltilating tinnitus
Tommy's Terrific Tapeworm
Tonya's Top-Notch Tonsillitis
Tuco's Torrid Toxoplasmosis
Tyrone's Titillating Typhus
Tyrone's Trippindicular Trichotillomania
Vera's Varicolored Varicella
Veronica's Voluminous Vericose Veins
Vivians Voluminous Vaginitis
Waldo's Whooping Warts
Wally's Wicked-Awesome Wart
Wendy's Wonderful War Wound
Whoopie's Whooping Whooping Cough
Willy's Whimsical Weight Gain
Winnie's Wondrous Wandering Spleen
Xavier's Exemplary Exencephaly
Yolanda's Yummy Yersenia
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Thank you for your feedback.
Report abuse | Permalink


Most helpful negative review:
Customer Review
568 of 580 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars In Sickness and In F.U.N., January 29,
2015
By V. Vanalstyne "XxX"
This review is from: Melanie's Marvelous Measles (Kindle
Edition)
I've been having a hard time finding a way to tell my
children why they have to suffer through dangerous and potentially debilitating
diseases that were almost eradicated by Vaccines. Thanks to Melanie's Marvelous
Measles I now have an easy reader guide that makes me eldest feel less down
about the fact he's been crippled from Polio. Apparently telling him"Your
grandfather had it in the 1920's and he lived to be 52 thanks to a weakened
heart" just hasn't cheered him like it should.


Chloe, my 3-year was worried about the horrible scaring that
came along with her case of Rubella. "Don't worry dear," I told her,
"Remember Melanie's Marvelous Measles? Melanie is more beautiful for her
scars. If you kids don't get sick, how else are we going to go on to build a glorious
master race?" Unfortunately the Encephalitis she suffered from the high
fever the measles caused means I have to repeat this over and over but the
little girl on the cover gives her hope, and really, what else can we give our
children?

 

[dismal]

Yep, there's idiots on both sides promoting this nonsense. In fact the vaccine issue is precisely why I stopped listening to RFKjr.

To this very day, RFKjr continues to insist that parents should ask for vaccines that are MMR-free, and Tom Hartmann agrees with him on this issue.

It's no so much the side he is on that is the point there it's the certainty with which he declares the science settled and deep when in retrospect we know this not to be true. Then it's also the way it's dressed up with all the ideological hot buttons - big conspiracy between corporations and government, stories being pulled by higher ups in the media, etc. And it's also people like John Stewart providing a platform. This is not "we have to treat both sides as if they are credible" journalism. This is "we are going to give people on our side a platform to spew uncountered nonsense because it fits our narrative" journalism.

 

[Underseer]

Sorry, I said MMR-free when I should have said mercury-free. He's still listening to people who get ethyl mercury and methyl mercury mixed up.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, there's idiots on both sides promoting this nonsense. In fact the vaccine issue is precisely why I stopped listening to RFKjr.

To this very day, RFKjr continues to insist that parents should ask for vaccines that are MMR-free, and Tom Hartmann agrees with him on this issue.

It's no so much the side he is on that is the point there it's the certainty with which he declares the science settled and deep when in retrospect we know this not to be true. Then it's also the way it's dressed up with all the ideological hot buttons - big conspiracy between corporations and government, stories being pulled by higher ups in the media, etc. And it's also people like John Stewart providing a platform. This is not "we have to treat both sides as if they are credible" journalism. This is "we are going to give people on our side a platform to spew uncountered nonsense because it fits our narrative" journalism.

Those are common features of all anti-science movements, from climate change denialists to anti-GMO nuts to creationists, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An anti-vaxxer who got too bold got his ass handed to him:

http://calvinayre.com/2015/03/13/bu...ter-losing-wager-that-a-virus-causes-measles/

$100k Euro judgment.

 

[Underseer]

Yep, there's idiots on both sides promoting this nonsense. In fact the vaccine issue is precisely why I stopped listening to RFKjr.

To this very day, RFKjr continues to insist that parents should ask for vaccines that are MMR-free, and Tom Hartmann agrees with him on this issue.

It's no so much the side he is on that is the point there it's the certainty with which he declares the science settled and deep when in retrospect we know this not to be true. Then it's also the way it's dressed up with all the ideological hot buttons - big conspiracy between corporations and government, stories being pulled by higher ups in the media, etc. And it's also people like John Stewart providing a platform. This is not "we have to treat both sides as if they are credible" journalism. This is "we are going to give people on our side a platform to spew uncountered nonsense because it fits our narrative" journalism.

Just to be clear, when I said "both sides" I was referring to liberals and conservatives, not pro- and anti-vax.