Bad Scientists
Posted by Jeni in Ad Infinitum | 5 February 2009
I thank those of you who have sent me information about sites that may be of use to me.
I thank the Bad Scientist for being just that. Sarcasm doesn't shift peoples opinions. Making another person feel small because they don't have a Bad Science degree and then nit-picking over semantics is not the answer either.
I care about humanity my way, and you Bad Scientist yours.
To all of you Bad scientists, who are SO angry with me, good luck with your research. Should you fall ill I will attend you as best I can with my motherly love. Should I fall ill, as a non paid up member of your club, will you administer to me? And should I refuse your drugs then what?
Comments
Doctors will treat whoever it put in front of them, and with treatments that have been scientifically proven to work. Modern medicine is a marvel, it really is. I don't really follow why you wouldn't want to be given a proven cure if you were ill.
Sarcasm doesnt shift opinion, you are quite right, however facts and evidence should and Bad science's point is that you clearly show no understanding of the facts of the matter, yet still feel able to offer an opinion, an opinion that reaches numerous people. It is a sad fact that people will believe without questioning, and the media has a moral responsibility to realise and understand this.
Please, please read his book, or just the chapter on MMR jabs, and understand the facts
Hello there.
I'm very sad to see that you have chosen to parody those who have engaged in discussion with you, rather than take some time to give the subject some new thought.
Certainly Mr Goldacre has not been as courteous toward you as perhaps he could be, (perhaps someone in his position would consider that a person endangering children without evidence or education possibly bypasses his need for manners) but I don't think that gives you cause to ignore everything that he says.
Having read through the comments on your previous post, I was delighted that so many people who clearly so strongly disagree with you communicated with you in a mature and reasonable fashion. It seems a grotesque disservice to those people for you to now call them names, and rather astonishingly insinuate they might leave you to suffer because you disagree with them.
I am confused by your dismissal of people with an education. As if their having a degree, and having studied the subjects on which you challenge them, was all done in order that they could bully you. By demonstrating one's qualifications, they are not attempting to make you feel small, but rather to make it clear that their input is informed.
I wonder if you could put yourself in their shoes for a moment? From their perspective, and from that of those willing to read and learn from academic, non-partisan research, you are promoting a view that endangers the lives of children. (Just as you see them as baddies, because you think they are promoting a vaccine that you say causes harm to children.) The anger you feel toward them - they feel the same. You have that in common with them.
Should you fall ill and refuse the drugs that would heal you, what would you like them to do? I think standing by and watching you die from your own obstinate ignorance would be the most awful thing imaginable for them, knowing that were you only to accept their advice you would live.
I wonder, could you stop considering this an attack, or a debate in which two sides are competing, and instead take this as an opportunity to reconsider your position with a wealth of new evidence and opinion. You may well reach the very same position you currently hold, or you might find you change your mind. But I ask that you at least be so humble as to try.
Many thanks.
Good luck to you in your delusional world. Motherly love cures everything! I wish.
I am glad that you recognise that you didn't have the facts to hand when you made your remarks, and it's very good to hear that you've been reading up on the story, but the time to do that would have been before you broadcast a very old discredited scare story to Londoners. Please consider setting the facts straight on air.
You obviously have got no clue about science. Why do you still think you have any right to express your uninformed opinions about things that might endanger many people's lives? Being that irresponsible in a public position like yours is inexcusable.
Who's laying in the guilt trip now?
Dear Jeni,
Please PLEASE do at least a little research. Read the papers people have suggested to you, try and gain a balanced and fair view. If you do not, you run the risk of being very embarrassed and losing all respect you've earned yourself as radio presenter, and mother.
I am 19 years old, studying at university, and was until quite recently actually completely unaware of the full scale of the MMR hype. I can honestly say that what's gone on in the past few years is a tragedy for journalism, and for science in the public eye. The way the whole story was handles was incredibly unprofessional. People were deciphering data above their station, and then producing scare-mongering stories that have endangered much of a whole generation's health.You readily admit you ARE NOT A SCIENTIST, yet you boom and shout at individuals who do practice science on your radio show, thinking that the loudest voice is the most correct.
All you are doing is confusing your listeners, and increasing the black cloud hanging over science in the public eye (caused by ignorant journalists and people with "influence". May I remind you that, were it not for modern vaccines, people would be dying from diseases that have been successfully wiped out by these "evil jabs"
I am proud that I have been vaccinated. I live in the knowledge that I am not contributing to the lowered herd immunity of the UK (which is as low as 60% in parts of London!) that is going to lead to a much higher incidence of fatal measles in this country. If I were in your position, I would swallow my misplaced pride in such a irresponsible decision and look at the facts that stare you in the face. Your opinion is held quite highly, it has become clear. But for what reason, I don't know.
I sincerely hope that, in 40 years, I am still able to think rationally and make informed decisions regarding scientific matters, as you clearly are not.
Holly.
Hi there,
I feel very strongly that patients should be free to decline medical treatment if they wish. Ideally if it was a serious medical problem, and you felt able to listen, a doctor would have made a good attempt to explain what is known about the risks and benefits of each option.
I am however concerned – along with a great many others - that your recent hour-long campaigning broadcast against the MMR vaccine was thoughtless, misleading, ill-informed, and irresponsible.
I also think it’s enormously inappropriate, I’m afraid, that you describe a polite and informed nurse as “vicious” on your website, in your previous blog post, simply because she called into your show and disagreed with you. She does not have your wealth, she is not a TV or radio presenter, she does not have your platform, and she does not have your legal team. She was clearly not “vicious”, as anybody listening to the audio would be able to tell for themselves. I believe you owe this listener an apology.
Most of all I think it’s regrettable that your company, LBC and Global Audio, have now used legal threats to make me take down the audio excerpt in question, so that it can no longer freely be heard. I have spent a great deal of my time, both writing, and in other activities, in supporting free and open access for the public to medical and scientific information and literature. Yours was a broadcast on the public airwaves, and a review of it, and discussion about it, was important and informative.
If you really felt that access to information was important, and that debates were worth having, I think you would encourage your legal team to reconsider, and simply give permission for this clip to be made freely available, in the public domain, in full, as it was broadcast, so that it can be widely heard, understood, and discussed.
all the best,
Ben Goldacre
www.badscience.net
Lovely Jeni
I am not a scientist good or bad but should you fall ill I would administer to you!
Much Love Marmite xx
Why not put the audio up on your own site. Surely you are not ashamed of the material?
So, Jeni, you're giving everyone the choice between modern medicine and your "motherly love"?
If I get ill with, say, a heart attack, what good will your motherly love be to me versus, say, clotbusting drugs? If I decide that a big hug might just unblock my coronary arteries, does it matter that you aren't actually my mother?
Or if I get a slow-growing cancer in the skin which I could have cut out, are you advocating instead that I come to you for a cup of cocoa because you're a mother and make really terrific cocoa?
I don't think you have to be a fully-paid up member of any club to realise just how stupid your trying to set up "motherly love" against medical science is. Just admit you were wrong, apologise, and move on already. If you aren't willing to do that, at least stop complaining about the debate continuing to grow "like a fungus".
Incidentally, the show is still available on the internet, although no longer on Bad Science. I have linked to it as "my" website, although it isn't.
I think Marmite spoke for very many of us who love you Jeni x
Jeni - I thought you would be interested in this, the article is very anti Wakefield but most of the remarks support him.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4837798.ece
An interesting read indeed, but anyway, what do you know and how dare you have an opinion about anything!! Fee xx
Ben Goldacre was not trying to make you "feel small", he did not criticize you for not having "a Bad Science degree" and he did not nit-pick over semantics. What he did was to point out the ludicrous claims you made on air, and I applaud him for it. You seriously need to consider the possibility that you are misinformed about MMR-vaccines, and that your comments on your show were irresponsible and possibly harmful.
Hi Jeni!
Gosh, it's quite a storm that's been kicked up here, you must feel like hiding under the duvet sometimes.
What you have to realise is that this science lot think about things in a different way (I work around them, so I know.) They really aren't bad people, but for them logic and facts are more important than instinct and feelings. Science has its place, but it does mean that they will attack someone that they think has 'bad logic', not realising that they're really hurting that person or dismissing their fears as a mother.
But MMR is a really important issue and you and the 'bad science' lot need to keep talking about it and try to make some progress rather than just taking potshots at each other. Here's a suggestion - they agree to stop accusing you of being selfish and ignorant, while you agree to assume that they are honestly trying to improve everyone's health in their own way.
Then perhaps the discussion can achieve something - as I said, it's too important to let it end up with everyone just sniping at each other from their blogs.
Take care,
Penny
Dear Jeni,
I feel enough has been written about MMR and I'm sure we are all now more aware than we were a few days ago. Back to the lighter side of your Blog (that's really why I visit this site) Do you remember the fine you received on 5th January for your abusive behavour? I suggested increasing the fine to £50.00? Just think what you could do with £5K!!
Have a great weekend and thank you for being true to your self and a decent human being.
Hymie xx
Jeni
Ben Goldacre has steadfastly refused to address issues I have raised about his abuse of epidemiology in his GSK award winning article 'Never mind the facts' over a period of years.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7618/480
He is evidently just too full of himself, and far far too important.
His dad, by the way, is professor of public health at Oxford.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldacre
Something which was not published for many years.
John S
Just poppeed into this blog, never having read it before.
I do follow the very well-informed work of Ben Goldacre though on a regular basis.
As the mood in this thread shifts towards one of reconciliation and mutual respect, how about we patch things up. First of all I propose that Jenni (as a responsible broadcaster) makes an appointment at the local medical school to discuss some of the issues around vaccinations and look at some of the evidence with qualified professionals. Then the two of you can sit down and discuss the facts from a lay person's point of view and put out some really good advice for parents.
The fact that a doctor advises one to give one's kids a vaccine should not be accepted withoiut question, but the fact that every doctor is giving every mother the same advice should definitely provide the basis for a very strong case indeed.
Hmmm... When I'm wrong, I grit my teeth and humbly acknowledge that I was wrong.
I struggle to understand why it is that you prefer to describe those who follow the advice of the knowledgeable as "sheep", "cows" and members of "the herd" while also acknowledging that you do not know the facts.
It appears to me that you actually do not want to know the facts since you prefer to follow and, dangerously, to promulgate the advice of those whose statements are so easily rebutted.
There may often be two sides (sometimes more) to an argument. In many cases, only one of those sides is correct.
As Ben points out in his book vaccine scares obey passport control. The MMR hoax is largely unheard of outside of the UK, just as the hepatitis B scare was unheard of outside France, (Incidentally I recommend Ben's book - "Bad Science" - damn good read and you learn a lot.) Why is this? Could it be that that is precisely what they are - hoaxes?
Your child will probably not die of measles, mumps or rubella. The risk, however, is substantially greater for your child than it is for a vaccinated child.
Motherly love cannot trump this scientific fact.
Oh dear... only one in fifteen people die from car accidents lets remove all the zebra crossings as a waste of money. Moron.
"Sarcasm doesn't shift peoples opinions... Should you fall ill I will attend you as best I can with my motherly love. Should I fall ill, as a non paid up member of your club, will you administer to me? And should I refuse your drugs then what?"
For someone who decries sarcasm you use an awful lot of it, and in practically the same breath as your condemnation of it. I sense a consistency issue.
Jeni,
You must understand that what you're experiencing- this adversarial form of attack and defence- is the very basis of how Good Science works. When someone makes an assertion, especially a very significant one, it must be supported by the evidence. If the evidence is weak, we attack. From the conflict emerges the truth.
I'm saddened that you feel victimised and you must know that none of us wishes any harm upon you. But as we see it, the MMR scare is a hoax and has been perpetuated by people who value anecdote over evidence. We wish you well, but we cannot allow harmful myths to spread when good evidence refuted them so many years ago.
I would invite you to obtain and read the research papers. From across the world, from both sides of the debate. It is not difficult and I think it will surprise you.
As a (non-medical) scientist, I am not angry with you, but I am very upset that by disseminating your personal anti-vaccine views widely, you are promoting a course of action that harms children's health.
Overall, vaccines save an awful lot of lives.
Please remember that people on the other side of the debate also feel strongly about children's health and that is why they are so concerned at the matter. They are not anti-you per se, but they believe, on the strength of good evidence, that you are putting children at risk.
This incident has become well known on the American side of the pond, as well as the European side. Attempting to suppress the video by attacking Mr Goldacre with rabid lawyers will neither help your reputation, nor prevent the world from knowing what you said in that video.
Of course given what you did say, I don't see how you can really have a reputation worth trying to save anyway.
Shame on you, your lawyers, and all the members of the media, both in my home country and abroad, who irresponsibly and blatantly perpetuate the MMR hoax and lies regarding vaccination.
al
Is that the same motherly love that smothers and suffocates while divesting the victim of all their independence and individuality?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7872541.stm:
Dr Peter Strebel, an immunisation expert at the WHO, stressed that even in countries with good health services, measles could be very serious.
"Parents and doctors need to be reminded that measles is a highly contagious disease," he said. "Even healthy and well-nourished children, if unvaccinated, are at risk of measles and its complications such as pneumonia, encephalitis and, although rare, death."
Contrast this with Jeni's opinion from the broadcast:
“if its viral, and childrens immune systems are strong whats the problem?”
Well the problem is that if more and more people aren't immunized herd immunity suffers and the herd, or country is at greater risk of an epidemic. Just in case you get the wrong end of the stick with it, and happily copied from Wikipedia, where you can also read about what those diseases do (Rubella looks nasty):
Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a type of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a portion of the population (or herd) provides protection to unprotected individuals. Herd immunity theory proposes that, in diseases passed from person-to-person, it is more difficult to maintain a chain of infection when large numbers of a population are immune. The more immune individuals present in a population, the lower the likelihood that a susceptible person will come into contact with an infected individual.
So it's not so much your own children, but potentially other people's children and adults that could suffer if any of these disease spreads to them. Food for thought I think.
Hmmmm.
All the motherly love didn't save the child of the AIDS denialist Christine Maggiore.
She outlived her child who died aged 3. Christine refused to take antiretrovirals which may have prevented the infection and death of her child.
Unless of course you don't believe HIV causes AIDS
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/hivaids_denialist_celia_farber_weighs_on.php
Evidence based research isn't built up by evil pharmaceutical firms. Its done by poorly paid PhD and postdoc students like me who actually do it to help society.
So whatever woo you happen to believe, don't take it out on your child.
It would be interesting to know the effects of your radio show and vaccination and infection rates from measles.
Paula Thomas wrote "The MMR hoax is largely unheard of outside of the UK,"
Perhaps because the MMR has been used in the USA since 1971 (the same one that has been used in the UK since 1992). The whole silliness was propagated by a UK researcher who was paid by lawyers to come up with specific results to support a lawsuit (I believe that "researcher" has moved to Texas, and is not allowed to practice medicine).
You can read about in this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Autisms-False-Prophets-Science-Medicine/dp/0231146361/ (there is an interesting paragraph when someone surmises that it was not a good idea to let lawyers direct medical research)
Perhaps, Jeni, when your children are old enough you will read them books by Roald Dahl. When you do, look up what happened to his oldest daughter. How would your "motherly love" have handled what happened to Olivia?
Hi Jeni,
You, a person your audience likes and trusts have gone on air to advocate not vaccinating children. You've done this without researching the subject first, and it certainly appears that you still have not done so.
Your position seems to be that the effects of the MMR vaccine should be studied further, so I'll ask the obvious question: after how much research would you accept that this vaccine is indeed something we should give to our children? We're past the point of overwhelming evidence, could we ever reach a point where your attitude would not be "can't be sure, needs more study"?
My second question is this - a large percentage of the population not vaccinating is bad for our children. If as a society we don't vaccinate then children will die. Do you really have trouble seeing how this could anger people? Just how little would scientists have to care for children dying of something preventable not to get them worked up? Is it really hard to see that this isn't about you at all?
Nice one Jenni. While herd immunity disappears there are kids who cannot tolerate innoculations who are exposed to more diseases because of pseudo-scientific, anecdote-based opinions.
With Ross, Brand, Clarkson and Thatcher being hauled over the coals because of insulting remarks, you step in with opinions with real potential to cause physical harm. It's lucky your radio show isn't on the BBC.
On the pro-innoculation side there is evidence. On the other side - yours - there is just anecdote.
I note that the caller (I heard that show on one of the many mirror sites that have sprung into being since your attack on Dr Goldacre) whom you praised went on a short course about innoculations - run by a homeopath! That just says it all. Find me a homeopath who has cured measles or mumps or rubella.
And now your lawyer attack dogs go after Dr Goldacre because, sarcasm aside, he has exposed the weakness of your point of view.
It doesn't look good.
Look at what you and your ilk have managed to achieve:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7872541.stm
Whenever a child dies of measles it will remind me of you
I wonder that you haven't answered any of the specific points made in the previous comment thread. In particular the dichotomy you set up: "I did not have the facts to hand. Was I ill informed? Yes.As a responsible broadcaster I should have been better prepared as a parent, however, I can fight my corner." Do you honestly believe that being a parent gives you a right to spread self-confessed ill-informed opinion, but does not give you a much more important duty to inform yourself of the facts before making an incredibly important decision?
Look Jeni, Ben Goldacre is a good man. He doesn't have anywhere near the wealth that you have, so why do you suppose that he is so passionate about bad medical practice and information? Have you even considered this?
Nobody wants to hurt you, and I can understand that this has perhaps spiraled out of control, but you've already condemned yourself by admitting that, basically, you have no idea what you are talking about.
One only has to look at the history of propaganda — particularly in the United States — on almost every issue that you can think of — from the teaching of evolution, to AIDS and global warming denial — to understand that it is almost trivially easy to fool millions of people in to thinking that there really is a controversy, or at the very least, to spread enough doubt.
This is a serious business, Jeni. Measles cases in England and Wales rose by 36% in 2008. That places everyone's children in danger. And why? Because a since discredited study was picked up by every crank and crackpot (I'm sorry, but that is what they are), and it spread like wildfire.
You have a unique opportunity to do what's right — inform yourself on this issue, and play a role in helping to protect millions of children. The other option is to believe that people, like myself, who gain absolutely nothing from seeing children immunized — apart from the satisfaction of knowing that innocent lives are being saved — are really out to cause harm.
It's your choice, Jeni.
From the BBC link:
Professor David Salisbury, director of immunisation at the Department of Health, said it was "irresponsible" for parents not to have their children vaccinated.
He said: "I think it's irrational, I think it's putting children's lives at risk. I can see no shred of benefit.
"There is no evidence that having vaccines separately is better. There are good reasons why it's worse."
Hi Jeni,
I'm writing from Australia, and heard the broadcast via Bad Science. The contradictions in your broadcast are numerous. Science reaches a consensus based on evidence. Dogma does not. You seem to ignore all of the new information provided by callers, some of which YOU requested, in order to maintain your position on vaccines. Please take the time to review the information offered to you. If you look at the facts, dispassionately, I hope you'll be able to use your position as a popular broadcaster more responsibly.
Thanks and best wishes,
Matt
Jeni.
I realise many people have posted websites for you to look at but perhaps this may also be of interest.
To understand why people like Ben Goldacre get passionate about scientific missinformation you should read the cases on here:
http://whatstheharm.net/
Many of these people were mothers just like you who thought they knew what was best.
your ignorance is staggering and dangerous. please think about the effects of your ill-informed opinions.
Your responsibility as a parent is precisely to inform yourself of the facts about your child's health. Anything else is irresponsible.
Hi Jeni,
You seem like you're probably a nice person, who genuinely thinks they're doing good.
You certainly have a rare privilege -- a large platform to express your views in the public square.
I expect a lot of the criticsm in these comments the last few days has hurt your pride. How could it not?
It would take a big person indeed to take these criticisms, swallow their pride, do a bit of reading, and then use their public platform to do some genuine good for the world.
I would enormously respect that person.
Thanks.
You should be removed from the airwaves, and your station fined for broadcasting dangerous information, putting lives at risk. You're as dangerous as someone who shoots into a crowd.
Critical thinking is a big challenge for everyone. At the heart of this matter are these simple facts:
Some children who receive the MMR vaccine have autism.
Some children who do not receive the MMR vaccine have autism.
Having the MMR vaccine bears no relationship with which child has autism and does not increase the chances of autism. It is a classic example of a false association.
In the current climate where people seem inherently suspicious of pharmaceuticals it seems plausible that MMR might be bad - it's a gut feeling for those who immerse themselves in the modern media with a level of trust for its authority.
Gut feelings are unfortunately often wrong even when the feel really really right.
As a great scientist once said when asked what his gut feeling was on an issue:
"I try not to think with my gut".
Not the brightest star in the firmament are you? I will honestly defend your right to choose how to raise your children in any way you see fit to the death. However when your choices impinge upon the health and welfare of my children, then we are bound to fall out. You are wrong in so many ways, arrogant and wrong. I really hope for your sake you are never forced to find out how wrong.
Why don't you just own up to being wrong. Being a better mother than Ben isn't really an excuse. He exhibits far more love for his fellow humans than you do. You would prefer them to suffer. Have you seen today's figures on measle cases going up?
Jeni,
Much has already been written about how you pushed your personal, unqualified opinion on the show in an hysterical, arrogant and ignorant manner.
One of the many things you should be ashamed of is doing your job badly. Yes, you are bad at your job.
As a broadcaster, you should have facilitated a balanced debate. You failed to do this. Your professional credibility is in tatters.
Ian.
Can we look at child health in a little more perspective?
4,000 people die on the roads..
I am outraged at road death, and watch my children and drive carefully. How many of you outraged at Jeni for her views have ever speeded or used a mobile while driving?
More than 100 children die of Asthma and studies show that Asthma risk is doubled in the child who is vaccinated at 2 months compared to 4 months.
Where are the studies which compare the overall health of the un vaccinated to the vaccinated? Where are the studies which look at cohorts who are more susceptible to vaccine damage?
In the US Hannah Poling's Autism was put down to a predisposition and vaccines and was paid $6. Have not heard? What is happening to our news?
It seems that 'science' does not want vaccines to undergo such scrutiny for fear of damaging the immunization program.
MEDICINE AND HEALTH ARE NOT EXACT SCIENCES. Iatrogenic death (medical and drug error) are one of the leading causes of death in the US.
Don't be fearful, be informed. If a child is healthy they are far less likely to catch measles, for example. Vit A deficiency is found in the majority of measles cases and the WHO gives Vit A now with many of its measles vaccines and Vit A treatment cuts deaths by 50%.
Anna
www.arnica.org.uk
Jeni, I used to listen to your show, but I'm afraid this threat of legal action against Mr Goldacre has really shocked me. You speak on your blog about continuing the debate, but then use legal means to silence your critics. Totally unacceptable and wrong. I wont listen to your show anymore.
so jeni... why is ben goldacre a bad scientist? because he doesn't agree with your gut feeling? he makes you feel small because in science you are small. you have no clue. being a mother doesn't give you any authority on how the human body works.
standing apart from the herd can mean 2 things: either you know more than the herd, or you know less. while you try to give the impression that you know more (the 'big pharma' conspiracy), your words show that you probably know far less than the herd.
Ignorant foolish person should be ashamed. Afraid of a real debate because you know you are just full of crap. You should indeed be ashamed.
Anna of Arnica,
Where are the studies which compare the overall health of the un vaccinated to the vaccinated? Where are the studies which look at cohorts who are more susceptible to vaccine damage?
Well, here's a start.
Now a huge study in Denmark, based on records of 800,000 children, has demolished such notions. The researchers found that MMR-vaccinated children were 25% less likely to be hospitalised with asthma than non-vaccinated children, and were also prescribed fewer courses of anti-asthma medicine.
What is all the hoo-ha about measles anyway? Of the cases that have occurred in the last 12 months IN THE UK-
Exactly HOW MANY have died?
Exactly HOW MANY have had the complications?
Let's have some facts rather than the usual emotional knee-jerk reactions.
I think you should consider taking legal advice about the action taken by LBC's lawyers. That one threat to Goldacre has completely ruined your reputation online.
Anna of Arnica: $6 doesn't sound very much.
But more seriously, the trials you want to know about have been done, at least for the MMR vaccine. A lot of the information is here:
http://mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/index.php
And one of the studies is here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/322/7279/129/b
Regards
Tom
@Anna of Arnica
"studies show that Asthma risk is doubled in the child who is vaccinated at 2 months compared to 4 months"
Got a link?
I think it's probably important not to let the discussion be confused by LBC's legal action. I doubt very much that Jeni Barnett has anything to do with that. It is much more likely the act of the station wishing to exert its rights over the material (a necessity of our unimaginably awful copyright laws), and perhaps management wanting to prevent this debate from hitching a ride on the various BBC scandals (although which newspaper is going to run with this story, and therefore tacitly acknowledge the part they played in propagating the scam?). It seems unlikely that Ms Barnett would be involved in this.
Instead it seems more important to focus on the consensus from the many polite and reasoned comments above (as opposed to those who have just called her names): that there is a great desire for Ms Barnett to acknowledge that her actions were irresponsible, and potentially extremely dangerous, and take the time to read the data and information from none woo-woo sources. And ideally, I think, to demonstrate enormous grace and humility by acknowledging her error on air, and attempting to undo some of the possible harm.
Perhaps the timing of today's frightening figures on the increasing rates of measles is fortunate. It gives the debate a tangible manifestation of the consequences, in stark contrast to the sadly misinformed anecdotal stories. Perhaps this, along with the wealth of information and education being offered here, will convince a few people to change their minds and make the right decision.
There seems little cause for a witch hunt, or an escalating collection of accusations and insinuations. Unfortunately, based on the evidence in the post above all these comments, such behaviour is likely to give Ms Barnett cause to parody and dismiss the vast majority of contributors. I very much hope that this will not be the case, and that we can look forward to praising our host for her brave and honourable choice to re-examine the facts.
Many thank.
PM Anna: "What is all the hoo-ha about measles anyway? Of the cases that have occurred in the last 12 months IN THE UK-
Exactly HOW MANY have died?
Exactly HOW MANY have had the complications?
Let's have some facts rather than the usual emotional knee-jerk reactions."
So you'd like to see some new deaths BEFORE we accept that a safe vaccine, known to reduce mortality and illness, is necessary?
The death rate from measles for people in developed countries is 3 deaths per thousand cases. In immunocompromised people the fatality rate is more like 30%. Worldwide this results in about 300,000 deaths annually. Prior to The Measles Initiative, the worldwide death rate was around 1 million annually.
Following the MMR scare in the UK and Ireland, measles infection rates have increased continuously (except for 2 years) and it appears that this is accelerating.
The 2000 outbreak in Ireland caused 1500 cases and 3 deaths.
In 2006 there was one death and two cases of brain damage caused by measles encephalitis in the UK.
In 2008 there was at least one death in the UK.
The rate of infection is increasing, so we can expect perhaps 3 deaths this year and if we are unlucky, that will increase in 2010.
The current confirmed death count due to MMR vaccinations in healthy children stands at 0.
The current confirmed count of brain damage or developmental impairment cases due to MMR stands at 0.
Ms Barnett,
It would really be in the best interests of your reputation and celebrity status that you do not pursue a discussion about whether kids in this country should be vaccinated or not, and to not use your airtime on radio to promote your non-confounded views on vaccination, and other healthcare issues for that matter. It is bound to backfire when you punch that far over your own weight.
There are people out there who respects you for who you are and what you do, so dole out advice on issues like healthy eating, exercise, and smoking. People listen and as such that puts a responsibility on your shoulders when you talk. Take that responsibility seriously.
I'm not an expert.
This is exactly the problem with dogmatic anti-science women like you and Mad Mel Phillips...
One thing that many people on the science side don't appreciate is just how much vaccines go against people's common sense.
There are a few basic intuitions about nature that seem to be hard-wired into people at a very basic level. Vaccines violate two of them: (1) Contagion, since the vaccine is made of something "bad" (2) Body Integrity, since you're putting something from the outside into your body by sticking a needle in your skin.
So scares on vaccines are starting with two strikes to their credit. I can get that, even though for myself I've got science education coming out of my ears, and am happily giving my own dearly-loved baby daughter every vaccine going - despite all that I am prepared to agree that there is something very counter-intuitive and a little unsettling about vaccines. That doesn't mean that vaccines are bad, just that people are often going to be a bit funny about them and that this doesn't mean they are stupid.
So a plea to those on the science side - don't assume people are stupid because they are suspicious of vaccines. Try to keep the arguments straight, and stay polite. You'll get more converts that way.
'The 2000 outbreak in Ireland caused 1500 cases and 3 deaths.
The 2000 outbreak in Ireland caused 1500 cases and 3 deaths.
In 2006 there was one death and two cases of brain damage caused by measles encephalitis in the UK.
In 2008 there was at least one death in the UK.'
Links please?
'The current confirmed death count due to MMR vaccinations in healthy children stands at 0.
The current confirmed count of brain damage or developmental impairment cases due to MMR stands at 0.'
The medical profession doesn't/can't/won't accept MMR as being the causation of any adverse event EVER. As the current GMC proceedings prove.
I'm sure you have good intentions. I used to really like you when you were on tvam. It's a shame you've got yourself into such a pickle over this. I'm afraid you really are badly informed about this but I suppose it's difficult for people to back down and admit that they're wrong. I hope you can sort this all out but you may have to eat a little humble pie to do so. Love from Valpy
The GMC evidence is in. It appears that some of the data from Wakefield et al 1998 was falsified or altered.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece
Given that the study was barely useful to the anti-MMR position as it was, I think it can be quite neatly binned as totally worthless now.
The Daily Mail will doubtless remain the only newspaper to continue referencing it.
And, on top of all of that, The Times informs us that Wakefield faked his data.
I think Jeni is an astounding broadcaster. Here, she screwed up badly. But the evil person in all this is undoubtedly Wakefield. Without him, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Well this is a PR meltdown.
I'm from the other side of the planet, but I can still see the glow on the horizon.
I guess you're famous now for all the wrong reasons. With fame comes responsibility.
Here is the link for the asthma comparing vaccine status
http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/asthma3.html
And in the hundreds of children that I know who are unvaccinated asthma, very very few are astmatic. (I run a parent network for natural immunity)
However, the real issue here is the polarity between beliefs between people - experiences and background mean that some are all for medical intervention and others, the minority, are more interested in the strength of our own NAtural Immunity.
Iatrogenic death is one of the leading causes of death in the US, although of course most of the families I know would not deny that medicine will save your life and would always take a balanced view on intervention if we were very sick.
But what we are saying is that the healthy are less likely to get diseased and less likely to experience complications if we do. And the increasing number of highly toxic vaccines are given to otherwise healthy babies in the western world in questionable.
Our other concern is that vaccination are done safely. Certain cohorts of children are more likely to suffer adverse reactions - Hannah Poling received £6 million dollars. And if a child is unwell or has suffered fits or had adverse reactions with previous vaccines etc, we should be researching this and supporting them, rather than taking any suggestion that vaccines are not 'God' in the medical world, as heresy.
See http://www.arnica.org.uk/27801/17401.html
for ideas for reducing suffering from vaccines
As for Andrew Wakefield, forgetting his 'input', if vaccines were really safe and effective then we would not be having this conversation.
Anna:
Links for uk deaths:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814
and Ireland
http://www.immunisation.ie/en/Downloads/PDFFile_15185_en.pdf about half way through
John Stone wrote " Ben Goldacre has steadfastly refused to address issues I have raised about his abuse of epidemiology in his GSK award winning article 'Never mind the facts' over a period of years."
John, you surely meant to write that Ben has steadfastly REFUTED all the issues you have raised? But then again given the dreadful content of your woeful website I guess you have deluded yourself that Ben didn't refute the issues you raised. I urge other readers to follow the link so helpfully provided by John to explore his lies, distortions, half baked (no make that fully baked) conspiracy theories, general hokum, balderdash and logical fallacies that pass for reasoned argument in his alternative universe.
While I'm on the subject of John's alternative universe, I note he raises the issue of Ben's father's academic background. As if the fact of Goldacre pere's backround in public health somehow invalidates the science that demonstrates absolutely no causal link between MMR and autism.
But hang on, perhaps in John's universe, like our own, DNA does play some part in influencing offspring. Mental impairment often has an hereditary element. What is your father's background John, I think we should be told?
Anna, can you please link to the actual evidence that supports your claim that "studies show that Asthma risk is doubled in the child who is vaccinated at 2 months compared to 4 months."
The link you gave, apart from being a source of incredible wrongness, doesn't provide the studies you refer to. It says:
"Michel Odent found the frequency of asthma in a group of fully vaccinated children to be 11%, while a 1997 NZ study found 23%. Both found the frequency in the unvaccinated children to be only 0 – 1%."
The references, rather bizarrely, aren't the actual studies but page numbers in journals:
JAMA 1994;272 (8): pgs 592-3, and Lancet 1994:344:140.
21 Epidemiology 1997 Nov 8:6 678-80
Very odd, it's almost as if they don't want people to access the source material!
Dear Jeni,
I'm a listener of LBC - and I heard your rant on MMR vaccines.
There's absolutely no evidence that they do any damage. It's just gossip and hearsay which has damaged the reputation of the vaccine; and it has resulted in more measles and mumps infections.
By stoking the fires of these rumours, you are partly responsible for the rise of infection. You can emotively call this a "witch-hunt" all you wish, but it is a fact of personal responsibility.
Please do not insult scientists and those who are educated in medicine after your argument falls flat.
A flowery sentence of "motherly love" does nothing to help those who are suffering from mumps due to irresponsible journalism telling them that the vaccine is dangerous.
I seriously doubt you will be spending your weekends nursing those who are suffering from diseases after being told the vaccination is dangerous. Whereas scientists will doubtlessly be spending their weekends and weekdays trying to cure illnesses with logic and reason. So please keep the second-rate paranoid rhetoric to yourself.
Thank you.
Anna,
you repeatedly state that "iatrogenic death is one of the leading causes of death in the US".
Really? So doctors and medication kill similar numbers to cancer, heart disease and trauma? Or are you implying something different?
Most can see that you are a liar simply trying to make money by selling snake oil to scared people. Otherwise you wouldn't advertise a link to a commercial website...
Anna/Seany
The NZ study is referred to here:
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:9345669 and rebutted here
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7177/193/a (free registration required)
On the BMJ site you can also read the much larger, Bristol study, showing no link between vaccination & asthma. It's free and it's here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7445/925
Over to you, Anna...
Jeni,
I've always found you to be an agreeable presence on my television screen, from watching you on TV-am when I was a child to watching Good Food Live in recent years (where you warmed the heart of one of Britain's fiercest critics, Victor Lewis-Smith).
However I do think this MMR business isn't your finest hour.
Conspiracy theorists may think that Ben Goldacre and his supporters are agents of "big pharma" trying to silence the influence of the quaint practitioners of homeopathy, aromatherapy and nutritionism. This is quite wrong. "Big pharma" LOVES homeopathy. It can press tablets, put them in fancy packaging and market them without any of the rigorous controls they must comply with when developing and selling conventional medicines. Who owns the makers of homeopathic remedies? Who owns the makers of dietary supplements? And who owns the chains of health food shops?
Let's not misrepresent Ben Goldacre here. I've read "Bad Science" and I think you'll find you have a lot more common ground than you might imagine. He is as critical of "big pharma"'s attempts to widen the market for SSRIs by medicalizing personality traits such as shyness, as he is of the pseudo-scientific claims of homeopaths and nutritionists.
He's all for people eating a healthy, nutritious diet. He is against processed food. Just like you, Jeni.
Yours,
James
There's a new movie from the 'House of Bad-Science' doing the rounds of British cinemas.
It's a real horror. I wouldn't go and see it, Jeni.
I've just listened to your programme and feel that your attempt to persuade people, via a privileged position, that life-saving immunisations are not what they appear, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is nothing short of irresponsible and dangerous.
As you are broadcast on a medium which many people will take notice of (rightly or wrongly),you have a duty of care to your listeners.
I hope your comments were made simply out of ignorance, and not malicious contrariness.
Seany,
To be fair to Anna, I don't have any difficulty finding the journal articles referred to. For instance, the Epidemiology article is titled "Is Infant Immunization a Risk Factor for Childhood Asthma or Allergy?" and is by Kemp et al.
Hi Jeni
We all have the right to our opinions right or wrong.
It's the delight of living in the west.
We are all blasted with ideas from the the powers that be
who want us to believe right or wrong.
Some of us choose to think twice before believing what in a sense is handed to us on a platter.
For that you have to take some flack.
But for all the "science" people to say that you have done harm etc, is to say the least small minded.
Their Example " You make people choose to not have their children have their jabs."
Well on the same theme "You may have made people decide to have their children have their jabs, after hearing you"
Which ever the more people debate things, and just not beleive what the powers that be feed them, th World will become a better place.
Christian
It comes down to this. If you talk conspiracy theory about JFK, the Moon Landings or the Da Vinci Code, that's all well and good. No real harm done.
If you do it about MMR you can contribute to irrational action that keeps a significant group of children non-immunised, which can spread a disease that will kill a number.
That's it, basically.
Ms. Barnett,
Your uninformed views about the MMR vaccine have had at least one positive effect. Despite the legal attempts to block dissemination of the programme by Mr. Goldacre it can easily be found and listened to. It may become an iconic example of how lack of understanding and proper research can lead to the improper dissemination of ideas that may actually cause harm. I would never have heard of you if your legal department had not become involved. My first impressions are not favourable. Please consider learning more about a topic before misleading others.
from Canada
As politely as possible: you are wrong this time. Your opinions could do real damage. I think you have acted irresponsibly.
@Anna Arnica
Does Hannah Poling have autism? I thought she had a mitochondrial disorder and that it was only a matter of time before something set it off.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.chopstixmedia.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/913