Dispatches - MMR on Channel 4

[richardm]

Don't know if you've seen the trailers for this, but just in case: What they didn't tell you about MMR during the scare (http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/M/mmr/) ; Thursday 18th November at 21:00.

What we weren't told in the opinion of the Dispatches team I don't know, but they're usually pretty on-the-ball, so it might be good viewing.

[Rolfe]

Look also at this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48648). It's discussing the article in last weekend's Sunday Times which accompanies the TV programme. (It says, a joint investigation between the Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches.)

Judging by the Sunday Times stuff, Wakefield is in for a right good pasting. I also saw a small article in yesterday's Daily Mirror (don't ask!), saying that it appeared that there had never been any evidence that MMR caused autism in the first place!

Rolfe.

[Dragon]

:(
I'll be at work for this, I would like to see Wakefield getting a good pasting.
Never mind, Mrs D will video it for me.


Oh, and Rolfe - why were you reading the Daily Mirror?

[Rolfe]

Which part of "don't ask" don't you understand?

Rolfe.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Which part of "don't ask" don't you understand?

Rolfe. I was expecting an amusing tale involving a lab assistant, a cat and probably a homeopath.

[Eos of the Eons]

I just had to post this really good link:

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism2.htm

Now I'm off to read the others...

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Dragon
I was expecting an amusing tale involving a lab assistant, a cat and probably a homeopath.

I expect she'll have to admit because the daily record isn't in the newsagents down in sassenach land.

And maybe her cat had scratched up her copy of the Daily Sport before she got to it.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Look also at this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48648).

Ah! In fact I nearly appended my link to that thread; if I'd read it more carefully I'd not have bothered because you've already beaten me to it!

I once read a copy of the Daily Mirror by accident. I didn't see any actual news in it, though. Although I suppose this could have been under "TV Review" section ;)

[Rolfe]

Programme was pure dead brilliant. Wakefield left without a leg to stand on. Exposed now as a complete quack selling useless high-priced "supplements" supposed to cure autism except that there's either no evidence that they do or the available evidence says they don't.

I especially liked the bit where Wakefield tried to break the reporter's camera.... Who said "it if ducks like a quack...."?

Hope somebody videoed that for Peter Bowditch.

(Problem was, there was a very well-recommended programme on BBC2 about liver transplants at exactly the same time, might have reduced the viewing figures. That's the reason I have no tape of the MMR programme, as I was taping the liver transplant one while watching Dispatches.)

Rolfe.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Too bad not much is being said here, yet.

The website is great:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm ...

already (and before it aired in the UK) John Scudamore (a net-loon) posted a Wakefield reply on usenet:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&group=misc.health.alternative&selm=cnhtkp%24tj%241%40sparta.btinternet.com

It should be fun to watch the weasels work their way through this.

[richardm]

I must admit I wish this programme could have gone out years ago. To have Wakefield's own lab partner stand up and say that the research they did together did not support what Wakefield was claiming, and add in the conflict of interest with Wakefield's own Wonder Vaccine for measles and I think a lot more people would have been skeptical.

Add in the rest of the stuff about him effectively being a money-grubbing quack (and how often is that directed in our direction by the anti-vaxers?) and I think perhaps the anti-MMR industry might not have such a toehold today.

Sadly, it does have a toehold. I wonder if this is too little, too late? Hope it'll have some effect, anyway.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Can we expect an apology from the Daily Mail school of health-scare journalists, or will they now jump onto an anti-Wakefield band wagon as if the last 6 years had never happened?

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Can we expect an apology from the Daily Mail school of health-scare journalists, or will they now jump onto an anti-Wakefield band wagon as if the last 6 years had never happened?

I'm sticking by this prediction made a while back. Do I get a million dollars if I'm right?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870602606#post1870602606

think the mostly sadly amusing bit will be the inevitable media volte face of "shock, horror, not getting vaccinated is dangerous, why were we NEVER TOLD, we're all going to DIE".

Fortunately most people have incredibly short memories, especially when being spoon-fed sensationalist silliness.

I bet we see lines of parents outside clinics, a national shortage of vaccines, semi-competent tele-journalists inexpertly haranging equally challenged government ministers about the crisis.

I expect to see those self same anti-vax parents covertly trying to get their kids immunised three or four times over in the belief they'll be better protected.

[Drooper]

I am going to disagree.

My prediction: it's a conspiracy.

That is where advocates like these tend to go when the "evidence" of their claim begins to evaporate.

I am curious to see Melanie Phillips' view on all this new information. I expect she will lie doggo.

[anonimouse]

The "Wakefield Scorecard":

-He took money from trial lawyers, and produced a study that conveniently supported the trial laywers' claims.

-He then lied about where he got the children for said study, on more than one occassion.

-He tried to persuade medical leaders not to continue vaccination programs, and then repeatedly lied, saying he never told anyone not to vaccinate children for measles.

-He came up with a patent for a treatment protocol (or vaccine, depending on what you want to call it) that would directly compete with the MMR at the same time he was damning the MMR.

-He got involved with quack doctors in the U.S. who peddle useless autism treatments.

-He claims to be broke, yet seems to have the money to travel the globe spreading the gospel of MMR v. autism.

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. All of it.

That goes WAY beyond any conflict of interest, IMO. Now we're talking about outright fraud, and how anyone cannot see this guy for the quack he is - well, that's just crazy.

Yet mainstream doctors are the bad guys.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by sodakboy93
The "Wakefield Scorecard":
-He tried to persuade medical leaders not to continue vaccination programs, and then repeatedly lied, saying he never told anyone not to vaccinate children for measles.


Do you have evidence for that one? I thought the guy had been quite careful to steer clear of actually coming out and advising people against vaccination. He did seem to try and influence them toward single jab programmes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3513365.stm) but if I recall that seemed to come along late on in the controversy.

I'm sure his motives for that were questionable, but still.

[anonimouse]

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-deer-2.htm

At the Department of Health and in the wider medical establishment, experts were deeply concerned by the reaction to The Lancet study. Yes, the journal had pushed it and yes, officialdom had gained little in the way of public trust after the debate over “mad cow� disease, but Wakefield appeared not so much an objective scientist, more as a man with a mission. He had even written to the department attacking the MMR vaccination before his own research was completed.

“I am writing to you in order to express formally my anxieties over your intention to re-vaccinate all pre-school children,� he wrote on September 6, 1996 to Sir Kenneth Calman, then the government’s chief medical officer. The letter closed with the blunt instruction: “Do not re-vaccinate.�

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Doe anyone else think that Wakefield ought alo to be condemned for the weird haircut he was sporting in 1998? I noticed that American woo money seems to have bought him better hair.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Can we expect an apology from the Daily Mail school of health-scare journalists, or will they now jump onto an anti-Wakefield band wagon as if the last 6 years had never happened? Can we expect an apology from Channel 4 itself for that travesty Hear the Silence?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Can we expect an apology from Channel 4 itself for that travesty Hear the Silence?

Rolfe.

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten about that. With a memory like this I should apply to work on the Daily Mail's medical staff.

[Tanja]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Doe anyone else think that Wakefield ought alo to be condemned for the weird haircut he was sporting in 1998? I noticed that American woo money seems to have bought him better hair.

To comment on this first - I am sure it was a wig.

I also thought that the program was great, but I somehow have doubts that it will influence the opinion of the general public. I am sure that the scare will somehow stay with them.
The problem with people is they do not think in terms of scientific evidence. Most people think that the opinion of their local homeopath or other quack is as valid as the opinion of doctors based on actual scientific evidence, as if it is a free market of ideas which all carry the same weight, and it is completely up to us which one we will choose according to our preferences. People think that in choosing how to cure their illnesses they have numerous equally valid choices, as when they are deciding how to redecorate their apartments.

(Edited to complete my thought)

[Stu]

Hear the Silence was five's doing, not Channel 4.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Tanja
To comment on this first - I am sure it was a wig.


The problem with people is they do not think in terms of scientific evidence. Most people think that the opinion of their local homeopath or other quack is as valid as the opinion of doctors based on actual scientific evidence, as if it is a free market of ideas which all carry the same weight, and it is completely up to us which one we will choose according to our preferences.


Fricken sad, but so true. Heck, I used to think chiros went to the same med schools and had the same training as medical doctors. I thought they were medical doctors. It looks like (on the outside) that that's the case.

So ignorant folks, like I was, just think the sCAM people have some sort of legitimate education. They go to college, afterall.

That is what peaves me to no end. Crap shouldn't be allowed to be "taught", unless it is taught for free since it has no value. It's easy to draw the line here. Crap is not true.

[geni]

Could someone add this to the wikipedia article please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Stu
Hear the Silence was five's doing, not Channel 4. Oh, was it? That might explain why I didn't see it and didn't have any opportunity to see it (C5 dead zone). Sorry for maligning C4.

Rolfe.

[Capsid]

C5 dead zone
Maybe you should consider Freeview (set top boxes are less than £50 now). You'll have to change soon when the UK goes digital anyway.

[JimTheBrit]

Prog's repeated tonight (Ch4, 4.30am) if anyone missed it first time around.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Capsid
Maybe you should consider Freeview (set top boxes are less than £50 now).What, to get C5? They'd have to pay me!

Rolfe.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Rolfe
What, to get C5? They'd have to pay me!

Rolfe. Plus BBC 3 & 4, ITV 2 & 3, BBC News 24, ITN News, Sky News, UKTV History and loads of radio channels (I won't mention the shopping channels). Also the BBCi thing is effectively an extra channel when there is a special event on such as the Olympics or Wimbledon. Not a bad deal at all.


Anyway, back OT, whither Wakefield now?
Why aren't the GMC taking a long, hard look at him?
I doubt he can be disciplined for junk science but the whole business of the ethics of the original study (http://briandeer.com/mmr/royal-free-index.htm) and the "informed consent" issue amounts to misconduct, doesn't it?
Perhaps too many other doctors (including a couple of professors) would also get damaged in the fallout.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Dragon
Plus BBC 3 & 4, ITV 2 & 3, BBC News 24, ITN News, Sky News, UKTV History and loads of radio channels (I won't mention the shopping channels). Also the BBCi thing is effectively an extra channel when there is a special event on such as the Olympics or Wimbledon. Not a bad deal at all.

Except I'm also in a digital deathlike (not quite dead) zone. I keep getting taunted with adverts for things I'd like to watch on BBC 4, but can only get BBC 3...

Can't get ITV 2, though, which is a blessing. And the radio channels work fine.

[/hijack]

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Except I'm also in a digital deathlike (not quite dead) zone. I keep getting taunted with adverts for things I'd like to watch on BBC 4, but can only get BBC 3...

Can't get ITV 2, though, which is a blessing. And the radio channels work fine.

[/hijack] Aerial upgrade?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Dragon
Aerial upgrade?

Probably required (and definitely got worse after bad weather), but it's not my house, and pursuading the landlord to do anything like fix an aerial might be tricky.

Got to be worth asking, though, I suppose.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Probably required (and definitely got worse after bad weather), but it's not my house, and pursuading the landlord to do anything like fix an aerial might be tricky.

Got to be worth asking, though, I suppose. Well perhaps you should leave the pub for a bit and try it out at home.

[Rolfe]

Actually, I just bought a box for my Mum as an early Christmas present, as she's not in any dead zone. Hooked it up in about ten minutes, works a treat. Picture quality to die for.

Not sure the dreaded Sussex Weald is likely to turn out so good though.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Back on topic I've found the homeopaths' reaction

http://www.globalhomeopathy.org/cgi-bin/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=704

(for the record this lot is about as non clasical as you can get)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
Back on topic I've found the homeopaths' reaction

http://www.globalhomeopathy.org/cgi-bin/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=704

(for the record this lot is about as non clasical as you can get) Diseases like those suppressed by the MMR help children to expel inherited toxicity from their parents.....I love it!

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

Ech, I like how they try to defend Whackofield. Oh he just doesn't like MMR, but likes single vaccines, blah blah blah. You'd think the homeopaths would be criticizing him for the single vaccines as well, since they are vaccines still.

[geni]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Ech, I like how they try to defend Whackofield. Oh he just doesn't like MMR, but likes single vaccines, blah blah blah. You'd think the homeopaths would be criticizing him for the single vaccines as well, since they are vaccines still.

They are.

[Eos of the Eons]

Then why do they bother with the defence?

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

This has been spiked:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7C7.htm


I hope that one of the news magazines (like 60 Minutes) shows the Brian Deer stuff on this side of the pond (oh, and in Australia too... where I see that measles is breaking out in the west).

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you HCN.

I find this especially notable:

Dr Nick Chadwick, a junior member of the research team at the time, recalled how the fact that, using a validated technique, he had failed to find traces of measles virus, in either gut biopsies or cerebrospinal fluid specimens of the children included in the Lancet study, was ignored by Dr Wakefield and omitted from the published paper.

Really.

[Eos of the Eons]

I just am experiencing another wave of anger, and all the reasons were brought up in the Spiked article.

Why did it take so damn long? And I have been saying all along that he is a liar that is getting something out of this. Now we know what he wanted to get out of it, and it's even worse than what I had gleaned from it all.

Not only that, but legitimate caring doctors have been vilified, slandered, and...

doctors who have taken a consistent and robust stand in defence of the interests of child health in general and of children with autism in particular. While Dr Wakefield has been lionised in the press and on television, these doctors have been subjected to scurrilous personal abuse, particularly through the internet. They include community paediatricians Brent Taylor, David Elliman and Helen Bedford, vaccine specialists Elizabeth Miller and David Salisbury, and, from the world of autism, Christopher Gillberg and Eric Fombonne.

Plus the legitimacy it gave to other quacks. What has that lead to? Parents who won't vaccinate because they listen to the liars that Wakefield went to bed with. It gave the anti-vaccinating sCAM artists a platform and customers.

How does this affect me? Well, I'm literally alienated from important relationships in mine and my husband's lives. I'm still the bad guy too. He goes out with his friend alone. Our families can't get together because I vaccinated my kids. They still believe Wakefield...defend him still, and still think doctors brainwash people for profit. We've agreed to disagree, but I'm still the brainwashed idiot.

Ugh. I don't know if I'm ever going to really get over this. It has affected me adversely and personally. Still does.

How do parents start to trust again that doctors aren't the bad guys, not unless they are like Wakefield. How does common sense and facts begin to prevail? When do people see the sCAM for the cons that they are?

Sigh. I guess I want my "old" life back. That will never happen. So how do I put it behind me and make new relationships? How do I find people that aren't sucked in by sCAM and won't try to sell me crap, and get mad at me when I say "no thanks". I'm surrounded by madness.

Sigh. Enough ranting. Thanks for not rolling your eyes at me too much for another outburst. :p

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Capsid
Maybe you should consider Freeview (set top boxes are less than £50 now). You'll have to change soon when the UK goes digital anyway. Busted post. It seems you can't link directly to the page that says, up yours, no coverage in your area.

Rolfe.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Busted post. It seems you can't link directly to the page that says, up yours, no coverage in your area.

Rolfe. there is amap on page 51 of this (http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/pdf_documents/publications/Consumer_Expert_Group_report.pdf) . Most retailers will have a 15 mile radius map around their store.

[geni]

Originally posted by Lothian
there is amap on page 51 of this (http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/pdf_documents/publications/Consumer_Expert_Group_report.pdf) . Most retailers will have a 15 mile radius map around their store.

Page 52

[Deetee]

Eos, if ANYONE dare call you a brainwashed idiot - just say the word and I'll sort it!

[Lothian]

Originally posted by geni
Page 52 That's arguable. The first page is not numbered and the map has 51 in the top right hand corner :p

But I will own up to it being a map not amap.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Deetee
Eos, if ANYONE dare call you a brainwashed idiot - just say the word and I'll sort it!

Oh, if you could sort it by getting them to stop believing lies, then I would be forever in your debt. Otherwise, it's really not worth it.

But thanks for the offer :)