RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:In the case of Wakefield it took six years to discredit him. How many MMR vaccinations weren't performed as a result?

It's also not difficult to find ads for bogus treatments online. The FDA are currently talking about false treatments for cancer that can be bought on the net. Not that well regulated really.

If you are buying cancer treatment in the net without supervision of an actual doctor then you can't be surprised at quackery.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:In the case of Wakefield it took six years to discredit him. How many MMR vaccinations weren't performed as a result?

It's also not difficult to find ads for bogus treatments online. The FDA are currently talking about false treatments for cancer that can be bought on the net. Not that well regulated really.

If you are buying cancer treatment in the net without supervision of an actual doctor then you can't be surprised at quackery.

I think in most situations, many people wouldn't. The point is that when desperate, as the parents of a dying baby would be desperate, that desperation to try anything may overrule that caution. After all, for years people have been conditioned not to trust authority and to look for their own information. As I wrote below, not all information is equal.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
If you are buying cancer treatment in the net without supervision of an actual doctor then you can't be surprised at quackery.

I think in most situations, many people wouldn't. The point is that when desperate, as the parents of a dying baby would be desperate, that desperation to try anything may overrule that caution. After all, for years people have been conditioned not to trust authority and to look for their own information. As I wrote below, not all information is equal.

You have to be pretty stupid not to pick the vast majority of it. To be fair if an eminent medical professor starts yanking your chain for shits and giggles you can't be blamed for clinging onto it. For anything else you need to understand that it's quackery and hope to shit it works.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

I think in most situations, many people wouldn't. The point is that when desperate, as the parents of a dying baby would be desperate, that desperation to try anything may overrule that caution. After all, for years people have been conditioned not to trust authority and to look for their own information. As I wrote below, not all information is equal.

You have to be pretty stupid not to pick the vast majority of it. To be fair if an eminent medical professor starts yanking your chain for shits and giggles you can't be blamed for clinging onto it. For anything else you need to understand that it's quackery and hope to shit it works.

Desperate parents don't always make good decision.

The MMR scandal is a good example of how one voice with bad information can cause a huge amount of damage, even with the weight of the establishment opposing them, because of the low levels of trust people have today. Nurses my wife and I have spoken to whilst taking our son for vaccinations still talk about the questions their field from parents over MMR. Child safety is a delicate subject.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
You have to be pretty stupid not to pick the vast majority of it. To be fair if an eminent medical professor starts yanking your chain for shits and giggles you can't be blamed for clinging onto it. For anything else you need to understand that it's quackery and hope to shit it works.

Desperate parents don't always make good decision.

The MMR scandal is a good example of how one voice with bad information can cause a huge amount of damage, even with the weight of the establishment opposing them, because of the low levels of trust people have today. Nurses my wife and I have spoken to whilst taking our son for vaccinations still talk about the questions their field from parents over MMR. Child safety is a delicate subject.

MMR is a good example of how idiotic people can be idiotic. All the information that it was bollocks was readily available. Even basic numeracy tells you the risks must be infinitesimal if they exist at all

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Desperate parents don't always make good decision.

The MMR scandal is a good example of how one voice with bad information can cause a huge amount of damage, even with the weight of the establishment opposing them, because of the low levels of trust people have today. Nurses my wife and I have spoken to whilst taking our son for vaccinations still talk about the questions their field from parents over MMR. Child safety is a delicate subject.

MMR is a good example of how idiotic people can be idiotic. All the information that it was bollocks was readily available. Even basic numeracy tells you the risks must be infinitesimal if they exist at all

I think it shows how fear can spread very easily if the fundamental facts aren't challenged by someone trustworthy. If individuals are idiotic, then surely some of the media are verging on criminally negligent in the manner of their reporting?

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: The problem with this is is not very often the correct information they're getting or it's taken out of context. They're not using the correct sites.

This is so true. There are dozens of miracle "treatments" in Russia and China that involve autologous, or even heterologous adipose "stem cell" transplants that have absolutely no basis in empirical observation. I don't know what the UK equivalent of the FDA is, but here, in USandA, the issue of ethics and accountability by physicians and industry alike is one that is part of every curriculum from high school biology on upwards (usually using thalidomide as an historical example). There needs to be a greater degree of scientific literacy from school upwards, and I don't mean being able to build an MRI, I mean a thorough and practical understanding of the ethics of claims of efficacy and quality control and safety.

Sandy, "The most qualified and competent health practitioner's website looks no more convincing than a quack's" is not accurate. People that like cute dolphins don't buy tuna that doesn't say that cute dolphin-killing practices were not used. If a quack claims efficacy without a valid formal approval through a centralised regulatory body, the consequences for making such claims should be severe. See Mr. (formerly Dr. ) Wakefield for example.

I'm not disputing the impact. My point is that a webpage belonging to a genuine expert can be very similar to one provided by a quack unless the searche has some background knowledge to compare against.

If they were tv ads the quack would be regulated, but not on the internet.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
MMR is a good example of how idiotic people can be idiotic. All the information that it was bollocks was readily available. Even basic numeracy tells you the risks must be infinitesimal if they exist at all

I think it shows how fear can spread very easily if the fundamental facts aren't challenged by someone trustworthy. If individuals are idiotic, then surely some of the media are verging on criminally negligent in the manner of their reporting?

Some of the media reporting on the MMR was risible, but just about every health professional was on one side of the argument when it came to MMR, how much more trustworthy are we hoping people/ a case could be.

It's not just the media either, I think steps should have been taken to deny access to public services for those electing not to partake of MMR, no reason they should have been allowed to not only put their own children in jeopardy but others too