Export thread

What it says on the title - except for the taking of that part.

To be honest, I always like it when professional journals have the balls to say "We made a mistake and we admit it". I think that shows a healthy amount of respect towards scientific principles and to the fact that while journals such as The Lancet are considered to be on the forefront of their respective research, they are still made by people. And people make mistakes.

If anything, I'm disappointed at the video on that page. It's not a "landmark study" anymore if it's proven unsound... and the "senior medical correspondent" seems like she's trying to defend said study. But maybe it's just me, watching it while slightly aggravated.

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

And that's why they shouldn't publish stuff until they have duplicated the results a few times in other studies.

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

It doesn't work like that... They publish some study and THEN some other group may try to replicate the results, if anything.

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

And that's what they should change... duh.

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

North_Ranger said:

What it says on the title - except for the taking of that part.

To be honest, I always like it when professional journals have the balls to say \\\\"We made a mistake and we admit it\\\\". I think that shows a healthy amount of respect towards scientific principles and to the fact that while journals such as The Lancet are considered to be on the forefront of their respective research, they are still made by people. And people make mistakes.

If anything, I'm disappointed at the video on that page. It's not a \\\\"landmark study\\\\" anymore if it's proven unsound... and the \\\\"senior medical correspondent\\\\" seems like she's trying to defend said study. But maybe it's just me, watching it while slightly aggravated.

Click to expand...

HAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! They don't admit anything. The only thing the journal admits to is that the submitters where able to convince the reviewers their paper was good enough to publish. They review the paper in question and blame the person who sent it in. If you get a paper retraction, your career is pretty much over, which is why it's a bad idea to publish shit papers to begin with. This isn't something unique to The Lancet. The reporters are idiots. "You rarely see this." There are revisions and retractions done all the time.

But you're right on one front, this will only fuel the crazies in thinking that there's some weird medical conspiracy trying to block knowledge of vaccines causing autism. If anything it'll fuel Jenny McCarthy's fire more.

---------- Post added at 06:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 AM ----------

@Li3n said:

And that's why they shouldn't publish stuff until they have duplicated the results a few times in other studies.

Click to expand...

Seriously, every time I see you in a thread that has anything to do with science, I want to strangle you!

The panel found that Wakefield subjected some children in the study to various invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and MRI scans. He also paid children at his son's birthday party to have blood drawn for research purposes, an act that "showed a callous disregard" for the "distress and pain" of the children, the panel said.

Click to expand...

Wow, just wow.

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

There has been a fair bit of hand wringing in the press here from people who championed the orgional unproven paper. When will newspapers learn. If you really want to report on science then you need to hire people who understand it. I'm pretty sure the bulk of people who go through science degrees in the UK do not end up a scientists. How about putting a few of them through a journalism course for a year.

Not sure if you can see this inteview with Celia Walden and Dr Sara Eames or not but please, wtf! You have a medical doctor with contraversial views, how do you challenge this? Put them on the sofa next to a gossip columnist. What were the BBC thinking. Shoddy journalism by headline hungry journo nitwits is the problem not Peer Review.

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

redapples said:

When will newspapers learn. If you really want to report on science then you need to hire people who understand it. I'm pretty sure the bulk of people who go through science degrees in the UK do not end up a scientists. How about putting a few of them through a journalism course for a year.

Click to expand...

But they don't want to really report on science. They want people to buy copies of their dying media.

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

rabbitgod;337073][QUOTE=redapples said:

When will newspapers learn. If you really want to report on science then you need to hire people who understand it. I'm pretty sure the bulk of people who go through science degrees in the UK do not end up a scientists. How about putting a few of them through a journalism course for a year.

Click to expand...

But they don't want to really report on science. They want people to buy copies of their dying media.[/QUOTE]

The problem with media reporting scientific findings is that most of the time it's really hard to simplify it for the layman's understanding, and they always try to add zest to the research to maintain attention (groundbreaking, novel, controversial). None of the peer-review process is seen since the reporter typically interviews the people doing the work. Of course they naturally want to promote their findings...

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

I have a son with Asperger's syndrome and my mom will randomly watch things on TV then call me and say "I saw an interview with Jenny McCarthy...." and I have to try really hard to not hang up the phone on her. -_-

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

Dei said:

I have a son with Asperger's syndrome and my mom will randomly watch things on TV then call me and say "I saw an interview with Jenny McCarthy...." and I have to try really hard to not hang up the phone on her. -_-

Click to expand...

What does she say now?

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

Chazwozel;337108][QUOTE=rabbitgod;337073][QUOTE=redapples said:

When will newspapers learn. If you really want to report on science then you need to hire people who understand it. I'm pretty sure the bulk of people who go through science degrees in the UK do not end up a scientists. How about putting a few of them through a journalism course for a year.

Click to expand...

But they don't want to really report on science. They want people to buy copies of their dying media.[/QUOTE]

The problem with media reporting scientific findings is that most of the time it's really hard to simplify it for the layman's understanding, and they always try to add zest to the research to maintain attention (groundbreaking, novel, controversial). None of the peer-review process is seen since the reporter typically interviews the people doing the work. Of course they naturally want to promote their findings...[/QUOTE]

True. My sister and her husband constantly send me links to anthropology news, but it's all unreadable for exactly this reason.

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

Chazwozel said:

@Li3n said:

And that's why they shouldn't publish stuff until they have duplicated the results a few times in other studies.

Click to expand...

Seriously, every time I see you in a thread that has anything to do with science, I want to strangle you!

Click to expand...

What, someone has to...

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine, or TAKE THAT, JENNY McC

Chazwozel;337108][QUOTE=rabbitgod;337073][QUOTE=redapples said:

When will newspapers learn. If you really want to report on science then you need to hire people who understand it. I'm pretty sure the bulk of people who go through science degrees in the UK do not end up a scientists. How about putting a few of them through a journalism course for a year.

Click to expand...

But they don't want to really report on science. They want people to buy copies of their dying media.[/QUOTE]

The problem with media reporting scientific findings is that most of the time it's really hard to simplify it for the layman's understanding, and they always try to add zest to the research to maintain attention (groundbreaking, novel, controversial). None of the peer-review process is seen since the reporter typically interviews the people doing the work. Of course they naturally want to promote their findings...[/QUOTE]

Yea. I don't much about those hard core science but sometimes you get some really nice tidbit of really cool discovery or invention. Studies are well.... boring (to me) I do keep an open mind, but I can totally understand where general population would even be MORE clueless (it is possible) and could care less.