Comments on: The Observer replies over Wakefield, autism and MMR.

By: Top Posts « WordPress.com

Top Posts « WordPress.com — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:00:30 +0000

[...] The Observer replies over Wakefield, autism and MMR. This Sunday The Observer nearly apologizes for its disgraceful front page report on Autism a fortnight ago. But they […] [...]

By: Media Response to the Observer and Autism « Action For Autism

Media Response to the Observer and Autism « Action For Autism — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:53:46 +0000

[...] Notes ← The Observer replies over Wakefield, autism and MMR. [...]

By: PJ

PJ — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:29:48 +0000

Normally ‘primary analysis’ means ‘anything else I do won’t be corrected for multiple comparisons’, which is ‘technical’ in some senses of the word I guess.

By: Robert Carnegie

Robert Carnegie — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:20:34 +0000

Evidently the words “primary analysis” are in the document and due to one or more of the authors. I think Ben Goldacre said that “primary analysis” is another technical term in science papers and doesn’t mean “an absolute fact that you must put in the newspaper”, just as “final” doesn’t mean “finished”.

By: Shinga

Shinga — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:46:55 +0000

It has gone beyond one ‘Observer guy’ – the response team continues to compound the errors. Along with other people, I’ve been nagging the Guardian to correct the 1 in 58 figure – but the only response that we’ve had is that they’re looking into it because it is ‘technical’. So – not technical enough to trigger the thought that perhaps they ought to have run the original story past an appropriately-qualified/experienced person – but no too technical that they can’t correct it on the say-so (with references) of the people who complain about it.

Just so we’re all clear on this…

By: More terrible Observer MMR coverage « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:29:08 +0000

[...] Observer’s latest ‘clarification’ have already been covered by Ben Goldacre and Mike Stanton. The Observer’s mistakes have also been extensively covered already: in the Guardian, the [...]

By: A Non

A Non — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:32:11 +0000

There’s such a long history of fabricating stories about MMR that reporters think they can get away with it. This individual – plainly targeted by Wakefield’s people as someone who was too gullible, and probably too lazy to know or care whether the story was true or not – went the extra mile and cooked the story to get it on the front.

You have to remember that newspaper reporters for the most part live in fear for their jobs. You’ll have noticed that Olmstead has just been fired by the Moonie UPI, after clinging to his desk for a year with his “age of autism” garbage.

How long before this Observer guy is sent back to where he belongs.

By: Kristina Chew

Kristina Chew — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 06:01:19 +0000

Digging the hole deeper—–perhaps if the Observer had just come out and said it made a mistake, all of this backpedaling may not have been necessary.

By: Kev

Kev — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:42:35 +0000

I can’t believe how immature and unreasonable the Observer are being about this. Maybe its just that I consider it ‘my’ paper (in that its my regular Sunday read) but I really expected better from them. Sad.

By: » Mike vs Observer - Autism Blog, Web Design Blog

» Mike vs Observer - Autism Blog, Web Design Blog — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:07:05 +0000

[...] vs ObserverMike clarifies latest Observer clarification….Read MoreSlap!Thats the sound of a gauntlet being thrown down….Read MoreBen GoldacreThe MMR scare that [...]