Anyone good at searching the net for older articles? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Anyone good at searching the net for older articles?

£0.00 @
Afternoon all. I am trying to find some news stories from when the MMR-Autism link was first publicised. I have been searching but can only find the follow on stories defending the MMR, can't … Read More
Mrs.Z Avatar
6y, 6m agoPosted 6 years, 6 months ago
Afternoon all.

I am trying to find some news stories from when the MMR-Autism link was first publicised.
I have been searching but can only find the follow on stories defending the MMR, can't find the actual original stories.

Could any of you lovely lot gimme an idea where to look, please?

Thank yous x
Mrs.Z Avatar
6y, 6m agoPosted 6 years, 6 months ago
Options

All Comments

(12) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
[helper]#2
http://www.badscience.net is worth a look and the book is an excellent read if you like such things!

Below is an extract from the website. Basically the paper was first published in 1998 but the newspapers didn't start stirring things until 2001/2002

In 1998 Wakefield published his paper in the Lancet. It’s surprising to see, if you go back to the original clippings, that the study and the press conference were actually covered in a fairly metered fashion, and also quite sparsely. The Guardian and the Independent reported the story on their front pages, but the Sun ignored it entirely, and the Daily Mail – home of the health scare, and now well known as vigorous campaigners against vaccination – buried their first MMR piece unobtrusively in the middle of the paper. There were only 122 articles mentioning the subject at all, in all publications, that whole year.

This was not unreasonable. The study itself was fairly trivial, a “case series report” of 12 people – essentially a collection of 12 clinical anecdotes – and such a study would only really be interesting and informative if it described a rare possible cause of a rare outcome. If everyone who went into space came back with an extra finger, say, then that would be worth noting. For things as common as MMR and autism, finding 12 people with both is entirely unspectacular.

But things were going to get much worse, and for some very interesting reasons. In 2001 and 2002 the scare began to gain momentum. Wakefield published a review paper in an obscure journal, questioning the safety of the immunisation programme, although with no new evidence. He published two papers on laboratory work using PCR (a technique used in genetic fingerprinting) which claimed to show measles virus in tissue samples from children with bowel problems and autism. These received blanket media coverage.

The coverage rapidly began to deteriorate, in ways which now feel familiar and predictable. Emotive anecdotes from distressed parents were pitted against old men in corduroy with no media training. The Royal College of General Practitioners press office not only failed to speak clearly on the evidence, it also managed to dig up anti-MMR GPs for journalists who rang in asking for quotes. Newspapers and celebrities began to use the vaccine as an opportunity to attack the government and the health service, and of course it was the perfect story, with a charismatic maverick fighting against the system, a Galileo-like figure. There were elements of risk, of awful personal tragedy, and of course, the question of blame: whose fault was autism?
#4
gari189
http://www.badscience.net is worth a look and the book is an excellent read if you like such things!

Below is an extract from the website. Basically the paper was first published in 1998 but the newspapers didn't start stirring things until 2001/2002

In 1998 Wakefield published his paper in the Lancet. It’s surprising to see, if you go back to the original clippings, that the study and the press conference were actually covered in a fairly metered fashion, and also quite sparsely. The Guardian and the Independent reported the story on their front pages, but the Sun ignored it entirely, and the Daily Mail – home of the health scare, and now well known as vigorous campaigners against vaccination – buried their first MMR piece unobtrusively in the middle of the paper. There were only 122 articles mentioning the subject at all, in all publications, that whole year.

This was not unreasonable. The study itself was fairly trivial, a “case series report” of 12 people – essentially a collection of 12 clinical anecdotes – and such a study would only really be interesting and informative if it described a rare possible cause of a rare outcome. If everyone who went into space came back with an extra finger, say, then that would be worth noting. For things as common as MMR and autism, finding 12 people with both is entirely unspectacular.

But things were going to get much worse, and for some very interesting reasons. In 2001 and 2002 the scare began to gain momentum. Wakefield published a review paper in an obscure journal, questioning the safety of the immunisation programme, although with no new evidence. He published two papers on laboratory work using PCR (a technique used in genetic fingerprinting) which claimed to show measles virus in tissue samples from children with bowel problems and autism. These received blanket media coverage.

The coverage rapidly began to deteriorate, in ways which now feel familiar and predictable. Emotive anecdotes from distressed parents were pitted against old men in corduroy with no media training. The Royal College of General Practitioners press office not only failed to speak clearly on the evidence, it also managed to dig up anti-MMR GPs for journalists who rang in asking for quotes. Newspapers and celebrities began to use the vaccine as an opportunity to attack the government and the health service, and of course it was the perfect story, with a charismatic maverick fighting against the system, a Galileo-like figure. There were elements of risk, of awful personal tragedy, and of course, the question of blame: whose fault was autism?


Useful info, thanks a lot :)
#5
It does seem strange that the report was published in 1998 but the media only juspmed on it 3/4 years later.

I am particularly interested in finding a couple of actual news stories from when the story first broke - I wonder if such stories have been removed by the newspapers? oO
#6
Mrs.Z
It does seem strange that the report was published in 1998 but the media only juspmed on it 3/4 years later.

I am particularly interested in finding a couple of actual news stories from when the story first broke - I wonder if such stories have been removed by the newspapers? oO


I hope they have, it would be wrong to perpetuate this false belief
[helper]#7
There is a chapter in the book which deals with media coverage of MMR in very great depth. It doesn't provide links to the newspaper articles though.

There was a service called hitting the headlines which covered health news stories. This does include links to newspaper stories. There isn't a way to search the archive though - you will have to trawl through page by page....
http://www.library.nhs.uk/rss/newsAndRssArchive.aspx?StoryCategory=1&ResultsPerPage=20&searchText=&page=25

This is an example of one of their summaries on MMR
http://www.library.nhs.uk/rss/newsAndRssArticle.aspx?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.library.nhs.uk%2fresources%2f%3fid%3d66249

Edited By: gari189 on Oct 16, 2010 17:22: ?
#8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ujy0hibN8E

Likely a bit of swearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfheO9H8CD4&NR=1

Edited By: Ungreat on Oct 16, 2010 18:04: .
#9
sancho1983
Mrs.Z
It does seem strange that the report was published in 1998 but the media only juspmed on it 3/4 years later.

I am particularly interested in finding a couple of actual news stories from when the story first broke - I wonder if such stories have been removed by the newspapers? oO


I hope they have, it would be wrong to perpetuate this false belief


Yeah, I get you - just I am researching for an essay
#10
gari189
There is a chapter in the book which deals with media coverage of MMR in very great depth. It doesn't provide links to the newspaper articles though.

There was a service called hitting the headlines which covered health news stories. This does include links to newspaper stories. There isn't a way to search the archive though - you will have to trawl through page by page....
http://www.library.nhs.uk/rss/newsAndRssArchive.aspx?StoryCategory=1&ResultsPerPage=20&searchText=&page=25

This is an example of one of their summaries on MMR
http://www.library.nhs.uk/rss/newsAndRssArticle.aspx?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.library.nhs.uk%2fresources%2f%3fid%3d66249


Excellent, thanks very much :D
#11


Thank you, I will check these after cos I have the kids/monsters here at the moment :D
#12
Mrs.Z


Thank you, I will check these after cos I have the kids/monsters here at the moment :D


Second link has no swearing.

It's one of the doctors from the website gari189 mentioned talking about how people in the media annoyed him with the lies about MMR.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!