|
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 01:53 PM by HuckleB
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9602#more-9602"Last week, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an expose by investigative journalist Brian Deer that enumerated in detail the specifics of how a British gastroenterologist turned hero of the anti-vaccine movement had committed scientific fraud by falsifying key aspects of case reports that he used as the basis of his now infamous 1998 Lancet article suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and a syndrome consisting of regressive autism and enterocolitis. Indeed, Deer even went so far as to describe Wakefield’s fraud as “Piltdown medicine,” comparing it explicitly to the infamous “Piltdown man” hoax, and in an accompanying editorial the editors of the BMJ agreed. These revelations were not by any means new. Scientists had suspected that something wasn’t quite right about Wakefield’s work almost as soon as it had been published, and by 2004 Brian Deer had uncovered clear evidence of major undisclosed conflicts of interest on Wakefield’s part. Unfortunately, by that time the proverbial cat was out of the proverbial bag, and Wakefield’s fraudulent research, aided and abetted by his flair for self-promotion in the media and some truly execrable, credulous, and sensationalistic coverage by the British press, had ignited a major scare over the MMR vaccine. MMR uptake rates plummeted below levels necessary for herd immunity, and measles came roaring back with a vengeance in the U.K. By the time the British General Medical Council finally ruled about a year ago that Wakefield had committed research fraud and violated research ethics in the work reported in his 1998 Lancet article and recommended that he be “struck off” (i.e., have his license to practice medicine in the U.K. revoked), the damage had been done.
As important as Wakefield is to the genesis of the modern anti-vaccine movement, however, there is another force that acts far more “where the rubber hits the road,” so to speak. This force comes in the form of publications and online discussion forums that cater to new mothers, offering all manner of advice and support. Some of these are very good, but all too many of them are hotbeds of anti-vaccine pseudoscience, confidently proclaimed by “elder statesman” members of these forums and included in articles published in glossy, attractive magazines. As a rather ironic coincidence, just as news of Andrew Wakefield’s latest humiliation was finding its way out into multiple news outlets last week, the first issue of 2011 of just such a glossy publication hit the shelves. I’m referring to Mothering, whose tagline is “Inspiring Natural Families Since 1976.” In reality, it should read: “Inspiring quackery and anti-vaccine views since 1976.” Of course, in the world of “alt-med,” the two often go hand-in-hand. In any case, one of our readers sent me a link to the latest issue of Mothering. Unfortunately, I can’t supply you with that link, because it’s for subscribers. I will, however, describe and quote articles and passages that demonstrate just what a wretched hive of scum and quackery Mothering is, particularly with respect to vaccines but not limited to vaccines. Taking into account its large and vigorous online forums, Mothering is major force for the promotion of anti-vaccine views and quackery among new mothers.
...
The cover of the January/February 2011 issue of Mothering asks, Whooping Cough: Is Your Family At Risk? Should You Vaccinate?, complete with the mandatory cute photo of a cherubic infant to drive home the point of how important these questions are. Now, it’s very tempting for me to cite the science-based answers and emphasize that the answers are yes and YES!, but, as you might imagine, that’s not exactly what Mothering advocates. Far from it.
The article is by a physician named Lauren Feder, MD and entitled “Straight Talk on the 100 Day Cough: What are the Symptoms of Pertussis? Who’s at Risk? And Is the Vaccine Right for Your Family?” Again, the answers to the last two questions should be “Everybody, particularly the unvaccinated” and “Yes, unless your child has a medical contraindication to being vaccinated.” But that’s not what Dr. Feder says. In fact, her article is a mix of science and pseudoscience, which is not surprising because it turns out that Dr. Feder is a homeopath: Lauren Feder, MD, specializes in homeopathy, pediatrics, and primary-care medicine. Known for her holistically minded approach, Dr. Feder is a frequent lecturer to parents and professionals. She is the author of Natural Baby and Childcare and The Parents’ Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations. Her website is www.drfeder.com.
..."The rest is worth reading, as well. :(
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
