The World Health Organisation has published this document: PDF. It’s their traditional medicine strategy for 2014-23. Here’s just one of the things that raised an eyebrow or two: Read the rest of this entry »
Here is an online news story from What Doctors Don’t Tell You… and here [PDF] is their source. I’ve previously written about WDDTY’s reporting of a paper by DeStefano et al. This isn’t quite as bad, but there are a couple of mistakes in what is a very short article. Read the rest of this entry »
Here, Child Health Safety tackles the fascinating topic of measles incidence and mortality. CHS refers to “grossly false claims by the US Centers for Disease Control ['CDC'] – vastly exaggerating the threat measles as a disease poses” and accuses them in the title of lying.
The magazine What Doctors Don’t Tell You has this week issued a bizarre statement in response to a Times article by Tom Whipple. Among other things, they seem to be upset that the article claimed “that we’d told parents in our latest (October 2013) issues not to immunize their children with the MMR”. Read the rest of this entry »
DM Reporter is launching the first annual ‘Don’t Read the Daily Mail’ Day tomorrow.
We are thusly forbade on September 24th from reading, linking, tweeting, updating, posting, critiquing, spoofing, complaining, borrowing, commenting or thinking about the Daily Mail. We’ll keep it out of the line of sight of those who have befriended or followed us. We’ll not start sentences “guess what they wrote today,” and we will not bite when Samantha Brick offers us an apple.
DM Reporter argues that the Daily Mail “doesn’t care if we love it or hate it, it only cares that we read it” – they don’t care who is clicking on a link or why, they only care that people are clicking.
Ignoring the Daily Mail for just one day a year sounds like an easily achievable goal (if you think it’s too easy, perhaps you’d like to pledge to ignore the Mail for a longer period of time) and if there’s a chance it might annoy the Daily Mail even a little bit I think it might be worth a try.
Anybody who would like to irritate the Daily Mail but does not wish to ignore it might like to consider other options. You could carry on as you are and continue to point out their factual inaccuracies or instances of their bigotry or hypocrisy (or point and laugh at them, or whatever it is you do). If you have a legitimate complaint about an article, you might like to try complaining to the paper (who will ignore you) or the PCC (who will likely fob you off). Or you could perhaps try something a bit different – like reverse incentives. Maybe you could find a cause that the Mail would hate, and donate to it every time it was criticised by the Mail? I’m sure there will be plenty of other possibilities that haven’t occurred to me too.
In August 2012, I wrote about an ASA judgement on a complaint I’d submitted about Richard Halvorsen’s Babyjabs clinic. A new adjudication on a different website’s marketing of single vaccines is now available on the ASA website. The ASA received six complaints and investigated seven issues, all of which were upheld. Read the rest of this entry »
Now, I don’t believe that around 200,000 people a year are dying because of What Doctors Don’t Tell You magazine. But nor do I believe that in the region of 1700 young girls have been killed by the HPV vaccine. WDDTY, apparently, do believe this. They’re certainly happy to tell people that this is the case, in the highly misleading headline of this article. So, where did WDDTY get their figure of “up to 1700″ from? Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve been catching up with my reading. I think some of what I’ve been catching up on is worth sharing. The journal Vaccine had a special edition in 2012 on The Role of Internet Use in Vaccination Decisions. Of the articles, three stood out for me. One on the nature of online discussion and participants, another on provision of information by the media, and one on tactics and tropes of the anti-vaccine movement. Read the rest of this entry »
The summer issue of Juno Magazine explores, among other things, what they refer to as ‘the vaccine debate’. The exploration is conducted by a Devon doula named Claire Arnold, who solemnly informs us on the first page that an informed decision “can only be taken when one is in full possession of the facts surrounding the issue in question”, that media coverage, NHS guidelines and alternative advice can create confusion and anxiety around the subject, and that it is very difficult to find unbiased, factual information about vaccinations. Read the rest of this entry »