Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
The Facts In The Case Of Dr. Andrew Wakefield
diversion sign
A fifteen page story about the MMR vaccination controversy. As ever, I'm sure a few spelling errors have slipped past me. Feel free to point any out so I can correct them.

The reference links for the strip are in the next blog entry.

Now! Let's have a heated debate!

2013 update. Since I wrote this blog entry, this cartoon strip as well as many others on such subjects as homeopathy, chiropratic, evolution, and the supposed NASA Moon hoax landings, have been published in a book: Science Tales in the UK (Myriad Edtions) and How To Fake A Moon Landing in the US and Canada (Abrams). Here's the link to my main blog.

1 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

2 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

3 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

4 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

5 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

6 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 7 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 8 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 9 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 10 Vaccination Scandal Story

mmr 11 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 12 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 13 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 14 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 15 Vaccination Scandal Story

I am Darryl Cunningham and this is my main blog.

  • 1
Wouldn't it be "for the research" then? It's the "for to" that looks odd to me. The only time I've ever heard the term "for to" is in a nursery rhyme, Jack and Jill went up the hill for to fetch some water. Seemed a rather archaic turn of phrase that looked odd, I wouldn't use it myself for asking for my funds for research!

Edited at 2010-05-18 05:15 pm (UTC)

if it was "applied for, to conduct the research" I'm sure you'd have no problems with it. I'm sure that's how it must be meant. I don't think the panel actually needs the extra comma gramatically but perhaps it could be rephrased slightly so that your reading of it is less likely.

Ah! With the comma it now makes sense to me. It did look odd!

The comma doesn't belong grammatically. The problem with the sentence is that the main thought ends in a preposition. Try replacing "applied for" with "sought."

"Sought" doesn't mean the same thing as "applied for." The sentence reads perfectly well as-is.

Changing to active voice will remove the confusion: "someone applied for a further L55,000 to conduct the research."

or making it "...applied for [in order] to conduct..."

Hmm, indeed. Or he could have made an informative cartoon without worrying about non-existent confusion.

I have come from 4 years in the future to tell you all to learn more science, and less grammar. People in my time don't even use "words" as words. lol (future speak for laugh out loud, used commonly to indicate a joke, or amusement gained upon hearing a joke; or help! I'm a drowning stick figure!

Since it appears that the author did actually change the wording of that line, your passive-aggressive concern masquerading as non-concern is severely misplaced and bordering on idiotic.

No more so than your unnecessary bitchiness!

You should see a doctor about that eye problem, or maybe a mental health professional would be more appropriate.

I think it would be better, and more readable, in active voice, if an antecedent can be jiggered up. That is, "Researchers [or whoever] applied for GBP55,000 to fund their research...".

  • 1