Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share 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
Well there are sources of news and there are "sources of news." And there are more and more digital voices that call themselves journalists, but have none of the training or ethic. If the discussion is about how to best translate and present science news to people, I don't think I'm being unreasonably pessimistic. The comic portrays an excellent example of this: even though the Lancet has recalled the paper and the original stories have been debunked, those same sources are used all the time by the anti-immunization movement. Most of the actual journalists I know would know better than to cite them now. But there is no comparable set of standards on re:re:re: forwarded emails and "OMG did you know?" shock posts.

I'm not saying that digital technology is going to destroy us all-- I'm pointing out that digital technology is contributing to the issue discussed in the comic.

Unfortunately, many of those who have the training, don't have the ethic. At this point, calling someone out because they're making money on one side or the other is rather bogus, I fear, as *BOTH* sides tend to get paid to make their case however they can. I think this is part of a larger flaw in the US system, at least, where in our legal system pits two sides in a dispute against each other, missing the fact that there may in fact be a third side that is true. The prosecutor is not paid to find out the truth - he's paid to make sure the person is found guilty. The defense attorney is not paid to find out the truth, he's paid to make sure the person is found innocent. Even the police, perhaps theoretically paid to find out the truth, in effect are not - they're (or they perceive themselves as) paid to find the evidence the prosecutor needs to convict, *AND* to "solve" the case as fast as possible - where "solve" is taken to mean to get a conviction (which means they did find the guy who did it) or an acquittal (which is taken to mean they found the guy who did it, but he got off on a technicality).

Democracy doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Libertarianism has never really been tried, but it would require a much more educated and motivated population. We have a lot of work to do to find something that *WILL* work.

Socialism has never been tried! As a libertarian socialist, i'd even say genuine democracy hasn't really been tried, either.

Libertarianism, imo, is often "partly" tried out; where it supports big business interests, or attacks public spending, lobbyists often become libertarians.

  • 1