Features Muse

The truth behind the tabloids

Is press coverage of science becoming irresponsible hyperbole? Owen Groves examines whether the furore is for real

Archive This article is from our archive and might not display correctly. Download PDF
Images This article has had its images hidden due to a legal challenge. Learn more about images in the Nouse Archive

Look around you. The list of things that might kill you is getting awfully long. If it's not the MMR vaccine, it'll be the HPV vaccine. If it's not the HPV vaccine, it'll be swine flu. If it's not swine flu, it'll be getting sucked into a black hole created by CERN. If you dodge the Swiss black hole of oblivion, a nuclear power plant will probably be exploding just down the road. And, if you are fortunate enough to avoid all of these various demises, global warming will probably get you. Ironically, many of the threats seem to be rearing their ugly heads fast and frequently from that bastion of progress: science itself. The advances intended to save and improve our lives seemingly do the opposite, or so the increasingly intense media scare-storms may lead you to believe. Is the furore necessary? Is it for valid public information on new and risky scientific endeavours? Or is coverage crossing the line into irresponsible hyperbole?

The media is invaluable for getting information out to the masses. Their stories have an enormous effect on public opinion. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in health matters. Unfortunately, there have been a number of media misfires in recent years.

The greatest health scandal of the last decade surrounded the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and its alleged link to autism, which broke as a story in 2001. The medical paper that originally purported the link was published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield a full three years before the story gathered full momentum. Precious few of the pieces mentioned the overwhelming evidence against a link. They also neglected to take into account the fact that Dr. Wakefield's study was simply an anecdotal discussion of just 12 children; a tiny fraction of the millions of children vaccinated and the two people per 1000 of the population with autism.

A single study with a sample so small is not capable of proving a link between two occurrences this common. However, the media put its full power behind the study, and in a stunning display of selective deafness, they began finding anti-vaccination lobbyists to support their new thesis. Coverage degenerated into a slew of sob stories, as mother after mother was 'betrayed' by science. Uptake of the vaccine fell by 20%, causing several epidemics and five reported deaths from an easily prevented disease.

In 2006, coverage turned. A powerful study found no link between measles RNA (similar to DNA) in children with regressive autism and the MMR vaccination. The vaccine was re-branded as safe and Dr. Wakefield was vilified for destroying its reputation and endangering a generation. The media's hero became the villain. But the irresponsible reporting was the real enemy, having used one man to cause an eight-year scandal.

This year, history threatened to repeat itself with the cervical cancer jab (HPV). In September, a schoolgirl died shortly after receiving the inoculation, triggering a cascade of stories questioning its safety. Three days later, it was revealed that the girl's tragic death was a coincidence, caused by underlying health problems. HPV was safe once more. However, when Googling "HPV vaccine" two months later, the top result (behind the NHS website and Wikipedia page) was The Guardian's story, "Schoolgirl dies after cervical cancer vaccination".

Dangers remain in the public consciousness for a long time. The media cannot be blamed for this. Despite sometimes overreacting, it has a duty to warn the public over possible dangers. But newspapers can be blamed for the lasting impact of the stories. One Daily Express front page exclaimed "JAB 'AS DEADLY AS THE CANCER'". However, when Dr. Ben Goldacre questioned the quoted Dr. Diane Harper for his Bad Science column in The Guardian, she claimed, "I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer." The entire story was based on a misquote.

Whilst the media rashly jumped to spurious conclusions on both occasions, they can be easily forgiven for how they initially reacted. It could be a matter of life and death. But once situations have been clarified, they struggle to release their views as fast as they should, turning to a mixture of misquotes and select-the-source-to-suit-the-conclusion-syndrome. The irresponsibility of media coverage in itself has become a matter of public health.

It's not just health that can become a matter of mortality when viewed through the prism of the press. In recent years the world of physics has become a world of Armageddons, with the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN)'s newest toy, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), centre-stage.

The LHC is a particle accelerator that aims to smash protons together at higher energies than ever before achieved on Earth. Replicating conditions present during the Big Bang, it aims to search for the Higgs boson, which would help to explain the origin of mass in the universe. Safety concerns began to surface when three men - two non-physicists and one adversary of particle accelerators - attempted to halt its initiation. They believed that the collisions might create micro-black holes that would rapidly grow and consume the Earth. However, two safety reviews had already deemed the LHC safe. Any black holes formed would evaporate away through Hawking radiation. In any case, thousands of higher energy collisions occur above us in the atmosphere every day. No black hole apocalypse has yet occurred.

Nevertheless, as 'Big Bang Day' approached, slight statements of standard scientific uncertainty were taken as an admission of apocalypse. The Daily Mail managed to print headlines like "Are We All Going to Die Next Wednesday?" and many major news sources followed suit. This culminated in the suicide of a 16-year old girl. When the LHC broke down just before its first collision, the relief was palpable.

Whilst not immediately as dangerous to public health as worries over vaccinations, the frenzy surrounding CERN still provoked strong feelings. Scientists received death threats, whilst the 'rock star' physicist Brian Cox said "anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat." But still people asked, "why take the risk?"
This point of view could be dangerous and unhealthy for human endeavour. Why shouldn't we support scientific endeavour if due care is taken? Science is about ploughing the furrows of knowledge in the name of advancement. We cannot be certain of what we will discover in the darkness of ignorance. We theorise, but we can't know unless we venture there. To constrain ourselves in this way could limit humanity's future advancement. No new drugs or vaccines would get tested; every good idea would be just an idea. Part of humanity's success is in its inquisitiveness.

Professor Cox's comment is more than just a display of bravado. The science community functions through intensive systems of peer review. It's how and why it works. When journals receive scientific papers, they undergo thorough checks for consistency before they are published. The same goes for large experiments. Before they receive funding they must apply to a panel, where scientific merit and safety is analysed.

As a community, scientists know what they are doing. This is uncomfortable for some people. Our society is one where everybody has a right to an opinion but this results in the belief that all opinions deserve to be heard on an equal level, despite lack of expertise. This does not hold in science. This is evident in the reporting of the planned new wave of nuclear fission power stations. Whilst concerns about waste management are perfectly valid, at the very mention of the word 'nuclear', mushroom clouds seem to form next door to every 'nuclear' family in Britain. But there is a massive difference between our reactors and Chernobyl-type death traps. Newer and safer reactors favour passive safety systems with control rods held out of the reactor by electromagnets and considerably reinforced containment building walls. In the loss of power, the control rods simply drop down and this stamps out the nuclear reaction.

Another previous hazard was due to bubbles forming in the coolant. Bubbles accelerated the nuclear reactions, causing heating. This caused more bubbles to create a positive feed back loop that lets the reaction run out of control. British Magnox reactors use carbon dioxide gas as a coolant, eliminating positive feedback. These precautions ensure meltdowns are averted, and even if they aren't, they would be confined inside the plant itself.

In a recent report on 'The One Show', the increased safety was discussed by a white coat clad expert. Seconds later, we were told by a man, "well, he would say that". Of course he would: it's true. It is unsettling when an expert, with all his training, can be dismissed in this way. It can confuse public opinion, cloud facts and reinforce the 'not in my backyard' fear of nuclear power.

Herein lies the essence of the problem. In the media, any opinion can be presented as having equal weight to those of an expert. Such a level of incongruity makes it difficult to decipher science fact from fear. Panic rules. There is a need for more discerning and considered reporting from journalists and public alike.

It also should be noted that previous errors lead to further work in order to prevent repeat occurrences, and to enhance safety now. Science is always improving and learning from itself, but in the news and public eye, it's a struggle to repair a reputation once damaged. Safety needs to be the focus rather than the danger.

The mainstream reporting on the cutting edge of science advances leaves a lot to be desired. The new vaccines and large scale experiments are not as scary as they are made out to be. In fact, all the scandals and scare stories should almost be indicative of their safety. With so many people searching for the next big threat, when something truly is worth worrying about we should know about it. Science is not as scary as it seems when the fear itself is more of a reason to worry.

Latest in Features


John Pouslon Posted on Tuesday 8 Dec 2009

Your account of the MMR issue is entirely wrong (albeit plagiarised from an inaccurate book). Journalists did not make up the fears over MMR, which were set out in a string of apparently scientific papers.

The fact that those scientific papers were fraudulent should be the proper issue of inquiry.

Instead, you take up the foolish, cheap allegations that "it was the media".


Tony Bateson Posted on Wednesday 9 Dec 2009

Undoubtedly the MMR story has been a massive media event over the last ten years or longer and I am convinced that the 'media' has been seriously involved in dragging this out. Although I ran the MMR Research website for some years we always made it plain that we did not think the MMR was responsible for autism, but we also believe that MMR could be a tipping point for autism where a child had been earlier damaged by the DTP.

Some would argue that it suited Big Pharma for the focus to be upon MMR which diverted attention from the probable real villain DTP. What is clear is that vaccines are implicated. After our own ad hoc studies in the UK we believe that there are no unvaccinated (or not otherwise exposed to vaccine materials) individuals in the UK who are autistic (ASD). There is a population of possibly over three millions in the UK (born since 1966 when data started to be collected) who were unvaccinated with childhood vaccines and there is no indication that this group contains autistic people. This is where serious research should be focussed not on endless and indigestible medical research. It's not science its arithmetic!

Tony Bateson
Oxford, UK.


Antaeus Feldspar Posted on Wednesday 9 Dec 2009

I would not go so far as John Pouslon in saying your discussion of the MMR issue was "entirely wrong". However, it is highly incomplete. You say that Andrew Wakefield was "vilified for destroying [MMR's] reputation and endangering a generation" and leave out that:

* he was found to have been paid over 400,000 pounds to generate evidence useful to a lawsuit against the vaccine manufacturers,

* the group of 12 children on whom he based his paper were not just a tiny fraction of the patient population, but a group deliberately steered to him by the same law firm that was paying him to generate evidence,

* he was planning a single-shot vaccine of his own at the time he was telling the press of the supposed dangers of combination vaccines, and

* he was concealing his conflicts of interests not just from the journal that was publishing his paper but even from his co-authors.

All of this is even before the revelations of outright fraud John Pouslon refers to. It is simply not an accurate accounting of the Wakefield affair to say he was vilified for the results of his publications, because his gross ethical lapses surely played a part.

Note to Tony Bateson: Elsewhere you've claimed that your "ad hoc studies" (by which I believe you mean simply what you've been told by visitors to your website) have never shown the existence of an unvaccinated person with any ASD. Now I note that your claim is carefully hedged with "in the UK." I wonder if this means you've finally, in December 2009, learned about Generation Rescue's phone survey, the results of which were released in June 2007? Even with all the spin that that fervently anti-vaccine group put on the results, they still reported thirty-seven children who were fully unvaccinated and had ASD diagnoses. Your "arithmetic" seems to be missing some significant digits.


Jake Crosby Posted on Friday 18 Dec 2009

Rebuttal to Antaeus Feldspar:

-Wakefield was not paid over 400,000 pounds, he was given a grant of 300,000 pounds after 100,000 pounds was withheld from the court and another 35,000 was withheld from the law firm.

-The money Wakefield received was for his research spanned over a period of 9 years from early 1996 to late 2004, which is miniscule for a surgeon.

-The 12 children in the paper were all evaluated and referred to him on a clinical basis. Wakefield had been seeing these children since 1995, well before his involvement in any kind of litigation.

-Single measles shots were already in circulation, what Wakefield was planning was actually a treatment for children with persistent measles virus infection, inflammatory bowel disease and regressive behavioral disorder.

-6 months after Wakefield advised single shots, the UK Department of Health revoked the option for single vaccines leaving the MMR as the only remaining option.

-The Lancet paper itself was intended to examine a link between autism and bowel disease, not autism and MMR, therefore legal involvement was irrelevant as far as the paper itself was concerned. He did not "keep" his "conflicts" from anybody.

-The law firm he was working with, Dawbarns, alerted the office of Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet 1 year in advance of publication about their involvement with Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

In rebuttal to John Pouslon:

The allegations of Wakefield falsifying research came entirely from one discredited "journalist" who is responsible for the hearing against Wakefield in the first place and has essentially been writing about the story he created. He is under investigation by the Press Complaint Commission which even ordered his newspaper, The Sunday Times, to take down the article which you reference, but the Times defied the order.

In response to the article, the 2006 study was authored by researchers who have been funded by MMR manufacturers, and did not specifically examine the subset of children with what Dr. Wakefield termed "autistic enterocolitis" to look for traces of measles, but all children with autism. Therefore the study results were useless.

The fact is, in multiple studies starting in Ireland in 2002, and the US in 2006, there have been findings of vaccine-strain measles in the guts of these children that have gone unchallenged to this day.


John Pouslon Posted on Tuesday 29 Dec 2009

This guy Jake Grosby just copies out what Wakefield tells him. Deer is an immensely respected investigative journalist. Nothing of his work has been discredited. He is not under investigation by anybody, and it appears that the London Sunday Times stands by its story.

The "multiple studies starting in Ireland", on the other hand, have been totally discredited, having been played out in a court in Washington DC, and rejected by three special masters, after reviewing all available data. The lead investigator refused to come to court.

I see that Deer's website currently has a summary of his investigation. If what he says is wrong, then presumaby Andrew Wakefield can retire early and donate his millions to autism organisations, since he would have the biggest libel action win in a generation. On the other hand, I have a feeling that Deer's words have the ring of truth, and neither the London Times nor he would have published them if this wasn't the case.



Tony Bateson Posted on Monday 25 Jan 2010

Two points only 1) my claim is not based upon responses to my websites (although these confirmed my views reached earlier) rather I formed the view that there were few or none autistic unvaccinated kids after speaking directly to all those parents I knew and met again after September 1996 (Mail on Sunday article) and others at seminars, conferences and study groups (parents interested in autism) where I asked the question from the floor or from the platform. The response from aggregate audiences of over 2,000 was one only! Subsequently unconfirmed when I emailed the mother afterwards. As these numbers represented at least one thousand families these numbers are convincing. Then I obtained data from a medical interventio study in young children (absolutely nothing to do with autism whatsoever) of seven hundred entries there was no autism at all in the unvaccinated group. Then I wrote more than 25 articles and letters to the national and regional press. One letter was awarded Letter of the Week by the Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea Gazette. Only one response ever seen from Dr Edward Danczac who said he had unvaccinated autistic patients at his clinic in Harley Street. When I visited him by appointment he found that he had mislaid the papers or they were at his clinic in Dubai. They have not been seen since. That's enough, I am satisfied that if there are any unvaccinated autistic kids in the UK they are pretty well hidden.

Point 2) I am just astonished to learn that it takes Poland to accede to the European Community before we learn that pharmaceutical companies selling vaccines to European countries insist upon contractual gagging clauses affecting the right of governments to make any comment upon the use of these vaccines and their consequences. Companies demand that only sanitised statements written by them are released to the news media. Doesn't this explain a lot. Why commenting upon vaccines and our kids is such a taboo subject. Why there is a propaganda army of paid hacks out there who label anyone who questions vaccines to be an anti-vacker or worse a threat to the health of the general population. What sort of wimps have we got in our governments who have signed these deals. Thank God for Poland!

Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.


George Posted on Monday 25 Jan 2010

The alleged link between MMR vaccines and autism has been conclusively disproven by researchers. Go and sell your homeopathy pills somewhere else please, because this is where your antiscientific BS has led to - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683687.ece

Owen, very good article.