Measles (c)
I’m going to start this post by going off on a tangent.
In 2005 an economist, Steven Levitt, published a book called Freakonomics. It’s a book that attempts to explain the reasons behind everyday occurances: The socioeconomic patterns of naming children, the economics of drug dealing, and the apparent cheating that takes place in sumo wrestling tournaments. However, the most famous theory revolves around the apparent reduction in crime that took place in the USA in the 1980s and 90s.
Levitt posited the idea that crime reduced as a result of the Roe vs. Wade court decision to legalise abortion in 1973. Allegedly the people most likely to want an abortion are those who live in low socioeconomic areas – and thus those most likely to turn to crime. Therefore, as a result of the increase in abortions, there was a decrease in crime. Levitt’s theory is definitely very satisfying – it makes a sort of logical sense that pleases me. Sadly, there has been quite a lot of evidence now that suggests the idea is not quite so plausible. Nevertheless, it has allowed the debate to continue – and if there is something we all like, it’s something to argue about.
And if there is one thing we don’t like, it’s people unfairly bringing an end to a debate – and thus bring about a debate on a completely different topic.
Jeni Barnett, radio present for LBC, recently broadcast a segment on a show about why she didn’t give the MMR vaccine to her child, and invited other people who had done the same to ring in with their opinions.
This topic is, of course, a debate in itself. The fact that this phone-in happened quite recently, does somewhat seem to ignore the most recent research that suggests that there is nothing to worry about – not to mention the apparent rise in measles outbreaks that seem to be occurring as a result. So, it isn’t surprising that some people were surprised by the members of the public who were still against the vaccination. One of these was Ben Goldacre – author of Bad Science.
Ben Goldacre has a thing against those who ignore areas of science in order to emphasize their own point. Fair enough. As a result of this, he had a thing against Ms. Barnett’s broadcast, posted the relevant segment of her show on his blog, and wrote this:
It is my view that in this extended broadcast Jeni exemplifies every single canard ever uttered by the antivaccination movement.
I invite you to document the rest below (the bit about empirical experience is particularly enjoyable) and maybe we can get the full list of canards together for the definitive numbers set of Bad Science Bingo. In fact, if there is an anti-vaxxer canard in existence which is not in this broadcast, I want to know about it, signed copy of some book for the best one.
Ms. Barnett had this to say about Mr. Goldacre’s response (I don’t know why I have suddenly gone so formal):
I am interested in the debate not a witch hunt.
Should anybody from BAD SCIENCE read this I urge you to continue the debate, and if it gets too heated there is always the option of turning me off.
Brilliant! Another argument debate! However, something strange then happened. Mr. Goldacre received a note from Ms. Barnett’s lawyers demanding that he took down the offending clip from his blog.
It’s probably important to point out that, as the Wardman Wire points out, the clip was less than 25% of the total show length, and thus did not infringe on any copyright rules. So, the only possible theory could be that, although Jeni Barnett invited debate, she did not want the sort of debate that put her in a bad light. Instead, she probably wanted the sort of debate that happens as a result of missed information, deception, and ignorance.
Fair enough.
Here’s Gerald:
