1. sciencepunk
  2. LBC sic lawyers on Ben Goldacre over criticism of MMR show

LBC sic lawyers on Ben Goldacre over criticism of MMR show

By sciencepunk on February 5, 2009.

News just in: London's LBC 97.3 radio are using legal chill in an attempt to silence Dr Ben Goldacre's criticism of their scaremongering over the MMR vaccine.

Britain is currently in the midst of a measles epidemic due to a sharp drop in the takeup of MMR. Why? Because certain sections the media have been relentlessly fear-mongering over the supposed link between the jab and autism, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Even now, after most of the panic has subsided, some people insist on banging that hollow drum.

Kids are dying, and now those pointing out how dangerous this hysteria is are being threatened with legal action for their trouble. Please visit Ben's site and show your support.

Tags
Uncategorized

More like this

Two articles on Wakefield and Anti-vax denialism
Two Guardian articles appear today on Andrew Wakefield and his associates. The first is a discussion of his unethical and invasive methods used in his now-debunked study that purported to show a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Vulnerable children were subjected to "inappropriate and…
Help Ben Goldacre out...he's being sued again
If I lived in the U.K., I don't know if I could blog. After all, the U.K. has some of the most plaintiff-friendly libel laws in the world, far more so than here in the U.S., in that in a libel case it is up to the defendant to prove that what he wrote is true, not the plaintiff to prove it false…
Keith Olbermann: Played for a fool by the antivaccine movement
Stick a fork in Keith Olbermann. He's done. He has now officially degenerated into a liberal version of Rush Limbaugh, except that Rush Limbaugh is occasionally funny. Maybe he's more like Sean Hannity, particularly in his apparent dedication to the truth, or, rather, lack thereof. Hannity detests…
Andrew Wakefield: The Galileo Gambit writ large in The Observer
I just don't understand it. I just don't understand how anyone can take discredited antivaccination loon Andrew Wakefield seriously anymore. In particular, I don't understand how any reputable newspaper can actually take him seriously anymore, given how thoroughly he and his "work" have been…

BBC Radio 4's Today programme had a piece about measles and vaccination today (Fri 6 Feb, sometime between 08:00 and 08:30). It was an improvement in some ways in that it gave no credence to the denialists and contrarians, but part of the report was an interview with "a parent". This parent, who no doubt considers himself responsible and caring, trotted out a whole series of ignorant canards: that perhaps having measles made one stronger compared with avoiding it, that he thought the government was only using triple vaccines to save costs (when asked if he had had his kids vaccinated with single vaccines, he said no!), that one wouldn't take risks, however small with one's own kids (obviously risks don't include measles complications!).

Obviously it makes better radio to have a real "member of the public" trot out this nonsense than to have a reporter bore us with the results of a survey, but I'm sure it does harm. Everything the parent said about measles and vaccination was at best untrue, at worst an outright lie, but if you listened you heard a reasonable sort of ordinary guy, articulate without being salesman-slimy, and that repetition of nonsense strengthens this misperceptions.

The medical guy (whose name I didn't note, sorry), neatly and politely demolished all of this nonsense, but by then the damage had been done.

I'm with Dr Ben and the thesis of his book that the publicity given to quacks, charlatans, liars, denialists, etc. by the media is probably more of a problem than the dishonest people themselves.

It's hard to believe that there isn't some kind of legal restraint made on journalists and broadcasters regarding the dissemination of (e.g.) incorrect medical information that has been shown, in a court of law, if necessary, to be false. If they break that putative law, thereby endangering people, then they get banged up, and have to make a public apology and retraction.

It should have the same measure of legality as practising medicine without a license, or incitement to cause civil unrest...

Naturally you'd have to make it very specific to medical knowledge, otherwise it'd be misused by naughty governments to silence dissenters, and there would still need to be a channel through which people could argue about a topic, but not one by which they could actually broadcast their dangerous ignorance all over the country while they're doing it, just to chase ratings with the old 'manufactured controversy' ploy.

Sure, journalists and broadcasters should have their rights â NEED to have their rights â but they really should be balanced with responsibilities as well.

Worth pointing out that LBC charge for their radio shows after broadcast so the lawyers may be legally correct. However the thoroughly confused and inadequate response by the broadcaster concerned,Jeni Barnett, does suggest the moral high ground is with Goldacre. IMHO the worst part of this is not the lawyers but the fingers in the ears attitude of Ms Barnett who blithely turns a tin ear to the criticism she is receiving in a fine example of the arrogance of ignorance.

While I agree that bloggers should be able to broadcast excerpts of programs so long as they give full attribution (usually the whole point of the piece), I do think that Ben is pushing it with a 44 minute long segment. Perhaps some shorter segments as examples and a link to the original program would have been wiser.

In any case I'd be happy to donate to a legal fund for his defence if this ever goes to court, it would be good to establish what the limits of fair dealing are.

Just to warn anyone going to Ben's site that it doesn't seem to be displaying properly at the moment. I'm guessing it's getting an awful lot of traffic.

Please be patient.