Earlier this week, Chelsea Clinton spoke out against Andrew Wakefield and in support of vaccines. Hilarity ensued as antivaxers lost their mind in rage and faux disappointment in her.
Two badly designed, incompetently performed "studies" that claimed to show that unvaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated children were briefly published by a bottom feeding, predatory "open access" journal, and then they disappeared, having apparently been retracted. Now they're back, like Freddie Krueger, Jason, or Michael Myers, and antivaxers are rejoicing. I guess the check must have finally cleared.
In the course of just a couple days, a pair of atrociously incompetent studies by Andrew Wakefield fanboy Anthony Mawson were published and retracted by a predatory open access publisher. Surveying the reactions of antivaccine activists, I can't help but conclude that their tears of unfathomable sadness are delicious.
Yesterday, Orac made a rare oversight. He missed an antivaccine study that's risen from the dead once again after having been retracted. He is more than happy to correct that oversight here and now by applying some Insolence to the second study as well and to express amusement that it appears that both studies have been retracted yet again.
Antivaccine "studies" never die. They always return to promote disease among children.
Antivaccine studies never die, even if they are retracted. They rise to kill again.
I don’t have many “rules” per se about blogging, but one informal rule that I do live by is that I never blog about a study if all I can access is the abstract. In general, I insist on having the complete study before I will blog it, because to me the abstract isn’t enough. Basically, if I’m going to blog a study, I generally want to do it right and be able to read the whole paper, because that’s the only way to properly analyze a paper. I find this rule particularly important when analyzing the latest bit of …