Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1714064
PaulB wrote:Is that as much to do with poor (p!s$ poor in some cases) presentation of the data and reporting initial findings as fact by the media as it is with the science changing?

I imagine that is at least part of the answer, unfortunately we live in times when half truths and downright lies are presented as absolute fact and it can be extremely difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1714066
It's still a matter of education and developing the ability to think critically about things. When that's combined with pish poor scientific journalism they run headlines like XXXX increases cancer risk by a third and (too many) people think that XXXX applies to them with no concept of the science and statistics behind it and the risks thereof. These aren't lies or even half truths, just are a general lack of understanding.
PaulB liked this
#1714105
romille wrote:
PaulB wrote:That's the thing about science.... sometimes it's found to be wrong and has the ability to change over time.

I think there is a distrust of government/medical/scientififc advice by the general public, as a result of advice being radically changed when the scientific community does a 180.


.. but, in my experience, the change is usually a slight refinement as a result of further research and experiences. However, this may be misrepresented by the media, including online, as a 180 reverse.

One of my several medical relatives once said to me that if a certain tabloid put a medical story on its front page, as a "miracle breakthrough" or a "new danger", one could be sure that the story was either absolutely wrong or effectively so by exaggeration or selective reporting; the unpredictable thing was how far it was also dangerous :roll:
PaulB, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1714121
Before the NHS existed, and after, when a neighbouring kid got measles, all us youngsters were thrown in together in order to “ get it” - in was the done thing in those days. Nobody knew any better, and the doc was bliddy miles away in the horse and cart.
#1714126
Bill McCarthy wrote:Before the NHS existed, and after, when a neighbouring kid got measles, all us youngsters were thrown in together in order to “ get it” - in was the done thing in those days. Nobody knew any better, and the doc was bliddy miles away in the horse and cart.


Did that work for polio too?

Lots of diseases used to just happen. For a community to get all its infections done in one go was better than it spreading over months. Children permanently affected just went away to an institution, (sad face).

However, if a disease becomes preventable it is madness not to do it, surely?
PaulB, kanga liked this
#1714138
The long term effects of polio were obviously recognised, hence the requirement keep us isolated. There was one case in the parish. When the Salk vaccine arrived we were given the injection, followed by a booster some time later. Mumps was another occasion when we were exposed, together. Better to get it in childhood, apparently.
Fever hospitals, built in remote areas of the Highlands, known for their corrugated iron construction, painted outside walls in “cream” with red roofs have only recently disappeared.
#1714156
That's the exact opposite... they used absolute to make it look small. :-)
#1714172
Some of us remember the Thalidomide scandal, it's aftermath, the brutal and shameful treatment of the victims by successive governments. not the only instance of malpractice, obfuscation , cover-ups, dishonesty and blatant , hard-faced lying. Is there any wonder that there is a high level of mistrust of the "ruling-classes" by the public in general and the less intelligent/less educated in particular?
#1714177
Story here

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health ... -away.html

Ironically it was thalidomide, which is still used clinically today for myeloma , a blood cancer (& occasionally for leprosy, and Beçhet's syndome) that caused many countries', including UK, medicine regulation & licensing systems to be completely re-written.

The emphasis now is demonstrating not only efficacy but also safety, both before marketing and in post marketing surveillance.