The entire MMR scare was based on fraud

Old news perhaps, but it can’t be restated enough: the MMR scare was bunk, based on fraud. The BMJ:

not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Illegal downloading did not cost the UK record industry £1 billion

Fun with bullshit statistics: the BPI says dodgy downloads cost record companies nearly £1 billion this year. But as the Guardian points out, even the BPI knows that figure is massively exaggerated:

While the notional worth of the 1.2bn illegal downloads was almost £1bn, the BPI estimated the actual loss from “forgone spend” was £219m in 2010.

Andrew Orlowski at The Register has a wonderful take on the news:

The British record industry group estimates there are 8 million people, or 23 per cent of the UK online population, using P2P software.

That means around two-thirds to three-quarters of people don’t indulge in piracy – a figure rarely mentioned in this debate, and a remarkable figure considering the risk of being caught (which are negligible) and potential savings (which are considerable). That means most people are fairly honest, and a considerable amount of money is not being tapped by the legitimate music business.

The BPI figures also neglect to mention that the music business is growing. Yes, sales of physical products are declining, but overall it’s party time. A report by PRS last year showed a changing industry:

retail product sales have declined, but the other parts of the industry have grown noticeably more than the decline in retail sales. This growth has come from a few sources. Live show attendance has increased more than retail sales have decreased. Consumers have actually spent more. On top of that, the business to business side of the industry (sponsorships, licensing, advertisements, etc.) has grown as well, opening up new and lucrative means of making money.

It’s not all good. There are real concerns that the money’s coming largely from established acts, the U2s and the Muses and the Rihannas and so on: they get a disproportionate share of the money pie, and there are fears that there isn’t another generation of enormo-acts behind them.

That may be true, but the reason for that isn’t piracy: it’s a whole mess of factors including an increasingly fragmented media landscape, the rise of alternative forms of entertainment such as videogames and so on.

Another big factor is the way in which record companies have changed: increasingly the landscape is one of mega-corporations whose need to satisfy shareholders means they want results now, not ten years from now. As the cliche goes, if U2 were around today, they probably wouldn’t get signed – and if they did get signed, they’d be dropped before their third album.

Over at No Rock, Simon H B adds:

Taylor [Geoff Taylor of the BPI] ends with a plea for more legislation. The BPI always think that what is needed is more unenforceable legislation.

How could the record labels ensure their demands get a sympathetic hearing? Here’s one idea: Private Eye reports that Universal Music gave £80,000 to the Tories in July.

Back to Simon:

The trouble is, with the bunch of turnips sitting in Westminster at the moment, they might get their wish. More time, money and effort trying to buck the marketplace. It’ll still fail, though.

Panorama and videogames

Last night’s Panorama programme – the BBC’s flagship current affairs show – was dedicated to the evils of videogames. I haven’t seen it, but I do know that John Walker of Rock, Paper, Shotgun is an eminently reasonable and trustworthy writer, so I’m linking to this piece he wrote about it.

I believe that there is a real risk for those who use gaming to compensate for other negative factors in their lives, and for those whose gaming becomes problematic for any reason. I believe that these matters deserve to be taken seriously. It is to be treated with severity. This sort of scaremongering endangers such people by mis-labelling.

For example:

We move on to the tragic story of the Korean couple who let their baby die through neglect, as they spent their time gaming. We get told that they both had “low IQs” and that both suffered from “depression”, but both those factors are ignored because as a result of their circumstances they spent too much time playing Prius Online. “She was mentally not that stable to begin with,” explains a doctor at the clinic that treated the mother. But this isn’t an episode about mental illness leading to the deaths of babies. It’s about gaming causing it. Gaming caused it.

I agree entirely with John: so many people play games that it’d be strange if problematic gaming didn’t exist. However:

Until there is some evidence that gaming can create an addiction in someone otherwise undisposed to addictive behaviour, then it must be understood as a consequence of addiction, not a cause. To do otherwise is ignorant, dangerous, and harmful to the individuals. Blame it on gaming, and you’ll take away the games, leaving the person to continue suffering.

Breastfeeding and making new mums feel like crap

I’ve written before about the way new mums are talked down to by health “professionals” – last week on Radio Scotland the NHS Breastfeeding Co-Ordinator spent an entire programme patronising women who dared suggest that breastfeeding isn’t always possible – and other parents, but Zoe Williams expresses it wonderfully in today’s Guardian:

the case for breastfeeding is not that strong, and it has passed so seamlessly into the book of What’s Best for Baby that it’s often very lazily put. To give an example, there’s a charity called Best Beginnings, which aims to foster breastfeeding confidence, and is endorsed by the Department of Health, the Health Protection Agency, the NHS . . . the full force of nationalised health provision. Its opening statement is, “Did you know babies who aren’t breastfed are five times more likely to end up in hospital with serious tummy bugs? Or that in countries like Australia or Norway, people think breastfeeding is as normal as putting the kettle on?”

Here’s the thing: that figure in the first statement is from the World Health Organisation, which presents it as a global collation of statistics. In other words, this is not comparing two babies from Surbiton. It’s comparing breastfed babies to formula-fed babies from countries where they might not even have an assured water supply or sterilising equipment or electricity, where they might not even have enough formula. It’s an absurd way to propagandise for breastfeeding. If they were flogging a Pot Noodle, they wouldn’t get away with it.

…the statistics showing less asthma, less eczema, less obesity, fewer ear infections: these haven’t been adjusted for social class and environment. It boils down to: “Middle-class babies do better; middle-class babies tend to be breastfed.”

Mums and mums-to-be have a tough enough time without this bullshit.

I don’t mean to sound callous, but I am, so that’s how it comes out*

I’ve just received an email forward asking me to look out for a missing kid called Reachelle Marie Smith. As with 99% of these things, the email’s a load of nonsense: while it is indeed based on a real case, the girl didn’t go missing from Woking (as claimed; another version says it happened in Australia); she went missing from North Dakota. She isn’t three; if she’s still alive – which, quite frankly, is really bloody unlikely – she’ll be seven. Etc etc etc.

This Washington Post story might be useful if you’ve received the version of the mail telling you to look out for Leigh Cowen who “may be en route to Kansas”. He’s not en route to Kansas any more, and hasn’t been since 2006.

Leigh Cowen, 22, was found Tuesday inside a van on a gravel road at the Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge, authorities said. Cowen appeared to have killed himself by carbon monoxide poisoning.

If you really, really must forward every tear-jerking email demanding people check their sheds for missing kids (and here’s a hint: you really, really shouldn’t), at least forward the right bloody information.

* When I’m in a bad mood I tend to channel Bill Hicks.

CES 2010: technology and a horrible bum disease

I’ve been following the more interesting developments at this week’s CES gadget frenzy, and naturally I’ve been writing about them too. First up, comparing Steve Ballmer to anal unpleasantness.

Every day, Apple shareholders wake up and thank their lucky stars that their chosen firm’s CEO isn’t Steve Ballmer. The Gordon Brown of tech could make even the Apple Tablet as desirable as some horrible bum disease.

Also, how tech can make teenagers’ lives miserable.

Parental controls are in everything. They’re in your Sky box, in your games console. They’re in Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. If they want to, your folks can even prevent you from doing anything vaguely interesting or useful on your iPhone in case you might see a word such as “tits”. And now they’re in your car.

Isn’t that awful?

Not to mention, Why Apple and Google should show at CES.

What we’d like to see is for Google and Apple to embrace CES, to join in the fun, to remember that consumer electronics are first and foremost about entertainment.

It’d be brilliant – the tech Glastonbury, and we don’t mean one of the rubbish years where everyone pretends to like Tom Jones.

They could heckle Steve Ballmer, deliver jaw-dropping keynotes and wake up in strange rooms with Steve Jobs missing, a baby in the cupboard and Mike Tyson’s tiger in the bathroom.

Last but not least: why comparing Android versus iPhone to PC versus Mac is, well, a great big load of shite.

“Technology tastemakers are thrilled with the platform’s open-ness”, Blodget asserts, waggling an accusing finger at Big Bad Apple and its treatment of developers. That’s irrelevant. Ogg Vorbis is open and thoroughly approved by technology tastemakers. When was the last time anybody without a beard ripped their CDs into that format?

And while risible, Apple’s treatment of the odd developer is only of interest to a few developers.

Is Android pretty nifty? Will it gain market share? Will a few iPhone refuseniks buy Nexus Ones? Yes, definitely and undoubtedly. Is the iPhone about to tank? Don’t be silly.

Buying books online for Xmas? I’d avoid Waterstone’s if I were you

I’m beginning to suspect that Waterstone’s online isn’t really cut out for the book selling business. The site’s nice. The prices are okay. The selection’s pretty good. That’s all fine. It’s just the getting-books-to-your-house bit that seems to have been designed by complete fucking numpties.

I ordered four books in mid-November, three of which were in stock and the fourth of which was due for publication that Friday. As expected, the order confirmation said, “Ooh, one of your books isn’t out yet. Once it is we’ll send the entire order to you”. Fine, I thought, and waited for the order to turn up.

And waited.

And waited.

And waited.

So I checked online. All four books were out of stock, said the order tracking page.

I emailed customer services.

Our website is wrong, customer services said. Three of the four books are in stock. The fourth one, the one that hadn’t been published when you ordered, isn’t in stock yet. Don’t worry, though. At 14 days, even if the fourth book hasn’t turned up, the other three books will be sent to you.

The books weren’t sent out on day 14. I checked online. All four books were out of stock.

I emailed again.

The website is wrong, customer services told me.

What they told me was this.

The three books that we told you were in stock weren’t in stock even though the website said they were in stock when you placed the order. They’re not in stock, and when we said three of the four books were in stock we were wrong because they weren’t in stock and they aren’t in stock. We don’t know when you’ll receive those books because they’re not in stock.

The other book, though, the fourth book that wasn’t in stock because it hadn’t been published and then it just wasn’t in stock, when we said it was out of stock we were wrong because that one is in stock and in fact it’s been despatched to you.

When will I get my other three books? It is a mystery!

So, yeah. If you’re ordering stuff for Xmas, Waterstones might not be the smartest choice.

That’s not a paywall. That’s a taking-the-piss-wall

After reading Mupwangle’s comment regarding The 4 of Us (in the Anorak’n'Roll thread further down the page), I decided to try and find out from the horse’s mouth why the band went completely off the radar in the mid-90s. There isn’t much online, but I did find a link to a recent interview in Hot Press (Ireland’s equivalent of the NME) that might have been worth reading. Unfortunately it turns out that the piece is behind a paywall, and there’s not even an extract, not even a paragraph, to indicate whether it’s going to be worth paying to read. So how much does Hot Press expect me to pay?

This article is now part of the hotpress.com archive. To access this article you need to subscribe to hotpress.com for the bargain price of €20 or be a subscriber to Hot Press Magazine.

Even by Irish standards, twenty euros seems rather pricey.

Who needs facts when you have faith?

There’s a truly extraordinary article by AN Wilson in today’s Daily Mail which, after something of an online storm, has been tweaked – so it’s no longer illustrated with a picture of Hitler, as it was this morning.  I’m not going to link to it because I’m increasingly convinced that the Mail runs really crazy stories for no other reason than to boost traffic.

It’s incredible, though.

The trouble with a ‘scientific’ argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts

Imagine people relying solely on empirical facts!

Mr Wilson then compares scientists with their empirical facts to Dr Mengele, and suggests that Science = Hitler. I’m not making this up.

The only difference between Hitler and previous governments was that he believed, with babyish credulity, in science as the only truth

Here was me thinking one of the differences was that Hitler was a crazy motherfucker. Apparently not.

I am not suggesting that any British scientists are currently conducting experiments comparable to those which were allowed in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia. But I see the same habit of mind at work in Professor Nutt and his colleagues as made those mad scientists of the 20th century think they were above the moral law which governs the rest of us mortals.

Professor Nutt dared to suggest that government drugs policy was based on politics rather than reality. That’s not quite Mengele.

In fact, it is the arrogant scientific establishment which questions free expression. Think of the hoo-ha which occurred when one hospital doctor dared to question the wisdom of using the MMR vaccine.

That’ll be the hoo-hah which occured when one doctor made shit up and newspapers ran with it, seriously damaging the vaccination programme for no good reason and exposing children to potentially fatal illnesses. The worst offender? Yes, the Daily Mail.

The point here is not whether he was right or wrong

He was wrong. And here we are, years later, still suggesting that Wakefield is a victim rather than an offender (with pure intentions, perhaps, but the effect was still parents abandoning vaccination and exposing children to unnecessary risks). Scientists? It’s the newspapers we should be scared of.

Vaccines bad, m’kay?

Here we go again. Malcolm Coles argues that media reports are doing an MMR, this time with the cervical cancer vaccine:

Let’s be clear. The only reason parents are worried, boycotting the vaccine, and demanding suspensions of the vaccination program is because the media whipped up a storm with no evidence whatsoever.