[re-reads harry potter instead of dealing with my responsibilities]
the dog all puppies aspire to be
he did it
he caught the tail
his face just says “what am i going to do with my life now”
Have you any opinions on whether vaccines contribute to autism?
They don’t, and that’s not an opinion, that’s a fact.
The dude who promoted that shitty claim has since lost his medical accreditation. Since then not a single study has found any correlation between vaccines and higher autism rates.
OK, everyone keeps talking about Dr Wakefield losing his medical accreditation (that is, he was struck off the register in the UK which is the equivalent to losing your license in the US - it is illegal for him to practice medicine in the United Kingdom now), but they don’t really go into detail about why. The Wikipedia article has an enormous wealth of knowledge and I would recommend reading it to get a proper overview, but here’s the TL;DR:
Andrew Wakefield (and colleagues) took 12 autistic children, 8 of whom presented with “behavioural symptoms” after being given the MMR vaccination, the onset of these symptoms reportedly occurring within 2 weeks of the vaccination.
Now, already a scientist reading this is probably scoffing at the statistical irrelevance of such a study - but note that Wakefield fully admitted that no link had been proven. He simply wished to use the study to block the triple vaccine until further research could be conducted - sounds pretty noble, right?
But the issue is his motivation. He wanted to give his patients three separate single-virus injections over the course of three years, instead of administering a single triple-virus injection in one shot. He manufactured his “research” in order to stir up controversy surrounding the triple shot virus, so that it would be blocked and he could go back to what he was familiar with (which was by this point deprecated due to obsolescence).
A bias of this magnitude was enough for his hospital to ask him to leave, which he said was because his results were “unpopular”, but the fact of the matter was that there was an undeclared conflict of interest in the results.
So far, we’ve got some guy who’s trying to push an agenda and is being a bit of a dick about it, and lost his job over it. Pretty bad, but not exactly the next Stalin. It gets worse.
The 12 kids from the study were subjected to invasive medical procedures - a colonoscopy and a lumbar puncture (the latter of which is an excruciatingly painful injection into the spine with an enormous needle, as anybody who’s watched House will tell you) each.
It gets worse.
He was in the process of applying for a patent for the single-virus Measles injection before his campaign against the MMR injection began.
He unsuccessfully sued for libel when Channel 4 brought this all to light, along with allegations of a third-party paying Wakefield over £400,000 to build a case against the MMR vaccine, which may or may not also be true.
Nobody has been able to reproduce his results in the 16 years since all this began.
Many people have conducted much larger studies and found no link whatsoever between autism and the MMR vaccination.
The stupidest thing about the entire debacle is that Wakefield was fucking pro-vax and probably still is to this day. He just wanted people to use his (patented) vaccine instead of the MMR triple vaccine which was vastly superior, so he invented a problem with the MMR vaccine in order to put people off it, inadvertently putting people off not just the MMR vaccine but also other vaccines that are entirely unrelated to the MMR vaccine. There’s a sort of sad irony in that, I think.
Yep, all of this. In case any of you were interested on what exactly went down in the Wakefield case…. this is the whole shitty package.
There it is. And now children (and adults) are DYING because of this bastard’s greed and recklessness.
I struggle to find words to convey the badness of both the situation and the man. Truly it’s an awful thing when a medical professional goes rogue.
Can I just say that I think this is the way Mulan should appear int the parks. In the beginning of the movie they make it very clear that the dress she wears to meet the matchmaker is not comfortable nor does it represent her personality. She spends the whole of the film proving that she is not a prize to be won or just a pawn to be married off at earliest convenience. She proves her worth in this outfit. She saves China in this outfit. She falls in love in this outfit. She risks her life, makes her strongest friendships, and changes the entire country IN THIS OUTFIT. Then they have her walk around the park in the same outfit she wore in the first scene of the movie and I think it is really negative toward her character. That is not who she is.
I’ve seen this post pop up on my dash time and time again, and it’s never quite sat right with me. I agree 120% with the idea that the pink “matchmaker dress” is a poor way to represent Mulan in the theme parks, but… so is her soldier armor. It’s just as much not who she is as the pink dress. It represents her pretending to be Ping, and her deceiving everyone around her. It is her pretending to be a man, to be someone else entirely. Honestly, if you want to talk about the outfit that best represents her, I’d suggest this one:
The outfit she wore when she defeated Shan Yu. That is who Mulan is; a warrior, but still a woman. It displays all of the strength that she truly has, yet still manages to be true to who she truly is. This it the outfit that she changed the entire country in; would anything have changed if she was still pretending to be a man? I doubt it. This proves that a woman can be strong, but still be feminine. Given that many people tend to equate being feminine with weakness, I think portraying that the two are not mutually exclusive is a damn powerful message to be portraying to kids in theme parks.
Just my two cents.
(Source: Flickr / klingon65)
finally someone put up the whole thing, tragically beautiful
I know someone will ask, so this is from the movie Watchmen. The entire movie has nothing to do with this scene, really, considering it’s about heroes. But it is a beautiful opener.
If you think Watchmen had nothing to do with this scene ‘because it’s about heroes’ then you totally missed the point of the movie.
For the bolded….
[re-reads harry potter instead of dealing with my responsibilities]
"It just shows you how important it is to represent everyone in our profession." (x)
MEDIA REPRESENTATION IS IMPORTANT
If you’re going to stab someone you have to either say “I am no man.” or “The Lannisters send their regards.” sorry I don’t make the rules.
Statistical and Visual Representation of POC characters in New Who
I used data from the wonderful burntlikethesun.
The first set of data (colour coded in reds and pinks) is based on the number of POC with dialogue, but counting recurring POC each time they appeared in separate episodes. For example, instead of Martha just being counted once, she is was counted for each separate episode she appears in. The second set of data (colour coded in greens) is based on the number of POC with dialogue, but only counting each recurring POC once. So Martha and Mickey were each only counted once. The first set of data gives some idea of how important POC are to the plot, how developed they are etc. The second set of data is an indicator of how many individual POC with dialogue we have.
(This data does not include minisodes, and does not including at least 4 WoC in prosthetics from RTD’s era: Jabe, Matron Casp, Sister Jatt, Chantho)
To give a fair comparison of the eras (since obviously RTD’s era has more episodes) I divided the number of POC in each set of data by the number of episodes from each era (not including the minisodes). This gave the average number of POC in each episode for each set of data. I then multiplied this value by 100 to give an accurate representation of how many POC with dialogue would be in 100 episodes from each era, for both sets of data. (Obviously in Moffat’s era, this would be if current trends continued.)
I then represented these numbers on graphs.
The data used was raw data, and no one can deny that there is a problem here. The number has fallen by more than half since Moffat. We’ve had a serious decline in the number of POC in speaking roles. Oh, but Moffat’s show is so ~progressive~ isn’t it?
OH WOW SOME PRIVILEGED BIGOTED DOUCHEBAG ON THE INTERNET TOLD ME TO KILL MYSELF BECAUSE I AM POINTING OUT PROBLEMATIC ELEMENTS IN A POPULAR TV SHOW AND HE FEELS THREATENED HAHAHAHAH I’M SURELY GOING TO KILL MYSELF NOW BECAUSE I’M MAKING YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE