Friday, February 27, 2009

Anatomy of a scare

This piece about vaccine safety, from Newsweek, is long yet tightly written. As a health reporter, I liked it because it's such a good synthesis of a complicated story. But I also like the writing -- not only because every word counts but because of the many clear transitions, phrases like "being barricaded behind the impregnable wall of autism" and clever use of quotes like the one from Jenny McCarthy: "My science is Evan."

David

Anatomy of a scare
Like many people in London on that bleak February day in 1998, biochemist Nicholas Chadwick was eager to hear what the scientists would say. The Royal Free Hospital, where he was a graduate student in the lab of gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, had called a press conference to unveil the results of a new study. With flashbulbs popping, Wakefield stepped up to the bank of microphones: he and his colleagues, he said, had discovered a new syndrome that they believed was triggered by the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. In eight of the 12 children in their study, being published that day in the respected journal The Lancet, they had found severe intestinal inflammation, with the symptoms striking six days, on average, after the children received the MMR. But hospitals don't hold elaborate press conferences for studies of gut problems. The reason for all the hoopla was that nine of the children in the study also had autism, and the tragic disease had seized them between one and 14 days after their MMR jab. The vaccine, Wakefield suggested, had damaged the intestine—in particular, the measles part had caused serious inflammation—allowing harmful proteins to leak from the gut into the bloodstream and from there to the brain, where they damaged neurons in a way that triggered autism. Although in their paper the scientists noted that "we did not prove an association" between the MMR and autism, Wakefield was adamant. "It's a moral issue for me," he said, "and I can't support the continued use of [the MMR] until this issue has been resolved."

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Twitter

For that growing number of WSJ reporters who have found themselves asking, "What's the big deal about Twitter?" I present the the following well-considered piece from LA Times writer James Rainey:
Twitter's charms sort of grow on you
James Rainey
February 18, 2009

Twitter always reminded me of my dog, squirming around, tail wagging -- demanding a little more attention than I felt I could give. But when I devoted a few minutes of attention, it was usually worthwhile.

The Internet-based status-update service has been all the rage of late, with master Twitterers receiving awards, celebrity journalists pledging their allegiance and a research paper showing just who uses the micro-blogging system that delivers news morsels, 140 characters at a time.

Twitter -- -- will never be the New Yorker or even the Associated Press, but it's another window into a world that I find I'm liking, despite myself.
[...]
The site's entry prompt -- "What are you doing?" -- implies it's merely a repository for the banal, narcissistic drivel that chokes social networking sites. But many Twitter users have pushed well past daily minutiae (i.e. "I love my new Crocs"), as demonstrated by last week's first Shorty Awards.
Read on.