The perils of online polls – The Guardian get outwitted by idiots *update*

Online polls are notoriously inaccurate, unreliable and open to manipulation and no serious decision should be taken on the basis of one.  However, they are often used to capture a snapshot of a particular confluence of public opinion, societal pressures and agendas at a particular point in time which can be later used to either argue a position or decide influence editorial direction in the case of media outlets.  By asking online readers of a newspaper their opinions on a subject allows that newspaper to plan the design and focus of its online reporting and opinion pieces to best respond to the desires of its readers.

The Guardian, in response to reports of measles rates increasing, have placed a poll on their website that asks the question ‘Should the MMR jab be compulsory?‘.  This poll exemplifies the perils of online polling, highlights the stupidity of the media on health matters and accentuates the downside of online comment boxes.

The problems with the poll start not with the question, which is an interesting one that requires a thorough appreciation of the safety of the MMR jab, the rights of an individual to make individual decisions balanced against their responsibility to society for the outcome of that decision, and the loss of trust that results from perceived bullying behaviour by state organisations.  But with the responses, of which there are two.

Yes: letting measles spread is irresponsible

No: parents must be free to choose

Now I appreciate that it can be argued that the initial question does have a binary yes/no response but it is unfortunate that The Guardian felt the need to shape respondents opinions with flawed responses.  Choose what exactly?  Of course it is irresponsible, not to mention damaging and fatal, to let measles spread but it is also important that patients have some autonomy in their health decisions.  By asking, and answering, the question in this manner distills the MMR story into a false dichotomy that feeds into the fantasies of MMR/Autism advocates that the issue is one of state or business suppression of an individuals right to choose.

The MMR story is one of the tragedies of the modern media age where the dubious findings of a dubious experiment were pumped, primped and pimped from humble beginnings into a hysterical exercise of shrieking excess where columnists and journalists abused science, taunted experts and tainted public discourse in their willingness to accept and promote the theories of a rogue researcher who claimed that there was a link between autism and MMR.  A rogue researcher who breached ethics, conducted unnecessary invasive surgical techniques, ignored concerns over data from colleagues and who stood to profit from his findings.  This media taint has permeated society to such an extent that it is almost impossible, a decade after the start, to discuss this issue sensibly in a public forum without attracting a clucking horde of quacks whose opinions have been informed by previous scaremongering.

The quacks fear of vaccination has remained constant and their support for dubious research remains strong but they have begun to modify their public arguments.  No longer do they argue against MMR based on fears of autism, rather they argue that we should support health freedoms – the peoples right to chose their treatment.  They will mutter darkly about vaccination weakening the immune system, mercury causing autism and appeals to people’s natural distrust of industrial science but their initial arguments will be that healthcare is about choice.  Not the choice between hospitals or treatments of proven efficacy, as per the rhetoric of the UK government, but the freedom to choose alternative medicine and to reject vaccination.  The phrasing of this Guardian poll feeds this fantasy that begets ignorance but it also acts as a beacon and outlet beckoning quacks only too keen to share their ignorance with and promote their prejudices in the comment boxes below.

The comments section has degenerated into the familiar MMR debate where the forces of reason, armed with their scientific evidence and clinical trials, take on the forces of alternative thinking where chelation and sugar pills cure autism and science is to be ignored when it conflicts with deeply held beliefs.  One of the major factors in the persistence of the MMR/Autism myth has been the media habit of promoting two contrasting views in the name of ‘balance’, even if one view is utterly discredited it still seems to be given more space or air time than it would deserve.  The Guardian’s poorly phrased poll responses and willingness to provide a forum for the debate are only fuelling the passions of quacks who will continue to be encouraged by the forums offered to them, demand rights of reply, and become inspired to seek out other outlets.

In fact I can’t help but think the poll itself is being manipulated by quacks.  When the poll was initially presented the percentages supporting compulsory vaccination was over 75%, since the quacks entered the comments boxes that percentage has now fallen below 50%.   I’m not sure this is coincidence.  I’m not going to criticise the manipulation of the poll, people will always do it and on all sides, but it does continue to suggest The Guardian was being less than wise in deciding to do this poll.  This is The Guardian that features a column from Ben Goldacre, scourge of the media’s role in MMR scaremongering, is disappointing.  Looking at the results of this poll and the comments you might think that it accurately represents the views of society.  Of course then you would be taken outside and shot for being stupid enough to believe an online poll.  But that is not the point, even the BBC news report The Guardian use to justify their running of the poll shows that vaccination levels are at 75% for MMR.  That this poll and comments flatly contradict the report just shows online polls tell you little.  So why then would The Guardian choose to run it?  It has attracted scaremongering and ignorant opinion, has apparently been manipulated and in my opinion has done nothing to further the necessary education of the public about the benefits of vaccination.  In fact it has provided yet another outlet for the voices of idiocy.  The poll and comments are proof that asking such polls and inviting such comments are pointless and even harmful.

*Update*

This sorry little exercise in futility is getting worse.  There is an excellent article on media reports of MMR by Ben Goldacre in today’s Guardian.  One of the commentators to the article is somebody called ‘Pluralist’. Now Pluralist is John Stone, one of the founders of the anti-vaccination pressure group JABS.  John Stone claims that

I note that even in the Guardian where we had a poll last week about making MMR compulsory (with very slanted presentation) the final result was 78.7 against, 21.3 for.

What John Stone fails to mention is that JABS actively encouraged manipulation of this poll on their forum, as I suspected.  So here we have a leading anti-vaccination campaigner whose organisation manipulated a poll and who is now citing this poll to support his position.  Nice one Guardian.

[BPSDB]