Latest news with #Mawson
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Son's wait for answers over 2020 sporting events
A son whose father fell ill after attending a football match in March 2020 is asking why the government did not cancel sporting events sooner. Jamie Mawson's father Richard was among 52,000 spectators – including 3,000 Spanish football fans – who were allowed to attend a Champions League match between Liverpool and Atletico Madrid at Anfield on 11 March 2020. It was also the same day the World Health Organisation categorised coronavirus as a pandemic. But the UK were yet to introduce restrictions on gatherings and travel. Jamie recalls: "We were watching Spain and Italy where people were getting carried out in body bags and they let mass gatherings go ahead here." He says his dad would be on the phone two or three times a day that week, asking: "Do you think this match should be going ahead?" "He was really conscious about going to the game however the government let it go ahead along with Cheltenham horse racing." According to estimates, there were 41 and 37 additional deaths a month afterwards in hospitals in Liverpool and Cheltenham respectively. Healthcare researchers also believe thousands more were infected following gatherings linked to the Anfield match and the four-day horse racing festival. In early March, partial lockdown had already been implemented in Madrid, which was the epicentre of the outbreak in Spain. Two days before the match, Liverpool fans' group The Spirit Of Shankly raised concerns at a council-chaired safety meeting but were told it would go ahead in line with government advice. On the day of the game, England's deputy chief medical officer said the UK was "following the science and the evidence" in not banning sports events, because large gatherings "are not seen to be something which is going to have a big effect". Later that night, Mr Mawson, aged 70, joined thousands of other fans as he took the short walk from his home near Stanley Park to the stadium. Some days after the game, Mr Mawson felt ill and struggled with breathing, prompting his wife to ring for an ambulance. He was diagnosed in hospital with coronavirus and Jamie, unable to visit his father due to lockdown restrictions, phoned him. "He was really, really struggling and I was saying you'll be fine. His last words was 'I've got to go, I can't breathe'." Mr Mawson's condition deteriorated and he died on 17 April. "It's a tough ask to say your goodbyes over a video link - that was the most heartbreaking thing I have ever experienced," says Jamie. "We were all upset and crying and screaming. "I pleaded with the nurse to hold his hand and she was like an angel to us. She held his hand while he passed." It is not possible to say for certain where Mr Mawson caught coronavirus, however a scientific study found the Anfield game and Cheltenham Festival "caused increased suffering and death". Liverpool City Region mayor Steve Rotheram highlights the discrepancy between a lack of restrictions in the UK at the time and those of Spanish authorities, who had "prevented Atletico fans from watching their team at home but they were allowed to travel across Europe and go to Anfield for that particular game". Rotheram believes "national government was in absolute chaos" as opinions differed among scientists and politicians over when to introduce restrictions. At the Covid inquiry, England's chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty said he felt, in early 2020, there was "no good evidence" that prohibitions on mass gatherings would affect transmission and football fans would crowd into pubs instead. However he now believes lockdown on 23 March 2020 was imposed "a bit too late", while the then prime minister Boris Johnson told the inquiry "with hindsight" mass gatherings should have been stopped earlier. Rotheram says: "We're all a lot better educated and informed around pandemics now than we ever have been. "But that doesn't in any way mean the government gets off because they were the people who were charged with the safety of the nation and it was their preparedness that let all of us down." He says public health officials are "much better prepared" should there be a similar situation in the future, with work being carried out at The Pandemic Institute established in Liverpool in 2021. Jamie believes it was a "big, big mistake" that the Anfield game and Cheltenham festival were allowed to go ahead. He adds there has been "a lot of anger" among bereaved families and others affected by Covid. "I want to know who is held accountable and responsible for the thousands of deaths. Personally I think it was the previous government." He is now part of the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice group, represented at the national inquiry by the barrister Pete Weatherby KC, who has highlighted others that died after the Anfield game. Jamie says: "I don't want another generation to go through what we had to go through - 230,000 deaths. It's just about being prepared." Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer. First Covid lockdown imposed bit too late - Whitty The story of the last game in England before football locked down Sports events 'shut down too late to save lives' Call for Liverpool v Atletico inquiry How does the Covid inquiry work?
BBC News
12-03-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Son questions why sporting events still continued in March 2020
A son whose father fell ill after attending a football match in March 2020 is asking why the government did not cancel sporting events sooner. Jamie Mawson's father Richard was among 52,000 spectators – including 3,000 Spanish football fans – who were allowed to attend a Champions League match between Liverpool and Atletico Madrid at Anfield on 11 March was also the same day the World Health Organisation categorised coronavirus as a pandemic. But the UK were yet to introduce restrictions on gatherings and recalls: "We were watching Spain and Italy where people were getting carried out in body bags and they let mass gatherings go ahead here." He says his dad would be on the phone two or three times a day that week, asking: "Do you think this match should be going ahead?""He was really conscious about going to the game however the government let it go ahead along with Cheltenham horse racing."According to estimates, there were 41 and 37 additional deaths a month afterwards in hospitals in Liverpool and Cheltenham respectively. Healthcare researchers also believe thousands more were infected following gatherings linked to the Anfield match and the four-day horse racing festival. In early March, partial lockdown had already been implemented in Madrid, which was the epicentre of the outbreak in days before the match, Liverpool fans' group The Spirit Of Shankly raised concerns at a council-chaired safety meeting but were told it would go ahead in line with government the day of the game, England's deputy chief medical officer said the UK was "following the science and the evidence" in not banning sports events, because large gatherings "are not seen to be something which is going to have a big effect".Later that night, Mr Mawson, aged 70, joined thousands of other fans as he took the short walk from his home near Stanley Park to the stadium. Some days after the game, Mr Mawson felt ill and struggled with breathing, prompting his wife to ring for an was diagnosed in hospital with coronavirus and Jamie, unable to visit his father due to lockdown restrictions, phoned him."He was really, really struggling and I was saying you'll be fine. His last words was 'I've got to go, I can't breathe'."Mr Mawson's condition deteriorated and he died on 17 April."It's a tough ask to say your goodbyes over a video link - that was the most heartbreaking thing I have ever experienced," says Jamie."We were all upset and crying and screaming."I pleaded with the nurse to hold his hand and she was like an angel to us. She held his hand while he passed." It is not possible to say for certain where Mr Mawson caught coronavirus, however a scientific study found the Anfield game and Cheltenham Festival "caused increased suffering and death". Liverpool City Region mayor Steve Rotheram highlights the discrepancy between a lack of restrictions in the UK at the time and those of Spanish authorities, who had "prevented Atletico fans from watching their team at home but they were allowed to travel across Europe and go to Anfield for that particular game".Rotheram believes "national government was in absolute chaos" as opinions differed among scientists and politicians over when to introduce the Covid inquiry, England's chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty said he felt, in early 2020, there was "no good evidence" that prohibitions on mass gatherings would affect transmission and football fans would crowd into pubs instead. However he now believes lockdown on 23 March 2020 was imposed "a bit too late", while the then prime minister Boris Johnson told the inquiry "with hindsight" mass gatherings should have been stopped earlier. Rotheram says: "We're all a lot better educated and informed around pandemics now than we ever have been."But that doesn't in any way mean the government gets off because they were the people who were charged with the safety of the nation and it was their preparedness that let all of us down."He says public health officials are "much better prepared" should there be a similar situation in the future, with work being carried out at The Pandemic Institute established in Liverpool in believes it was a "big, big mistake" that the Anfield game and Cheltenham festival were allowed to go adds there has been "a lot of anger" among bereaved families and others affected by Covid."I want to know who is held accountable and responsible for the thousands of deaths. Personally I think it was the previous government."He is now part of the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice group, represented at the national inquiry by the barrister Pete Weatherby KC, who has highlighted others that died after the Anfield game. Jamie says: "I don't want another generation to go through what we had to go through - 230,000 deaths. It's just about being prepared." Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer.
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
On this day: Bradford filmmaker shoots short film on Baildon Moor
On this day in 2020, the Telegraph and Argus reported that a Bradford filmmaker had set his third short film on Baildon Moor. Adam Mawson, 43, hoped to make 'The Moor' later that year, building on the success of earlier films that had also been made locally. The horror short reportedly began with a van driven onto the moor, by people intent on fly-tipping rubbish in the dead of night. However, as explained by Mr Mawson: "They are brutally attacked by some kind of monster - that is how the film starts." Regarding Baildon Moor as a filming location, he added: "The wild moorland has just the right atmosphere." Mr Mawson was said to be "thrilled" with the success of his first film, 'Abduction,' which focuses on the disappearance of six children from the village under "mysterious circumstances." 'Abduction' stars Danny Cunningham, who appeared in the TV series 'Soldier Soldier' and who also played Shaun Ryder in the film '24-hour Party People.' 'Abduction' was due to be released on Amazon Prime Video, where another film by Mr Mawson, the paranormal thriller '13,' was said to already be available. Both 'Abduction' and '13' were said to be viewable at the drive-thru cinema, Burger51.
Atlantic
13-02-2025
- Health
- Atlantic
The Scientific Literature Can't Save Us Now
Twice during his Senate confirmation hearings at the end of January, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. brought up a peer-reviewed study by a certain 'Mawson' that had come out just the week before. 'That article is by Mawson,' he said to Senator Bill Cassidy, then spelled out the author's name for emphasis: 'M-A-W-S-O-N.' And to Bernie Sanders: 'Look at the Mawson study, Senator. … Mawson. Just look at that study.' 'Mawson' is Anthony Mawson, an epidemiologist and former academic who has published several papers alleging a connection between childhood vaccines and autism. (Any such connection has been thoroughly debunked.) His latest on the subject, and the one to which Kennedy was referring appeared in a journal that is not indexed by the National Library of Medicine, or by any other organization that might provide it with some scientific credibility. One leading member of the journal's editorial board, a stubborn advocate for using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to treat COVID-19, has lost five papers to retraction. Another member is Didier Raoult (whose name the journal has misspelled), a presence on the Retraction Watch leaderboard, which is derived from the work of a nonprofit we cofounded, with 31 retractions. A third, and the journal's editor in chief, is James Lyons-Weiler, who has one retraction of his own and has called himself, in a since deleted post on X, a friend and 'close adviser to Bobby Kennedy.' (Mawson told us he chose this journal because several mainstream ones had rejected his manuscript without review. Lyons-Weiler did not respond to a request for comment.) Perhaps a scientist or politician—and certainly a citizen-activist who hopes to be the nation's leading health-policy official—should be wary of citing anything from this researcher or this journal to support a claim. The fact that one can do so anyway in a setting of the highest stakes, while stating truthfully that the work originated in a peer-reviewed, academic publication, reveals an awkward fact: The scientific literature is an essential ocean of knowledge, in which floats an alarming amount of junk. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but the trash cannot be identified without special knowledge and equipment. And while this problem is long-standing, until the past decade or so, no one with both the necessary expertise and the power to intervene has been inclined to help. With the Trump administration taking control of the CDC and other posts on the nation's science bulwark, the consequences are getting worse. As RFK Jr. made plain during his confirmation hearing, the advocates or foes of virtually any claim can point to published work and say, 'See? Science!' This state of affairs is not terribly surprising when one considers how many studies labeled as 'peer reviewed' appear every year: at least 3 million. The system of scientific publishing is, as others have noted, under severe strain. Junk papers proliferate at vanity journals and legitimate ones alike, due in part to the 'publish or perish' ethos that pervades the research enterprise, and in part to the catastrophic business model that has captured much of scientific publishing since the early 2000s. That model—based on a well-meaning attempt to free scientific findings from subscription paywalls—relies on what are known as article-processing charges: fees researchers pay to publishers. The charges aren't inconsequential, sometimes running into the low five figures. And the more papers that journals publish, the more money they bring in. Researchers are solicited to feed the beast with an ever-increasing number of manuscripts, while publishers have reason to create new journals that may end up serving as a destination for lower-quality work. The result: Far too many papers appear each year in too many journals without adequate peer review or even editing. The mess that this creates, in the form of unreliable research, can to some extent be cleaned up after publication. Indeed, the retraction rate in science—meaning the frequency with which a journal says, for one reason or another, 'Don't rely on this paper'—has been growing rapidly. It's going up even faster than the rate of publication, having increased roughly tenfold over the past decade. That may sound like editors are weeding out the literature more aggressively as it expands. And the news is in some ways good—but even now, far more papers should be retracted than are retracted. No one likes to admit an error—not scientists, not publishers, not universities, not funders. Profit motive can sometimes trump quality control even at the world's largest publishers, which earn billions annually. It also fuels a ravenous pack of 'paper mills' that publish scientific work with barely any standards whatsoever, including those that might be used to screen out AI-generated scientific slop. An empiricist might say that the sum total of these articles simply adds to human knowledge. If only. Many, or even most, published papers serve no purpose whatsoever. They simply appear and … that's it. No one ever cites them in subsequent work; they leave virtually no trace of their existence. Until, of course, someone convinces a gullible public—or a U.S. senator—that all research currency, new and old, is created equal. Want to make the case that childhood vaccines cause autism? Find a paper in a journal that says as much and, more important, ignore the countless other articles discrediting the same idea. Consumers are already all too familiar with this strategy: News outlets use the same tactic when they tell you that chocolate, coffee, and red wine are good for you one week—but will kill you the next. Scientists are not immune from picking and choosing, either. They may, for example, assert that there is no evidence for a claim even though such evidence exists—a practice that has been termed ' dismissive citation.' Or they may cite retracted papers, either because they didn't bother checking on those papers' status or because that status was unclear. (Our team built and shared the Retraction Watch Database —recently acquired by another nonprofit—to help address the latter problem.) The pharmaceutical industry can also play the science-publication system to its advantage. Today, reviewers at the FDA rely on raw data for their drug approvals, not the questionable thumbs-up of journals' peer review. But if the agency, flawed as it may be, has its power or its workforce curbed, the scientific literature (with even greater flaws) is not prepared to fill the gap. Kennedy has endorsed at least one idea that could help to solve these many problems. At his confirmation hearing, he suggested that scientific papers should be published alongside their peer reviews. (By convention, these appraisals are kept both anonymous and secret.) A few publishers have already taken this step, and while only time will tell if it succeeds, the practice does appear to blunt the argument that too much scientific work is hashed out behind closed doors. If such a policy were applied across the literature, we might all be better off. Regardless, publishers must be more honest about their limitations, and the fact that many of their papers are unreliable. If they did their part to clean up the literature by retracting more unworthy papers, even better. Opening up science at various stages to more aggressive scrutiny—' red teaming,' if you will—would also help. Any such reforms will be slow-moving, though, and America is foundering right now in a whirlpool of contested facts. The scientific literature is not equipped to bail us out.
New York Times
12-02-2025
- Health
- New York Times
Behind Kennedy's Vow to ‘Follow the Science' on Vaccines
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spent the first day of his back-to-back confirmation hearings deftly avoiding questions about his views on vaccines. On the second day, when a prominent Republican senator insisted there was no link between vaccines and autism, Mr. Kennedy shot back that a new study 'showed the opposite.' 'I just want to follow the science,' Mr. Kennedy declared. Following the science has been a familiar refrain for Mr. Kennedy, whose confirmation as health secretary appears all but assured in a vote expected Thursday. But the exchange in the Senate raises questions about just what type of science Mr. Kennedy is consulting. It foreshadows how, if confirmed, Mr. Kennedy could continue to sow doubts about vaccines. Academics have pounced on the study that Mr. Kennedy cited during the hearing, shredding it as methodologically faulty and biased. The study emanated from a network of vaccine skeptics who share some of Mr. Kennedy's views — an ecosystem that includes the author of the study, the editor of the journal that published it and the advocacy group that financed it. 'We authors were delighted and honored that R.F.K. Jr. referred to our work in his confirmation hearing,' the study's lead author, Anthony Mawson, said in an email. A spokeswoman for Mr. Kennedy did not respond to a request for comment. Dr. Mawson, an epidemiologist, said he first met Mr. Kennedy at an autism conference in 2017. Mr. Kennedy cites Dr. Mawson's research 33 times in his 2023 book, 'Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak.' His study was rejected 'without explanation' by several mainstream medical journals, Dr. Mawson said. So he turned for advice to Andrew Wakefield, the author of the 1998 study, now retracted, that sparked the initial furor over vaccines and autism. Mr. Wakefield encouraged him to submit the study to a new journal called Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. That publication is led by some notable vaccine critics, including three who headlined a Washington rally in 2022 with Mr. Kennedy to protest Covid vaccine mandates. As the nation's health secretary, Mr. Kennedy 'would have wide powers to advance his favored research studies, publications, or scientific data,' according to Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University. Mr. Kennedy's critics fear that the public will have neither the time nor the training to sort through a war that seems to pit one study against another, and that the result will be a rapid decline in confidence in vaccines. 'The Mawson paper epitomizes Kennedy's consistent inability to distinguish junk science from reliable information,' said Dr. John P. Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, who said that study and some of the others Mr. Kennedy has cited in the past are published by 'fringe journals.' Mr. Kennedy has said that he is not anti-vaccine, but rather in favor of vaccine safety. 'I support the measles vaccine. I support the polio vaccine,' Mr. Kennedy said on the first day of his confirmation hearings. 'I will do nothing as H.H.S. secretary that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking it.' Mr. Kennedy's insistence that more research is necessary when it comes to vaccine safety has drawn support from some Republicans, who say they welcome his skepticism. 'I don't understand why my colleagues all of sudden say we can't question science,' Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma, said during one of Mr. Kennedy's hearings. He added, 'When you start looking at the rise of autism, why wouldn't we be looking at everything?' But Michael T. Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota who has advised administrations of both parties, said Mr. Kennedy's demands for additional data go too far when they concern vaccines and autism. Mainstream scientists say the issue is settled. 'That's the equivalent of me saying until Newton comes back and shows me that apple falling from the tree, I do not believe gravity exists,' Dr. Osterholm said. Doctors who have examined the way Mr. Kennedy uses scientific research say he also has a tendency to cherry-pick particular findings from prominent researchers, as he did during a podcast in 2022. During that appearance, he cited a study published in the journal Pediatrics in 2000 to suggest that improvements in sanitation and hygiene — and not vaccines — fueled a drop in deaths from infectious diseases during the first half of the 20th century. That is true. But Mr. Kennedy failed to note that the study also reported that vaccines introduced in the second half of the 20th century had 'virtually eliminated' deaths from diseases including polio and measles. During one of his confirmation hearings, Mr. Kennedy cited work by a well-known vaccine scientist, Dr. Gregory Poland, to suggest Black people should follow a different vaccine schedule because they needed fewer antigens, the vaccine components that provoke an immune response. Dr. Poland did not respond to requests for comment. But he told National Public Radio that his work did not support Mr. Kennedy's assertion. Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Mawson have long aired similar concerns about vaccines. In an appearance before the Mississippi legislature in 2009, Dr. Mawson called for more vaccine safety research and 'a more flexible approach to vaccination requirements for school attendance.' In a 2011 lawsuit, Dr. Mawson said the testimony had cost him his job as an epidemiologist at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. In 2017, Dr. Mawson published a pilot study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children. The study relied on a survey of parents who home-schooled their children and found higher rates of autism among vaccinated children, compared with those who had not been vaccinated. The study was funded in part by Generation Rescue, a nonprofit associated with Jenny McCarthy, a television personality who has promoted claims of a link between vaccines and autism. Dr. Mawson by that time had established the Chalfont Research Institute, a charity that operates out of his home in Jackson, Miss. The institute reported revenue of just $57 in 2021, the most recent figures available. In 2019, it received charitable contributions of $160,000, tax records show. The bulk of that money, $150,000, came from the National Vaccine Information Center, a group whose mission includes supporting research on 'vaccine-associated deaths, injuries and chronic illness.' Like Mr. Kennedy, the group's president and co-founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, has long called for research comparing 'total health outcomes' including the risk of autism, in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. When Dr. Mawson approached her group with a proposal, she said, the center reviewed his pilot study of 2017, approved his plan and provided $150,000 in funding. That money paid for the paper Mr. Kennedy cited at the hearing, during an exchange with Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana and a doctor. The journal that published the study, Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, advertises itself as peer-reviewed, meaning its research is evaluated by anonymous independent experts before publication. Dr. Mawson said his paper had undergone review by two such experts. Some people associated with the journal are also associated with Mr. Kennedy. James Lyons-Weiler, the journal's editor in chief, described himself as a longtime ally of Mr. Kennedy's in a yearslong 'fight across 20 states' for vaccine exemptions. 'Honored to call him my friend,' he wrote on social media last year. The journal's editorial board includes the chief executive and the chief scientific officer of Children's Health Defense, the nonprofit that Mr. Kennedy led until he began his presidential campaign in 2023. The board also includes members who sell products or services for people who are concerned about vaccines. One of its editorial board members offers $2,350 telehealth appointments for 'post-vaccine syndrome.' Another sells $90 'spike detox' supplements marketed for 'vaccine injury syndrome' that is meant to get 'you back to that pre-Covid feeling.' The study by Dr. Mawson that Mr. Kennedy cited at the hearing focused on about 47,000 children enrolled in Florida Medicaid from 1999 to 2011 and looked at billing data to determine their vaccination status. The study found very few billing records for unvaccinated children with autism — eight who were born prematurely and 54 overall. It concluded that vaccination was significantly associated with higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, particularly in infants who were born prematurely. By contrast, large-scale studies in respected medical journals, including an analysis of five studies involving more than 1.2 million children, have found no association between vaccines and autism. But even as Dr. Mawson's research took shape, problems emerged. The paper notes that researchers lost access to the database they used to perform the study. Dr. Alex Morozov, an expert on clinical trial design who met with Dr. Mawson to discuss the study, said he viewed that as a red flag. Dr. Morozov also said the study had a 'fundamental flaw': It failed to account for the possibility that vaccinated children might have more encounters with the medical system than unvaccinated children, whose illnesses would not be captured by billing data. The study also failed to account for factors like family history of autism, the child's gender (boys are diagnosed with higher rates of autism than girls) or the possibility that children might have been vaccinated outside the Florida Medicaid system, said Bertha Hidalgo, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Mawson strongly defended the work, noting that the study 'carefully documents both its strengths and limitations,' but contending that critics focused only on the limitations. 'Nevertheless,' he said, 'further research is needed to replicate the findings and to unravel the mechanisms involved.' At the Senate hearing, Mr. Cassidy pressed Mr. Kennedy to accept that the vaccines and autism debate was settled. He reminded Mr. Kennedy that he had been shown the study of 1.2 million children that found no link between the two. 'I'm a doc, trying to understand,' Mr. Cassidy said, adding, 'Convince me that you will become the public health advocate, but not just churn old information so that there's never a conclusion.' To that, Mr. Kennedy replied, 'I'm going to be an advocate for strong science. You show me those scientific studies, and you and I can meet about it. And there are other studies as well. I'd love to show those to you.'
