A Study Conducted By Andrew Wakefield - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: What Is an In Study Conducted By Andrew Wakefield? Answer: Introduction: The essay which was provided to be reviewed has an introduction that lacks clarity as well as the main central theme that the author had decided to portray. An introduction helps the reader to develop an idea about what the essay is all about. Therefore the essay should have head an introduction that should have contained the main topics of discussion which was the MMR vaccination and the autism spectrum disorder. Moreover in order to attract the attention of the reader often an interesting observation is needed to be included but no such interesting inclusion was provided. However the introduction had been successful in including a historical perspective by introducing the concept of vaccination. From the introduction, a reader cannot understand about what he is going to learn in the coming paragraphs (Reiss, 2014). An example can be provided here. The central idea of the essay had to be based on MMR vaccination and Autism. However the first paragraph which is supposed to be the int roduction should have shared information about the vaccination and the autism disorder. However no such attempt could be seen which could make the reader confused about what the author is trying to depict in the coming paragraphs. Moreover, the author had also failed to create an excitement in the reader which helps the reader to carry on with his reading. No such information creating interest or excitement could be found. Therefore only providing the historical background and the function of vaccination were not enough to provide a good quality introduction to the essay. Main body While writing the conclusion, it has been seen that the author had introduced new information which has not been discussed or stated in the essay. To be more specific, the author had incorporated the economical crisis that the parents may face while seeking for treatment of their wards suffering from measles, mumps and rubella. It is a rule that no new information should be published in the conclusion is and there should be a revision of the information already provided. Hence, it can be considered as a negative aspect for the essay. However, the author had also successfully described the motive of the essay in two lines clearly stating the conclusion that he had reached after the research and the writing of the essay. He had concluded by saying that there is indeed no connection between the subjects which was the central theme of the discussion. However the author has to be more careful in a number of aspects mainly in proper introduction and conclusion and also in referencing (Rica hrds et al., 2014). Essay content: The author had very few references in texted and there are many statement that needed to be supported by references. However references were absent that questioned the source of his claims. The claim of Japan not using the vaccination and using three different immunization technique should have been supported by an in text but was not present The main body of the essay starts with short notes on the MMR vaccines and the following paragraph is based on the Autism Spectrum Disorder. These two paragraphs have been correctly used by the author to provide a short description of the main topics so that the reader can develop knowledge about the two main themes of the essay (Juhl, 2014). This description is indeed very important for the essay as this will make the readers knowledgeable and will help them to answer the arguments or further information that will be provided in the following paragraphs. The study of Andrew Wakefield had been rightly discussed which had helped the reader to understand a number of aspects clearly. Starting from the Wakefields own research, his conclusions, how it created a storm among ordinary citizens and many others right up to the initiation of anti-vaccination culture was clearly portrayed and helped the reader to understand the strenuous situation clearly. The main body has rightly followed sequ ential track where proper connections are made into a paragraph gradually enclosing the detailed information. After successfully providing information about MMR and Autism Spectrum disorder, the reader had correctly described the work of Wakefield who has connected the two subjects describing how the latter had been the effects of the former. He had connected the information in these paragraphs with the following paragraph stating that the already mentioned information was found to be incorrect and Wakefield paper was fraudulent case. In order to support the ill effects that the paper had on the mind of the people, he had also provided a statistical analysis where it can be found that rate of immunisation was higher before the paper was published. This provided a proof how changes of mind took place in people as a result of the paper. He had also provided ample examples where he successfully portrayed that there was no link up between the two subjects. Moreover he had rightfully provided logical explanations stating which is indeed exciting and can turn the readers interest towards his explanation. He had stated that if the linkup between the two subjects were true then the number of autism after the vaccination was taken would be much higher which could have come to the notice of the medical community. However no such remarkable rise in autism cases were noted that acted as a correct logical explanation to put up his point. This kind of arguments in turn makes the readers intrigued to his essay making them develop their opinion according to the authors statement (Richards, 2014). Moreover the author had correctly backed up his logical explanation with the help of evidence based research conducted by researchers stating that it is unlikely to be any relation between the two subjects. The author had rightly connected the next paragraph describing the tensions that had been created due to the false information provided by the paper. The author had described properly about the anti-vaccination movements that had been initiated and how the movement being backed up by celebrities had resulted in creating more fuel for the fire. In order to provide strength to his statements, he had also used several incidences that discouraged the vaccination techniques. He had stated that how media as well as the movement had manipulated a large number of data in order to continue the rage and the fear that had been created by the false claims of the paper. Again, the author had not disappointed the readers as he had properly linked the paragraph of fear among the pubic with that of the anti-immunisation movement and had properly followed a sequential procedure rather than jumping to any conclusions or moving back or repeating the same information again and again. The author had prov ided good information about the factors that had resulted in developing the fear which shows that the author has not just put forward a claim but has researches thoroughly to support the claim by explaining the reasons of the fear (Suleiman Crosman, 2014). He has depicted about three reasons that had supported his claim of an environment of fear created among people. Meanwhile, he had ended the body of the essay by discussing the main concern that immunisation is much important to protect the generations form the harmful microorganisms even though they have been eradicated as any time they may be introduced due to biological warfare. Presentation: The entire presentation was made by following the APA 6th edition formatting styles as it had met the requirement of left alignment text While critically analysing the references provided by the author, it was seen that he had not provided the in text referencing in the proper manner. While performing the in text referencing, he has not mentioned the year. Mentioning the year is very important to determine the time when such research was conducted to understand how recent the researches are. More recent the articles are, there will be fewer chances that better researches have been done to overcome the conclusions made in the previously made interventions (Olney, 2014). Recent researches are more prominent and contain more up to date work and modern interventions that might have eliminated old conclusions made in older papers. In this essay, it had been seen that the author had not utilised any new articles and also the articles chosen are not published within the last five years. Most of the articles are much older than 2013 with only one article being taken from the year 2011. All the articles are older than 2010 with mostly being from the year 2005, 2008 and others. These articles are old and cannot be taken to be possessing legitimate answers as there remains high chances that different modern researches might have shown different results. Therefore it would have been more efficient; if he had selected recent papers after 2013 in order make sure that the information provided by him are the result of recent findings and that there had been no new work conflicting the results. Even researches as old as 1980 and 1998 are also used by the author who should have never been used as many researches might have been conducted by authors who have contradicted the results. Moreover, in the reference list, lots of incorrect referencing can be seen. The author had included the degree of the researchers like PHD, MD and others which is not a correct style. The reference list does not need to incorporate the degrees and positions of researchers. Moreover, the references had date written in it but reference list should only contain year and not date of publication (Reiss et al., 2014). APA 6th referencing is also not followed because the references are not in hanging styles and are also not alphabetically aligned. Written expression and style: The author had used proper academic language and had not used colloquial tones of narration. The language is also simple and easy to follow without unnecessarily the entire essay can be understood in one follow and does not require revising again for better understanding making it difficult to read and analyse. There has been very few use of Jargon and hence the writing style is appreciated (Lewis et al., 2016). However the only statement that required better presentation and language is where he mentioned the experiment of Wakefield. The last line of the paragraph was somehow difficult to understand possibly because incorrect placement of preposition and difficult sentence formation. References: Juhl, P. D. (2014).Interpretation: an essay in the philosophy of literary criticism. Princeton University Press. Lewis, H. D. (Ed.). (2016).Clarity is not enough: essays in criticism of linguistic philosophy. Routledge. Olney, J. (2014).Autobiography: Essays theoretical and critical. Princeton University Press. Reiss, K. (2014).Translation criticism-potentials and limitations: Categories and criteria for translation quality assessment. Routledge. Richards, I. A. (2014).Practical criticism(Vol. 4). Routledge. Suleiman, S. R., Crosman, I. (Eds.). (2014).The reader in the text: Essays on audience and interpretation. Princeton University Press.