Pointing out the war on science by the politically correct:
It was this F-word—feels—that left Mr. Mnookin justifiably gobsmacked, and it serves as the departure point for The Panic Virus, an attempt to explain how thousands of otherwise sophisticated Americans could make a fatuous decision to opt out of what is arguably modernity’s greatest medical achievement. Most children “exempted” from vaccines (a fittingly ridiculous term, as if the kids place out via AP exam) are not low-information progeny. They are being raised in college towns, in wealthy suburbs and in tony urban enclaves like Park Slope, by the sorts of parents who are otherwise given to grave tut-tutting about the anti-science stances of others—the climate-change know-nothings, say, or the ovine devotees of the garish Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.
This part really grates, though:
How do we handle Mr. Mnookin’s fatuous friend? The Panic Virus aims to engage him or, failing that, to explain him; and yet a better choice still is to spurn him. Surely this same man, at this same party, could not have denied the existence of climate change without provoking spit-takes of wheat beer or dropped forkfuls of braised ramps. And the two claims are analogous, for both deny science in the service of what is, at base, an ideology: the magical faith that sacrifice is never required—at least not by you!
As a firm believer that evolution is the best, if not only theory to explain the diversity of life and the fossil record, and that there is no credible evidence that vaccines cause autism, I get outraged at such comparisons. It is neither “anti-science” or “denying science” to be skeptical about the claims of those who have been fudging data and don’t know how to do basic programming, let alone model complex and chaotic phenomena, while demanding that we pauperize millions in the future in the name of their claims. Skepticism lies at the heart of science. And this is an oversimplistic characterization. No one I know of “denies climate change.” Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the climate has never been static. The issues are whether or not it is changing as a result of our actions in a predictable way, if such changes (if they’re occurring) will be net good or bad, and if bad, what the best means of dealing with the problem are. And we are a long way from knowing the answers to any of those questions. That many of the people who claim certainty on the matter have been shown to be hacks and frauds doesn’t increase confidence in anyone making such claims. If anyone is “anti-science,” it is those who betray it with such unscientific behavior.
[Update Monday morning]
I have to wonder; what is the precise number of children it is okay to kill with fraud such as the autism/vaccination falsification and hysteria?
That is, after all, what we’re talking about here; putting kids at risk by scaring their parents into avoiding vaccination. (vaccination is done for a reason, after all).
I wonder how many dead kids this has, and down the line will, result in?
That actually puts it in good company with the global warming scam; that too will kill a hell of a lot of kids, due to poverty, shortages, etc.
Sometimes, in my darker moments, i wonder if they see that as a feature, not a bug….
Doesn’t the opposite scare happen too, tricking people into unnecessary vaccination, that actually cause more harm than it prevents? Not talking about autism here. I vaguely remember reading that Feynman had a story about that.
MPM
If that argument was made, it was based on a false sense of security built on years of herd immunity. It is true that no vaccine is completely safe, and that some number (1 in the thousands to ten-thousands) will have a reaction, a small number being serious. If we lose herd immunity, lots of people will get sick with diseases that were unheard of a couple decades ago, and some of them will die.
Slate finally deleted its 5 yr old article by left wing whack job RFK Jr claiming vaccines cause autism. Now all he has left is to continue to spout off about Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, I mean Global Climate Disruption. What is it about lefty pols that attracts them to pseudo science? Perhaps zero education in science helps.
Tom, I think the concern is that you don’t want your own child to be in the group you describe as “that some number”. For me personally, our family doctor nearly browbeat my wife insisting that our youngest child MUST take the chicken pox vaccine when that child had already had chicken pox. After that episode we found a better doctor.
The effects of the autism-vaccine debacle goes way beyond an agenda-driven research team…consumers of that research range from medical professionals to parents who strive to understand medical information and integrate it into their lifestyles to school administrators with legal liability should something serious occur during their watch. Everybody has an agenda of some kind, and they will cherry pick the information that best suits their agenda and will start evangelizing.
The author of the article amused me greatly with Mnookin’s disdain for those using his “F” word – feel. Yet the article is full of touchy feely words like tut-tutting, disdain, shameful, and in each anecdote the scientists are calm and reasoned while the parents are all alarmists.
All in all, a fascinating if hardly neutral article. I don’t think it is a stretch to assume that a pro-vaccine group commissioned this. That in itself is not a problem, but since the author raised the global warming issue, I will say this just like I have said regarding the global warming proponents…show us research, including source code and data sources, from a neutral group of researchers, something that an independent set of researchers can verify and duplicate the results, and then let’s debate the next steps. As long as the results are initially proclaimed by researchers who were commissioned by one side of the debate, it is fair to question those results initially.
Climate does change. No rational person disputes that the climate of North America 12,000 years ago was a lot colder, so much that the midwest was under ice. The questions we “deniers” want answered, and which the “true believers” refuse to consider, in all the cyclical and secular changes to the climate that are occurring, is whether there’s any evidence that human activities can account for those changes. The burden of proof is on the true believers, and so far, what evidence they’ve shown us has too often turned out to be deliberate fraud, collusion or the result of incompetence and wishful thinking.
What is it about lefty pols that attracts them to pseudo science?
Well, maybe their attraction to pseudo-economics has something to do with it. Marxism and socialism are “creationism” and “intelligent design” for the economic ignorant.
And Marxism and socialism have done a whole lot more damage than creationism ever will.
The two claims put forth, vaccines cause autism and anthropomorphic climate change, are equals in terms of scientific contempt. Both were embraced by many “enlightened” folks who should have known better, and both were shown to be utter and complete frauds. Why one of these is still considered fact is beyond me…
the magical faith that sacrifice is never required—at least not by you!
I love that finish. We’re deniers because we don’t want to sacrifice. When actually it’s the people in developing countries that will be doing the majority of the sacrificing.
Sometimes, in my darker moments, i wonder if they see that as a feature, not a bug
I must be living in one long darker moment, because I don’t wonder at all. There is no question in my mind that MANY of them have a very deep-seated hatred of humanity. They adore the fact that the dialog has arrived at CO2, which every member of humanity exhales every 5 seconds. I’m convinced many of them literally sleep better at night with that thought in their mind.
The Cold War’s actual radioactive fallout, decade’s worth of anti-West agitprop, has left us with dangerous, post-apoc memetic zombies. We know what work must be done (but it begs a question: at which point does the victim become an accomplice?)
I don’t particularly like the article. It is interesting to observe that many of the same people who believe “science” has proven that man is causing global warming reject the notion that “science” has proved that vaccines are generally harmless and very useful. (Although I should like to point out that the degree to which climate studies and molecular biology deserve to be called “science” differs sharply, as much in my mind as history and astronomy.)
But this is just an observation of confirmation bias: people believe more readily that which fits their wishes and feelings. In this case, you have a certain group that is very ready to believe that technology has ruined things, and “natural” is the way to go. (An amusing aspect of these natural people not mentioned is that they often hate “germs” and make extensive use of bactericides. They wouldn’t dream of letting their toddler eat something off the clean floor, for example.)
But I find regrettable the author’s New York attitude that the correct response to this is to more forcefully express contempt and disdain for the “stupidity” of these people. In the first place, this is clearly not likely to work — it hasn’t worked for “global warming,” has it? Expressing contempt for those outside the pale has never been a good way to build larger social consensus. About its only use is for insiders to build group solidarity and feel smugly superior by laughing at outsiders. That’s clearly the goal here, I think. He just wants all those in the “in” group to have a big laugh at the expense of those on the “out.”
Well, I don’t need to feel more smugly superior. I feel quite smugly superior enough. I don’t need more people to find contemptibly dumb, so long as Jim continues to comment. Rather, when I see folks who make dumb decisions about vaccines, I wonder how to reach them — how to turn them to the Dark Side (vaccines). I doubt looking down at them as clueless Neanderthals is going to be productive, leaving aside the fact that it is cynical and unkind.
What is it about lefty pols that attracts them to pseudo science?
I read an interesting article many years ago that suggested that the decline in religious belief – either personal or institutional as in communist countries – leaves many people vulnerable to believing in other things, such as the state or pseudoscience. I don’t know if that’s true or not. Personally, I’m a conservative agnostic who believes in evolution, modern medicine, and that the proof of AGW is woefully lacking. Still, those who worship the planet or at the altar of Marx must not believe in much of anything even bordering on religion.
I should say that one part of the problem, I think, is the degree to which we have allowed the label “science” to be acquired by any group of thinkers who want it, more or less, because what science is is badly understood and badly taught. Most folks learn that “science” consists of various kinds of logical thinking and putting numbers to things, quantification. And of course by that mere standard, astrology and numerology are just as much a “science” as physics.
Few seem to understand that nothing should be called a “science” unless it is based on repeatable experiment. Studies of climate change, desirable and rational as they might be, are thus (so far) not a science, because no one can do repeatable experiments to see how the climate of a planet changes in response to various things human beings do. That doesn’t mean I think these studies are intellectually void, any more than I think history — which suffers from a similar lack of ability to do repeatable experiments — is a worthless endeavor. But I think if we reserved the word “science” for only those things based on repeatable experiments, we would make a very useful distinction clear.
For one thing, it would be clear that the notion that vaccines are useful is based on science (repeatable experiment), but anthropogenic global warming is not. That doesn’t say which is true — but it makes clear they have different origins.
“All in all, a fascinating if hardly neutral article. I don’t think it is a stretch to assume that a pro-vaccine group commissioned this.”
You must be joking. If you are too young to remember the occasional family member struck by polio or see older neighbors crippled from it, please go read about the joy parents felt when a viable polio vaccine was developed. For you to imply this was sponsored by pro vaccination groups as if there is some doubt about the results is beyond belief. Unlike AGW there is an Everest of data disproving your foolishness.
Bill, you are trying much too hard to pick a fight. I said this article was written by someone with an agenda and that the writer had significant disdain for anyone who disagreed with it. I never expressed doubt with the polio vaccine.
The days of altruistic research are long gone. I cannot imagine a researcher today doing the kind of work Salk did and then refusing to patent the vaccine. Actually, there probably are single individuals that would be willing to do that today, but the foundations and research labs involved in sponsoring that effort certainly would make ownership of any results a condition of the funding.
Carl, you wrote:
Few seem to understand that nothing should be called a “science” unless it is based on repeatable experiment. Studies of climate change, desirable and rational as they might be, are thus (so far) not a science, because no one can do repeatable experiments to see how the climate of a planet changes in response to various things human beings do.
I made this mistake several times over the years. But it’s worth noting that the above is not the first definition of science:
In particular, there are fields of study where repeatable experiments on any significant scale, such as economics, climatology, or anthropology, can’t be done, yet they are still considered “science”. Math is also considered “science” even though almost no testing of math in your sense is ever done (and it is a notorious field for breaking empirical results too).
“history — which suffers from a similar lack of ability to do repeatable experiments…”
The history of the past 270 years is nothing but repeated — and repeatable — “experiments.” Time after time, people believing they know what’s best for everyone else seize or create an all-powerful coercive state, turn into looters who basically bleed their country dry until either revolt or economic collapse ensues. There have probably been more statist experiments than different experiments to prove Relativity.
Wel, see, Karl, I think that definition there that you quote is severely and dangerously wrong. It’s part of the problem. You could write the exact same thing about astrology or alchemy or religion. It’s all a body of “truths” systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws (“Don’t make financial decisions when the Sun is in Pisces.”)
What makes empirical science different? Experiment. That and nothing else. All human endeavors partake of logic and reason, and the collection of truths, and the development of general laws. Have you ever heard of an intellectual discipline or even fad that rejects reason? Doesn’t have basic truths that must be explained? Makes no attempt to construct general laws?
Experiment. Measurement. Repeated measurement and experiment. Those are the sole legitimate grounds of empirical science, and without it, you’ve just got thinking — which isn’t the same thing.
In particular, there are fields of study where repeatable experiments on any significant scale, such as economics, climatology, or anthropology, can’t be done, yet they are still considered “science”.
Not by me. And my point is that considering them “science” does great harm, both to science and ultimately to them, by disguising their natures. Again, remember that doesn’t mean I don’t respect them — it just means I recognize they have a different basis than physics, and that should be kept in mind.
Math is also considered “science” even though almost no testing of math in your sense is ever done
Again, not by me. Mathematics is not in the School of Science, and it shouldn’t be. It’s not an empirical discipline. It’s not based on experiment. That should certainly prove beyond doubt that I don’t equate not being a science with disrespect. I have the highest possible respect for mathematics. But it’s not a science.
(Just as an example of why the distinction should be kept in mind: every working scientist of sufficient age has had the experience of having a crude, stupid, even self-contradictory theory work better than a beautiful, elegant, mathematically superb theory, in the sense it describes experiment better. Elegance and self-consistency are high values in math, sure guides to the truth, but they are at best subsidiary values in science, and often things of which to be deeply suspicious, because they tempt the human mind to give theories more credence than they deserve.)
What is it about lefty pols that attracts them to pseudo science?
Research grants? Writing proposals for tax money seems right up their alley.
Why pseudo? Because if the object is money and prestige, the fact that it’s not really science isn’t too relevant.
any more than I think history — which suffers from a similar lack of ability to do repeatable experiments
Not practical, but in theory couldn’t you have someone ignorant of a historical event predict its future and compare with actual history? How did Harry Seldon do it?
I think it’s more than that, ken. Research grants is just the venal aspect. I think it’s religion. No, seriously. These folks are just modern versions of the zealous parish priest or bishop of 1620s Europe — certain we’re all sinners, brimming with righteous wrath about heretics, bent on saving the souls of the unwashed and ignorant so passionately that they will willingly sacrifice their bodies or fortunes in its cause. (The Inquisition felt similarly it was doing you a favor by burning you at the stake; by consuming your evil body in cleansing flames, it would free your soul from its further temptations; an early version of “we have to destroy this village to save it.” Your worthless body may feel the agony of $5/gallon gasoline, but St. Obama is certain your ineffable soul rejoices at no longer being subject to the sinful temptation of burning fossil fuels to merely see your daughter play softball after school.)
The fact that they worship in the Church of Scientism rather than the Catholic Church is a very minor distinction.
Can anyone prove to me that 1+1=2?
Math is just theory, though generally high quality theory that is continually tested and confirmed as useful via its use in science and engineering most every day.
Religion likes to use a set of somewhat arbitrary axioms and then extrapolate from them in a way that serves personal interest. Climatology does much the same thing using science as its source of axioms. Without direct testing it is pseudo science, lower down than economics I would think which is on occasion big picture testable in some circumstances.
The general fallacy that most “scientists” fall into is to take some body of “fact” and assume that that is the whole of the universe (I blame Kant). Understanding the climate is very prone to this as there are far too many unknowns for any mere mortal to be able to see their way through. People with such narrow perspectives do tend to make the best mathematicians and logicians – they are not distracted by things that they do not know. They can be incredibly good at being the foot soldiers of science/religion, but, garbage in garbage out. They have a tendency to think they know everything, to be oblivious to everything they do not know, which does not work for complex fields like climate science.
Pete, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
enjoy. (it’s actually a great read if you like Math)
Indeed. But it does not, and can not prove that 1+1=2.
Pete, ultimately we prove that 1+1 = 2 because we can run the experiment as many times as we want and get the answer. This is what underlies all scientific (as opposed to mathematical) truth. Robert Laughlin’s A Different Universe does a really nice job of explaining this kind of stuff.
Trent, I think that the Principia proves 1+1=2 in the context of a formal logical system. But the only way that such a formal logical system acquires meaning outside our skulls is by repeated experiment.
As Robert Heinlein said, “if you can’t measure it, it’s not science.”
Pete, ultimately we prove that 1+1 = 2 because we can run the experiment as many times as we want and get the answer.
Though it is not impossible that we could wake up tomorrow, run the experiment, and find that 1+1=3.
I can no more prove that Descartes evil demon does not exist than I can prove that unicorns do not exist.
I think y’all are missing Pete’s point (unless I am). Looked at one way, 1 + 1 = 2 could be proved as the logical deduction of some axioms, e.g. the order of integers, the meaning of addition, et cetera. But of course those axioms were actually created in order to formalize the plain statement we want to assert: that 1 (of anything) + 1 (of anything) = 2 (of the same things).
That’s not a provable statement, because it’s a not a negative universal (a statement that begins “it is not the case that A = B always” which can be proved by finding an example where A is not equal to B). No matter how many real life examples you found (1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks, 1 watt + 1 watt = 2 watts) you cannot know that there does not exist a counterexample somewhere (cf. the fallacy of the Black Swan).
It’s certainly a very useful assumption, of course. That’s kind of what mathematics is, I think. It’s a formal system that is very useful in describing reality, but we have no proof, cannot have any proof, that it is “correct” in an absolute sense. We can, however, ask whether physics is correct, because it is required to describe actual reality. If it doesn’t, then no matter how elegant it may be, it is false and pointless. Math, on the other hand, contains tons of stuff that has no known connection to reality, but is elegant and interesting and as “correct” as any more practical branch.
Yes, that is saying it far more eloquently than I could.
But we can also come at it from the other end: cogito ergo sum. Or to be a little more rigorous, something perceives something therefore something must exist. Existence is a universal/absolute, but I am not so sure what actually exists, what is actually perceived and what actually does the perceiving.
Everything beyond raw existence is just theory (though hopefully good useful theory).
Carl and Rand and others continue to ask why people believe that vaccines cause autism. You have to do as I did, and ask them,…again, and again, and again,…in support groups,…in counseling groups, with their children when they bring them to a party,..again and again and again.
The answers I got danced around something I saw in my own history of having an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (Asperger Syndrome in my case). Parents are terrified of two things:
1.) They are often terrified of the financial burden, and how it will affect their lives, and their sanity, on top of the pressure of living with an autistic child.
2.) They are terrified of their children’s ASD being their fault, and view genetic causation as making the problem their fault. This fear of being immoral, and not being able to do anything about it, drives people to the wildest theories imaginable. There remains a residuum of cultural belief that you are personally responsible for what genetic heritage your own ancestors passed on to you. Think of it as the mirror image of someone fearful that their family will mix with “impure blood”.
Thus, they look tenaciously for *any* other reason. Because if their genes make it their fault, then they have *no* way to make themselves better people. If they collapse under the financial burden, then they feel doubly at fault, because they should always be able to support their family at need. So, how do we deconstruct these two terrors inside people’s minds?
Since you are dealing with twin terrors in getting these people away from their addiction to pseudo-science, you will have to address both. This is because, even though they are separate logically, they reinforce each other emotionally.
There seem to me to be two routes for this,…one is certain, but slow. The other is uncertain, but faster. Fortunately, they are not mutually exclusive. The first certain slow method is the advance of good science displacing pseudo-science definitively. Unlike the Climate Science example, the pseudo-science backers do not control the journals.
The acceleration of neurological knowledge is amazing. Human trials of cures for ASDs *in*the*womb* may start within within 5-10 years. Having looked at the matter, IMHO, even with the current acceleration in Neurology, those of us who are adults on the spectrum will have to wait another 15-20 years. That bites, …but anything closer would require one hell of a Black Swan!
The faster, but uncertain, method is to decisively demonstrate that the roll of the genetic dice when every human child is conceived is *no*one’s*fault*! I have tried this, and found it very difficult, even with highly educated parents. Those who are simply highly credentialed are nearly impossible. It helps to have a support group for them. I participate in one in Second Life. Parents often come there, and those of us there who are on the spectrum, and the parents who are old hands as well, face deep skepticism from some, when we tell them its genetic,…genetic, and *not*their*fault*!
The financial side is, in some ways, harder. We can lay out how research should *eventually* remove much of this burden, by making the child self-supporting. We have no path for them to stay afloat financially, except extreme prudence in all other aspects of spending. It is even harder for some of those with ASDs whose family structure *has* broken under the strain. Often, we are being visited by an Autie who was homeless, because her husband had decided he didn’t want an autistic wife anymore, and she only had her laptop and a few other things. Fortunately, she is smart and has some job skills, and last I know of she has an apartment.
This is, inevitably, a hold-the-dike-till-the-flood-drops-away operation. So far, it’s the best I have heard of, and in the last 3 years the group has helped a number of people. Often, they have a regular need for reinforcement and a shoulder to cry on, so we keep plenty of towels handy (cheap in SL 😉 )
If anyone knows any better short-term methods, do not hesitate to reply to this,…in any tone you like, …so long as it is real world information.
After reading Tom Billings comment I’m going to have to watch Gattica again.
One plus one doesn’t always equal two. All formal systems are incomplete and break down. This is an illusion taught to us in grade school.
Parallel lines sometimes do meet (space itself warps.)
I believe in absolute truth but reality doesn’t seem to.
Maybe someday one plus one will equal three. Until then, I’m going to steal the socks off of people who think that.
This. Let us not confuse models of reality with reality itself. You could not simply wake up in the morning to “find” that “1+1=3” anymore than you would “find” that “blue is orange” because these statements are all false in their respective formal systems.
What you could “find” is that, despite all the best efforts of the good folks running the LHC, they simply could never find the Higgs boson, despite looking at the energy levels they expect. Maybe they would “find” that the Standard Model is “wrong” because it does not describe reality. Reality did not change, instead, the formal system was flawed to begin with.
Though studies show no basis to believe there is a correlation between vaccines and autism, there is a strong correlation between the age of the father and autism. Are we warning older men of the dangers of procreation when they are down to their Mo, Larry, and Curly sperm?
I read that Mohammad is the most popular name in England for boys. Did JJS just explain why?
2=1+1 so 2X=X+X let X=Y so… 2X=X+Y; subtract 2Y…
2X-2Y=X+Y-2Y is…2(X-Y)=(X-Y)
2=1 plus one is… 3=1+1
Though studies show no basis to believe there is a correlation between vaccines and autism
Since only one vaccine, MMR, and one vaccine additive, Thimerasol, have been studied, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to assert there is no link between autism and vaccines? As of now, the CDC schedule calls for 11 separate vaccines (2 of which, MMR and DTaP are actually 3 vaccines in one), none of the other 10 vaccines have been studied for a connection to autism, nor have any of the countless additives and preservatives. Not only that, there have been no studies assessing the impact of giving 5 vaccines in one sitting. A lot of people like to draw parallels between the vaccine/autism & global warming debates, but they ignore a very important one. In both cases, you have a well connected, well funded industry interest group that acts as the gatekeeper for what is considered science. In both cases, this group insists that the science is settled and a consensus has been established. Finally, in both cases, the opposition is demonized as either stupid or fraudelent. Am I the only one who sees a similarity between James Hansen’s calls for oil company execs to be tried for crimes against humanity and the treatment of Dr. Wakefield, etc.?
One more thing, there has never been a study comparing autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. All of the studies attempting to debunk a connection between autism and vaccines have been comparing normally vaccinated kids with normally vaccinated kids, except they didn’t have the MMR vaccine. To me that’s like comparing cancer rates between 2 pack a day smokers and 1.5 pack a day smokers, finding no difference in cancer rates and then asserting that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Ken, black holes are where God divided by zero.
Considering that the “party of science” just got finished outlawing incandescent lightbulbs, that “the party of science” is the same party of washed up hippies that de-facto strangled the nuclear energy revolution in its cradle in the 70s, can we stop talking about the “party of science”?
These so called progressives don’t believe in progress anymore! They hate the idea of a technological future – these people regularly deride “technical fixes” to human problems, preferring men to do without. They are the people that took the photos of earth brought to us by the space program and used them to strangle the space program. These are the people that want all our telescopes and instruments pointing inward at earth. They want us to forget the stars, forget energy, forget technology, and live like the supposedly happy chimpanzees!
Rob, there have also been no studies debunking a connection between autism and sunspots.
Do you ever think that perhaps the burden of proof might reasonably lie with those who would assert a very subtle and very surprising causal link? Very large studies were certainly done when the vaccines were approved, each one of them, and studies were done when each ingredient was approved — and in none of these did anyone notice any ill effect. If there is a connection, it is extraordinarily subtle.
It’s not possible to test every conceivable interaction with the environment for a casual link to autism, but many people suspect this is exactly that on which you would insist. A link between MMR and autism is proposed (by a vocal minority), thoroughly studied (at enormous cost to the majority), and proven very unlikely. You respond: Aha! You haven’t studied OTHER vaccines!
Can we be forgiven for wondering whether, if very large and expensive studies were now undertaken and proved a link between any other vaccine and autism is also unlikely, you might then respond: Aha! You haven’t studied food additives! Ozone from jet aircraft! Pesticides! Gasoline fumes! Increased CO2 levels from global warming! And so on and on forever.
I understand you would love to know the cause of autism. So would we all! And not just autism. My partner suffered through breast cancer at an unusually young age. Was it the X-rays she got as a kid to monitor scoliosis? Was it a drifting cloud from nuclear tests in nearby Nevada? Was it too much trans fat in the diet, not enough broccoli, subtle carcinogens from car exhaust, radon in the house in which she grew up? Boy would I like to know!
Others would love to know what causes depression, heart disease, suicide, mass shootings at supermarkets, ADD, the election of Democrats. Not a one of us gets through life without having to bear personal tragedy with mysterious and unknown origins.
We know very well that the environment plays some role in all of these things. It’s never just DNA, or any kind of predestination. It’s never absolutely pure luck, a random roll of the dice. There must be subtle factors about the environment that help things along. We all long for them to be identified.
But the problem, Rob, is that our resources are limited. Most of the time, we’re scratching along, making sure we have enough to eat, the barbarians are repulsed from the borders, and the children can have a bit of fun on the playground slide before they have to go down to the mill and start slaving away. We can’t study everything. We have to pick and choose. Autism is a tragedy — but so is cystic fibrosis. And childhood leukemia. Or ADD, or teen suicide, drug abuse, child abuse, cerebral palsy. It’s not that we don’t care about autism, it’s that there’s a tragically huge number of things to care about in this vale o’ tears.
So let me suggest that if you want more work done on environmental causes of autism, you do the legwork. Get organized. Study the science. Get started on solid scientific work yourself. It’s not like the way in which you would do good statistical studies is beyond the grasp of anyone without a PhD. It’s pretty simple stuff, really. High school math. It doesn’t even require special scientific equipment, just a lot of very careful and tedious recruitment, data collection, and data verification. There’s nothing stopping all those interested in testing links between autism and anything under the Sun from doing the preliminary research themselves.
Get some early suggestive results, backed by strong and reliable scientific methods, and you’ll get the increased attention you want. Bring proven correlations to the table, and your theories will get much more respect.
But Titus, I’m only multiplying by one (0/0.) The limit of x/x as x approaches zero.
Ok, another then…
1+1=1
1(idea) + 1(same idea)= 1(just the same idea)
1 blue + 1 yellow = 1 green
1 red + 1 red = 1 red
Carl, I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. I don’t see where you’ve substantivlely addressed any of my points.
I understand you would love to know the cause of autism. So would we all!
I’m not convinced that’s true. Do you really think anybody would be happy to hear that vaccines have a role in autism? I don’t. Setting aside the profit motive, I think there are a lot of good intentioned folks who really think vaccines are all that stand between us and polio or small pox (to pick two examples) epidemics. I can see those people seeing 1 in 91 kids (up from 3 in 10,000 just 20 years ago) with autism as an acceptable trade-off.
But the problem, Rob, is that our resources are limited.
Speaking from personal experience, kids with autism require a lot of resources. Many will require lifetime services. I recently read that something like 25% of parents are not vaccinating their kids due to concerns about vaccine safety. I would think, if you are concerned about vaccine compliance, a study comparing rates of autism a between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would go a long way towards reducing that 25% and might actually be a wise use of resources.
So let me suggest that if you want more work done on environmental causes of autism, you do the legwork. Get organized. Study the science. Get started on solid scientific work yourself.
Carl, that’s already happening. The problem is the well connected, well funded industry interest group that acts as the gatekeeper for what is considered science, and also has an interest in maintaining the status quo. Any questioning of the “scientific consensus” is pretty ruthlessly dealt with.
What I’m looking for, Rob, is recognition of a reasonable viewpoint other than your own. Not seeing it yet. That certainly reduces any urgency I feel to comply with your demand that I see things from your point of view. It’s a two-way street, my friend. If you won’t meet people halfway — don’t be surprised when they decline to meet you at all.
Do you really think anybody would be happy to hear that vaccines have a role in autism?…I recently read that something like 25% of parents are not vaccinating their kids due to concerns about vaccine safety
Are you aware you have contradicted yourself within the same paragraph? Which is it, Rob? No one cares, or 1/4 of the nation cares so much they prefer the risk of serious disease?
Setting aside the profit motive
It’s a good thing you do set it aside. The profit on vaccines is so miniscule that very few pharma companies are willing to manufacture them. This is why shortages are now a problem. The only reason any one is willing to manufacture traditional vaccines right now is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 immunized (ha ha) manufacturers and administrators against lawsuits in exchange for a compensation fund that pays folks who believe they have been injured by vaccines. The cost of the compensation fund accounts for about 25% of the price of your average childhood vaccine now.
I think there are a lot of good intentioned folks who really think vaccines are all that stand between us and polio or small pox (to pick two examples) epidemics.
And you know what, Rob? History backs them up. The last person to live 60 years in an iron lung as a result of childhood polio died not long ago. If you want them to understand your fears and concerns, perhaps you should think about understanding theirs. Don’t dismiss their fears as overblown or irrational unless you want them to do the same with yours.
I would think, if you are concerned about vaccine compliance,
I’m not. In fact, I’m a rude selfish bastard who would gleefully fart in a crowded elevator, as everyone here knows, so I view vaccine noncompliance as merely giving my (thoroughly vaccinated) children a useful competitive advantage. It’s as if you chose not to teach your kids to read or wash their hands after pooping. Just makes it easier for my grandchildren to be the healthy happy folks ordering the fries, and yours to be the sickly stunted wage slaves serving them up.
Carl, that’s already happening.
Excellent! Good luck! I would be personally glad if you found something interesting that was overlooked by clowns and idiots, of which modern life is full. I will be happy to see you richly rewarded, and giving the finger to all your former doubters.
The problem is the well connected, well funded industry interest group…
Oh stop whining. Grow up. The status quo resists? What else is new, friend? Railroads hated airlines. Cable hates satellite and Sears hates Target. Deal with it. Ram it down their throats with piles of cold, hard facts and remorseless razor sharp logic. Winners don’t whine about the backfield being full of linebackers, gopher holes or rain-slicked grass — they punch through.
Any questioning of the “scientific consensus” is pretty ruthlessly dealt with.
Numbers, Rob. Numbers don’t lie. Numbers can’t be suppressed — not in the Internet Age. Get your numbers. Pile up your facts, cross-checked and double-checked and verified six ways from Sunday.
Carl, I just don’t get how it’s an unreasonable position to take that the vaccine/autism connection hasn’t been debunked, because only 1 vaccine out of the 11 given (actually 36 shots) has been tested for a connection to autism. Or to point out that there have been no studies on the effects of administering up to 5 (some with multiple antigens) vaccines at once. And, in all honesty, I think it is just a little deranged to imply that because I’m not 100% convinced about the safety of our current vaccines and schedule, that I must also think washing your hands after bowel movements is not called for.
Regarding disease epidemics, I don’t think you can rule out improved diet and sanitation as at least as important as vaccines. Vaccines aren’t the only public health improvement in the past 100 years, nor, do I think they are the most important.
Regarding vaccine profits, the vaccine industry is a $25B/year business that is virtually risk free for the drug companies. The government mandates that people take the vaccines in order to attend public schools and any liability is handled through a special court set up by Congress. Damage awards are funded, not by the vaccine companies, but by a tax on vaccines paid at the consumer level. Also, while some of the older vaccines aren’t very profitable, new one’s can be very profitable. Merck expects to make billions from Gardasil, for example.
Apart from the odious nature of Rand linking this to politics, I can’t let this lie…
I don’t think you can rule out improved diet and sanitation as at least as important as vaccines.
Bollocks. Sorry. The diet and sanitation between myself and my siblings, they born early 60s, me late, was pretty damn the same. I *didn’t* have measles, and the associated eye problems they’ve had, they *did*.
The only difference is my mother got me vaccinated.
Of course that’s anecdotal – but in every single area we look at the impact of vaccinations just can’t be underestimated.
It’s bad science and apolitical.
Of course, denying climate change is as barking mad, but that seems to be political.
I just don’t get how it’s an unreasonable position to take that the vaccine/autism connection hasn’t been debunked
Who said it is? It’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. Doubt and skepticism are the cornerstones of empirical science, the only reliable guide to truth we have. You’ll never catch me scoffing at doubt.
What’s unreasonable is where you expect folks who think differently to not have the same freedom of thought. OK, you doubt the link between vaccines and autism has been disproved. I respect that. I don’t require you to believe evidence you don’t find convincing. But you know what? I doubt your hypothesis that there could be a link. Now where’s your respect for my doubt? You don’t want me to force you to vaccinate your kids. OK, I won’t. Now in return I expect you to not try to force me to pay with my tax dollars (or vaccine dollars) to test your crazy ideas.
(And don’t give me red herrings about the requirements for public school. You’re free to homeschool, or pick a private school that thinks differently. If you bitch about still having to pay the taxes, well, I’m on your side and would be happy to join forces with you for true school choice and vouchers.)
Regarding disease epidemics, I don’t think you can rule out improved diet and sanitation as at least as important as vaccines.
And you’re entitled to your opinion. On the other hand, I observe that in 1960 there were 2525 cases of paralytic polio in the United States, and in 1965 there were 61. (There hasn’t been a case of wild polio in the United States since 1979, while in the early 1950s, before either vaccine, there were 13,000 to 20,000 cases per year.)
So what happened between 1960 and 1965? Huge improvements in diet and sanitation? Or could there be a connection between this abrupt decline in polio and the introduction in 1961 of the Sabin vaccine? Being not too imaginative, I tend to believe the simplest explanation: the vaccine works. I’m helped along by the fact that 50 further years of molecular biology research has elucidated the exact mechanism, molecule by molecule, by which vaccines prevent polio.
Remember, I don’t require you to believe this. In fact, as I said, the more of modern science and technology you refuse to accept, the more likely it is I’ll be the interviewer and you’ll be the job applicant, instead of vice versa, which suits me fine.
Regarding vaccine profits, the vaccine industry is a $25B/year business that is virtually risk free for the drug companies.
In what sense does $25 billion a year in gross sales across an entire industry impress you? I expect people spent far more on dildos and lipstick. What you want to look at — what you would look at, if you were wanting to start up a company, is profitabilty. What fraction of your sales price can you retain to pay for your salary, 401k, nice office building with a window for every employee? In the case of the traditional vaccines, they are so poorly profitable that almost no one wants to make them at all. And they are only “risk free” because of the 1986 law, vide supra, which was passed by Congress to prevent all manufacturers from exiting the field. If you could make good money risk-free making vaccines, you wouldn’t need government protectionism to keep people doing it.
Merck expects to make billions from Gardasil, for example.
Indeed they do. In part because there’s zero chance that folks like you will start suing them for $bazillions for causing autism, since Gardasil is administered at puberty, long years after autism becomes apparent. They also hope to make big money selling vaccines against other forms of cancer, or HIV.
And you know what? I sure hope they do. As a cynical selfish oaf, I believe in the power of big piles of cash to change the behaviour of people. (Well, so do you, but I assume that’s for selfless noble reasons, and no projection of your own motives.) I believe that the inducement of possible large piles of cash will keep smart people with PhDs burning the weekend midnight oil in the laboratory, instead of punching out at 5 PM Friday for two days of drinking, watching football and chasing tail like the rest of us proles. And that’s exactly where I want them, because I sure don’t know how to find a vaccine for lung cancer, and I’d really like there to be one when I get the God-damned disease. I’m not so young any more, so I want those egghead biologists working overtime, damn it. If it takes waving stacks of $100 bills in front of them to make it happen, I’m all for it.
Of course, denying climate change is as barking mad, but that seems to be political.
Of course, demonstrating inability to read, and complaining about “denying climate change” in a post in which I said “no one denies climate change” is even more barking mad. Or perhaps just stupid.
What’s unreasonable is where you expect folks who think differently to not have the same freedom of thought
I don’t think I’ve ever said, or implied people shouldn’t be allowed to take a different position than I on vaccine safety. IMO, it would take a very creative interpretation to assert otherwise. That said, I do think it is unreasonable to proclaim that “science has debunked the vaccine/autism connection” when only 1 of the 11 vaccines given before the age of 5 has been studied for a connection, because it is factually wrong.
On the other hand, I observe that in 1960 there were 2525 cases of paralytic polio in the United States, and in 1965 there were 61.
I observe that in 1990 the autism rate was 3-4 in 10,000, it’s now 1 in 91 (for boys, 1 in 54). I also observe that in 1990, children received 4 separate vaccines (polio, MMR, DTaP, & Hib), they now receive 11 (a total of 36 separate injections).
In what sense does $25 billion a year in gross sales across an entire industry impress you? I expect people spent far more on dildos and lipstick.
I will concede your superior knowledge regarding both the lipstick and sex toy industry. Also, it must be nice to be in a position to dismiss $25B as insignificant.
And they are only “risk free” because of the 1986 law
So it is “risk free” then…glad we can agree on something.
Indeed they do. In part because there’s zero chance that folks like you will start suing them for $bazillions for causing autism, since Gardasil is administered at puberty,
And vaccines are profitable…wow, we seem to be making some real progress here.
I believe in the power of big piles of cash to change the behaviour of people. (Well, so do you, but I assume that’s for selfless noble reasons, and no projection of your own motives.)
I really don’t understand the hostility here. You seem to be much more emotionally invested in this issue than I, and I have a kid with severe autism. If anybody should be frothing at the mouth over this, it’s me. Are you really afraid that parent’s concerns over vaccine safety will halt medical progress? To me, that seems a much more unreasonable position than any I’ve taken.
Here’s a link to an article from CBS news yesterday on a award for a vaccine injury related to the DTaP vaccine. From the article:
“According to court and medical records, Elias was born on Aug. 23, 2000 and appeared healthy until Dec. 26 when he received his second dose of DTaP vaccine. His parents noticed some swelling around the injection site. According to court records:
“Early in the morning on December 27, 2000, Elias’s parents found himseizing in his crib and took him to the emergency room (“ER”)…Within one day, he developed a fever, which led to a complex febrile seizure. Subsequently, Elias developed epilepsy. This fact pattern is commonly seen in the Vaccine Program.”
According to court records, after the DTaP reaction, the once-healthy baby ended up with debilitating medical problems, including features of autism, ear infections and developmental delay. His parents first filed their case as one of the “omnibus” group of autism cases to be heard in federal vaccine court.
According to those familiar with the case, the couple felt their chances of winning with the autism cases was slim because the idea of a link between vaccines and autism is so controversial. So they separated their case from the autism group and filed on the basis of their son’s epilepsy and seizures.
They recently prevailed in court. It’s one more example where vaccine-injured children who end up with autism are quietly winning their cases, but only when they focus on the more general argument of seizures or brain damage rather than autism.
Ugh, Rob. Lots of goalpost moving and artful redefinitions here.
That said, I do think it is unreasonable to proclaim that “science has debunked the vaccine/autism connection” when only 1 of the 11 vaccines given before the age of 5 has been studied for a connection, because it is factually wrong.
False. You may argue the evidence is insufficient, for you, but you cannot argue there is no evidence at all. Suppose a study showed that getting hit by a car will kill a person. Would you criticize the study if it only used GM cars? How do we know Toyotas would kill people, too, huh? That’s your position. The only distinction between vaccines is the DNA inside the virus, that is, what disease the vaccine would cause if the virus weren’t damaged. But you don’t think the disease causes autism, do you? So how can it be anything about the vaccine that is disease-specific that matters? Your position is unreasonable. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong — but it means common sense says the reasonable assumption is that you’re wrong, and you need to provide some stronger argument or evidence to convince a reasonable person to take a second look.
I observe that in 1990 the autism rate was 3-4 in 10,000, it’s now 1 in 91 (for boys, 1 in 54). I also observe that in 1990, children received 4 separate vaccines (polio, MMR, DTaP, & Hib), they now receive 11 (a total of 36 separate injections).
Sigh. Once again, Rob, causation is not correlation. The sunspot number was different in 1990 than it is today. Congress had a different political make-up. The rates of childhood obesity and use of corn syrup sweetener were different. And on and on. If you think you can develop suspicion based on mere correlation, you are doomed to a lifetime of useless paranoia.
My correlation, on the other hand — between polio decrease and the Sabin vaccine — is backed up by a mechanism, first — we know exactly how the vaccine prevents polio and, more importantly, by solid experiments. We know that if we stop vaccinating people, the disease returns. Can you show that if you stop vaccinating children, rates of autism decline dramatically? It shouldn’t be hard. There are plenty of people — if not here, then in other countries — who don’t vaccinate their children, or do far fewer, something comparable to 1991. Where’s your data, Rob? Where’s your proof that eliminating vaccines stops autism? Show it, and we’ll talk. Otherwise, you’re just vending mindless boring paranoia, no different from astrologers and grassy-knoll crazies.
And vaccines are profitable
Not the vaccines you’re talking about, traditional childhood vaccines. The only vaccines that are profitable are those that cannot possibly be blamed for autism, because they are given long after autism develops. Did you miss that point, or ignore it?
I really don’t understand the hostility here. You seem to be much more emotionally invested in this issue than I, and I have a kid with severe autism.
That’s actually it, Rob. I like children. Autism is a severe blow, something hard to cope with. I want to see them get the best possible care, and the best and fastest means taken to help them, and prevent (if possible) future cases.
And people like you make that fifty times harder, because you waste — and would have the rest of us waste — tons of time and energy and ingenuity pursuing stupid and futile lines of argument and “research.” All the millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of smart PhD time that went into testing the proposed link between MMR vaccines and autism could have gone into genetic research — is there a gene for it? A mutation? Can we detect it, fix it, prevent it? — or diet research, or parenting research, or any number of plausible factors that might connect to autism.
But no. That money and time and energy is gone now, sunk down the rathole of stupid ideas, because you and millions like you read some halfway convincing Internet meme that fed into your Luddite hostility and ignorant paranoia — and you didn’t stop to think it out carefully, with good attention to the evidence. You wanted an answer, an explanation, right now, more than you wanted, eventually, the correct answer.
By me that’s a gross betrayal of autistic children. You — and I — should be putting our best effort where it will do the most good. You want to derail it into sterile frivolity. Yes, that annoys me, because of all the unnecessary suffering by innocent children that it will cause.
You may argue the evidence is insufficient, for you, but you cannot argue there is no evidence at all.
Sigh….I didn’t say there is no evidence, I said there have been no studies on other vaccines and autism. MMR is the only vaccine that has been studied for a connection to autism.
Sigh. Once again, Rob, causation is not correlation.
Sigh…I know, and the tens of thousands of parents who’ve reported observing their children regressing into autism after vaccinations don’t matter, and the specific cases in vaccine court where vaccines have been cited as a causing autism symptoms don’t matter either. In fact, I imagine nothing could dent your near-religious faith in vaccines.
Not the vaccines you’re talking about, traditional childhood vaccines. The only vaccines that are profitable are those that cannot possibly be blamed for autism, because they are given long after autism develops.
You mean like Rototeq? The one that noted vaccine industrialist and drug company shill, Paul Offet developed and made millions of dollars from? That is given at 18 months? Or maybe the Hep-B vaccine? The one given to every child at birth regardless of the Hep-B status of the mother? For Hepatitis-B? A disease that is spread mainly by IV drug use and unsafe sex practices? Maybe you should do a bit more research on the vaccine schedule before you spout off.
That’s actually it, Rob. I like children. Autism is a severe blow, something hard to cope with.
Carl…here’s where you should STFU. You have absolutely no fucking idea about coping with a severely autistic child. Don’t imagine you do.
By me that’s a gross betrayal of autistic children. You — and I — should be putting our best effort where it will do the most good.
Okay….what’s your best effort? How much money do you spend every year support autistic children? We personally spend tens of thousand of dollars every year (not reimbursed by insurance) on our son’s treatments. In addition we make significant charitable contributions to several autism related therapies. We also serve on the Special Education committee for our son’s school district. Seriously, other than tell people who actually have to live with autism that their morons, what do you do? To me, the only difference between you and a shill for one of the big drug companies, is the shill actually gets paid for his efforts.