Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

This is the key thing that I was referring to. I didn't mean any slight against your prior position, but rather those sticking to "their" (his findings') guns in the face of new information (that said findings were bunk).

Indeed, and taken as such -- I was just using my earlier viewpoint as a concrete example of somebody who accepted the possibility of an autism link but did not oppose vaccinating children.

I can understand why so many regard science with suspicion when it's put into those terms.

A deliberately brutal oversimplification, but I stand by it.  "Kill your darlings" doesn't just apply to writing.

(And no, of course this shouldn't be interpreted to mean "Change your belief the second you see a conflicting study, regardless of whether it's been peer reviewed or duplicated.")

This example is only bad because it was debunked before it was proposed by the simple fact that there isn't enough mercury in a vaccine to match a fish dinner and it's not even the right kind of mercury.

Skepticism's fair, but "debunked before it was proposed" is not a good way to approach new research.

[Bal]

My point is that it wasn't new research, it was bullshit from the start, because, as I said, the quantities were too small even if it were the kind of mercury you have to worry about, which it wasn't. Additionally, the mercury had been removed from the offending vaccines just mollify people before the shit it the fan about it. So non-dangerous levels of non-toxic mercury that were not there anymore couldn't have been a problem.

[Thad]

My point is that it wasn't new research, it was bullshit from the start, because, as I said, the quantities were too small even if it were the kind of mercury you have to worry about, which it wasn't.

Which is enough to raise a "Hm, smells like bullshit; let's dig a little deeper on this" -- which they did, and that instinct turned out to be correct.  Which is a good thing.  But not the same thing as saying "Well, this is definitely bullshit, based on our existing understanding of how things work."  It's semantic but it's important.

Additionally, the mercury had been removed from the offending vaccines just mollify people before the shit it the fan about it. So non-dangerous levels of non-toxic mercury that were not there anymore couldn't have been a problem.

Yes.  I am absolutely in agreement that anyone believing in the vaccine/autism link at this point is either dangerously misinformed or completely out of their mind, and similarly believe that "Let's stop vaccinating our kids!" was never an appropriate response to the perceived problem.

[Bal]

The thing is, it didn't smell like bullshit, it was known bullshit. I agree that scientific inquiry shouldn't be limited to what you think is probably true or untrue, obviously, but that specific case was never a case in medical circles. It's not like they'd been injecting mysterious chemicals into their patients based on faith. They knew the dangers of vaccines (and there are some to certain people, apparently your girlfriend is one, my uncle is another), and knew where those risks came from, and damn sure knew it wasn't the mercury.

[Royal☭]

If I recall, and I'll look it up later after work, the journal that published the paper in the first place also ran other papers and stories contradicting the entire finding. Plus, his sample size was like 10 kids, which is not good for results.

[Brentai]

In short, "don't change your belief due to a new study regardless of whether it's been peer reviewed or duplicated."

I can't imagine how such a flawed study got so popular.  I can only conclude that there's a powerful media machine out there that actually wants nothing more than the deaths of millions of children, but surely no organization could be so horrible, right?  Right?

[Bal]

Actually, the anti-vaccination movement has existed, in one form or another, since the first vaccines. Early complaints (predictably) often complained that doctors were subverting God's plans of having children die of polio. The recent trend is to jump on the big pharma paranoia bandwagon and hitch vaccines to it, portraying them as dangerous and forced on impressionable young parents by their doctors to make money.

The autism thing is just the latest in a very long line of scare tactics.

[Thad]

Couple that with the fact that we don't know what causes autism and, to all appearances, it's an extremely complex web of things that's going to be damned tricky to figure out.  An easy answer would be a great relief to a great many people.

[Thad]

Back to Bachmann: American Academy of Pediatrics responds.

EDIT: And more yet from Michael Specter at the New Yorker.

[Pacobird]

One of my friends from high school is complaining on facebook about the CA law allowing teenagers to get vaccinated for HPV without parental consent.

Please, how do I explain to her that you are immediately at high risk for contracting HPV the second you become sexually active in 2011 America, and vaccination and abstinence are literally the only two things you can do about it?

[Thad]

I'd say the stats in that New Yorker link are a good start -- more than half of Americans are carriers, abstinence-only sex education doesn't work, and people who take virginity pledges are less likely to use a rubber and less likely to see a doctor if they get an STD.

Close with the nontrivial fact that one reason a girl might not want permission from her parents to get an abortion or a vaccination against an STD is if she is being raped by her father.

[Büge]

http://www.lethimdie.com/

[Mongrel]

And then he turned to the viewer and said "No _______ - you are the Death Panel"

[Büge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHBQCjgm7-Y&feature=player_embedded#!

[Disposable Ninja]

I heard John Boehner talking on CNN a minute ago.

I don't... I don't think I've ever hated a single public figure more. If I were an evil super computer, I would go all AM on him so hard. I just... hate that man so much.

[Catloaf]

Someone find the world's tiniest violin for Congressman John Fleming who wouldn't be able to feed his family on his meager 400k net income if the buffett rule came into effect

[Brentai]

Well, there goes the gauntlet.  He has labeled himself a "job creator", straight the fuck up, so it's time for someone to finally task this person with an audit of how many American jobs he's created, net, since 2008.  Taking bets on whether or not the number is negative.

[Rico]

No, Catloaf, the $400k is AFTER he feeds his family.

[A²]

If I had $400k after all bills and food were taken care of, I'd be dancing a fucking jig.

[Smiler]

"Fleming told Jansing that the $6.3 million is "before you pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment and food.""

I am pretty sure the owner of a business does not payroll out of his own pocket. He must be pretty bad at this if his businesses don't make enough money to pay its employees.