The Liberal Gun Club Forum

House had a great line about this.

Old news.

I've been reading the same basic article for what feels like 10 years. I think first in Scientific American, then in Wired, then in Newsweek, so I guess it's getting more and more mainstream.

Anyone who's been paying attention knows that study, and the hypothesis behind it, has been as thoroughly discredited as Lamarckian evolution. It pisses me off to hear about outbreaks of diseases that were pretty much eradicated when I was a child, all because some people can't understand basic statistics. Even if vaccines were responsible for some number of autism cases (there is no scientifically valid evidence that there is a link), the danger of your child getting autism is several orders of magnitude less than your child dying of a horrible, preventable disease if you don't get them vaccinated. Plus, you're putting the rest of the community at risk. I read somewhere (can't recall where) that an unvaccinated person living in an area with a high vaccination rate is significantly less likely to contract the disease he's not protected against, than a vaccinated person living in an area with a low vaccination rate.

If only people paid attention to facts that challenge their deeply held beliefs. I think this latest revelation will be as effective as telling a Glen Beck viewer that the separation of church and state appears in the first amendment.

stickman wrote:Old news.

I've been reading the same basic article for what feels like 10 years. I think first in Scientific American, then in Wired, then in Newsweek, so I guess it's getting more and more mainstream.

Anyone who's been paying attention knows that study, and the hypothesis behind it, has been as thoroughly discredited as Lamarckian evolution. It pisses me off to hear about outbreaks of diseases that were pretty much eradicated when I was a child, all because some people can't understand basic statistics. Even if vaccines were responsible for some number of autism cases (there is no scientifically valid evidence that there is a link), the danger of your child getting autism is several orders of magnitude less than your child dying of a horrible, preventable disease if you don't get them vaccinated. Plus, you're putting the rest of the community at risk. I read somewhere (can't recall where) that an unvaccinated person living in an area with a high vaccination rate is significantly less likely to contract the disease he's not protected against, than a vaccinated person living in an area with a low vaccination rate.

If only people paid attention to facts that challenge their deeply held beliefs. I think this latest revelation will be as effective as telling a Glen Beck viewer that the separation of church and state appears in the first amendment.

its old news that it was a hack job of a study. The new news is that they have proof that it was based on faked data.

mark wrote:

stickman wrote:Old news.

I've been reading the same basic article for what feels like 10 years. I think first in Scientific American, then in Wired, then in Newsweek, so I guess it's getting more and more mainstream.

Anyone who's been paying attention knows that study, and the hypothesis behind it, has been as thoroughly discredited as Lamarckian evolution. It pisses me off to hear about outbreaks of diseases that were pretty much eradicated when I was a child, all because some people can't understand basic statistics. Even if vaccines were responsible for some number of autism cases (there is no scientifically valid evidence that there is a link), the danger of your child getting autism is several orders of magnitude less than your child dying of a horrible, preventable disease if you don't get them vaccinated. Plus, you're putting the rest of the community at risk. I read somewhere (can't recall where) that an unvaccinated person living in an area with a high vaccination rate is significantly less likely to contract the disease he's not protected against, than a vaccinated person living in an area with a low vaccination rate.

If only people paid attention to facts that challenge their deeply held beliefs. I think this latest revelation will be as effective as telling a Glen Beck viewer that the separation of church and state appears in the first amendment.

its old news that it was a hack job of a study. The new news is that they have proof that it was based on faked data.

true, true. Listening to Anderson Cooper, he's doing a hell of a job on that guy.

I happen to be on a support group list for people with Asperger's syndrome (which is an Autism spectrum disorder) in Houston and it pisses me off how much parents of children with Autism or Asperger's syndrome want to hold up Wakefield as some kind of hero figure;
The anti-vax hysteria definitely has a body-count of children dying from preventable disease because of their parents' irrational fear of a non-existent link between vaccines and autism. So very sad and infuriating.

These folks are always pushing announcements about this crap (Wakefield, "Age of Autism", etc) onto our listserv; I haven't spoken up because I know of the sh*tstorm it might ignite, but some educated Aspies have been denouncing the anti-vax loons in other fora...(I've denounced it on MySpace) which draws resentment and ire from parents of children with ASD's, who want their scapegoat and someone to blame other than dumb/blind genetic luck. Those of us with ASD's have accepted that about ourselves and don't need someone to blame...

I definitely recommend the blog "Science-based Medicine" by Dr. Steven Novella, who is also host of the "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" podcast, a production of the New England Skeptical Society.

--JJR

mark wrote:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... was_fr.php

It is an old story, last year the British Medical Council which in effect licenses UK physicians, "struck Wakefield off the List" that is took away Andrew Wakefield's license to practice medicine. The British Medical Journal - The Lancet had originally published Wakefield's study which left them with egg on their face when the BMC went after Wakefield's license. The Lancet which is the premier medical journal in the UK was trying to reverse the blessing they had bestowed on Wakefield's research. So much for a peer reviewed medical journal.

Garbage science, now there is the job reversing the damage Wakefield has done.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/01/07/04

JJR1971 wrote: I definitely recommend the blog "Science-based Medicine" by Dr. Steven Novella, who is also host of the "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" podcast, a production of the New England Skeptical Society.

--JJR

I started listening to the Skeptics guide last night after reading this. I like it a lot. Thanks for the pointer.

In case you thought that the "researcher" in question couldn't be any more despicable:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full

Paladin wrote:House had a great line about this.

BABY COFFINS!