Comments on: Crazy science, crazy reporting

By: Dave Arthur

Dave Arthur — Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:49:02 +0000

E – Oops, I should scroll and read slower. -D

By: E Young

E Young — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:22:15 +0000

Re Crackpots Dave, No, it was also mentioned by jroth

By: E Young

E Young — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:10:56 +0000

Re the use of ‘crackpot’ Dave, Neither did I – it may have been Jack. Would I ever be so rude?.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:14:41 +0000

Chris: I don’t think it’s true that Pustzai was “discredited”. Nobody seemed to have the slightest interest in his work, beyond a thorough and shameful hatchet-job.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:45:52 +0000

“I’m not saying the the Blairs must reveal whether or not Leo has been vaccinated, just that I can’t see why they wouldn’t.” Here’s one: suppose the next big medical-political debate turns out to be about whether baby boys should be circumcized, or whether the NHS should pay for the procedure. On the one side are opponents of unnecessary surgery and cost-cutters, on the other are American expats and various religious groups; on the first side are people who call those groups barbaric, especially the Americans. On your logic, the prime minister should tell us how his son was treated, whether it matched his public position. That’s kind of reasonable, but imagine being that child, and later adolescent. Imagine being asked over the years if he wishes his parents had made the other choice. If you think that’s farfetched, remember that at one point in one of the lawsuits against Clinton some woman described his penis in a deposition, and his doctor had to offer a sworn statement that her description was wrong. There the point wasn’t mere prurience, it was an attempt to humiliate and harass as a political or legal strategy. His good friend Tony Blair is rightly cautious, imo. “I do think it makes a difference however. I refuse to be bound by rules that don’t also bind the Blairs.” Agreed. But right now those rules protect your privacy as well. Look, we have gotten very far off track here (thanks back40!), I agree that it would be awful if he was unreasonably dogmatic about such an emotional issue and did what he forbade others to do. Especially because he makes such a point of his sincerity and moral stance. But to make that the focus of one’s protest is to fight on his territory, and make a weaker case. Now, instead of discussing the medical question (is the MMR harmful) or the subsequent prudential/political question (is it reasonable to offer separate shots if it will reassure parents), we’re discussing TB’s personality. Oh, and to E Young, I never used the word “crackpot” even though I disagree with the position. No need for insults.

By: E Young

E Young — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 05:28:45 +0000

1)Agreed, it was the lack of timely information that caused this argument in the first place, followed by poor explanations. 2)Once again your sweeping statements, (“universally acknowledged not to cause autism,”) are not quite on the mark. Many things were considered as the cause, and subsequently dismissed, but MMR was a persistent suspect. Along with poor clinical practice when the jab was administered. 3)Thimerisol contains ethyl mercury, and it was on this where suspicion lay. Very little is known of the toxicity of low level dosage of ethyl mercury. Thimerisol is now being phased out as a preservative, or the single jab is available if preffered. New cases of autism in California have fallen since preservative free jabs have become available, even though the same numbers of injections as previous have been given. Could all be coicidence…. My original comment was to point up the fact that the medical profession was remiss in informing the public, on the merits etc. of the MMR jab, if they, and the bureaucrats treated their clients as adults rather than as imbeciles, then this whole sorry mess may not have happened. Not all the fault lies with the public!. Will Hutton’s article complained merely of the media’s penchant for reporting rumour rather than fact, a valid point of view.

By: back40

back40 — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:57:57 +0000

It seemed to me that Chris’s main point was about the low quality of media reporting of science and that the MMR issue was an example.

Hutton’s article was focused on media.

“Curiously, Britain’s least-accountable and self-critical institutions have become the media – and the way they operate is beginning to damage rather than protect the society of which they are part. ”

Perhaps there will be another opportunity to discuss Hutton’s question: “When our media are more interested in reporting opinion as fact, how will we ever discover the truth?”

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:47:55 +0000

“e young” : A few important points…. 1) In science, a bad explanation is worse than the lack of an explanation. Pointing to the latter is no excuse for supporting one of the former. 2) Many, many things began around the time of the MMR vaccination. Almost all of them are universally acknowledged not to cause autism (or to have been caused by the MMR vaccine, for that matter). Claiming a causal link based on this one fact is frankly just silly. 3) A massive recent scientific study in Denmark provided strong evidence against a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. (For a refutation of the thimerosal-autism link, see the CDC’s FAQ.)

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:48:34 +0000

Dave, the point about the court case is first of all to draw attention to a rather surprising and overbearing decision and secondly to undermine the “it’s up to Cherie and she’s not a public figure” line of reasoning. I’m not saying the the Blairs must reveal whether or not Leo has been vaccinated, just that I can’t see why they wouldn’t. I do think it makes a difference however. I refuse to be bound by rules that don’t also bind the Blairs. While I don’t expect to catch measles from Leo I think the process by which such decisions are made is important and if politicians aren’t interested in whether or not they would mind their rules applying to themselves should be an important part of that. I don’t want to be ruled by Lord Farquaad of “many of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make” fame. It is also not patently crackpot to worry about Timerisol. It is unnecessary, has been reomved from eyecare products, safety screening tests are actually very poorly designed for testing the safety of somthing that is to be given to millions without an immediate and greater danger—the samples are very small, the surveys are carried out by people with a vested interest in one outcome and becuase of litigation practices a vested iterest in not admitting getting it wrong. Even a tiny effect is important when soething is going to be given to millions of people. As a point of interest, was it Thimerisol that received protection against litigation in the Homeland security legislation?

By: E Young

E Young — Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:29:38 +0000

Dan Simon, You state; “Based on all the strong evidence we’ve seen that autism’s origins precede vaccination in the children it affects,”. This is a very recent view, and appears to be more conjecture than provable reality. (In spite of your choice of words). Assuming that your statement has some validity, if autism was inherent in a child prior to vaccination, then the incidence of autism in any group of children would be constant. It is not, and has not been since the advent of the triple MMR injection. It is this coincidence, this apparent ‘cause and effect’, that has led to so much doubt in the public’s mind.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:40:02 +0000

We may not understand what the cause of autism is, but that doesn’t imply that we can’t make very reliable statements about what the cause of autism isn’t. Autism isn’t caused by lycanthropy, and it isn’t caused by animal magnetism, and it isn’t caused by an imbalance of humors. People who believe in any of these causes of autism could quite rightly be called crackpots. Based on all the strong evidence we’ve seen that autism’s origins precede vaccination in the children it affects, we can say with considerable confidence that autism isn’t caused by anything in vaccines, either.

By: JRoth

JRoth — Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:15:50 +0000

I don’t necessarily think that Leo’s medical history should be public record, but I do think that the question is different. It is not prurience that leads to the question. It’s simple human nature. If someone tells you to do something dubious, the instinctive reaction is, “You first.” Blair & his gov’t are telling the people of England to vaccinate their children one particular way, by one particular drug. And the parents of England are saying, “You first.” As for the PR aspect of it, images of politicians and leaders publicly engaging in activities they exhort their followers to do are commonplace. Mayors biking to work, Presidents donating blood, they’re all widely-accepted ways of displaying leadership and heading off dissent. I certainly understand the Blairs not wanting to drag poor Leo into this, but I find it churlish to denigrate people for expecting (or at least inquiring after) this sort of symbolic act. One last thing: people who link thimerisol to autism will only be “crackpots” when you, sir, have another, more credible explanation for a phenomenon that legitimate scientists acknowledge as being real, yet cannot explain. I, and the “crackpots”, await your revelation of The Answer.

By: Dave Arthur

Dave Arthur — Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:06:38 +0000

E. Young – Of course the public is free to mistrust their leaders for getting away with speeding or for arrogant imposition of policies. No one in this conversation has endorsed arrogance. That doesn’t mean the evidence of the link between autism and MMR is any good, or that there is serious harm involved in giving a child six needles instead of two. Parents should be allowed to choose the latter even though there is no evidence of the former being a problem. E. and Jack – There may be some public interest in knowing whether the Blairs were hypocritical, but not a public right to the information. Their interest is completely overridden by two important privacy rights: medical privacy and protection of minors. Sure, it’s hard to imagine any harm to the kid based on information about his vaccination, but then again, people might spend the rest of his childhood scrutinizing his behavior for evidence of mild autism. More to the point, however, what other harmless medical information would be considered part of the public domain – AIDS testing? referral for counseling? cancer screening? Look, if Blair is arrogant and heavyhanded, inexplicably prohibiting separate vaccines at patient’s expense from consenting physicians, then he is equally wrong even if he is not a hypocrite. You can criticize the government – the policy or the ministers – regardless of Leo’s history. Does anyone really think arrogance and undemocratic leadership are somehow justified by sincerity? Please. Sure, it’s easier to attack him if he’s also hypocritical, but that’s not the right argument. His public position might still be the right one, and the private one wrong. (Jack – Which is why the precedent for fathers overriding mothers is irrelevant; we don’t need to know how they decided or what they decided to judge the regulations.) The interest in personal medical decisions is merely prurient, a nasty habit in a popular culture used to tabloid coverage of movie stars and politicians. It’s a slippery slope, however, and I really hope your side of the pond resists its lure.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:11:04 +0000

In the UK the issue has little to do with litigation. In any case while on the one hand the the enormous volumes in which these medicines are distributed practically guarantees that any side effect will show up somewhere and the statistics will be very hard to gather and interpret thus opening the door to litigation, by the same token even marginal safety improvements become important and the requirements of safety even more vital. While Cherie might not be a public official, recent UK legal precedent allows fathers to insist upon MMR vaccination in direct opposition to mothers so it is clearly Tony’s prerogative. We may not have a right to pry into confidential medical records but this clearly has no reflection upon Leo’s character and is not intrusive. If Leo had been vaccinated it would have been very helpful to the campaign to win acceptance for MMR. If not it is shocking hypocrisy to insist on everyone else doing it. So I don’t think we have the right to access to this information but I find the Prime Minister’s behaviour in this affair puzzling unless he did not have Leo vaccinated. My position is that if MMR were the only alternative there would be no question that it would be a good thing. I can even see why it would be preferable as a recommendation to separate shots. I however don’t like the way that alternatives that meet the same health policy goals have been all but outlawed. This arrogation of decision making over very personal matters, because unnecessary, unaccountable and counterprductive, is an example of bureaucracy gone badly wrong. I object to Will Hutton’s article because it is little more than complacent sneering—he could have said the same thing about Thalidomide for all the facts he uses. Bad science is not the preserve of sceptics. The proponents of GM touting marvellous benefits are at least as unscientific. In particular being an expert in gene splicing does not make you good at public or ecological safety. Nor does a debate which treats genetic modifcation as either safe or unsafe. Clearly you can do all sorts of dangerous things with genetic engineering just as you can with drugs. What will happen when agricultural genetic engineering gets its first Thalidomide? I’m all for challenging bad science where it comes up but it should be challenged with good science, not glib dismissals.

By: susan

susan — Wed, 20 Aug 2003 05:39:44 +0000

To add to Dan’s comments, the abstract of the study on irregularities in head size during the first year of life in autistic children can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12865374&dopt=Abstract (sorry for ugly link).