Search Results for "vaccines"

Jan 30 2015

The Gap Between Public and Scientific Opinion

A recently published poll from the Pew Research center finds that there is a huge gap between public opinion and the opinion of scientists on many important scientific issues of the day. This is disappointing, but not surprising, for a variety of reasons.

Generally speaking, if the majority of scientists have the same opinion about a scientific question (especially relevant experts), then it is a good idea to take that majority opinion seriously. It does not have to be correct, but if you were playing the odds I would go with the experts. If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that the public is wrong, probably because of interfering cultural, social, political, ideological, psychological, or religious beliefs. (Scientists have those too, which may explain the minority opinion in some cases.)

This attitude is often portrayed as elitism – usually by those who disagree with the scientific majority. Those relatively new to concepts of critical thinking, or trying to sound as if they are critical thinkers, might also dismiss such sentiments as an “argument from authority,” and then declare themselves the victor because they were able to point to a logical fallacy.  They miss the fact that informal logical fallacies are context dependent, and it is not a fallacy to respect (within reasonable limits) the consensus of expert opinion.

Continue Reading »

Share

19 responses so far

Jan 29 2015

Anti-Vaccine Tropes Stirring

The Disneyland measles outbreak has the anti-vaccine movement on the ropes a bit. As I and pretty much all of my colleagues at Science-Based Medicine have predicted for years, once previously contained infectious illnesses start to seriously return, public opinion will shift against the anti-vaxxers.

We are seeing more mainstream stories like this one, Mom: Family that refused vaccination put my baby in quarantine, from CNN, and this one, Vaccine deniers stick together. And now they’re ruining things for everyone, from the Washington Post. As I mentioned in my earlier post, The Onion also nailed it with this satire, I Don’t Vaccinate My Child Because It’s My Right To Decide What Eliminated Diseases Come Roaring Back.

Of course, the cranks are unmoved. Their position is not based on a rational assessment of the evidence, and therefore evidence will not move them from their perch. What they have been doing is repeating tired anti-vaccine tropes. Unfortunately they are getting some exposure from residual false balance in the media.

Continue Reading »

Share

14 responses so far

Jan 27 2015

Disneyland Measles Outbreak Hubbub

This is an ongoing story that isn’t over yet. As it has been raging for days now, most people have probably heard that there is a big measles outbreak starting in Disneyland in California. There are now 87 confirmed cases of measles, 50 of which can be directly linked to Disneyland. Of the 42 people so far whose vaccination status is known, 34 were unvaccinated, 3 were partially vaccinated, and 5 were fully vaccinated.

Yes, this is caused by those who are not vaccinated

One thing is absolutely certain from these numbers – this outbreak has largely been caused by those who are not vaccinated. As you can see, most of those affected are unvaccinated. The vaccination rate for MMR is about 90% in the US. This means those who are unvaccinated were about 67 times more likely to be infected with measles in this outbreak than those fully vaccinated.

If vaccination rates were higher, then herd immunity could have stopped or severely limited the spread of the disease. That is the point of herd immunity – if enough people are protected then the virus is less likely to find a vulnerable host and continue the spread. The vaccine is about 97% effective in those fully vaccinated, which is why there were a few vaccinated people who contracted the disease.

Continue Reading »

Share

22 responses so far

Jan 19 2015

Golden Rice Follow Up

Published by under General Science

There is a major anti-golden rice smear and disinformation campaign underway, spearheaded by Greenpeace with other anti-GMO activists on board. They themselves consider golden rice to be a “Trojan horse” for GM technology in general, so they essentially admit that their motivation is to oppose GM technology, even if that means opposing a technology that can save the sight and lives of poor children.

Golden rice is a genetically modified rice variety with enhanced production of beta carotene, the pro-vitamin of Vitamin A. The name derives from its golden color, provided by the beta carotene, the same thing that makes carrots orange. Carrots, by the way, were originally white and were modified through breeding to produce beta carotene, which was a very successful biofortified campaign in Europe that effectively combated vitamin A deficiency.

In response to my post from last week on biofortified GM crops, one commenter did a large “cut and paste” into the comments (generally considered a comment etiquette no-no, but I let it through because the topic is so important) with essentially the full anti-golden rice propaganda. The commenter seemed to think this constituted a “convincing” argument. Let’s see.

*GR IS STILL NOT READY

While there have been long delays in the development of GR since it was “invented” in 2000 (1), this has not been due to the activities of anti-GMO activists, but to basic R&D problems.

This is confirmed in a statement by the International Rice Research Institute, the main body working on the GR project (2). According to the Institute, the time frame for developing a new product is about 13 years, and GR is “still under development and evaluation”. In September 2013 the IRRI expected GR to take another two years before it was ready.

While this point is essentially correct, it is not an argument against the adoption of golden rice. Golden rice (GR) development began in the 1980s. By 2000 the first GR variety was ready, but it produced too little beta carotene to be effective. GR2, using different genes, was ready by 2005 and contained 23 times as much beta carotene as GR 1. This is enough to effectively combat vitamin A deficiency in cultures that consume rice as their primary staple.

Continue Reading »

Share

49 responses so far

Jan 01 2015

2014 Was a Bad Year for Homeopathy

I have been saying for several years that if there is a pseudoscientific medical treatment that is especially vulnerable to critical analysis it’s homeopathy. There’s a lot of nonsense in the world of medicine, but homeopathy takes the prize. First, it is complete and utter nonsense.

There is no need to equivocate. Homeopathy violates basic scientific knowledge in physics, chemistry and biology. It is transparent witchcraft that cannot possibly work by any known or even semi-plausible mechanism. Further, clinical studies unsurprisingly show that it does not work, for anything.

And yet the public does not generally understand what homeopathy actually is. The most common belief is that homeopathy is natural or herbal medicine. Rather, homeopathy is based upon several dubious notions. The first is that like cures like, and idea based on sympathetic magic and not science or any knowledge of the real world. Further, the actual starting ingredients are based upon a fanciful and often absurd interpretation of this dubious notion, leading to things like using duck liver to treat the flu.

None of this actually matters, however, because most homeopathic remedies are diluted beyond the point that there is any chance of a single molecule of starting ingredient remaining. All of this is supposed to work, however, because the potion is “activated” by shaking it.

Continue Reading »

Share

12 responses so far

Dec 29 2014

Pertussis Evolving

New evidence suggests that strains of the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, which is responsible for whooping cough, may be evolving to evade immune protection afforded by the pertussis vaccine.

The research, led by Dr Andrew Preston from the University of Bath, evaluated surface proteins from the 2012 whooping cough outbreak. They found that surface proteins that are included in the acellular pertussis vaccine were evolving faster than surface proteins not included in the vaccine. The authors point out that this was happening even prior to the introduction of the vaccine, but has accelerated since the vaccine.

It is not yet clear what, if anything, this means for the effectiveness of the acellular pertussis vaccine. However, the concern is that circulating strains of B. pertussis will continue to evolve, diminishing the protection provided by existing vaccines.

Whooping cough is a potentially serious illness, primarily affecting infants. There was an outbreak in the UK in 2012 with 10,000 confirmed cases and 14 infant deaths. In the US that same year there were over 48,000 cases reported (not necessarily confirmed) and 20 deaths.

Continue Reading »

Share

6 responses so far

Dec 22 2014

Nobody’s Perfect – Dealing with Flawed Characters

Published by under Skepticism

A recurring controversy that crops up from time to time within the rationalist communities is how to deal with someone who promotes rationalism on the one hand, but has a major flaw on the other. The latest example of this comes from my friend and colleague, Phil Plait.

The IFLS website posted a picture of women actors who are also scientists. The image included Mayim Bialik, who plays Amy on the Big Bang Theory, and who also has a Ph.D. in neuroscience.  At the same time, Bialik is openly anti-vaccine, and promotes pseudoscientfic organizations like Holistic Moms Network and Attachment Parenting International. Phil retweeted the picture from IFLS and added, “I love this.”

This all prompted another round of hand-wringing (actually I think this is all a healthy and interesting conversation) over supporting scientists, educators, and skeptics who are flawed in some way. Phil defends the position in his blog that we can accept flawed characters as ambassadors of science, writing:

So is using her in that montage of pictures a good thing or a bad thing? I would argue it’s neither, but the good outweighs the bad. The facts are that she is a scientist, she is an actress, and the picture was about actresses who are scientists. In point of fact, celebrities can be influential, and it’s a good thing that people see science supported by celebrity.

Other celebrities who have caused the same type of controversy include Bill Maher, who is an outspoken atheist, but who is also anti-vaccine, doubts the germ theory of disease, and has a general conspiratorial attitude toward modern medicine.

Continue Reading »

Share

30 responses so far

Nov 13 2014

Food Babe Misinformation on Travel

The “Food Babe” is an excellent object lesson in why people who are not qualified should not be dispensing advice to the public. Spouting uninformed opinions is one thing, but presenting information in an authoritative manner as if from an expert should not be attempted by the non-expert.

If you want to dispense useful information on your blog or website (not just opinion) then it is appropriate to cite credible sources and experts and to accurately convey their information. “These are the facts concerning flu vaccines, according to the CDC,” then quote the CDC directly, with a link to the source.

Unfortunately the web is cluttered with people who really have no idea what they are talking about giving advice as if it were authoritative, and often that advice is colored by either an ideological agenda or a commercial interest. The Food Babe is now the poster child for this phenomenon.

She recently published advice for healthy traveling. The page has since been deleted, apparently in response to criticism, but it is cached here. The FB’s advice contains some real howlers, demonstrating that she lacks even the most basic scientific literacy.

Continue Reading »

Share

51 responses so far

Oct 28 2014

What Americans Believe

Surveys are always problematic because they are subject to interpretation, the precise phrasing of questions, sampling bias, and perhaps hidden assumptions on the part of those taking the survey. The results of any single survey, therefore, should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, they can provide a useful snapshot (if done well) of the current culture. 

Skeptics are always interested in what the general public “believes.” The term “belief” is itself problematic, and when used in a survey it is subject to interpretation by those taking the survey. I am not one of those who object to ever using the term “belief.” It is a reasonable short hand for, “I find the totality of available evidence to be compelling,” or “I accept the scientific consensus on this issue,” at least in informal writing or conversation.

In a survey, however, I would prefer any questions about what people “believe” to be replaced by, or at least supplemented by, statements about what the scientific evidence says.

In any case, we have another recent survey about what Americans believe, from Chapman University. The survey covers a lot of territory, from religious affiliation and practice, to what people fear, to what they believe about scientific and paranormal topics. You can download the entire 73-page report of the results from the link above.

Continue Reading »

Share

78 responses so far

Sep 30 2014

Dr. Oz, Autism, and GMOs

It is no longer news that Dr. Oz has long ago abandoned any pretense to scientific rigor and is simply another scaremongering hawker of snake oil and nonsense. Still, it’s hard not to marvel when he sinks to a new low.

On a recent show Oz’s target was genetically modified organisms (GMO). This is not new for Oz, he has hosted anti-GMO activists in the past, warning his audience about non-existent health risks.

This time around Oz and his guest are claiming that pesticides used with certain GMO varieties may cause autism. Why is it always autism? It’s likely at least partly due to the fact that awareness of autism has been increasing in the last 2 decades, creating the false impression that autism itself is increasing. This leads to numerous false correlations (most famously with vaccines) and the assumption of cause and effect (often to support a preexisting bias). As you can see from the graph, however, the rise in autism diagnoses tightly correlates with increased organic food sales – but I guess you have to cherry pick the correlation you want.

The narrative that Oz spun for his audience was this: GMO is tied to pesticide use. Those pesticides are hazardous to your health, and specifically might cause autism. Organic food is pesticide free, and going organic can actually cure autism.

Every link in that chain of argument is misleading or patently wrong.

Continue Reading »

Share

29 responses so far

Next »