Denialism

There is no pro-science political party

—

by

MarkH
in ,

With the news that in addition to John McCain both Clinton and Obama have now pandered to anti-vaccine denialism I think it’s time to reiterate there isn’t a political party in this country that has a truly sound grasp on sound science. And in this instance it is clear that both sides are more than happy to pander to the denialists.

The fact is that there is no link between vaccines and autism. As time has gone on the denialists move the goalposts further and further back as the evidence for a link becomes increasingly unlikely. First it was thimerosal, and now 6 years after its removal from childhood vaccines we continue to see an increase in autism diagnoses. And what about that epidemic? It’s not really an epidemic.

This is one of the problems of medicine that occurs time and again with denialists. As our diagnostic criteria change, as our tests become more sensitive, as our screening becomes more rigorous, the appearance of many diseases and disorders tends to increase. Cranks routinely latch onto this as evidence we’re getting sicker, or are being poisoned by fluoride, or vaccines, or alien lizards running Monsanto, but the fact is when these public health interventions are rigorously studied, the link simply is not there. Autism is no exception. As the diagnostic criteria were widened, the stigma of diagnosis decreased (the damn Freudians decided to blame it on bad mothers so it wasn’t exactly a diagnosis that was sought out), and more social services and money were addressed to the disorder the population of children diagnosed with the disorder has widened. All attempts to link the autism with vaccines scientifically have failed, and the methods used by the anti-vaccine crowd to spread this myth are denialist to the last drop. They allege outrageous conspiracies implicating everyone from the CDC to the FDA to the average family doc. They cherry pick the scientific literature for every tiny little scrap they can twist to fit their position and ignore the rigorous international studies demonstrating no link. They put their faith in fake experts like the Geiers and crank journalists like David Kirby. They are the kings of moving the goalposts as exemplified in their unwillingness to admit that thimerosal had nothing to do with autism or their recent pathetic attempt to link mitochondrial disorders to autism in light of the Hannah Poling case. Logical fallacies are their bread and butter.

Vaccines are arguably the most effective life saver that evidence-based medicine has ever developed. Fear of vaccines in parents is natural. Utilizing a technology that puts your child at risk, even the astronomically small risk associated with vaccination, to prevent an illness they may never get interferes with the basic primal instincts of parents to protect their children from any harm. That and shots are scary. They make kids scared and upset.

Rational people realize that the benefits outweigh the risks, that the ride to the doctor is probably more risky than the jab, and vaccination is the responsible decision for a parent to make. And while I sympathize with the parents of autistic children who think vaccines are to blame the science is simply not on their side. The anti-vaccine cranks exploit this completely understandable but irrational fear in normal parents of harming their children, and in doing so are actively harming public health. The science-based medicine denialists then typically offer any number of unproven crank cures with which, for a price, you can experiment on your children. Testimonials abound, scientific evidence of their efficacy or a physiologic basis for the intervention is nowhere to be seen.

I am incredibly disappointed with both candidates for failing so thoroughly to stand up for science in this instance. I think it’s an excellent example of why ScienceDebate2008 is such an important objective. Science is not conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican. And if we are interested in the voice of science wielding influence on public policy we have to realize that we have to act as an independent voice of reason. Citizens who think science is important and should inform public policy must become their own constituency. Having a presidential debate on science will make it clear that there is a large body of people in this country that value science and what it offers to society, and we demand to be listened to by both political parties.

Comments

28 responses to “There is no pro-science political party”

  1. usagi

    Because it works here too:
    Do you know Ron Paul? [/snark]

    Reply
  2. cyperus_papyrus

    Just FYI, there is an update at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/dr_obama_and_dr_mccain.html showing a video where it’s pretty clear that Sen. Obama is pointing at someone else when he says “This person included.” But it sure would be nice if Obama actually knew that it HAD been researched, wouldn’t it?

    Reply
  3. Bill

    When you say, “I am incredibly disappointed with both candidates” which 2 of the 3 major candidates are you referring to?

    Reply
  4. MarkH

    Bill, the two candidates which just joined McCain in pandering to this crowd. I was already disappointed in him too, this is true, so now it’s all three. But just Hillary and Barack for what they did today.

    Reply
  5. Orac

    Even if Obama were referring to someone else, his statement was still just plain ignorant and wrong. I don’t cut him any slack.

    Reply
  6. HCN

    You wrote “All attempts to link the autism with vaccines scientifically have failed, and the methods used by the anti-vaccine crowd to spread this myth are denialist to the last drop. They allege outrageous conspiracies implicating everyone from the CDC to the FDA to the average family doc.”

    What amazes me is that they claim that pharmaceutical companies are making lots and lots of money off of vaccines. But the problem is that vaccines are not money-makers, and there have been recent shortages of vaccines due to not enough manufacturers.

    I found a study that shows the economic effects of several childhood vaccines:
    http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/12/1136

    It says “Routine childhood immunization with the 7 vaccines was cost saving from the direct cost and societal perspectives, with net savings of $9.9 billion and $43.3 billion, respectively.”

    It seems that a good vaccine program kept money away from pharmaceuticals and medical facilities. Something that a politician should be made aware of.

    Reply
  7. Mark P

    I did not see what they said. I would be disappointed if they agreed with the anti-vac crowd, but I would not be surprised to hear them say something that sounded like pandering. There are several things to consider, and one is that only an idiot running for office offends voters, especially when it comes to parents of sick kids. Another is that it is unlikely that they have had a chance to be briefed on this issue. You (and probably many who read these blogs) are at least passingly familiar with the issue, but it is probably unrealistic to expect these candidates to be very familiar with all the issues like this. If you really want a candidate who never does anything you don’t like, the only choice is for you to run. The second best choice is to pick from what’s available and hope that they are smart enough to recruit good science advisors.

    Reply
  8. Chris H.

    This is one of those difficult problems with our democracy–small, well organized, vocal minority groups have a huge amount of power. In the politics of interest group politics, most people just don’t care either way about the issue, but a few do intensely, and those few can make so much noise that they are pandered to.

    Reply
  9. yogi-one

    I agree that there’s no link between vaccines and autism, and that many vaccines have saved lives and saved a lot of medical expenses.

    But I disagree on one point: alien lizards DO run Monsanto!

    Reply
  10. nyscof

    For anyone paying attention to science and not rhetoric, modern science shows that consuming fluoride to reduce tooth decay is ineffective, harmful and a waste of tax dollars.

    Over 1600 Professionals are joining Environmental Protection Agency scientists in calling for an end to water fluoridation. Over 11,000 individuals are supporting them. Join them

    http://www.FluorideAction.Net

    Reply
  11. Joe Shelby

    What amazes me is that they claim that pharmaceutical companies are making lots and lots of money off of vaccines. But the problem is that vaccines are not money-makers, and there have been recent shortages of vaccines due to not enough manufacturers.

    I agree with this in a big way – there was no reason that, for example, we should be dependent on a U.K. plant and its problems for our flu vaccine during that “crisis” a few years back.

    If the government really cared about health care (from a financial perspective) in any way at all, it would subsidize vaccine makers rather than pander to HMOs because it’s cheaper to keep people from getting sick than it is to pay for people once they are already sick.

    Reply
  12. Joel

    Posted by: Mark P | April 22, 2008 11:35 PM

    Thank you Mark for a voice of reason!

    Reply
  13. Anonymous

    Another is that it is unlikely that they have had a chance to be briefed on this issue. You (and probably many who read these blogs) are at least passingly familiar with the issue, but it is probably unrealistic to expect these candidates to be very familiar with all the issues like this

    Well then why do they feel justified in sounding off about issues they know nothing about?

    Reply
  14. Phoenix Woman

    Here’s the problem: The antivaxers are better at getting their message out.

    Try Googling “vaccines autism” sometime, which is probably the extent of the research Obama’s, Clinton’s and McCain’s people did. The first three links are antivax garbage links; the CDC pages don’t show up until links four and five, sandwiched between more antivax woo. And the CDC’s first site doesn’t say flat-out that there is no link; it just says that there’s no evidence for it but because parents are concerned they’re still studying it — which puts them on the same page as Obama.

    Reply
  15. Phoenix Woman

    Well then why do they feel justified in sounding off about issues they know nothing about?

    Ever hear of the term “metacompetence”, Anonymous? Very simply put, it’s being able to gauge just how knowledgeable you are about a given thing. Most people tend to overestimate their own metacompetence in a particular area. You’d be surprised at what you think you’re expert at that you really aren’t.

    For instance: You know what chocolate tastes like, right? You’ve had Hershey’s and Cadbury and maybe even Green & Black’s. That’s all you’ve seen on TV or in the grocery store, so that’s all you know. But trust me, unless you’re familiar with single-bean 70%-plus chocolates, you have never really tasted chocolate. Seriously.

    Or take watches. You’ve heard that Rolex is supposed to be the very best watchmaker out there, right? Not when Breguet, Patek Phillipe, and Ulysse Nardin — to name but a few — are extant. But while most people have heard of Rolex, maybe one in one hundred have heard of any of the other three brands.

    Bearing in mind that the antivaxers have nearly totally controlled the media debate for pretty much the last two decades, it’s not surprising to hear that the candidates aren’t better informed than is the general public. When even the CDC’s own website hedges it bets by not stating flat-out that there is no link between vaccines and autism, only that there is no evidence for it — but that because parents are concerned, they will continue to look into it.

    Reply
  16. Lab Lemming

    So is there a better explanation for what causes autism? As long as there is no data, and the most popular theories are vaccines and bad parenting, then all the parents out there with half a nanogram of self-respect are going to shill for the former.

    Reply
  17. chris

    I think the title of this post is misleading. There is no party whose politicians are all well versed in science and caught up on all the current scientific and pseudoscientific controversies, that’s true.

    But there is a party which generally promotes the scientific method (look at the substance of Obama’s comment: he wants to do research into the matter), and there is a party which is hostile to it and wants to promote the preconceived notions of its religious “base”. Ignoring this reality is foolish and self-destructive (not just for the scientific community, but for the nation). (IOW, there may not be a pro-science major party if your standards are strict enough, but there definitely is precisely one anti-science one.)

    Ideally, it would be nice to see a retraction from Obama along the lines of “Gee, it turns out somebody already did that research and the results were that vaccines have nothing to do with autism.”, but admitting he isn’t an expert on *all* subjects, politics-related or not, would be bad for him politically, so he probably won’t. But seriously, he’s not a doctor and probably has about 999 issues of more concern to him than the etiology of autism (which isn’t his job anyway), so I don’t think his ignorance is unforgivable, as long as he intends to fix it the right way.

    But it seems to me, at least, that if he set out to solve the “problem”, he’d start by consulting doctors and scientists, not tea leaf readers or priests. That’s a big difference from the other side of the aisle, and a “plague on both your houses” attitude isn’t going to help anyone.

    Reply
  18. TK Kenyon

    Yes, Obama, Clinton, and McCain have all fallen victim to the scientific-ish meme that vaccine = autism.
    .
    This meme, along with the absolutely terrible research linking early TV viewing to autism (I blogged about that here: http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/2006/10/spectrum-of-autism-research-from.html ), both play into the superstitious belief that (1) those parents did something wrong, and that’s why their children are cursed with autism (and I use “cursed” in the superstitious sense,) and (2) if I as a parent do not do the wrong thing, my child will be protected.
    .
    Unfortunately, these two false ideas run rampant, because they both suggest that you can somehow protect your child or, in this case, that better government can somehow protect children.
    .
    More research is needed. In that, all three candidates are correct.
    .
    TK Kenyon
    http://www.tkkenyon.com , http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/
    Author of RABID ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601640021 ) and CALLOUS ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601640226 ): Two novels about science and religion, with some sex and murder.

    Reply
  19. Anthony McCarthy

    would be bad for him politically

    The estimate of how much saying something costs a candidate for public office is always a part of the calculation, it has to be because that is how representative democracy works.

    Looking up the thread I don’t see anyone saying that they’re going to hold their vote until they turn blue if Obama doesn’t retract. That’s encouraging, it usually happens by the fifth response on posts like this.

    You want to enhance your issue? Voter education and persuasion and coalition building are the hardest but most reliable ways to turn your chances on a less than popular stand. Both require respecting your target audience. That’s usually the hardest part of it, suppressing arrogant advocates.

    Reply
  20. Didac

    Epidemiological studies show that ‘vaccine scares’ can increase the population susceptibility to diseases (see this link). It’s not a question of ‘elitism’ but of informed decision-making. It’s not a question also of ‘vaccinism’ or ‘anti-vaccinism’ but of evaluation of risks and benefits associated to every particular vaccine.

    Reply
  21. doug l

    It seems that the reason there is no political party for science is because the two concepts are antithetical. If there were one we would quickly see it descenct into something similar to religion and become something that was definitely not science. Just reading the comments here is good evidence of that.
    Never the less, the fact that no candidate would go to the science debate underscores the degree of ignorance which is reflected in our national policies on sci and tech everyday.

    Reply
  22. Alex Deam

    Science is not conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican.

    Or in the words of John Mashey:

    If you jump out of a 50-story building, gravity doesn’t ask whether you’re left or right.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/agw_a_commie_plot.php#comment-831013

    Reply
  23. Alex Deam

    Thanks Mark for describing the science behind an autism-MMR link: it made me research myself and am now glad I can lay this fallacy to rest if it comes up in discussion.
    However, I was wondering whether you have any knowledge to do with the Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and Hepatitis jab link. My understanding of it is that there probably is a link and that the consensus for this link is that its certainly more real than the autism-MMR one. Any help? Links to studies would be useful as wikipedia hasn’t been much help for once.

    Reply
  24. PalMD

    On this side of the ocean, Myalgic encephalomyelitis isn’t really widely accepted as a common, or sometimes even legit diagnosis. To translate into American, it is essentially synonymous with chronic fatigue syndrome, an incredibly rare illness based on the most accepted definition. There is no link to vaccines. In fact, no clear associations with anything have been found.

    Reply
  25. Alex Deam

    On this side of the ocean, Myalgic encephalomyelitis isn’t really widely accepted as a common, or sometimes even legit diagnosis. To translate into American, it is essentially synonymous with chronic fatigue syndrome, an incredibly rare illness based on the most accepted definition. There is no link to vaccines. In fact, no clear associations with anything have been found.

    Well I don’t really know if here (England) is any different on ME to the US. However, I think the ME/CFS crossover is the same, but I think they are slightly different things. I’m probably wrong, but isn’t CFS more of a psychological thing and ME a medical one? And I’m not saying that vaccines cause ME, or ME is only ever caused by vaccines, just to clarify. From what I’ve been told/read on the internet, is that If someone with an illness is given say a Hep B jab, then there have been cases where they have contracted ME. My question is, what studies (peer reviewed would be best) have been done into this and is there no link or just no evidence either way?

    Reply
  26. PalMD

    from what I’ve been able to tell (I certainly may be wrong), ME doesn’t really exist in the U.S. literature, except as an occasional synonym for CFS—and CFS has no link to vaccines.

    I’ve heard that in the UK and Australia, ME/CFS is some sort of term used, but i don’t know how recognized it is or is not by doctors.

    It’s hard for me to imagine that such a serious illness with such an apparent wide reach as been missed over here in the U.S. (what we would miss is an opportunity to prevent or treat it on a large scale, were it to exist.)

    Reply
  27. Alex Deam

    Well as I said, I don’t know about the US, but the WHO certainly recognize ME as real:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-viral_fatigue_syndrome

    Here CFS is said to be an alternate diagnosis to ME.

    Also, here is an article discussing ME diagnoses after a jab:

    http://chetday.com/janecfids.html

    There are plenty of other places this has been discussed, but that was the first one I could find at short notice.

    Reply
  28. Dan

    Well I have to say the US isn’t so well up on diagnosis as compared to Europe. Take Celiac disease. They say the diagnosis for a person with this condition takes place, on average, within the first 3 yrs of life. Here in the US it takes on average until the age of about 27 to get diagnosed. I’ve had medical problems all my life that were very real but untreatable by western allopathic medicine. Whenever I found something to treat them that came from a so-called “holistic health” philosophy they didn’t want to hear anything about it. What’s wrong with this picture? They are my medical doctors and they don’t want to hear about anything that helps me, that I get real results from that comes from a “non-scientific” source. I thought part of the scientific process was evaluation through empirical means and using statistics too determine significant vs. insignificant data.

    I have no idea about this but does anyone know why some parents complain that their children are totally fine up to the day they get vaccinated and then immediately they get sick and develop some condition like autism? Are these people lying?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *