Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
The great mass of women and common people cannot be induced by mere force of reason to devote themselves to piety, virtue, and honesty. Superstition must therefore be employed, and even this is insufficient without the aid of the marvelous and the horrible.
[Strabo of Amasia, geographer and contemporary of the Roman Emperor Augustus]
Pufferfish and ancestral genomes
Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« I am spared! | Main | Fire John Freshwater … for the right reason »
Category: Kooks • Politics • Skepticism
Posted on: April 22, 2008 10:36 PM, by PZ Myers
What am I supposed to do when all three candidates for the presidency turn out to be credulous, anti-science ignoramuses? Obama thinks there's a link between vaccines and autism, and now Hillary has jumped off the cliff with him. They're both nuts, or at least suck-ups to the kooks.
Orac, of course, weighs in.
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
I thought you had already made up your mind.
Darwin 08
Posted by: Nibien | April 22, 2008 10:39 PM
Dang.....well all things being equal you have to look at the rest of their platforms and vote for the lesser evil.
Posted by: Phil | April 22, 2008 10:40 PM
I have to say, I'm in the "baby industry" (I'm a doula) and it seems to me to be bad science to give a baby four different things that could cause major negative reactions at the same time.
I don't think there's a link to autism, but I don't think babies should get more than one shot at a time -- so parents can judge whether or not their baby has had a reaction, and also give baby's immune system time to deal with each vaccine.
I wouldn't take 4 different psychiatric medications at once, or 4 heart medications at once, but people don't think twice about injecting a 4 week old baby with four different powerful medications at once (one in each arm).
I think it's important to give babies vaccines to any diseases that they are in danger of contracting, and those that cause significant danger...but on the other hand, our vaccination protocols could use a lot of work.
Posted by: Zardeenah | April 22, 2008 10:48 PM
"I never voted for anybody. I always voted against."
-W. C. Fields
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 10:50 PM
I wish either one had attended one of the science debates.
Posted by: Geral | April 22, 2008 10:52 PM
@#3 Zardeenah --
While I agree with your main point, the sad fact is that, probably due to the very scant understand we have of biopsychiatry, many patients do have to take 4 or more psychiatric medications at the same time simply in order to maintain a basic level of functioning. So this may not be the best analogy.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 10:52 PM
Argh. Much autism research needs to be done, but not about the bogus "link" between autism and vaccines! How many studies need to be done before the anti-vaccine people are satisfied? Oh yeah...they're never going to be satisfied. And all three candidates are pandering to them. Why am I surprised?
And no, I'm not making light of autism; it's tragic and I don't blame parents wanting answers. But vaccines aren't the answer. And trying to reduce or eliminate vaccines will set back public health by 50 years. IMHO.
Posted by: Harrison | April 22, 2008 10:52 PM
Interesting, I remember when McCain stated his position on the subject the guys at the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast looked into the positions on each candidate and found Obama was by far the best.
Posted by: JakePT | April 22, 2008 10:53 PM
could be worse it could be four more years od president Cheney oops meant Bush.
Posted by: Davidlpf | April 22, 2008 10:54 PM
Only one of the three candidates has jumped into bed with the religious fundies, and that's John McCain. They might all be religious, and all be too credulous, but make not mistake who the religious right will be rooting for come November. It's not going to be Obama or Clinton.
Posted by: tacitus | April 22, 2008 10:57 PM
BTW, I encourage American scientists and US citizens concerned with science to visit the website of Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) here.
They have information on local, state, and presidential candidates. It's a non-partisan website, so they don't endorse anything, but will give you a breakdown of each candidates views on important issues like climate change, energy, creation/ID, stem cell research, etc.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 10:57 PM
Candidates have to prattle on about their faith in order to have a chance at winning, and I guess that this kind of cluelessness about science is a similar type of pandering. If a politician talks sense about the autism/vaccine issue, he or she would be branded as Cruel! Heartless! Anti-Baby!!!!
I was happy that recently Obama made a point to explain to a reporter that he does believe in evolution. McCain has said he approves teaching ID. Has anyone heard from Hillary on the issue?
Posted by: Tosser | April 22, 2008 10:58 PM
#3: Actually plenty of people take four heart medications at the same time. Its not unusual for an ace inhibitor, a diuretic, or a calcium channel blocker to be given at one time. As well as digoxin, or other inotropes for heart failure.
I think the best evidence for vaccines and autism can be seen in European countries. They took thiomersal out of their vaccines years before we did, and saw no difference in the autism rate. There is no link. There is a multitude of studies to support this; its just in America, if someone says it loudly and often enough people believe it. Thats why so many Americans say "well, evolution is only a theory".
Posted by: sabrina | April 22, 2008 11:01 PM
I think Obama will take this one.
The age difference between him and McCain is massive.
The younger generation will go for the younger canidate.
Posted by: Intel | April 22, 2008 11:02 PM
Here's the thing. Science suffers from a credibility gap caused by an unholy alliance between science and quick-buck capitalism that has grown steadily more incestuous over the last few decades.
Today, many people are skeptical of science and scientists because of the numerous instances they've seen where science has been corrupted by the quest for corporate profits. Sure, we all benefit from sound science far more than we're victimized by corrupted science, but the simple fact is that it's human nature to focus on the negative.
The solution, as I see it, is for ethical scientists to clean up the profession and start outing some of their less ethical brethren who sell out to corporate sugar daddies. I personally know of at least one scientist who stood up to big business and saw his career destroyed, which might explain why many scientists are reluctant to rock the boat and lose funding. It also explains why many non-scientists no longer feel like they can trust the men and women in the white lab coats.
Posted by: Richard | April 22, 2008 11:06 PM
Argh. Why do they continue to give lip service to this, yes, I will swear: crap. Autism and vaccinations have no link; if anything, inflammation from a reaction to vaccination might help with socialization... It's actually documented, a follow up to anecdotes that may actually have merit. None of the blind conjecture that some kind of inflammation causes autism has borne up under scrutiny: parents appear to be unwilling to see their children as having developed the way they have. Why? My son is a great kid, partly because I haven't wheedled away my time pursuing bogus cures and causes, but instead have just taken care of him and given him what a parent can.
Posted by: Pat | April 22, 2008 11:07 PM
These injections are creating four armed babies!!
Posted by: zwa | April 22, 2008 11:08 PM
@#12
Actually, Hillary claims to be a Christian. I have my doubts...
Posted by: Intel | April 22, 2008 11:08 PM
Obama's answer really isn't that bad.
1. It is technically the truth that autism rates are skyrocketing, so he was able to be honest without hurting the person's feelings.
2. Many people are concerned about the link- including that lady (he didn't indicate that he was concerned).
3. He advocated scientific research to find out more. Surely, nobody here disagrees with that. The answer splits both ways so that this mother of an autistic child is not outraged, but so that those who respect science can feel confident in him.
Posted by: Ticktock | April 22, 2008 11:09 PM
Posted by: Patrick Conley | April 22, 2008 11:09 PM
Clinton on evolution:
"I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying. I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason."
Obama on evolution:
"[e]volution is more grounded in my experience than angels."
and
"I'm a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith. That doesn't make faith any less important than science. It just means they're two different things. And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry."
McCain on evolution:
"From a personal standpoint, I believe in evolution. When I stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon and I see the sun going down, I believe the hand of God was there."
These are all from the candidates' profiles on Scientists and Engineers for America's election site.
I find it somewhat bemusing that they all have to qualify their "belief" in evolution with a bunch of talk about theism, but there you have it.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 11:12 PM
Small correction: Obama thinks that a link is a good possibility and worth researching.
He's still wrong, and with this much data in the possibility of him being honestly wrong is precluded, but it's not quite the same thing.
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 22, 2008 11:12 PM
#3
here in Australia we have a fairly good compliance rate with vaccines due partly to a financial inducement ( you get about $300 when the vaccine schedule has been adhered to at about age 18 months), free vaccines & free doctor appointment to have them administered and the fact its compulsory to have them recorded if your child attends school ( which of course is itself compulsory). I believe you can get out of it on certain religious or objector categories but they are quite rigorous in the requirements for these and its very uncommon. Add to the fact the anti-vacc loonies don't have a big hold here and you get a quite good vaccine rate.
HOWEVER, people are intrinsically lazy and forgetful characters and I suspect part of the high complaiance is the ease and convenience of having multiple vaccs at once. I think if you seperated them out you'd probably start to find lessening compliance rates with each vaccine progressed merely because people forget appointments or lose track of when each is required. I've got three kids under three and I know I myself I lose track of who is up for what next. Fortunately we have a government register which you can access at any time ( and also personal vacc record books) so you can look it up but still I think the convenience of having it "over and done with" in short easy bursts certainly is easier for both parent and child.
Just my take on the situation.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | April 22, 2008 11:13 PM
"Who am I going to vote for now?"
I hope you were just being facetious. To make a decision, say for dessert, between chocolate ice cream, vanilla ice cream, and 71 year old moldy wedding cake based upon each server's view on something they read once or twice about something they know nothing about?
Nah. I think you were just being funny.
Posted by: marcia | April 22, 2008 11:16 PM
PZ, don't be so dense.
In a presidential election, it doesn't matter if you are right. It matters how many people vote for you.
Posted by: notthedroids | April 22, 2008 11:16 PM
Honestly Obama's answer is open to interpretation, as Orac points out. That said, it does appear that all the candidates are pandering on this issue, but they are politicians. While this doesn't completely exonerate their answers, their are mitigating circumstances.
They have to stay on message each day in their campaign, and offering the 100% correct scientific answer would likely present a problem: the headline would be "Candidate X Denies Autism Crisis" (even though there probably isn't) and that would knock him or her off message. Playing defense in a campaign for just one or two days not only keeps you from winning votes, but may lose you votes. Politically, it's an easy decision to give vague, somewhat pandering answers, move on and avoid the bigger, more damaging headline.
For those of us who let the evidence act as our sole guide, this is disappointing. But I doubt there's more to this issue than these vague answers, and I'm willing to bet neither Democratic candidate buys into the RFK, Jr. hype and misinformation on this issue.
Posted by: TheZog | April 22, 2008 11:18 PM
I would hardly call a politician saying he has some suspicions, and he would like to see more scientific research in the area to be an anti-science ignoramus. The man is a United States Senator, and a lawyer by training. He is not part of the scientific community, and there is no reasonable expectation that he should be up on the latest research in every field of science. That is what advisers are for. On the other hand, he is the only candidate that has flat-out said that he believes in evolution, and that ID has no place in the classroom. For a politician in America these days, that is a refreshingly candid, and pro-science thing to say.
Posted by: Rhonan | April 22, 2008 11:18 PM
It could be worse, he could have said "God hates vaccines so I do too."
His response, as someone else pointed out, actually was very diplomatic. Though we all know that the research has closed the book on the questions of a connection there seems to be a lack of public knowledge and those studies should be brought to the forefront. Hopefully federal funding will go to less explored items first, but more research can't be bad. Hell, more research funding at all would be a blessing for so many labs! There is a definite disconnect between the public and science. I think in that lies our troubles.
Posted by: Alicia P | April 22, 2008 11:24 PM
Just got out one of the kids record books and I thought I'd list the compulsory shcedule so you in the US can compare. It'll be interesting to see if we have more or less than you guys.
birth - Hep B
2 months - Polio/DTP
-Hib/Hep B
-Pneumoccocal
- Rotavirus ( oral)
4 months - Polio/DTP
-Hib/Hep B
-Pneumococcal
- Rotavirus (Oral)
6 months- - Polio/DTP
-Pneumococcal
- Rotavirus (Oral)
12 months- MMR
-Hib
- Meningococcal C
18 Months- Varicella
4 years - Polio/DTP
-MMR
Also pre-puberty they also have the one for genital warts/cervical cancer. They also give idigenous children vaccines on a slightly different schedule to reflect their needs better such as having the BCG because of higher rates of tuberculosis.
Interesting to hear any comments about how this compares to your schedule.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | April 22, 2008 11:27 PM
Well think about it, who will be more open to allowing the advancing of science? Hillary/Obama or McCain, really?
It's not perfect, but we can't all have a pony either :/
Posted by: Reginald | April 22, 2008 11:30 PM
Seriously, the pandering is always annoying, and never far off with politicians. What are they going to say to unremitting believers, "don't vote for me"?
If you want to judge these people, see if any have voted in favor of the vaccination/autism kooks. If they haven't, especially if they have been a legislator for long, don't worry too much. They're probably just sucking up to morons, something that politicians do.
If they've voted for the nonsense, or have definite plans to introduce legislation in favor of pseudoscience, then be worried about them.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 22, 2008 11:35 PM
Meanwhile, Clinton just promised to exterminate the Iranian population if Iran attacks Israel. The Fellowship must have definitely rubbed off on her to get this close to Armageddonist thinking. A serious pledge to launch Holocaust 2.0 is rather more important than vaccine safety.
Posted by: Vagrant | April 22, 2008 11:37 PM
BTW there is an inherent conflict between personal health and public health. Personal health might say don't vaccinate, public health says vaccinate. Public health says don't use antibiotics, personal health says use them. (Maybe.)
Just throwing that out there.
Posted by: notthedroids | April 22, 2008 11:38 PM
I doubt that the same Barack Obama that said "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels" qualifies as a "credulous, anti-science ignoramus."
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 22, 2008 11:41 PM
Don't be a fucking moron. You can teach them the correct science. Vote for one who will get us out of Iraq.
Posted by: Steve | April 22, 2008 11:41 PM
It would have been nice to just be able to drop out when Edwards did, but I am just left with an "against" vote.
Against a continuation of Bush-life policies. Be nice every once in a while to vote "for" someone for president.
And yes, it would be nice to have a pony.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 22, 2008 11:44 PM
While I do despise the fact that I do not have the option of voting for a candidate who is line with my love and understanding of science and its tenets, I despise even more the fact that religious belief seems to be a requirement to be considered an "electable" candidate in America today. Monique Davis's rant is far from atypical of the feelings of many of today's politicians, but the prevalence of religous belief in our elected officials is not the fault of the candidates. This is, after all, a representative democracy, and as the creationists are all too ready to affirm, the majority of this country holds some sort of religious conviction. So it only stands to reason that we will be in a situation where we have viable candidates that do not have any religious beliefs ONLY when a greater number of our citizens cease to hold religious beliefs.
So, in the situation we are currently in, that is a battle we are not able to fight in the political arena. I truly hope that someday in the near future our nation can get to a point where our society of today catches up with the vision of our founders over two centuries ago - that the governance of our nation will not be held in sway by religion of any type.
The only place we can make any headway on this issue is in our education system. The battle being waged right now over our curriculum obviously has far-reaching consequences that touch every aspect of life, but the single most important one of those aspects is our future political environment. If our children are educated in a scientific, fact-based curriculum, they can be raised to think critically and think for themselves. If we allow religion to creep into the classroom disguised as ID (or whatever idiocy du jour becomes popular after its demise), then we will be continuing this religious political cycle by raising children intrenched in the idea that religion should be in every aspect of both private life, where it belongs, AND public governance, where it has absolutely NO business being.
Win the battle for science, and the battle in the political arena will begin to work itself out in time. If we lose science and let it be forced back under religion's umbrella, we will be signing the death warrant of the separation of church and state in America. The cliche that "the children are our future" is uplifting only when we're doing the right thing by those children. Allow our children to be educated by dogma, superstition, and divinely dictated knowledge, and that cliche becomes a doomsday prohecy.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 22, 2008 11:45 PM
@#37 brokenSoldier --
Well put.
In addition to the obvious need to combat the teaching of creationism in our schools, I think that we really desperately need to improve the general state of science education in America's K-12 schools. Even in schools where creation nonsense isn't present at all, "science" education often consists of haphazard collections of facts and "wow, isn't this cool" so-called experiments rather than a solid grounding in the scientific method and some of the basics of the most important scientific theories (Newtonian mechanics, evolution, thermodynamics etc). Further, even this half-assed attempt at science education is often pushed aside mid-year, when the teacher realizes that science isn't on the standardized tests because it's not a "core" subject like math and reading are.
Not only does this miseducation do little to combat the church-taught beliefs of creationists with actual scientific fact, but it also leads to many otherwise reasonable people misguidedly accepting the argument that creationism should receive equal time and emphasis as evolutionary biology (or, for that matter, *any* time or emphasis). If our schools did a clearer job explaining the rudiments of what does and does not constitute a scientific theory, then perhaps people wouldn't believe this kind of nonsense. A better presentation of the basic principles of evolutionary biology -- and the strong evidence in support of it -- wouldn't hurt either.
If I didn't hate children so much on a personal level, I might be compelled to try to become a science educator. Because the way things seem to be going now, the cliche "the children are our future" is anything but uplifting.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 22, 2008 11:59 PM
I'd suggest voting for your favorite third party candidate. Thumb your nose at the system... it deserves it. I wish we could get a good centrist party going and leave the damned "bases" of the R's and D's crying. Instead we get either far left or far right every time. This country desperately needs a viable third party. Instead we have a billion tiny third parties which attract a fringe of unrealistic activists. Divided we/they fall.
By the way, whatever they might say, I'm pretty sure Clinton is a closet atheist or agnostic. Obama... I wouldn't put it past him to pretend to believe in God either (you pretty much have to if you want to get elected to any high office in this country). Too bad I can't stand their economic policies.
McCain probably believes in God, but he doesn't seem to be in thrall to the religious factions of the Republican party as Bush is. And if you agree with Christopher Hitchens about Iraq, then McCain is really your only candidate.
What to do?
Posted by: davidstvz | April 23, 2008 12:00 AM
@ #3 Do you know how vaccines work? It dosen't matter how many they are exposed to. Babies are the best for accepting vaccines because their T-cell counts are many times higher than adults ever have even during times of illness.
As for the Autism epidemic. I think it is probably like the
"Seattle windshield epidemic"
Posted by: Amplexus | April 23, 2008 12:01 AM
MIKE GRAVEL
Posted by: FRANKIE | April 23, 2008 12:03 AM
@# 38 How can you hate children so much? They are just as susceptible to science as religion. Children are really great.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 23, 2008 12:07 AM
The autism rate for children now is 1 in 150.
http://www.kidshealth.org/research/autism_study.html
That is an epidemic.
Any other illness with that kind of rate would be getting national attention on a massive scale.
I've never experienced worry like I have with my 17 month old. I've been a laid back guy my whole life... but I've literally woken up at night worried my son was going to be snatched in a grocery store or something. Random things I tell myself are stupid... but I worry anyway.
Point being... people are rightfully scared for their children, and this doesn't have an explanation yet. Parents are looking for the silver bullet to avoid so they can increase their odds. Who can blame them? 1 in 150 are very very bad odds when it is your own child's life on the line.
Are vaccines the culprit? I don't think so... but dang, something of this magnitude deserves a ton more attention and funding then it is getting right now.
Posted by: DAG | April 23, 2008 12:08 AM
um..... Ron Paul?
Posted by: Jonathan Brennecke | April 23, 2008 12:10 AM
Of course my perfect candidate would never get elected in this present bizarro, faith-based atmosphere. He or she would need to have a strong grounding in the sciences, and know that prayer is not the solution to the very real possibility of Godzilla attacks on our major cities. That being said, I still think Obama is the best candidate to deal with domestic attacks by Venusian robots and ant-men.
Posted by: UprightAlice | April 23, 2008 12:11 AM
Richard, #15:
I think the real problem is in how science is presented to laypeople. Corporate hired guns tend not to fool anyone in the scientific community, but the nontechnical press likes to present controversies (and both sides equally), so it's too easy to elevate a crackpot and give the general public the appearance of a debate where none exists. See climate change.Posted by: Epistaxis | April 23, 2008 12:13 AM
@42 Amplexus --
I don't hate children as a principle. There are a lot of great things about them. I was one once. I think I made a pretty good child, too.
I just can't stand being around them on a personal level. I don't like their need for attention, their constant shrieking, wailing cries (particularly at the younger ages), etc. And it seems when they get to their teen/pre-teen years, they just take the worst aspects of children and combine them with the worst aspects of adults, and you get sophomoric little brats. (I know this is an uncharitably inaccurate representation of children, but it's how I feel when I'm around them, and why I don't think I'd make a good parent or teacher. I have great respect for those who are [good] parents and teachers, though.)
I occasionally run across a kid I really like, but for the most part I try to avoid them. They avoid me. It works.
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 23, 2008 12:14 AM
@DAG
It is obvious that obsessive-compulsive worry about children is causing the autism epidemic, as both have risen dramatically over the past decade.
Posted by: notthedroids | April 23, 2008 12:17 AM
What? You mean Obama is no longer the Messiah? I think you misread his sermon, oh ye of little faith! I heard him say, "Give unto science the things which are science, and unto the ignorant masses the things which are god." He said it in code though, so as not to offend the ignorant masses, but he knew that his truly believing disciples would understand his message.
Posted by: The Wholly None | April 23, 2008 12:19 AM
PZ, you're concluding from one instance of political pandering that both the democratic front runners are "credulous, anti-science ignoramuses"? Isn't there something, um, unscientific about that? Seriously, man. It's called politics. Check it out.
Posted by: Mavaddat | April 23, 2008 12:22 AM
Patriotism and piety are the two easiest things to fake. Just wear a flag lapel pin or name drop god shamelessly in speeches(even in non-sensical ways. Even if faith was somehow desirable, it's just so easy to fake. Even further: you can't seriously question someone' faith without looking like a jerk. At the same time you can profess faith with no evidence, direct or indirect, anecdotal or cosmological.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 23, 2008 12:50 AM
Quoth Bob:
If we can get Bob to say his name backwards, will he return to the dimension from whence he came? Otherwise, we will be forced to call upon the Eats, Shoots & Leaves contingent; a fate worse than ravening Maenads.
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 23, 2008 12:56 AM
UPDATE: He in fact was pointing to someone in the crowd when he said "this person."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/dr_obama_and_dr_mccain.html
Go down and check the update there.
Posted by: Zachimal | April 23, 2008 12:58 AM
Hell I feel like blaspheming tonight anyway so I'll go further. You don't have to explain whether you found God in Prison or from eating a pound of psychedelic mushrooms and a fifth of Jack Daniels, or from gazing into the eyes of your first born child. Either way people look at with like you posses some sagely wisdom. Just like professing blind patriotism. When saying the American is #1 you never hear people mention specifics, whether it's our litany of inventions, great thinkers, or our impressively high teen pregnancy rate. It's just assumed to be valid.
Posted by: Amplexus | April 23, 2008 12:59 AM
This "Bob" fellow (and also a "James") is the pathetic PlanetKiller trying to get past his banning. His comments will be killed as I find them.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 23, 2008 1:01 AM
His comments will be killed as I find them.
It's as if he were gone before he was ever here...
I'll remember to wait and see if trolls can post for a while with impunity before immortalizing their bait in a quote.
It's good to see you're keeping the Maenads in your dungeon well fed, PZ.
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 23, 2008 1:09 AM
PZ: Remember you have to remove the head after you stake his heart. Or you could just nuke him from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure.
Posted by: UprightAlice | April 23, 2008 1:16 AM
Oh boy.
Imagine all the crazy things people would link to vaccines if they were given one at a time instead of in groups. Think of it... 40 different events for people to form questionable coincidental correlations with.
Talk about a statistician's nightmare.
Posted by: Timothy | April 23, 2008 1:30 AM
I definitely need to reef on whatever #39 is smoking and enter his magical world where the Democrats run "far left" candidates, and where Hillary goddamn Clinton doesn't qualify as "centrist."
Is there really that much room to squeeze in between Obama/Clinton and McCain? Like, maybe you'll kill 9/10ths of the Iranian population instead of 3/4ths and every last living microbe, respectively?
Posted by: Djur | April 23, 2008 1:30 AM
Former candidate John Edwards got rich on junk science lawsuits. He also flat out rejected nuclear power based on tired and out of date reasons.
I'm just sayin'.
Nice hair, though.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | April 23, 2008 1:33 AM
#32 - Good point.
Hillary Clinton has threatened to "obliterate" Iran
were the words in a news article today, and you can't decide who to vote for?
Global Warming may be a bit of a problem, but starting a nuclear winter isn't the answer!
Posted by: Oz Atheist | April 23, 2008 1:34 AM
That Myers can blithely rub salt into the wounds of the Autism debate for socio-political gain, is beneath contempt. And to ignore the problem calls into question his humanity. For those who deal with the problem day-to-day, Autism represents something more than a simple religious dysfunction.
This sort of contempt, coming from the scientific elite of a country with an infant mortality rate lower than Mexico, is comically evil. Yeah, take the party line and shut up. No, I don't think so.
But then we should never count on the vicious ideologues for our scientific paradigm shifts, should we?
Posted by: wnelson | April 23, 2008 1:39 AM
@ wnelson can you explain ANY mechanism for how vaccines or additives might possibly, even on a conceptual level cause such a radical shift in brain organization? What is it ? An immune response? Histamine biochemical cascade? What is it man?
Posted by: Amplexus | April 23, 2008 1:46 AM
Let's see - the last eight years prove that Republicans are bad for the country's economy, prestige around the world, and produce incapable leaders. This has been verified independently by multiple citizens across the country, therefore voting for McCain would be just more of the same.
The last time a Clinton was in the Whitehouse we had lies, lies, and more damn lies. The President even had to question what we mean by "is" and "sex." Therefore another Clinton in the Whitehouse will not be good for the libido of the nation.
That leaves Obama...an untried and untested hypothesis...which only leaves one conclusion...vote for Nader and then emigrate to Australia.
Posted by: stushie | April 23, 2008 1:49 AM
But then we should never count on the vicious ideologues for our scientific paradigm shifts, should we?
Vicious ideology is asshat wnelson's stock in trade. I see he's returned for more mockery and abuse.
The scientific elite of a country collects data among the country's elite that can best afford medical care. Who counts the miscarriage or stillbirth of a teen in Mexico who doesn't report it? Is there more breast cancer in Marin County California than in the rest of the nation, or does every woman in the richest county in America get her mammogram with more regularity than any other spot on the globe?
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 23, 2008 1:49 AM
#43:
Is that 1 in 150 figure not ASDs in general? Because that is a very wide range of conditions, including some that would have dismissed as "an odd character trait" not too many years ago.
On another note:
As a proud citizen of Soviet Canuckistan (I think that was Pat Buchanan...) I chuckle at the predicament of my backward neighbours (NOTE THE U!) to the south. Then I look at the politicians here and my laughter dies somewhat (not completely though, you guys are number #1 at a few things).
The general problem is that those people who should be running the nations of this world are the ones who would never get elected. Ever thought about running for office PZ?
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Damn, I hate it when things like that are correct.
Posted by: DH | April 23, 2008 1:51 AM
Um... hang on. Did you actually read the quote from Obama, PZ? He didn't say vaccines cause autism, he said that some people are suspicious they do (which is obviously true), pointed out the person in his audience who'd brought the subject up with him, and expressed a willingness to continue research on the subject. Seems reasonable enough to me. What's your problem with this?
Posted by: Evan | April 23, 2008 2:02 AM
Get a grip PZ. As another commenter said on another blog:
These people are trying to get elected. Not every U.S. citizen is smart enough to read Dr. Novella's blog so that they can understand the nuance of autism rates jumping from 1:10,000 in 1994 to 1:150 in 2007. The average American would look at that and call Obama an IDIOT for denying the skyrocketing diagnoses of children with autism.
What more can he do? He was raised in his early years by an atheist scientist mother, and he respects the division of science and religion. To say that he lost your vote because he gave a vague scientifically-imperfect answer to a highly emotional and complex subject is just nuts.
His answer boiled down to "we will follow the science". DUH! That is code for "Scientists, please understand that I'm with you on this, but I need to pander to these people so that I don't look like the elitist dismissive asshole that the media wants me to be lately".
I thought we were smart people around here... be smart enough to know that somebody who just comes out and says everything we would like them to say about science, religion, rationality, superstition, etc, etc.. would have no chance whatsoever. Like any species, this one is not going to evolve drastically overnight. From where we are now, Obama is a step in the right direction (as is Hillary too I suppose).
Posted by: uwjames | April 23, 2008 2:03 AM
I wonder at the foolishness of expecting any of the three candidates to understand anything beyond Biology 092. I mean, these are all lawyers we're talking about. The best we can hope for is for someone on their teams to be remotely schooled in science and scientific concerns. McCain's camp surely never even bothered considering this, if his endorsements are any indication. Hillary's are, if she has them, once firebrand young liberals who are now so concerned with keeping her chances alive that science be damned until they know she's got the D ticket locked up. As for Obama, he probably has the best team of the three - again, if he even has them - and is willing to discuss issues deeper than the other two, even if he knows little about the topic at hand.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 23, 2008 2:07 AM
Who am I going to vote for now?
Do what the French did when Le Pen forced a second round of voting c.6 years ago?: Hold your nose and vote for the least worse of the remaining available fools. You could even do it French-style; that is, clip your nose shut with a clothespin when you vote to emphasize the point.
Posted by: blf | April 23, 2008 2:28 AM
@#62 wnelson:
Huh? What exactly is the "socio-political gain" PZ is going to reap by saying these things? It's not PZ that's manipulating science for socio-political gain, it's Obama and Clinton -- by using their ignorance, feigned or genuine, to pretend that unscientific, correlational data should have any credence in scientific research.
PZ, and the posters who agree with him regarding vaccination and autism, are not "ignoring the problem." This IS the problem: that people are chasing ghosts (the alleged autism-vaccination link) instead of doing actual autism research that might find something useful. In fact, continuing this persistent lie that vaccinations and autism have anything to do with each other is the really inhumane thing: it hinders autism research AND leads to people rejecting vaccination for their children, thus endangering the health of their child and public health in general.
...this just makes no sense. When did anyone call autism a "simple religious dysfunction"? The only person who might say this is a faith healer, and I haven't seen any of them round PZ's blog....
I'm a little confused what infant mortality in Mexico has to do with anything. Returning to the autism "debate," if we look at the two major political parties, the "party line" seems to be to accept the autism/vaccination debate as worth studying, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. If you're talking about PZ taking the scientific "party line", well, the reason why this is pretty much established fact within the scientific community is that the correlation has been tested multiple times, in multiple ways, and no causal link has ever been demonstrated. It's not ideology. It's good science.
Give me one empirical piece of empirical evidence (note: NOT more rhetoric about "vicious ideologues" and their contemptuous inhumanity) why the scientific community should consider a paradigm shift in the way they think about autism and vaccinations (I'm assuming we're still talking about that).
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 23, 2008 2:33 AM
How many vaccines does a child get at one time? I'm not sure, but how many different bacteria and viruses does a child get exposed to from crawling on the floor and shoving its foot in its mouth, or licking the dog...
I suspect that this is one of those superficially plausible arguments that the anti-vaccers use to start persuading normal people that something is wrong. But there's some importance in stimulating the child's immune system - we seem to be getting more autoimmune problems, including asthma and allergies, as children are kept more and more sterile.
Posted by: Cath | April 23, 2008 2:55 AM
I'd like to quote this; what would you prefer for attribution?
(And is it too early for another OM nomination?)
Posted by: Azkyroth` | April 23, 2008 2:57 AM
...the Democratic Party of the United States.
As "far left."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 23, 2008 3:01 AM
I think the one thing the press and public overlooks is the broadening of the definition of Autism - it was expanded to include the "spectrum" of questionable disorders and, therefore, has increased to include several children and adults it did not previously.
If I had been born 15-20 years later than I was, I would have been diagnosed as autistic. And probably medicated and coddled rather than forced to grow and mature on my own time. :p
Posted by: Alicia P | April 23, 2008 3:09 AM
Speaking as a parent of an autistic child myself, wnelson, I have a few things to say. The first is "fuck you" for pretending to speak for me while you spew ignorance and venom.
Second, there IS no autism "debate." There is the entire weight of the available scientific evidence, matched against an unholy alliance of money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing lawyers, sadistic monsters who find the mask of a righteous crusader a convenient camouflage, and angry parents so desperate for an enemy they can see that they're willing to jettison sound science, sane public policy, and potentially millions of lives in order to chase one.
Which are you?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 23, 2008 3:14 AM
...what exactly do you know about modern diagnostic treatment approaches for autism?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 23, 2008 3:16 AM
To whom it may concern.
1. The absolute incidence rate of a disease has no relevance to whether it is an epidemic or not on. The current rate for heart disease is about 1 in 2-does that necessarily make it an epidemic? No. An epidemic is a sudden increase in frequency above the expected number for a disease (to quote my third year micro notes).
If the incidence of autism has remained stable, then it is not an epidemic.
2. I does not matter how terrible a disease is, this does not change the science and facts behind it. Autism is a debilitating illness? That doesn't mean vaccines cause autism. Parents have to go through a lot to care for autistic children? That doesn't mean vaccine cause autism.
Would you convict an innocent man of murder just because the crime was so horrific?
The only people who benefit from lying and willful ignorance of facts are politicians and the ambulance chasers who prey on the parents with autistic children.
Don't you dare try to turn this around and say that someone is being insensitive, or doesn't know what autistic children and their families go through, simply because they are unwilling to lie or remain ignorant.
Posted by: Lightnin | April 23, 2008 3:23 AM
PZ needs to get laid. -troll
At the risk of feeding the troll, I'd just like to point out that if the above were true, I'm sure there would be volunteers. Intelligence is sexy. And fluffy is kind of cute.
Posted by: Flamethorn | April 23, 2008 3:38 AM