…and this is a 
Many of us have long noticed the truly awful quackery hosted at the Huffington Post, with acupuncturists, anti-vax fanatics, and general all-around kooks like Deepak Chopra given free rein.
Now Salon has pointed out the obvious, with some depth. Have you wondered why the HuffPo is so bad on science and medicine? The blame can be pinned directly on Arianna Huffington, who hand-picked with little discrimination or sense who the 'medical' contributors to the site would be. That's the scatter-brained, credulous brain of Arianna on display in that mess on HuffPo.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: mikeg | July 29, 2009 11:28 PM
ya... what's up with this seemingly otherwise intelligent woman... is it revenue related?... so many suckers, so few bites?
Posted by: Daeva | July 29, 2009 11:28 PM
Reminds me of that Mitchell and Webb Look episode where they make fun of homeopathy. Hell , we can all be doctors just carry some water around and cure diseases away! Soon , everyone will be deemed as a "doctor"
Posted by: M Cliff Pickard | July 29, 2009 11:36 PM
I just saw her in the movie "the siege" - just about spit up my limeaide.
Posted by: debg | July 29, 2009 11:53 PM
That's funny - I'm watching her on Colbert right now. This should be interesting...
Posted by: HenryS
|
July 29, 2009 11:59 PM
What do you expect..Just another Republican opportunist play acting as a progressive.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 30, 2009 12:00 AM
Or any, for that matter, apparently.
How offensive.
Posted by: sigh | July 30, 2009 12:01 AM
You guys call yourself a science blog, yet you denounce the dangers of vaccines. Why don't you do some research before making such broad claims.
Posted by: Caine | July 30, 2009 12:08 AM
Mr. Carrey seems to have mistaken the contents of his head for those of vaccines.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2009 12:09 AM
Oh boy. Here we go.
Posted by: JafafaHots | July 30, 2009 12:09 AM
"You guys call yourself a science blog, yet you denounce the dangers of vaccines. Why don't you do some research before making such broad claims."
Trying to count the ways this is wrong... but I hate math.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 30, 2009 12:10 AM
Sigh: No, we denounce those who ridiculously overstate the dangers of vaccines. The actual dangers of vaccines are very rare.
Posted by: Patrick | July 30, 2009 12:11 AM
And the Huffpo just announced that Denver was their next local market. Soooo excited.
Posted by: David Gustafson | July 30, 2009 12:13 AM
I don't think that she is a stupid woman, but sheesh. What crazy sh*t ends up on that site.
They have loads of 9/11 truther people who show up in the comments as well.
Posted by: Caine | July 30, 2009 12:14 AM
sigh @ 7:
How about you doing some actual research, before you sigh yourself to death? By research, I mean research that deals with actual science and facts, you know, evidence based, not emotionally based crap spouted by non-professionals.
Posted by: REBoho
|
July 30, 2009 12:16 AM
I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "dangers of vaccines" thing. Perhaps you could enlighten us with something like, oh I don't know, facts maybe?
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 30, 2009 12:16 AM
BTW, Massimo Pigliucci has a new (second) blog:
http://gullibilityisbadforyou.blogspot.com/
(Not much there yet, but it's only a couple of days old.)
***
SC
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: JafafaHots | July 30, 2009 12:17 AM
Damn, the comments on that article are just too depressing to bother to read.
Posted by: MTGAP | July 30, 2009 12:19 AM
So what's a reliable online news source? Do they even exist? (Besides Pharyngula, of course.)
Posted by: Sigh | July 30, 2009 12:20 AM
I am double majoring in alternative medicine and Biochemistry. Don't jump to conclusions. I have no emotional tie to the subject matter. My statements are based strictly off countless studies done on the matter. And of the guy who doesn't like math... STATISTICS.
As for the rarity of vaccine detriment. Well that has nearly tripled within the last decade. Rare is a relative term. Minor sideeffects are much more prevalent.
Posted by: zifferent | July 30, 2009 12:22 AM
I understand that there are bad articles on Huffpo. There are also good articles. Without getting into a partisan battle at least most to all of the articles aren't shit, like some other sites on the other side of the aisle. And there are sciency kooks everywhere, even in the media and entertainment biz.
Posted by: REBoho
|
July 30, 2009 12:23 AM
Facts, sigh, facts
Posted by: Caine | July 30, 2009 12:24 AM
JafafaHots:
Damn, the comments on that article are just too depressing to bother to read.
You're not kidding. I closed out after the 1st page. Perhaps I ought to declare myself a walking miracle, having had the full range of vaccines (I was born in '57) and have no health problems outside of a few herniated discs. Oh wait, those must be due to my polio vax or something!
Posted by: HenryS
|
July 30, 2009 12:26 AM
I am double majoring in alternative medicine and Biochemistry. Don't jump to conclusions.
********
Alternative Medicine and jump to conclusions...you make the jump to easy.
Posted by: Xen | July 30, 2009 12:26 AM
And heres for some hipocrisy - one of the main points in her book "Right is Wrong" against the republicans is their disregard for science and evidence!
You can hear her make this point debating Prager:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybgrD4b2QvE&feature=related
Posted by: Bobber | July 30, 2009 12:27 AM
Arianna Huffington has a generally good, if too-comfortably mainstream, progressive record as far as wanting to empower people - but her distrust of the "establishment" seems to extend to the sciences, if one is to judge from those allowed to comment on medicine. Well, one can be right about some things but terribly, terribly wrong about others (Hitchens).
I follow Pigliucci's other blog. He has some very interesting commenters, and his stuff is very well thought out - although I don't quite agree with his take on the Dawkins approach to religion. Still, this second blog looks to be very useful.
Posted by: Kjolson | July 30, 2009 12:27 AM
While I generally roll my eyes at the malarky that passes for fact and knowledge in the world, myself, I also believe that there's an "out there" component on the other side, as well; those that will, with complete and total conviction, deny everything that's not perfectly explained. I enjoy this blog (Pharyngula), and I love anything that pushes science over idiocy (and I don't read HuffPo even if my politics lie that direction because of the writing), but you're crossing the line here again...at least a little.
Example: The Mayo Clinic has done a study on the efficacy of acupuncture, at least for a narrow range of ailments, and found it beyond the placebo effect (even if they don't know exactly what worked). (David Martin, study in 2005, here's one link: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/08/25/12699.aspx )
Does this mean that wearing silk pajamas and eating only raw food while meditating will cure everything? Of course not.
But, extreme narrowness--from any direction--is disheartening.
Posted by: Blue-eyed Videot | July 30, 2009 12:33 AM
Majoring in Alternative Medicine? Must be an on-line college, right?
Posted by: sigh | July 30, 2009 12:35 AM
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.
Posted by: Nomad | July 30, 2009 12:40 AM
Kjolson:
But you know that studies on acupuncture have found that sham treatments, that is just sticking people with needles without regard to the magical points in which you are traditionally supposed to stick the needles, work just as well as using the real points?
In that way, it certainly IS a placebo effect. Beyond that.. how exactly do you do a double blind test when the "real" treatment involves jabbing people with needles? It's not like you can use a "sugar needle", either you stick needles in them or you don't.
Posted by: Chris P | July 30, 2009 12:46 AM
That's pretty funny when people at this Mass college are writing papers about evidence based medicine and running classes on naturopathy and alternative medicine at the same time.
Guess they haven't bother to review themselves.
Posted by: Kjolson | July 30, 2009 12:46 AM
Nomad: I agree...very great possibility for sham effect. And if you read that article (or any covering Martin's study) he says that they had to plan because earlier studies weren't "believable" by those in the double-blind test (for reasons you logically state). I do not know what method the scientists used, and I grant you that it's only one study, and a limited one at that.
However, my endocrinologist at the Mayo--very well-respected and certainly no nutcase (John C. Morris)--is the one who first told me about the acupuncture study and its apparent efficacy.
My point here being that it's not just shoddy political blogs and cymbal-clinking wackos taking this seriously, and, personally speaking, I'm okay with that.
I like broad views, with my feet firmly planted on the ground.
Posted by: Blue-eyed Videot | July 30, 2009 12:49 AM
I'm having a difficult time locating either a Biochem major or Alternative Medicine major at that esteemed learning institution. Upon cursory examination, they're not listed as one of their degreed programs.
Posted by: Caine | July 30, 2009 12:49 AM
Nomad @ 29
But sugar needles could work - if you wrapped them up in woo. A new type of Qi treatment! Eat these needles, and they work on your qi from the inside! It works! Really!
Posted by: Kjolson | July 30, 2009 12:52 AM
Addendum: While I'm keeping an open mind about *some* alternative treatments (e.g. acupuncture), I don't accept all as valid--far from it. I'm not all that gullible, and believe me, with my health history I've had every friend, relative, and stranger offer me all sorts of "alternative" treatments that I find laughable (and annoying).
I do, however, tend to trust many of my doctors--mainstream, accredited, white coats and insurance-approved--both locally and at the Mayo. In this way, I'm willing to keep an open mind---about *some* things.
Posted by: David Gustafson | July 30, 2009 12:55 AM
A relevant article on the acupuncture study mentioned above:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=492
Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2009 12:55 AM
MTGAP,
I doubt there's one, or, if there is, that it would be reliable indefinitely.
Personally, I follow a number of news sources, and compare claims and their provenance against my own existing knowledge base.
Basically, I advocate being skeptical, even of this blog (and of this very comment).
Posted by: David Gustafson | July 30, 2009 12:58 AM
One doctor's opinion is meaningless when it comes to reaching the best conclusion on any given topic on any point in time. One person's opinion is merely an argument from authority. What does the community of relevant experts have to say about papers on the subject in peer reviewed journals? That is what you should be asking yourself.
Posted by: Blue-eyed Videot | July 30, 2009 12:59 AM
An interesting point to the study. They were treating Fibromyalgia. The goddess Wiki said it best...
"Fibromyalgia is a controversial diagnosis. Many members of the medical community consider fibromyalgia a ‘non-disease’ because of a lack of abnormalities on physical examination, the absence of objective diagnostic tests,[16][17] and extensive overlap with other proposed conditions like chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple chemical sensitivity.[2][18] Although several brain imaging studies have shown evidence for possible neurological differences in fibromyalgia and healthy controls, these studies may show only correlation, not causation,[16] and fibromyalgia might be the result of childhood stress or prolonged or severe stress rather than a primary disorder of the brain.[19]
I'm not so convinced that alleviation of fibromyalgia pain is proof of anything.
Posted by: Travis | July 30, 2009 1:00 AM
I would also recommend some of the posts on various acupuncture studies over at Oracs blog. For instance
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/sham_acupuncture_is_better_than_true_acu.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/the_largest_randomized_acupuncture_study.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/yet_another_acupuncture_metaanalysis_gar.php
amd more!
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2009 1:05 AM
Bullshit.
More bullshit. How about making some statements about what happens when people get polio, small pox, measles, tetanus, and so on.
Since you won't I will. About 1/3 of those who got small pox died. But this doesn't happen anymore, because vaccines drove it to extinction. How about polio? Some died, some didn't. The survivors are easy to spot. They limp a lot. 3 out of 1000 children who get measles will die in the USA. In third world countries it can be as high as 300.
Cricket chirps as sigh does some name calling and changes the subject.
Posted by: Kjolson | July 30, 2009 1:06 AM
Okay, one more before bed...
David Gustafson: Yes, I see, but the study I brought up was *not* for back pain. Your link was about how acupuncture doesn't work on back pain. If you're wanting to school me on logical fallacies, go ahead, but don't try to do bait-and-switch on me in the meantime. :)
And, obviously, I'm not going by just one person's word--I was (and am) skeptical when I first heard of this--but it's *not* been just one doctor's word. Not a committee, not a PRJ, but, again, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) that acupuncture's real--I don't know if it is, myself.
My only point is that just as I'm prone to point and laugh at folks who, in their arrogance, hold on only to the Bible or to patchouli or to Great Aunt Martha's "special remedy" as the great panacea, I notice that I may also point to those who wield their scientific bona-fides with blinders on to areas in which, well, perhaps there's less distance between science and non-yet-science than originally assumed.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 1:15 AM
There's an old saw about statistics and men leaning against lightposts. Look it up. Statistics is a field of interpretation, and the professionals know that the numbers can indeed lie.
But that's not relevant, really. What is relevant is that you are majoring in alternative medicine and biochemistry. Biochem is great, but it doesn't necessarily inform you on the interactions of treatments to the human body, you know. And besides which...you know what they call "alternative" medicine when it has been studied and shown to be effective? Medicine. Or did you not know that willowbark tea became what we now know as aspirin, or that the poisonous extract of foxglove has become digitalis? I won't denigrate your education because I do not agree with its precepts, but don't presume to waltz in here telling us we're wrong simply because you choose to believe in woo for long enough to get a degree in it.
Look up what the definition of a side-effect is. Now look up some of the properties of some herbs out there. Even if you're willing to believe everything an apothecary's manual tells you (even the farfetched ones), you will notice that some of those uses are sometimes contradictory.
Did you know, for instance, that black cohosh is given during menopause and menstruation to ease hormonal troubles - but that it is also an abortifacient? How about that it is known to produce toxic reactions at low doses in some people, such as low blood pressure, vomiting headache, nausea, and perspiration - all of which are signs of central nervous system dysfunction? Those are called side effects.
Every treatment, "alternative" or mainstream has side effects, so the fact that you find any given treatment has one is not an argument against its efficacy. Indeed, the responsibility of any physician, and you are not a physician, is to balance the potential risks and side-effects against the likelihood of a positive outcome in treatment. There are entire classes (a series of them, in fact) in accredited medical schools. But you would not know that, would you?
Look, pal - shove your Courtier's Reply up where it hurts. The medical profession has a hard enough time treating patients effectively without people like you willing to use their (lack) of knowledge to convince people not to follow the advice of their physicians. You state the "countless studies" that support your position, so put up or shut up. What you claim is contrary to the mountain of evidence gathered by acknowledged experts in the medical community performing scientifically-valid tests and research.
If you actually have the kind of revolutionary information that could show that doctors are not only wrong about the efficacy of vaccines but about the nature and mechanisms of medicine in general, you would be doing the entire world a favor by disclosing it. If not, you are making false claims and need to shut the Hell up before your advice gets someone hurt when they try "alternative" medicine instead of the real thing.
Posted by: Carolyn Ann | July 30, 2009 1:16 AM
It's her blog. She runs it. She basically has the right to pick and choose how she wants to represent any issue at all.
The Huffington Post is, essentially, no different to Rupert Murdoch's newspapers. He dictates what he wants, Arriana Huffington does likewise. Whether either of them choose wisely is a matter for discussion. Whether they can exert their own prejudices within the properties they own? That's not up for grabs. (It is up for criticism, though.)
Carolyn Ann
PS I know, I know. Wishy washy nonsense. It's an explanation, nothing else.
Posted by: Jadehawk | July 30, 2009 1:17 AM
it actually seems to go beyond just the placebo effect. apparently, skin injuries cause endorphine release (one of the reasons "cutting" is addictive); there's no magic there, it's just physical response to repeated skin injuries. you might as well repeatedly poke yourself with a sewing needle.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 1:29 AM
I can agree with this. There is some evidence, for instance, that some of the herbal remedies given for menstruation and menopause may have an actual therapeutic effect. I don't know if any double-blind studies on this, but doctors have at least had the idea that the hormone regulators and supplements they prescribe have fairly hefty side-effects and that the placebo effect can play a major role in hormone control. As one doctor put it to me once, when it comes to things like menopause and menstruation, where the problem is mainly one of discomfort and the only thing a doctor could normally do is to prescribe something that may make the condition worse, he would prefer to manage what he knows his patient will go looking for anyway: the relief. So he does what any good doctor does and makes sure his patient is safe while she goes out looking for a placebo.
It's not quite the same, I know, but it's an acknowledged trend in the medical field these days. I can also see where some "alternative" treatments out there can make some degree of medical sense as well, but I would prefer to have the clinical trials just to be safe.
Posted by: JafafaHots | July 30, 2009 1:33 AM
"it actually seems to go beyond just the placebo effect. apparently, skin injuries cause endorphine release (one of the reasons "cutting" is addictive)"
I wonder if that's why I constantly pick my scabs until I am bloody and later permanently scarred.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 30, 2009 1:34 AM
Ryan Egesdahl writes:
Look, pal - shove your Courtier's Reply up where it hurts.
That would interfere with the mochaccino enema.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 1:35 AM
Please pardon me while I quietly and nonchalantly step to the other side of the room, JafafaHots. I'm wearing white today.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 1:39 AM
What a stimulating notion!Posted by: JafafaHots | July 30, 2009 1:39 AM
"Please pardon me while I quietly and nonchalantly step to the other side of the room, JafafaHots. I'm wearing white today."
Oh don't worry, I don;t do it around people. Come to think of it, I don't really do ANY around people. I never seem to be around people. Or rather, people are never around me?
I wonder why that is? Whatever.
*pick* *pick* *pick*
Posted by: NoGurus | July 30, 2009 1:40 AM
Huffington has long been linked to cult leader John-Roger, a woomeister supreme. Go to his website john-roger.org and read about the phony garbage he offers as "accredited" education. I kind of like Huffington, that is I think her heart is in the right place and she means well, but her head is awful mushy at times. I am not sure that she doesn't cause more damage than good, featuring quacks like Deepak Chopra and the like, and the anti vaccination folks. When I read the Post, which is often, I just skip her opinions altogether and read the headlines and interesting bloggers, and skip the rest. I would advise anyone to read that blog with care.
Posted by: Travis | July 30, 2009 1:42 AM
Does that mean all my kinky S&M activities are medically justified? Or do I have to make sure to break the skin?
Posted by: David Gustafson | July 30, 2009 1:49 AM
This article talks about one reason (beyond the fact that some herbs do have a active ingredients in them) that herbal medicines can work.... and that is because many herbal medicines have been found to be spiked with actual western medicine.
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/04/fraud-in-chinese-medicine.html
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 1:56 AM
Travis said:
This gives a whole new meaning to "playing doctor," doesn't it? Just don't get caught practicing medicine without a license, our you are a naughty boy who deserves to be spanked!
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips | July 30, 2009 2:04 AM
Actually, no. The endorphin thing seems really plausible, but the sham acupuncture studies --using either real acupuncture needles that don't break the skin or, most recently toothpicks--reveal that breaking the skin isn't necessary for people to feel the effects of the 'treatment'. It's hard to imagine such minimal poking eliciting endorphin release at appreciable levels. Endorphins may come into play in some treatments, but if that were the principal cause of the effect, you would expect real acupuncture to perform better than sham treatments that don't appreciably injure the skin.@29: double blind acupuncture studies are conducted using retractable needles in opaque shafts. Practitioners place the needles, but can't tell whether or not the needle penetrates or retracts.
Links at 35 and 39 have references for all of the above.
Posted by: Travis | July 30, 2009 2:09 AM
Oh, I am the doctor in this case, I might be naughty but I am not a naughty boy, and I am the one who is going to be getting in trouble. Maybe I should start a healing centre based on this idea?
Posted by: Travis | July 30, 2009 2:11 AM
Oh, I am the doctor in this case, I might be naughty but I am not a naughty boy, and I am the one who is going to be getting in trouble. Maybe I should start a healing centre based on this idea?
Posted by: No Bs | July 30, 2009 2:12 AM
In response to #7 Posted by: sigh
-Polio (also called poliomyelitis) is a contagious, historically devastating disease that was virtually eliminated from the Western hemisphere in the second half of the 20th century. Although polio has plagued humans since ancient times, its most extensive outbreak occurred in the first half of the 1900s before the vaccination, created by Jonas Salk, became widely available in 1955.
At the height of the polio epidemic in 1952, nearly 60,000 cases with more than 3,000 deaths were reported in the United States alone. However, with widespread vaccination, wild-type polio, or polio occurring through natural infection, was eliminated from the United States by 1979 and the Western hemisphere by 1991.-
Posted by: No Bs | July 30, 2009 2:20 AM
In response to #7 Posted by: sigh
-Polio (also called poliomyelitis) is a contagious, historically devastating disease that was virtually eliminated from the Western hemisphere in the second half of the 20th century. Although polio has plagued humans since ancient times, its most extensive outbreak occurred in the first half of the 1900s before the vaccination, created by Jonas Salk, became widely available in 1955.
At the height of the polio epidemic in 1952, nearly 60,000 cases with more than 3,000 deaths were reported in the United States alone. However, with widespread vaccination, wild-type polio, or polio occurring through natural infection, was eliminated from the United States by 1979 and the Western hemisphere by 1991.-
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 30, 2009 2:21 AM
When I first glanced at the title of this post I thought it read 'Huffing the snake oil' - which, when you think about it, isn't very far from the point PZ's making.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 2:21 AM
Travis said:
Yeah! We could call it Dr. Naughty's Rough Treatment Center. We could have a Heeling Spa for the doms and subs, or the Pain Center for people who like hanging themselves from their piercings. What do you think having a maternity ward where the parents can get a spanking as well - or would that be maybe a little too freaky?
Posted by: Pareidolius | July 30, 2009 2:37 AM
NoGuru @52 hit the nail on the head. Huffington is one very smart woman with a big god shaped hole in her that colors everything she sees. Intelligence and critical thinking skills do not go hand in hand as I learned up close and personal toward the end of my magical-thinking days. It's to accept that one's cherished worldview may not be accurate. But at least in my case, rational reality was ultimately liberating in a way that woo never was.
For a harrowing look at the very creepy John-Roger, check out the late Peter McWilliam's book Life 102: What To Do When Your Guru Sues You.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 30, 2009 2:49 AM
I'm glad this keeps getting brought up, because it is generally a pretty big problem. It is disengenuous to leap on the right's flagrant disregard for reality without also recognizing when those more "on our side" do it as well. It is especially dangerous when it comes from one's own side, actually, because the predisposition to believe is already there. The Huffington Post's medical stance is very similar to Bill Maher's (I think Maher and Huffington are friends, actually), and it is a stance that I think hurts both of them in their public discourse.
Posted by: Pareidolius | July 30, 2009 2:51 AM
Ruh roh. I meant @51.
Posted by: Gorogh | July 30, 2009 2:53 AM
I am just getting involved in professional (i.e. university) research on the Placebo effect, and what I can tell so far is that the basic additive model (treatment effect=Placebo+Verum) used to assess a treatment's efficacy is overly simplistic. More to the point, unspecific somatic reactions to the Verum feasibly interact with the Placebo effect, making one overestimate the specific pharmacological efficacy.
On the bottom line, in classical double-blind studies, the placebo effect even in "traditional" medicine might have been underestimated.
There are quite a few designs (balanced placebo design, hidden treatment, free choice paradigm, delayed response paradigm etc.) that could serve to single out the actual effect of a treatment, which are being researched right now. Just now, I lack the time for a well-structured review tailored specifically for a Pharyngula audience, but I shall try to find the time soon.
Posted by: Gorogh | July 30, 2009 3:08 AM
I am just getting involved in professional (i.e. university) research on the Placebo effect, and what I can tell so far is that the basic additive model (treatment effect=Placebo+Verum) used to assess a treatment's efficacy is overly simplistic. More to the point, unspecific somatic reactions to the Verum feasibly interact with the Placebo effect, making one overestimate the specific pharmacological efficacy.
On the bottom line, in classical double-blind studies, the placebo effect even in "traditional" medicine might have been underestimated.
There are quite a few designs (balanced placebo design, hidden treatment, free choice paradigm, delayed response paradigm etc.) that could serve to single out the actual effect of a treatment, which are being researched right now. Just now, I lack the time for a well-structured review tailored specifically for a Pharyngula audience, but I shall try to find the time soon.
Posted by: Gorogh | July 30, 2009 3:18 AM
Burn, Scienceblogs.
(@double post)
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 3:27 AM
I sincerely look forward to that time, since I am a big fan of research methods in science. I suppose you could say I am a philosopher of science, if that hadn't become an insult over the years, since I am truly interested much more in the doing and the rationale of science in of itself than any results it may produce (fascinating as they are).
Hell, who am I kidding? I just love learning almost anything new.
Posted by: Seldon | July 30, 2009 3:45 AM
I have been reading the Huffington Post for the last year. I thought in the run up to the last election it was actually a pretty good source for news. However, the woo that gets pedalled on that site has been getting worse and worse. Every once in a while they actually sneak in a real doctor, but all the commenters have bought into the conspiracy.
There are a number of points to make about this...how do otherwise intelligent people fall for this stuff? Not decrying the right's disregard for science when the left can be just as guilty..etc.
However, in a way I am a little glad I discovered this aspect of HuffPo. I have just finished a PhD in immunology, and honestly had no idea this whole anti-Vax movement existed until I started reading there. I was somewhat at a loss as to what to do following my PhD submission (I enjoy research but wanted to take the time to at least explore other options) and finding out how some of the "public" view science was an eye-opener. My first feeling when I found out how broad and deep this anti-vax movement amounted to "What is the point in finding any sort of cure in immunology if public sentiment means the public won't accept it".
So, currently I am now working at the BBC, trying to work my way into science documentaries/communication. I think it has definitely come to a point where communicating proper science is as important as the research.
Posted by: Gorogh | July 30, 2009 3:50 AM
@Ryan #68, I shall remember it. Wrote down your contact data.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 4:40 AM
Come on, its not all crap.
Chris Mooney posted an article there only last week.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 5:16 AM
Marcus Ranum@47,
Credit where it's due - that was good!
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 5:23 AM
I don't remember where I heard this, but one reason could be that conspiracy theories are contagious. Apparently, once a person is willing to accept that an idea may be truth at least partially because knowledge of the facts behind the idea is stigmatized, they are willing to believe other forms of stigmatized knowledge more easily. That's why you see Bigfoot hunters moonlighting as UFOlofists or ghost hunters.
How? Well, it's not too difficult to reason out how people can manage to believe in the irrational. We have institutions worldwide dedicated to the promulgation of the irrational, after all - we call them churches or temples or what-will-you. It's rather like the nutzo "historian" who says that the Nazca Lines could only have been laid out for the purpose of being a landing strip for alien spacecraft coming to Earth. It's as if he simply cannot believe that human beings would dedicate massive amounts of time and resources to building a completely non-functional and altogether useless object - and I am pretty sure he has seen an old Gothic cathedral before. Sure, a cathedral acts as shelter, but what else do they do that any other old building can't?
Now that I think on it, I think I saw this on the Rachel Maddow Show when she brought Michael Barkun in to talk about his new book that I really want to read now.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 5:26 AM
Muchas gracias.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 30, 2009 5:33 AM
On Placebo
Stress plays a role in this. A person who is stressed has heightened senses. He feels, sees, hears, tastes things more intensely. Getting the stressed person to relax helps with pain and can improve the efficacy of treatment and speed the course of recovery.
On Acupuncture
As far as I know it is possible to simulate nerves to produce certain results. Poking a needle into a nerve ending can be painful indeed, if it's the right kind of nerve. Often how a nerve reacts to a stimulus depends on what sort of nerve it is, and how it is stimulated. The specifity gets down to the question of where the nerve is located, for the nerves for sensing touch in the area of the genitalia are more sensitive and produce a qualitatively different sensation than the same sort of nerves elsewhere on the body.
There is of course one problem with this, you have to stimulate the nerve.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 5:34 AM
I said:
And now Google, God of the Internets, has revealed the truth to me. It was on NPR where Barkun talked about this. You can go here to read the transcript if you are interested.
Yeah, I know. NPR. I am such a flaming elitist liberal.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 5:39 AM
You guys call yourself a science blog, yet you denounce the dangers of vaccines. - sigh
I read that as accusing people here of saying "vaccines are dangerous". If I "denounce the dangers" of X (as opposed to "deny the dangers"), I'm surely saying X is dangerous? Or is this a US/UK usage difference?
Huffington has an interesting history - when she was Arianna Stassinopoulos and British, she was a member of the Thatcherite right. I think her flip to lift-liberal was fairly sudden. So maybe there's hope she will equally suddenly flip from John-Roger to Ben Goldacre with regards to mediwoo.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 5:40 AM
This is called destructive intereference and conditioning, if I am not mistaken. (My medical terminology was never all that strong - forgive me.) The idea that pain in specific locations can be used to block pain in others is well-known; it's not beyond the realm of reason to think that stimulating a specific nerve cluster may lessen pain elsewhere, or that causing pain and then brining about its relief can bring temporary relief in another area. The key is that it is temporary in any case and certainly is not a panacea.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 5:46 AM
Cutting (self-harm) is actually very addictive, presumably because it causes the body to release chemicals which would be useful in a flight-or-fight situation. One way you can wean yourself off cutting is to put a rubber-band round your wrist and when you have an overwhelming urge to cut, 'twang' the band instead. It's actually very effective, and of course, doesn't break the skin.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2009 8:03 AM
I vaguely remember her and new Sen. Franklin used to square off on Maher's old ABC show. I think Bush is what flipped her.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 30, 2009 8:05 AM
Also important to recognize is that it has nothing at all to do with acupuncture, which uses an astrological chart to plot out the magical reflexology points in the human Qi energy meridian field.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2009 8:07 AM
I wish we had "Stupid Comment of the Day" we could vote on every day.
Posted by: Steve Caldwell | July 30, 2009 8:09 AM
Sigh wrote:
Strictly speaking, "safe and effective alternative medicine" does not exist.
Once a proposed alternative treatment has been proven both safe and effective through rigorous studies (double-blind, controls, etc), it's not longer "alternative."
It then becomes "conventional medicine."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2009 8:32 AM
Franklin?
sheesh
Franken
Posted by: Brian Rapp | July 30, 2009 9:07 AM
I don't know who's worse: the woo peddlers or the birthers.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2009 9:10 AM
My vote goes with woo 100%. The birthers are doing nothing but hurting themselves and to some extent the conservatives / republicans.
The woo peddlers are hurting many people. Actual physical harm.
Posted by: reboho | July 30, 2009 9:14 AM
Don't forget the "Deathers", those that are scaring older Americans about Health care reform.
Posted by: crs | July 30, 2009 9:23 AM
I recently saw an episode of Scientific American Frontiers where a double blind study was done involving acupuncture. The area of the skin was covered with a small plastic ring with a permeable cover. In some cases the needle was inserted into the skin, in others it simply felt as if it had been. And? No statistical variation in the two groups.
As an aside, my dentist ( DDS and MD) thoroughly advocates alternative medicine. His exact words were "what diseases has western medicine alone actually cured?" He informed me that Barnes-Jewish Hospital here in St. Louis had acupuncturists and other alternative practitioners on staff. I wanted to know of what these other practices were, but my appointment was over and I was too freaked to bother. I am considering switching dentists. BTW, according to a local TV station Barnes-Jewish was a top rated hospital in the US.
Still waiting for a Canadian to sponsor me... :)
Posted by: Walton | July 30, 2009 9:39 AM
What this illustrates is that the "progressive" movement is no more inherently rational, nor more instinctively friendly to modern science, than the political right. There are gullible people on all sides of the political divide who are susceptible to various forms of woo, pseudoscience, loony conspiracy theories, and other nonsense. (This includes people of my own political inclination; Ron Paul has creationist tendencies, for example.)
The only solution is to ensure that such matters as healthcare, scientific research and education are taken out of the hands of government, politicians and voters. Let idiots waste their own money on "alternative therapies" if they want to, or teach their own children useless woo. But don't let them spend rational people's tax money on it, or force nonsense into every school. In a society based on majority rule, rational people are always going to be outvoted.
Posted by: crs | July 30, 2009 9:41 AM
sorry, had to correct that
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 9:42 AM
Walton, Do stand by what you say here ?
If, for example, you were diagnosed with a serious illness tomorrow, would you make use of the NHS ? Od would you go private, and if the costs became to much accept you might die ?
Posted by: Edward Lark | July 30, 2009 9:54 AM
The common thread among those that Ariana lets on her site is on not quackery, rather its celebrity. Either the "columnists" are celebrities in their own right - Carrey, Chopra, etc. Or they are water carriers for causes that Arianna's celebrity friends support or sympathize with. Arianna styles herself as a modern truth teller, but in reality she is just a hanger-on. A modern-day courtier of the rich and powerful, for which she will switch parties and beliefs as she believes necessary to curry their favor.
Posted by: Walton | July 30, 2009 9:57 AM
Yes, I would. It is irrational to, as the saying goes, "cut one's own nose off to spite one's face".
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 10:01 AM
"Yes, I would. It is irrational to, as the saying goes, "cut one's own nose off to spite one's face"."
So you lack the courage of your convictions. What little respect I had for you just evaporated. You really are a spoilt brat who demands the rights to deny others what you have access to.
You wanto to deny a decent education to people because you do not want to pay your share. You want to deny healthcare to people because you do not want to pay your share. Yet you quite happily attend a univesrity where your education is subsidized by taxes, and you would quite happily expect taxes to be used to pay for your healthcare.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
July 30, 2009 10:09 AM
Walton says, "What this illustrates is that the "progressive" movement is no more inherently rational, nor more instinctively friendly to modern science, than the political right."
No, what it says is that the Right doesn't yet have a monopoly on loons. It has been my general experience that liberals often have trouble comprehending economic realities. Recently, the right has been taken over by those who utterly reject physical reality. Libertarians like you do not comprehend either economic or physical reality. See the distinction?
Posted by: Cathal | July 30, 2009 10:14 AM
Ryan Egesdahl @ 42:
Oh, snap! Nice pwning
Posted by: Philip H | July 30, 2009 11:00 AM
So if HuffPo is woo-centric on science and medicine, does that mean the neo-cons charges that the site is just an expansion of the "liberal media" are also woo-centric?
{insert snark here}
Posted by: Brian Rapp | July 30, 2009 11:03 AM
I was thinking more from the perspective of messed up thought processes than outcomes, but I agree completely.
My first inclination was to compare the woo peddlers with the IDiots since they both base their propositions on sciencey-sounding nonsense with some conspiracy theory thrown in, but I wondered if there was much overlap between the two groups.
Many of the apologists whining in the comments section at Salon don't seem to realize how Huffington's support of this woo crap damages her credibility on other matters. I personally never read the health section of HP, but knowing it's there is enough to keep me from even visiting the site now. It just kind of makes me feel all slimy knowing that it's there even if I don't get any on myself.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 30, 2009 11:05 AM
Guys, shush. Walton just does not grasp the concept of "insurance". Until he actually looks it up, it is pointless to engage.
Posted by: Orac | July 30, 2009 11:07 AM
Indeed, it was Fire Marshall Bill discussing vaccines and autism.
Posted by: Orac | July 30, 2009 11:12 AM
Sadly, HuffPo has been a bastion of anti-vaccine nonsense ever since it was founded four years ago.
Posted by: Orac | July 30, 2009 11:16 AM
D'oh! There's only one "l" in "Marshal."
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 11:26 AM
Orac,
It can be spelt with two Ls, although it is consider an old spelling.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 11:55 AM
But... but... being a student, you haven't paid any taxes yet. And you think you deserve medical treatment paid for by others? Fucking free-loader!Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 11:57 AM
Yes, it was rather like discussing the theoretical utility of reading goat entrails by discussing the health benefits to the skin of having them drenched in blood, wasn't it? The whole idea is, of course, facially ludicrous. If only the vast expanse of human history suggested that the silly died off - but no, we have churches for proof to the contrary.
Posted by: Ted Zissou | July 30, 2009 12:04 PM
If you haven't checked out the online english version of Pravda, do it now. It's hilarious tabloid journalism at it's eastern best!
For some reason this Huffpo conversation made me think that there are some similarities between the two... from different perspectives.
Cheers.
Posted by: Stuart Van Onselen | July 30, 2009 12:17 PM
Walton just does not grasp the concept of "on topic".
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 30, 2009 12:51 PM
Ryan, you've got it exactly right. I've gotten into arguments with chiropractors who constantly whinge about how even if they don't know why what they do works, they've seen it work. I bring up the point that there is no biologically or physiologically feasible means by which their practice could do the things they claim, and they completely ignore me. They say the results are good enough for them, so they don't even really need to know how it works. This sort of ignorance of the scientific method is just astonishing.
Debating the finer points of snake oil while ignoring the fact that it's snake oil is almost exactly like debating the finer points of religion - like fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There's no "there" there.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 30, 2009 2:15 PM
MikeTheInfidel #108 wrote:
Someone once defined 'clinical experience' as "making the same mistake over and over again, with increasing confidence." The belief that the best, strongest, most reliable way to figure out if something is true or not is to try it for yourself and see is, ironically, a thread that seems to unite both pseudoscience and religion.
It sounds like skepticism, but it's not. It enshrines the sorts of errors and biases that the methods of science evolved to check. Trusting in one's own personal experience -- and the ability to properly interpret one's own personal experience and place it in correct context -- means that testimony and anecdote trump controlled studies. It ultimately places intuition over reason, the subjective over the objective. If you were sick, took a pill, and got better, then you're justified in concluding the pill worked for you. Unless, of course, it really didn't. That's where science trumps "my experience."
Of course the chiropractors ignored you. "I know what I know." That's their mantra. Anyone who doesn't think they do know what they know, is close-minded.
Skepdoc Harriet Hall calls it "tooth-fairy science." You can do a big study on how much money the tooth fairy leaves, and to whom, and in what circumstances, and think that this all validates the existence of the tooth fairy. You've gone beyond the need to check that out.
Posted by: shonny
|
July 30, 2009 3:32 PM
Oh, is the woo delivered by bicycle?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 30, 2009 5:31 PM
Astonishing only if you were expecting rationality. We like to make the mistake of thinking that people would behave rationally in the absence of a reason to behave irrationally, but this simply is not the case. Consider a light switch on the wall - most people just flip the switch without caring how or why it works; all they know is that they want to turn on the light and so they use the switch. You can take the time and consider the implications of doing so and how the electric current excites the atoms of tungsten in an incandescent bulb to produce light, but most people are going to take the mental shortcut to: switch on-light, switch off-light.
Now consider a different switch that does not operate the lights. People switch it on and off and don't notice it doing anything at first, but gradually they realize that whenever they turn it "on", the computer plugged into the wall powers off. Some may conclude that the switch turns off the wall outlet when it's in the "on" position because the switch is upside down. Others (who know less about the way electricity works) may assume that turning on the switch is draining power into something else and is causing a power failure. Some of the latter folk may even become paranoid and start busting the walls down to find the mystery device.
In this case, a doctor is trying to tell the patient how the switch works, while the chiropractor is trying to tell the patient that there is a mystery device that needs to be found and removed - but that in the meantime we can just try manipulating the other switches in the house to try and make the "bad" switch behave a bit less strangely.
There is a fine line between discussing reasonable conclusions and evangelization. Most people can't tell the difference between the two. I recommend Qualia Soup's discussion of Open-mindedness for people who have trouble.
Posted by: North of 49 | July 30, 2009 6:24 PM
Sastra @ 109:
Great comment, especially this bit:
In my experience it's not just the practitioners, that mantra infects their customers as well. Also the purveyors and customers of naturopathy, homeopathy, reiki, supplements, toxin cleansers... you name an alternative treatment and you'll find someone who doesn't just swear by it, but will defend it to the death.
True conversation:
"Why are you taking that [pill, supplement, magic elixir]?"
"It makes me feel better."
"Well how do you know it's the [nostrum] that's doing it? And 'feel better' how, precisely?"
"I know what I know. I just feel better."
(Taking another tack.) "Well who suggested you take it?"
"My [naturopath, health food store clerk, friend, Oprah] did."
"Not your doctor?"
"No."
"Did you tell her you're taking this, and why?"
"She says supplements are okay." (Dodging the question.)
"This says it's to 'cleanse your liver'. You do know that the liver pretty much cleanses itself, don't you? This probably doesn't do anything your own body can't do just as well. Also... what's with the cow thyroid and adrenal glands in the ingredients? What are those for?"
"They cleanse the liver."
"How?"
"I didn't ask."
"Why do you need to cleanse your liver, anyway? I mean what's that supposed to do for you?"
"It makes me feel better!"
"How can you really be sure about that?"
"I KNOW MY OWN BODY! Leave me alone!"
I've come to learn that the phrase "I know my own body" means the person has been doctor-proofed by some sort of altie practitioner. It's the ultimate defense, this supposed supremacy of personal experience over evidence, and it's damned difficult to penetrate.
A final observation: the vigor with which the adherents of any given brand of woo defend the woo, or the practitioner thereof, seems very much like cult behaviour. It's seems quite similar to the way religious fundamentalists defend their god who, if he were exactly as advertised, would need no defending at all; he'd be perfectly capable of smiting his mockers all by himself.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 30, 2009 9:46 PM
You need to remember that the far-right of (mainstream) British politics stretches almost to meet the purported 'far left' of American politics. I added the parenthesised mainstream because Brit politics includes such insanity as BNP, UKIP... and on and on.Posted by: amphiox | July 30, 2009 9:48 PM
A lot of people here have been castigating the argument from authority, but we should not forget that relying on the argument from authority is in fact very useful, IF you pick a reliable authority!
It takes an enormous amount of time and resources to obtain any sort of reliable knowledge about most complex subjects. Imagine where we'd be as a society if everyone had to invest all that time and effort for every topic of practical importance, each and every time, again and again. But, if instead, one person (or a few), devote the resources to become legitimate authorities, and everyone else relies on them, (on that subject only, of course!), the benefits are spread much more rapidly and much more widely. This is what distinguishes us from other animals, the sheer amount of knowledge we have access to without having to figure it all out for ourselves from scratch, because someone else has figured it out for us and we can trust their authority on the matter.
The argument from authority is a shortcut. Like all shortcuts it depends on certain assumptions and will fail if those assumptions turn out to be invalid, but when those assumptions are valid, it is very, very useful.
Posted by: amphiox | July 30, 2009 9:52 PM
With regards to the antivaxxers, it should be noted that even if EVERYTHING the antivaxxers claim was, in fact 100% TRUE, even then, the risk benefit ratios STILL favor universal vaccination!
People have forgotten how devastating those diseases were, and what the rates of their nasty sequelae (paralysis, deafness, sterility, spontaneous abortion, birth defects, neurological devastation, and of course a panoply of painful, hideous and miserable avenues to premature death) were.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 30, 2009 10:04 PM
#73 Ryan Egesdahl
There seems to be an age, early teens, when people start swallowing woo. I got into Bermuda Triangle, UFO's, Loch Ness, Von Daniken.....the whole ball of nonsense. But the more I read, the more irrational the claims were. By the time I reached my twenties I was skeptical; now I am an ardent skeptic.
I think this is common - I have read of several skeptics who were credulous when very young but outgrew it.
So, is credulity a stage of mental development that some people do NOT outgrow? Or is it a thinking pattern that some people have and others do not?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 30, 2009 10:06 PM
#112 North of 49
Unfortunately, I suspect most people act the same way about legitimate medical treatments. The doctor says do this, take that, and they may comply, but they do not exactly know why.
Medicine is very conservative. It is great at the "big ticket" stuff and not so good at the "small potatoes". And most of us suffer from the "small potatoes" as we age. I have a friend who was in a wheelchair due to hip joint degeneration. Three months after his surgery he could run across the room like a 20 year-old. When I was 45, I complained that my knees were getting stiff & achy. "Well, you are getting older," was my doctors response. Until I become crippled enough to need surgery, there is no real treatment. It does make you linger when you pass the aisle with the joint supplements...............
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 30, 2009 10:26 PM
Hypatia's Daughter #116 wrote:
I don't know. There was an interesting article in Skeptic Magazine a few years ago regarding a study that was done on "THE ORIGIN OF SUPERSTITION, MAGICAL THINKING, and PARANORMAL BELIEFS: An Integrative Model." The authors wrote:
They posit something called the 'dual-process theory.'
So, I guess that these psychologists might say that it's the first: child-like patterns of thinking (intuitive physics, intuitive psychology, and intuitive biology) are being retained in superstitious individuals. I suspect that, if so, it's greatly enhanced if someone grows up in an environment where this is strongly encouraged. Many faiths praise the "wisdom" of the child, who is uncorrupted by a reason that leads us away from God.
Posted by: Kagehi | July 30, 2009 11:06 PM
I seem to remember a blog post on some site, maybe not here, talking about one of those "trustable", "accredited" doctors proscribing herbal and iron supplements to a patient with fatigue, who a few days later, when they didn't get better, but worse, went some place else and was diagnosed with cancer. A form of cancer that, if the original doctor had used ***real*** techniques to look at him, instead of bullshit and belief in altie treatment, could have been dealt with 3-4 weeks earlier, when it wasn't too far advanced that it eventually killed him. But, sure.. Go with the moronic alternative med nonsense. I am sure you will make lots of money on it, right up until someone has the guts to pass laws making bullshit, and dangerous, treatments illegal, and you land in jail, protesting the whole time that you did nothing wrong, since you "only gave them what they asked for!"
Posted by: Nomad | July 30, 2009 11:09 PM
#116 Hypatia's Daughter
Well before my teens for me. I hadn't heard of Von Daniken, but add the Philadelphia Experiment for me. I'm still, shall we say, susceptible to it. I mean when you have shadowy government agencies kidnapping people off the streets and shipping them off to foreign countries just so they can be tortured off of US soil you really aren't left believing that there's much "they" wouldn't do if they could get away with it.
To those of you that explained how you do double blind tests for acupuncture, thanks. I'd heard of retractable needles but didn't understand how that would work, you helped fill in the blanks.
Posted by: elanor | July 30, 2009 11:16 PM
Can someone please explain this to me once and for all?! With at least a smidgen of scientific backing. Do vaccines cause Autism, ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, and other impairing illnesses?
If not, do they have any adverse effects at all?
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2009 11:29 PM
You are asking anonymous posters on a blog to summarize two centuries of medical science. Impossible. Could you explain mathematics or physics in a paragraph?
Autism no. The cause of autism is mostly known, a polygenic genetic condition.
Do vaccines have side effects. Sure. There is absolutely no such thing as a medical intervention without side effects. Aspirin kills 30,000 people in the USA/year. The alternative herbal remedies have side effects also. If you drink ginsing for cancer, you will die. Not of ginsing but of cancer.
Not using vaccines has side effects also. You often get sick of infectious diseases. Some times you are permanently injured or die. Why do you think people get vaccinated against measles, polio, tetanus, small pox and so on?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 31, 2009 1:38 AM
I don't think anyone really "outgrows" the need to comfort oneself with woo. Most of us eventually learn not to go there in the first place, though. It can be especially difficult for the formerly-religious not to engage in religious self-comfort behaviors, like wanting to believe that there is a Heaven and an afterlife. Those who were not exposed to religion at a young age do not tend to feel the need to do so, but such things have happened before. I would bet that if you were to look hard at most of the "former atheists" out there, you would find that they were only temporarily atheist at one point or they had existential angst and wanted to comfort themselves.
It's that whole feeling-versus-thinking dichotomy most of us have had to experience. Sometimes, even when reason tells us a thing cannot be so or that "such is the case," our intuition might suggest otherwise - and it can even sometimes be right. Learning how and when to listen to what we feel without falling headfirst into a vat of pure bullshit is very difficult.
I'm going to agree with another commenter that you're asking for too much. Besides, if we were to tell you everything in one go, you wouldn't have the benefit of learning for yourself what is and is not true. We're not infallible; it really is up to you to make up your own mind in what you believe. We (or, at least, I) would be willing to direct you to materials you could study from that are out there if you would like: PubMed is a wonderful place where you can find most of them.
But in short: no, there is no demonstrated link between Autism and vaccines despite repeated research into the matter, and yes there are side-effects to vaccines - the same as every other thing you put into your body. Even water has side-effects and can be toxic (if you drink too much of it too fast). To say that any thing has a side effect is not an argument against putting it in your body by iteslf; rather, the risk has to be weighed against the reward. What I can tell you is that even if there were a link between vaccines and Autism (and there is not), the risks of not taking the vaccine, especially at the population level, are much greater than any possibility of producing Autism as a result. Even the numbers the anti-vaxxers quote say that as well, but they are in reality just scared parents that are believing a line of bullshit to the point that they won't believe the truth anymore. Par for the course, really.
Posted by: aagrajag | July 31, 2009 2:30 AM
I'm just going to randomly interject here, that I live in Japan, and there is a combination veterinary hospital and acupuncture place around the corner from me. Not sure if they do it *to* the animals or not...
This place is weird.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 31, 2009 4:48 PM
Vaccines do not cause autism, ADD, dyslexia, or hearing impairment. Each vaccine has its own set of risks, most of them pretty minor, which your doctor should be happy to tell you about (you can also research it online). If your doctor won't discuss the risks, about vaccines or anything else, then find a new doctor.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 4:58 PM
more like for all NSAIDs. Aspirin is but a part of those deaths. Probably
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 5:00 PM
Bah HTML fail
more like < 8000 per year for all NSAIDs. Aspirin is but a part of those deaths. Probably < 1000.
Posted by: Robbo | August 14, 2009 4:24 AM
Huffington actually does a lot of good.
It seems that since she doesn't exactly hold with your exact views, that you automatically blast her and her site as being not "True Science" enough.
Gee... that sounds kind of familiar. Who else is it that is unable to accept that there are frequently competing ideas? Who else is unable to just say "I disagree with you, but I appreciate you trying to find the truth?"
I am glad that I've found this site, but I'm getting a little tired of the "you're either 100% with us or you're against us" mentality. That's too Ultra-Godly George-Dubb-ya for my taste...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 4:39 AM
Huffington actually does a lot of good.
and a lot of bad.
which is the point.
if she was all bad, she'd be dismissed. We hope in by bringing attention to glaring woo, it will be discarded for what it is:
crap.
Then huffpo will be improved greatly.
Gee... that sounds kind of familiar. Who else is it that is unable to accept that there are frequently competing ideas? Who else is unable to just say "I disagree with you, but I appreciate you trying to find the truth?"
one's based in reality, the other is not.
big difference.