Seems like both the Republican nominee and the likely Democratic nominee entertain the autism and vaccination "hypothesis". I don't follow politics very closely, this sort of comment really disturbs me....
Via TNR.
Update: And Clinton too.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I don't want "hope", I want good policies, politics, and results. Obama demonstrates exactly how not to argue against Republican militarism. From Ezra Klein:
I'm sympathetic to what I think Obama was trying to say, but the point is better put more simply -- to have the best shot at winning…
When I read this otherwise excellent article by Chris Mooney about why scientific evidence often doesn't persuade people*, I had the exact same reaction Kevin Drum did:
But be prepared to be annoyed when Chris wrenches his spine out of shape bending over backward to find an example of liberals…
Final Update: Victory Day! In response to Shelley's request I've removed the text of the original email.
Update III: Shelly has another post on what she wants out of this:
Some have called for the boycott of all Wiley journals. While I appreciate the sentiment (more than any of you can know), I'm…
Both Kevin Drum and digby argue that Senator Clinton's 'electability' problem is due to Republican sliming and isn't really a factor. Drum:
Hillary, by contrast, is polarizing not because she wants to be, but because the right-wing attack machine made her that way. She's "polarizing" only because…
I find this disturbing too. However I find McCain's "there's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines", which is just patently false, much, much more disturbing than Obama's "some people are suspicious", which is in fact true, even if those people are wrong. Clinton's is more disturbing than both in a way in that the other two were off-the-cuff comments, while Clinton's was an actual, though out response.
Yes, Obama, Clinton, and McCain have all fallen victim to the scientific-ish meme that vaccine = autism.
.
This meme, along with the absolutely terrible research linking early TV viewing to autism (I blogged about that here: http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/2006/10/spectrum-of-autism-resea… ), both play into the superstitious belief that (1) those parents did something wrong, and that's why their children are cursed with autism (and I use "cursed" in the superstitious sense,) and (2) if I as a parent do not do the wrong thing, my child will be protected.
.
Unfortunately, these two false ideas run rampant, because they both suggest that you can somehow protect your child or, in this case, that better government can somehow protect children.
.
More research is needed. In that, all three candidates are correct.
.
TK Kenyon
www.tkkenyon.com , http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/
Author of RABID ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601640021 ) and CALLOUS ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601640226 ): Two novels about science and religion, with some sex and murder.
Credit where credit is due: Upon further research, it's worth noting that Obama's "This person included" reference clearly refers to the person next to him, not himself, if you watch the video.
I've always wondered if the fact that the diagnosis for autism in an infant is kinda iffy is the problem here. It's hard to diagnose a mental or behavioral disorder in a grown person much less a child.
Just to be clear on the politics, the votes are in promoting the link, so no shock.
As per Dr. Octoploid's first comment, McCain is the heavy duty panderer here. Kind of like his gas tax break which nobody who knows anything about the topic supports. (In that case, Clinton jumped on board with at least equal fervor. Obama, to his credit, took the high road on that one.)