Defenders of science and reason everywhere are shocked and appalled that Obama and Clinton have bought into the bogus notion that the science on autism and vaccines is "inconclusive." As plenty of other SciBlings have pointed out, the science is most definitely not inconclusive. (Aetiology Tara's take is straight to the point, but see also Orac and PZ.) There is no link between the two. So now all three presidential contenders have joined the ranks of the irrational fear-mongers. Or have they?
The story that added the two Democrats to the list came from the Washington Post's Fact Checker team. But an update to the story suggests that Obama's take is ever so slightly less absurd than Clinton and McCain's. You have to use an electron microscope to tell the difference, though. Here's the whole quote from the man of hope:
"My goal is to fully fund special education," Obama replied, starting off on a dissertation about funding for such children. He noted some statistics about how much the fed government pays for such educational funding.
Then he started talking about "early screening" for children, more medical testing to identify children who will have these special needs. Then Obama turned to autism, saying, "That's s an area where our basic investment, our basic research has to increase. There are huge opportunities for us to figure out" how diseases occur, calling for more funding for research into the causes and potential cures for autism and other disease.
"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to someone in the audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. We can't afford to junk our vaccine system, we have to figure out what's happening. If we keep on seeing the increases in the rate we're seeing, we're never going to have enough money" to take care of these children.
Hmmm. Still uses the word "inconclusive" to describe the science, but also made a point of defending the value of vaccines in general, and seems to distance himself from those who make the link between autism and vaccines.
Does this do enough to salvage Obama's reputation among those of use who want our president to respect science, instead of pander to the paranoid? I'm afraid not. What it does do is emphasize just how corrupted the notion of uncertainty has become in American society. Everyone feels they are safe if they refer to a lack of conclusive proof, no matter what the topic. After all, who can object to more research?
The problem is sometimes the evidence is sufficient to warrant making a decision. In the case of vaccines, study after study has looked for a link with autism and failed to find one. Autism rates (or should I say, diagnoses) continued to climb after thimerosal was removed from MMR vaccines. There is simply no causal connection. For presidential contenders to even hint that there might be cause for not vaccinating is irresponsible in the extreme. Children will die as the meme spreads.
Call your favored candidate's office today and let them know how you feel.
- Log in to post comments
Barak Obama is a politician. If he thinks a large segment of the population believe vaccines cause autism he is going to pander to them.
Jenny McCarthy cursing angrily at scientists and defiantly, and irrationally, asserting that vaccination causes autism on "Larry King Live" probably had a bigger public impact than all the studies to date.
In American politics emotion trumps empirical evidence every time. Why do you think Al Gore is trying to "frame" global Warming as a "moral" issue?
An alternative way of interpreting that statement is: "We're going to continue vaccination, and we'll spend a little on extra research just to keep the doubters happy". One might wish that politicians would be willing to educate people, but during a close election campaign that, unfortunately, is suicidal. Too many people don't want to be told they are wrong, and apparently the worst sin of a US politician is being "elitist", i.e. knowing more or being more intelligent than ordinary people.
Good post, I've heard about this but haven't followed it and now you've helped to clarify it for me. Leave it to Island of Doubt to doubt without being merely a doubt-ist.
Just when you think Lance has a good point, he joins Jenny Mc in crankworld.
"Autism rates (or should I say, diagnoses) continued to climb after thimerosal was removed from MMR vaccines"
And you call that conclusive evidence that there cannot be any link between vaccines and autism? What if there are links between autism and other vaccines, or other substances besides thimerosal? Have those possibilities all been ruled out?
Winnebago,
I am hardly "joining Jenny Mc in crankworld". I think Jenny McCarthy's temper tantrum was an idiotic and self indulgent reaction to the facts against her argument that Vazccines cause autism. To me it just underscored the lack of scientific credibility of the anti-vaccine crusaders.
That said I am a trained scientist and a rational thinker. Sadly most people in America, and the world for that matter, are much more influenced by appeals to emotion than appeals to rationality.
Ask the average person to name a study backing the view that there is no statistically valid link between autism and vaccines and then ask them if they heard what Jenny McCarthy said on Larry King.
"Autism rates (or should I say, diagnoses) continued to climb after thimerosal was removed from MMR vaccines. "
The MMR vaccine is a live virus vaccine and has never, ever, not even for a little while, contained thimerosal.
We don't need to rule out any possibilities. Until there is evidence suggesting a statistical link between vaccination and autism, the whole issue is moot.
Where is the evidence? Why can't you provide even an example of it?
I was referring to your global warming crankism. I've seen your 'scientific' skills elsewhere; I'm not impressed.
I'm crushed. A guy that uses the name of an RV as an alias is "not impressed" with my scientific "skills".
You have done nothing but present insults.
Very impressive.
James,
How is Obama's The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. any different at all from Hillary's We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out.
It seems to me that they are both saying the same thing, that we don't know if there is a link, that we need more research. That's wrong; we do know that there is no link, but both of them are wrong in this regard. Obama's position is not less absurd than Clinton's.