Anti-Vax Denialism

Are we giving Jon Stewart a pass for his contribution to the measles outbreak?

denialism — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:32:18 +0000

Are we giving Jon Stewart a pass for his contribution to the measles outbreak?

I'm glad to see clips like this from the daily show appropriately mocking the deluded, and supposedly "educated" types that don't vaccinate.

But have we forgotten this episode from 2005 when he allowed RFK Jr to basically spout his nonsense about vaccines without challenge?

It's good and fine for Stewart to mock these people now. But he seems to forget he helped contribute to this problem. ~~Is anyone aware of an apology from Stewart for allowing this crackpot to use his megaphone?~~ Isn't it precisely members of the media like him that are to blame for failing to vet the claims made by guests such as these?

Sorry for the autoplay. How do you stop this nonsense with code? Everything I have found doesn't work.

**Update** Carl Zimmer points out that Jon obliquely references the RFK Jr. bit around minute 8:05. I missed it. I'm sorry, I failed there. But I think I still would have posted this and I still ask, are we giving him a pass on this? Is that brief, "I had a guy on 10 years ago" reference enough of a correction to the record? I still think he can do better. It's not like we've learned so much new from 10 years ago. This was bogus 10 years ago as it is today and that is part of our frustration that it had to take an outbreak to change peoples' minds.

**Update2** The more I think about, the more I'm still mad. Stewart really needs to do more than hand-wave away his role in this.

denialism Sun, 02/08/2015 - 05:32

Tags

Anti-Vax Denialism

I have to say, I'd never seen that Kennedy "interview". I think it raises real questions about John Stewart's judgment, and even his integrity.

Kennedy simply lied. One can be for or against his arguments, but for him to say that the science was "overwhelming" in support of what he said was, in my judgment, a bare-faced lie. It's not possible for him to have carried out more than a few hours of research to know that the science was against him, by a huge margin.

Indeed, two years after that interview, when the issue came before a federal court, in test cases, the claim that thimerosal causes autism was virtually abandoned by the petitioners, in favor of the claim that it was MMR which lay behind the epidemic.

Really shocking stuff, and a lesson for journalists and presenters that cranks should not be allowed to spout their crankery without at least proper challenge.

John Stewart may be funny, but he plainly knows nothing about science, and next to nothing about an important issue of public affairs.

Ten years ago Stewart probably didn't have the staff he does now to check the veracity of statements...This IS a comedy show!
The doctor who mangled the study in "LANCET" had his medical license taken away.

But NOW Stewart is telling the truth. I sure would like to see shit you said 10 years ago and bitch about it online! One takes a chance going on TV. You would never know...you just complain and blame!

"Kennedy simply lied."

Well, after watching it, that makes me more inclined to give Stewart a bit more lenience than before. I'd still like to see him apologize for it now, but it seems like he went through the interview assuming Kennedy wasn't completely lying to his face - which he was, on almost everything. We can't realistically expect talk show hosts to be experts on science.

Brian..guess what...Stewart isn't a scientist! Eyupp! Go screw your dog or something!

At 8:15 in the new video, Stewart refers to the 2005 interview, says he did his own research, and acknowledges he was wrong. So I think you are in error.

@ Nuschler

10 years ago when I watched it I lost my mind because it was obviously a bunch of lies based on what we knew at the time. I had never been so disappointed with Stewart, before or after, and it was the first thing I thought of when I saw this new clip going viral all over the place.

Anyone paying attention should have known this stuff was just as bogus in 2005 as it was in 2015. There is no free pass here, and we can't give Stewart the "he's just a comedian" pass, just like we can't give that to Maher. They are political actors that present news, critique science and facts on their shows. They can't promote bullshit then hide behind the comedian label.

It's disappointing to see all these people blindly defending Stewart.

"He didn't have his current staff ten years ago!" he still had a staff, and a good one, that were able to fact-check numerous other issues.

"He was going on the facts at the time!" No, he wasn't. He was taking what one person said as probable truth, just as many anti-vaxxers do today. He's no worse, but no better.

Unfortunately, this is not uncommon for Stewart. He's proven himself to be a hypocrite on many occasions. Over the years I've found it increasingly disappointing how he will ignore science and facts to suit his own agenda (which everyone does) but then turn around and be downright nasty to the people that shared them a year later - as if only a moron would think these things.... completely ignoring his discussion of them.

....No, Stewart shouldn't get a pass. But yes, his viewers will give him one. Because the majority of people can't separate the idea of a person's behavior from a person. If a person displays a problematic voice or occupation (say, playboy bunny) in the beginning, then all of that person's views are problematic. If a person is, however, respected, they can say the vilest crap and it will be ignored because they're a "good person".

Sometimes good people do and say crappy things. It doesn't automatically make those things good or excusable.

you're an idiot. HE IS A COMIC, there to make fun of issues, not to be your REAL source of info. I don't like Jews in general, so, does it mean I should stop watching him? No, you stupid fuck.

Carl you're right. He doesn't totally ignore his past in this issue, but it is such a weak apology it didn't even register on my first viewing. The RFK piece is a bit egregious and just saying, "we had a guy 10 years ago and we got swept up in all that..." is bit anemic. I think he should say, "hey, we really screwed up and helped spread this nonsense." Or, "we sincerely regret promoting this exact same nonsense that has helped create this problem, maybe we are partly to blame." Maybe I missed it because dammit, I'm still so mad at him from 10 years ago for having RFK Jr. on in the first place.

I think it's good he has changed. There is no doubt he is taking the correct position now. I love Jon Stewart and think he's way better informed than most people on television period. But I think he can do better than just say, "I had a guy on once." No, you totally let a crank spout nonsense - very damaging nonsense - on your show for a full 10 minutes and that was really harmful.

I really think that the context should be considered when discussing interviews and the like (recorded conversations of any respect). Kennedy was throwing around a lot of "factual statements", and, considering Stewart's lack of PhDs in immunology, etc., and, therein, whether or not these things are true or false, he does the only thing he can do: ask questions. It was an interview, after all. Jon doesn't STATE that these things are facts, he just does what any other journalist would do. Promotes his guest's book/product. His guest,, Mr. Kennedy, all apparent insecurities and poor conversational tact aside, is stating things very matter-of-factly, and with thorough support (even though these "supports" represent a mutated reality and often times complete falsehood). If I didn't know much about this at all (reality: I do) and someone claiming to be a professional/expert started rattling off commentary suggesting a need for concern and action, I would think anyone without an ability to immediately fact-check would have to agree [at least with the need for concern, given the amount and quality of the information]. We can only act or speak to what we know at the time or, more often than not, that which we are fully-convinced of, and I think we can forgive Jon Stewart for his beginner's ignorance back-in-the-day, when this debate was just really starting to get a foothold in the media, allthewhile access to legitimate information was still somewhat limited, despite internet access, etc.. I find it somewhat disconcerting that anyone with a respectable background of dabbling in the scientific community would respond so callously to a public figure's progress, especially with regards to his impact on the public's ideas/body-of-knowledge of scientifically-involved concepts like this one. Wasn't there a study published just recently suggesting that this is exactly the kind of criticism which makes the opposing group of this argument (anti-vaxxers, etc.) even more opposed to what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community have concluded? This isn't about hiding behind labels, it's about promoting transparency and legitimate investigation to promote appropriate representation. In order to have transparency, one must also have the ability to be 'forgiven' for previous conclusions that were made prior to new, more-accurate information. Claiming these things about anyone, even celebrities like Jon Stewart, would be, by reason, the equivalent of assuming that they are all-seeing/all-knowing (and, thusly, 'we will not accept their apologies or forgive them of their transgressions'). This is kind of absurd. That's just a thought, though.

This is all such nonsense. Jon Stewart had a member of the Kennedy clan on his show 10 years ago, and allowed him to express his beliefs at the time. The idea that this helped create a whole generation of anti-vaxxers is such BS. The people who believed "shots bad" continued to believe it, those who didn't got their kids vaxxed (as did Stewart) and the Earth kept turning. And the people who believe Stewart impacts anything continue to be deluded. He's an intelligent, funny, sensitive entertainer who's opened my eyes to a great deal, but he ain't a change agent and he knows it. Meanwhile, I found the Kennedy interview interesting--but it never meant anything in terms of how I conducts life.

I meant "conduct my life."

And may I also add that there's a huge difference between Stewart and Bill Maher, who's written anti-vaxx editorials on Huffpo like he's indeed some medical savant. Why isn't anybody bitching about THAT? At least Jon's not afraid to admit to his ignorance--he doesn't pontificate and continue to spread it.

Mark, Carl,

Stewart said: "Many years ago, we had a guy on the show... and it's easy to get swept up in passions...and I've done my research.."

I agree with Mark that this quick and vague allusion is pretty weak tea.

Also, RFKjr is not just some "guy."

But in fairness to Stewart, he was not the only TV personality one one swept away by Kennedy at the time. In my WaPo profile of Kennedy last year, I reference the Stewart/Kennedy clip and a similarly obsequious interview done by Joe Scarborough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrIM2hwrLoc

I like when people who have no knowledge spout their opinions. Opinions mean nothing. Jon Stewart is not a scientist. Nor is anyone on this thread. There are arguments and facts which support both sides. When someone says another is deluded because of their beliefs - that is your BELIEF.

Michael Kramer. No one is a scientist on this thread? Are you including me? Have I been demoted?

I think Colbie said it exactly right. Kyle (and Mark), neither a host nor their staff ever does fact-checking in real time. At best, they might go back the next day or week and revisit the comments of a guest who was particularly egregious in their falsehoods, which Stewart has done at least a few times that I know of. But given that this was viewed as a real controversy in the popular press at the time, it doesn't surprise me that they didn't do so and I don't single them out for being part of the crowd - especially when, as has been pointed out, Kennedy presented it as being settled by the evidence, when in fact he was not just putting a spin on it but completely lying. Though I agree that in going so strongly against that now, it was a pretty weak acknowledgement of that complicity.

Also, FWIW Michael, I am a scientist as well (biologist).

I think it should be put in historical context. Stewart didnt know it was a hoax and the momentum of the story was still forward. He just didnt have any evidence against a well prepared guest.
Wikipedia:"A small study by Andrew Wakefield, published in The Lancet in 1998, became infamous around 2000-2002 when the UK media caught hold of it. It hypothesized an alleged link between the measles vaccine and autism despite a small sample size of only 12 children. This eventually lead to what Guardian columnist and science writer Ben Goldacre described as "the media's MMR hoax," due to the evidence for any link being so lacking that it may as well have been entirely manufactured. The paper was partially retracted several years later but continued to be the most often cited case study for the link, despite mounting evidence (including one large study into the rates of autism in adults who wouldn't have received MMR) to the contrary. It was finally considered "thrown out" on February 2, 2010 after it was discovered that Wakefield behaved unethically."

This is just the umpteenth example of why no one should take Stewart seriously. He loves to bask in the adulation that comes from people describing him as some sort of heroic voice of sanity, cutting through spin to get to real truth. Until, that is, someone calls him out for not abiding by basic journalistic standards, at which point he falls back on defense of, "I'm only a comedian."

The daily show did a segment on the anti-vaccine movement nearly a year ago. Watch it and tell me if you think they have these people a free pass.

http://www.thewrap.com/samantha-bee/

To stop Autoplay, I put any YouTube video that I want to share into its own playlist and link to the playlist. Then, if it doesn't work, I curse YouTube for not giving a $#!^ about what people want.

You're all idiots. You actually waste your time debating whether Jon Stewart is right or wrong, when he's nothing more than a successful goofball comedian on par with Colbert nd Groucho Marx. The reason for his success is getting idiots like you all riled up.

Is there a statute of limitations on stupidity? How about on dredging up past mistakes?

Or we could actually focus on the problem instead of doling out blame to a comedian for not being read up on vaccination ten years ago. I mean, for god's sake, this is petty as hell. I've got my problems with Jon Stewart, but come on.

Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz the Conscience of America. Help, help…

Well yeah, Stewart messed up. We all mess up sometimes, you can't expect anyone to be right all the time. Did his show did any damage? Probably. Did his show made amends? Some. Do we give him a free pass? We should.

I give a pass to all those guys who were co-authors in the Lancet paper and retracted their name. They realized they were backing up a bogus publication and removed their support. Did Stewart retracted from what he said and backed on his words? No. Is he supporting the right idea now? Yes. I would give him a pass not because he apologizes or not, but because he is using the same media he used to make the mistake to be proactive in correcting it.

He say's all the media is more infotainment... well, he is entretainews... don't put the spotlight on him and steal it from the real issue. People need to vaccinate their kids.

Vaccines and the Boanthropy Risk

choofnagle — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:00:26 +0000

Vaccines and the Boanthropy Risk

I'm reading Jeffrey Kacirk's delightful Forgotten English, which includes this anecdote concerning boanthropy, a condition where a person believes himself to be a cow or ox:

In 1792, Edward Jenner successfully developed a vaccine for smallpox by injecting a boy with closely related cowpox germs. He did this despite his medical critics' attempts to scuttle his project by circulating boanthropy scare-stores. The critics alleged that those inoculated would develop bovine appetites, make cowlike sounds, and go about on four legs butting people with their horns...

choofnagle Fri, 06/13/2014 - 05:00

Tags

Anti-Vax Denialism

Sssshhhh!, don't give the anti-vax nuts any more ideas! Next thing you know they'll be screeching about "the Boanthropy risk" too.

Is Huffington Post no longer a denialist site?

denialism — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:41:22 +0000

Is Huffington Post no longer a denialist site?

Seth Mnookin has reasons to hope. It has been clear though for years that Huffpo was a clearinghouse for what I would describe as liberal crankery, which includes things like Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccine crankery, or Bill Maher's anti-pharma paranoia.

But now they have a new site, Huffpo Science, and after my head stopped ringing from that particular oxymoron I went and checked it out.

A lead article on going to Mars by Buzz Aldrin was interesting. An article on Frankenmeat came out relatively clean without getting all paranoid about GMO foods or lab-grown nutrients being less pure than those found in nature. I even read an article about the inspiration for Alfred Hitchcock's move The Birds was an actual case of birds going crazy after being poisoned by a kind of algae.

The fact that they gave Seth Mnookin an opportunity to try and undo the years and years of anti-vaccine crankery on Huffpo is certainly a good sign. If anyone wants to help tamp down the already rising tide of anti-vax commenters, I would suggest you head over there to help him out.

But is this a rare hopeful sign of diminishing crankery in a world where it only seems to increase exponentially? Time will tell.

denialism Thu, 01/05/2012 - 08:41

Tags

I got the same e-mail notice. My guess is that they'll do the same thing they did with their "medical section" and try to keep it on the up and up, while allowing posts touting antivaccine nonsense, homeopathy, naturopathy, and all manner of pseudoscience to show up in their "lifestyle" and other sections.

Probably right. The science editor they hired can certainly control the science section content. It might result in a backlash in the other sections against the science section and increased antivax nonsense.

was happy to see a column from Michael Shermer on HuffPo today. looks like they are turning the corner!

Great article. The changes in content at HuffPo were inevitable with the changes in management and the way in which they are now being seen a huge global cash cow for advertising.

while allowing posts touting antivaccine nonsense, homeopathy, naturopathy, and all manner of pseudoscience to show up in their "lifestyle" and other sections.

Get the H1N1 Vaccine Where the Poors Are!

choofnagle — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:39 +0000

Get the H1N1 Vaccine Where the Poors Are!

The Viking and I ventured out early this morning to get the H1N1 vaccine and found long lines in the tony neighborhoods. SF Gate reports that the Marin public vaccination clinic was swamped. (The irony!--Marin is a hotbed of the anti-vaccination movement.) So where can you get the vaccine quickly? Downtown! We were in and out in less than an hour! There's almost no one there.

choofnagle Sat, 11/14/2009 - 17:23

Tags

Anti-Vax Denialism

Same is the case in Washington DC. 3 hour waits in the Upper NW rich areas and walkin, get shot, no wait clinics in the poorer parts of DC.

A lot of people are probably too busy working 2 jobs.

I got the shot for my daughter in a West Philly clinic (after calling around everywhere in the suburbs where we live, as well as the County and the State!). We were in and out in 20 minutes. And it was free!

I find it to still be true today. The under developed areas there is less of a push to get the vaccine.

Oprah is a crank

denialism — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:59:11 +0000

Oprah is a crank

PZ brings to my attention this article in Newsweek which sums up Oprah's views on health, and one sadly must come to the conclusion that Oprah is a crank. Based on our definition of crankery, one of the critical aspects is the incompetence of an individual in judging sources of information. How else can you describe her dismissal of legitimate medical opinion for the pseudoscience of celebrities like Suzanne Somers or Jenny McCarthy?

That was apparently good enough for Oprah. "Many people write Suzanne off as a quackadoo," she said. "But she just might be a pioneer." Oprah acknowledged that Somers's claims "have been met with relentless criticism" from doctors. Several times during the show she gave physicians an opportunity to dispute what Somers was saying. But it wasn't quite a fair fight. The doctors who raised these concerns were seated down in the audience and had to wait to be called on. Somers sat onstage next to Oprah, who defended her from attack. "Suzanne swears by bioidenticals and refuses to keep quiet. She'll take on anyone, including any doctor who questions her."

That would be a lot of doctors. Outside Oprah's world, there isn't a raging debate about replacing hormones. Somers "is simply repackaging the old, discredited idea that menopause is some kind of hormone-deficiency disease, and that restoring them will bring back youth," says Dr. Nanette Santoro, director of reproductive endocrinology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Older women aren't missing hormones. They just don't need as much once they get past their childbearing years. Unless a woman has significant discomfort from hot flashes--and most women don't--there is little reason to prescribe them. Most women never use them. Hormone therapy can increase a woman's risk of heart attacks, strokes, blood clots and cancer. And despite Somers's claim that her specially made, non-FDA-approved bioidenticals are "natural" and safer, they are actually synthetic, just like conventional hormones and FDA-approved bioidenticals from pharmacies--and there are no conclusive clinical studies showing they are less risky. That's why endocrinologists advise that women take the smallest dose that alleviates symptoms, and use them only as long as they're needed.
...
This is where things get tricky. Because the truth is, some of what Oprah promotes isn't good, and a lot of the advice her guests dispense on the show is just bad. The Suzanne Somers episode wasn't an oddball occurrence. This kind of thing happens again and again on Oprah. Some of the many experts who cross her stage offer interesting and useful information (props to you, Dr. Oz). Others gush nonsense. Oprah, who holds up her guests as prophets, can't seem to tell the difference. She has the power to summon the most learned authorities on any subject; who would refuse her? Instead, all too often Oprah winds up putting herself and her trusting audience in the hands of celebrity authors and pop-science artists pitching wonder cures and miracle treatments that are questionable or flat-out wrong, and sometimes dangerous.
...
But back on the Oprah show, McCarthy's charges went virtually unchallenged. Oprah praised McCarthy's bravery and plugged her book, but did not invite a physician or scientist to explain to her audience the many studies that contradict the vaccines-autism link. Instead, Oprah read a brief statement from the Centers for Disease Control saying there was no science to prove a connection and that the government was continuing to study the problem. But McCarthy got the last word. "My science is named Evan, and he's at home. That's my science." Oprah might say that McCarthy was just sharing her first-person story and that Oprah wasn't endorsing her point of view. But by the end of the show, the take-away message for any mother with young kids was pretty clear: be afraid.

Dangerous is right. One wonders why the CDC doesn't have a public health authority devoted to studying the spread of quackery at the hands of celebrities and promoters of woo such as Oprah. It's disappointing though, she's clearly an intelligent person and has the potential to do so much good, but instead chooses to follow the advice of any celebrity at hand who will tell her and her audience what they want to hear.

What's worse is that while seeking advice from quacks who promote this wishful thinking, at the same time she reinforces that most fundamental aspect of medical woo. When you are sick it isn't because human bodies are fragile, or they wear out, or are attacked by bacteria and viruses, instead it's your fault. Sickness isn't an accident. It's your failure. You failed to take supplements, or you failed to protect yourself, or you are weak-minded, or you failed spiritually. Of course there are things that we can do to protect ourselves and stay healthy, I wouldn't suggest some form of health fatalism. But medical quackery takes a healthy attitude of self-protection to an extreme of self-flagellation. It promotes the idea that there is always a way of staying healthy, (take this vitamin!) when in reality sickness and death comes to us all no matter how hard we wish it were otherwise. This wishful thinking and self-doubt is, of course, what is exploited to sell quack remedies.

Oprah fails her audience, not only in her incompetence in judging medical expertise, but also for complicity in this most insidious aspect of quackery, that of blaming the victim.

denialism Mon, 06/01/2009 - 00:59

Tags

Anti-Vax Denialism

cranks

Categories

Medicine

As a female scientist that has not only gone through the brutality of how we currently treat breast cancer, I work at one of the worlds most distinguished sequencing centers. Indeed, major in roads for this disease will most likely come from one of my current co-workers at MIT.

Independent of my feelings of Oprah or Ms Summers I can tell you that I tire of the (still )male influenced medical community that simply has no tangible concerns of the implications of BC treatment and the ongoing long term side effects. The pathetic statement below only emphasizes to me that this woman has very little communication with breast cancer patients. Her statement is blatantly untrue. Chemopause is not the same as natural menopause. You can go on any BC board and read countless posts on women suffering with this. The abrupt hot flashes and estrogen depletion that result from chemotherapy treatment effect a woman's cognitive function, muscle strength, sex drive and most importantly, sleep ~a major immune supporter. I do not blame Summers for going the route that she has as the medical/scientific community seems to think that this is "just the way it is, so deal with it." I have been there, am still there and still working on MY OWN, holistically to remedy the damage BC treatment has caused my body with virtually no support from my oncologists. Indeed, who are some of the best in the world. In short, losing estrogen for women's in their 20's 30's and 40's is not an acceptable side effect of treatment. Men would never stand for losing testosterone via a treatment so why should we? Your smug, un-empathic attitude smacks of the time that we were handing out hysterectomies like candy to women that really did not need them. Soon, in the next 10 years my dear, we will see we are treating breast cancer in the same harmful way. I suppose you also still think that the FDA is a functional, trustable entity? Become a cancer patient and then see how you feel about the system and then you might be the wiser.

"They just don't need as much once they get past their childbearing years. Unless a woman has significant discomfort from hot flashes *and most women don't*

As I asked on another blog, did it ever occur to you that Newsweek might have agenda? Paypack for Oprah endorsing Obama? Resentment that a black woman entertainer is the most influential force in media? Elitist resentment that someone outside the political, social and professional elite was able to acquire so much influence?

Did it ever occur to you that the doctors (or the corporations that fund them) might have a vested interest in discrediting & silencing some of the more unconvential medical ideas discussed on Oprah?

Did it ever occur to any of you that you can make anyone look like a nut by cherry picking (out of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of hours Oprah's been on national TV) the most controversial advice ever given and presenting it to sound as crazy as possible?

The Newsweek article was nothing but anecdotal cherry picking. There were no objective aggregate statistics showing that advice given on Oprah was on average any less accurate than any other media. The article was a hit piece intended to discredit an amazing woman who overcame every disadvantage to build one of the greatest media empires of all time. The article has no scholarly value whatsoever; it depends on the sexism, racism, & classism of its readers to dismiss Oprah without critically examing the methods & agenda of the article.

As Jake projected above, did it ever occur to you that Oprah might have agenda? Payback for Newsweek failing to oppose Bush? Resentment that as a black woman she was excluded from the media? Pandering to bile and and resentment that the political, social and professional experts are experts?

Did it ever occur to you that the republicans (or the oil companies that fund them) might have a vested interest in discrediting & silencing most of the science?

Did it ever occur to any of you that you can make anyone look like a nut by cherry picking the most insane blog rants ever?

Oprah's show is nothing but anecdotal cherry picking. She does not present objective aggregate statistics. The show is a parasite intended to discredit rationality. The show has no scholarly value whatsoever; it depends on the anti-intellectualism, credulous, & classism of its viewers to dismiss Newsweek without critically examine the methods & agenda of the show and its presenter.

"The doctors who raised these concerns were seated down in the audience and had to wait to be called on."

Not to mention that the show is edited 'for effect'.

Sickness isn't an accident. It's your failure. You failed to take supplements, or you failed to protect yourself

It isn't unusual for people who are victims in any tragedy to look to themselves for some of the blame. I think the underlying reason is that they don't want to have it happen again and they are looking for some changes they can make that will prevent a recurrence. If it's random, it could happen again, and if you're still barely coping with the trauma that can be unacceptable, even if it's the right answer. They want some control over their future back. Signing up for an active treatment that does nothing helps promote the feeling of doing something to prevent recurrence.

Truthfully, the "it's your fault you're sick" attitude isn't new. It's ancient -- older than written language, probably. A great many people have long thought that illness was divine punishment. Or, that it was the action of an evil force which could be opposed if you performed the right incantations to drive it away. Oprah tends to lean more towards the latter -- while many of her shows have implied that it's your fault if you get sick, she's careful to present it in an empowering way. That is, she avoids saying "it's your fault you got sick" and instead concentrates on "you can make yourself well" because that's obviously a lot more marketable.

It's not about her race or her sex. That she's a successful black woman is awesome. The fact that she's become so successful through manipulating her audiences so completely is what bothers me. She is probably the most powerful woman in America today. More powerful than the ones we've elected, and that worries me.

Anonymous' comment made less sense to me with each re-reading. I can't figure out why she is so angry, and with whom. Does she think that male doctors could relieve the side effects of hormone suppression without increased risk of heart attack and stroke (not to mention recurrence of estrogen-sensitive tumors) if only they tried harder, or cared more about women's health?

For women with breast cancer, making the necessary decisions about their treatment and living with the consequences is extraordinarily difficult. But the task is not made easier by wishful thinking about miracle cures, or imagining that the real problem is others' "smug, un-empathic attitude."

Actually Oprah has plenty of scholarly value. Economists Tim Moore and Craig Garthwaite at the University of Maryland did a 50+ page scholarly county-by-county statistical analysis of how Oprah decided the 2008 Democratic primary by netting Obama approximately one million extra votes in that razor close contest.

In addition, there was a Yale study by sociologist Joshua Gamson who found that the tabloid talk show genre Oprah had popularized in the 1980s (before reinventing herself in the mid 1990s) did more to make gays mainstream than any other development of the 20th century.

And Oxford scholar Kathleen Rooney did a massive analysis of all the books Oprah selected for her book club & concluded that Oprah pioneered the use of electronic media to make literature accessible to the masses.

Oprah is quite simply the most influential woman to ever live, and she ALWAYS WILL BE. She invented confession culture & a touchy feely form of media communication. She's the ONLY truly original thinker in public life. The ONLY true genius I have ever seen.

And she has something all the staff at Newsweek doesnât have a clue about and thatâs TALENT. Sheâs sensational. She can make millions of people laugh, cry, get excited, get inspired, day after day, year after year, staying fresh and spontaneous decade after decade in an ultra competitive industry.

Newsweek is pulling out their hair in frustration that a black woman who had none of their connections, none of their social class, none of their fancy education, is raking in BILLIONS as the Queen of all Media. They canât beat her on talent, so they smear and discredit her using cherry picking, bias, & distortions. Humans are an ugly animal.

Shorter Jake:

"Leave Britney Oprah alone!" [sniffle, whimper]

They canât beat her on talent, so they smear and discredit her using cherry picking, bias, & distortions. Humans are an ugly animal.

Some of us ugly animals are actually more concerned with the truth than with how artfully the wishful thinking is offered. Oprah's talent in presenting it has nothing whatever to do with the malignancy of her product. Nor does her gender, her skin colour, her political affiliations, etc. If she's peddling woo she's peddling woo. That she is good at it is actually why she's so dangerous.

Jake is right -- and I find that fact deeply saddening. Oprah culture, in which believing makes it so, is the dominant mode of thinking for many Americans. For Jake and millions like him, any proposition is judged not by whether it is true, but by how it makes you feel.

Jake, we're not saying she isn't talented or a great communicator or even a genius. Instead we lament that such a talented communicator is unable to distinguish between good sources of information and bad sources of information. Promoting Jenny McCarthy, Suzanne Somers, the Secret, these are examples yes, but of a pattern. It's not cherry-picking because it's consistent with this pattern, when she chooses medical expertise, she chooses poorly.

Her first assault on rationality was when she helped blame breast implants for auto-immune diseases in the 80s. Because of the suppor tof irrational arguments against them, silicone implants disappeared from the markets for over a decade, lawsuits ran amock, etc. Doctors at the time were saying it was ludicrous, the data did not support breast implants as a cause of these diseases. They were vindicated with time but Oprah had already succeeded in her campaign of misplaced blame.

It hasn't served her well all the time either. Like when she had an "expert" describe to her how meat was processed in the US. Sadly, it was mostly lies and inaccurate information, like saying we feed sick cattle back into the system (which has been banned for decades). She ended up getting sued in Texas, but being the media genius that she is she turned it into a PR campaign and won inside and outside the courts.

I don't doubt she's a genius, or that she has good intent. The problem with Oprah is that she is incompetent at evaluating scientific information, or judging expertise. So she falls for all the woo that comes down the pike - the Secret, anti-vax denialism, the breast implant nonsense, natural woo, miracle cures, etc. She's done a lot of good on a lot of topics, but she also is a vector for the spread of medical pseudoscience and misinformation, and that shouldn't be dismissed.

MarkH, I can't comment on the breast implants since that was before I watched her, but given that most of the criticism against her turns out to be exaggerated, Iâll take that with a grain of salt too.

Now as for the beef show she got sued for; itâs my understanding that the cattle feeding practice was changed and made safer following Oprahâs show. I canât state for certain without more research, but I suspect you are blaming her for actually do a good thing. While I believe one of her guests might have overstated his case, I believe the crux of his argument was valid.

And how does promoting the Secret demonstrate scientific incompetence? I suspect I could find a large number of empirical studies in peer reviewed academic journals showing that positive thinking has a myriad of positive benefits and that having an internal locus of control predicts better life outcomes. Now itâs true that the Secret may also make a few nutty claims here and there, but these are tangential. Oprah endorsed it for its central message. If she insisted that every single line of a book be endorsement worthy, sheâd never endorse anything.

Need something for that drool, Jake?

You sound like an offended fanboy/girl. This is why the celebrity culture is so dangerous. Yes, she's done good stuff. Does that outweigh the medical harm she is causing? I don't know, as this is very hard stuff to measure. She's put herself behind a lot of worthy causes, and thats great for her. But when it comes to medical harm, do we ignore all that because she's done good stuff?

I say no. As an extremely influential woman, she has a responsibility to her audience to get her facts straight. That she doesn't is morally repugnant. Does this mean we're calling her evil? By no means are we doing so. Newsweek, and co. like MarkH here, and Orac, and so on, are all pointing out that Oprah is doing something really, really bad here.

When someone is as influential as she is, she needs people to remind her to do the right thing.

So get over your celebrity worship there. She's making some serious mistakes, that have major repercussions on peoples lives. We have a moral responsibility to point this out. She's human, and hopefully, we can convince her she has made some dire mistakes.

Zeroth, you & Newsweek don't actually know if she's making a mistake. She's simply giving a voice to people who have been silenced by mainstream medicine. Are you saying that people like Jenny McCarthy, a loving mother of an autistic child with a sincere belief that some ingrediants in some vacines might make some contribution to autism should not be allowed to express her opinion on TV? I understand that McCarthy is not a scientist, but a lot of the people who have the scientific competence have been corrupted by the corporate interests who fund them, so they're not reliable sources either. The only way we'll get the complete truth is if we allow as many voices as possible.

Similarly, with Suzanne Sommers. Female health & well being has been neglected in the male dominated world of medicine. If people like Sommers don't draw attention to alternative ideas, who will?

Just because ideas might be wrong does not mean they should not be expressed. These are complex debates and I don't believe we'll know for another decade whether a lot of the medical ideas discussed on Oprah was good or bad. Science is constantly revising itself. Oprah doesn't mindlessly assume that the experts are always right. She's open minded enough to consider information from ALL sources.

And how does promoting the Secret demonstrate scientific incompetence? I suspect I could find a large number of empirical studies in peer reviewed academic journals showing that positive thinking has a myriad of positive benefits

"The Secret" is not merely saying "think positive", it literally says that by doing nothing but thinking "properly" you can directly alter physical reality through "thought vibrations". (And, of course, if bad things happen to you it's your own damn fault for thinking improperly.)As always you would be better served by actually finding out the facts rather than merely "suspecting" what science has to say.

CW, that's not Oprah's interpretation of the Secret nor how it was presented on her show. Oprah claims she's been applying the Secret long before the book was written and before she knew others had discovered the same concept by which she has lived her life. Obviously Oprah didn't get where she is by sitting around hoping & its absurd to suggest she would advocate such behavior. The whole argument against her Secret endorsement is a strawman.

And btw, Oprah has stated that she does not agree with EVERYTHING in the Secret, but she has enough respect for her viewers' intelligence to believe they will read it with a critical eye and only apply what works for them.

@Jake: The problem with an Oprah level celebrity providing a forum for anti-vax, anti-science nutjobs goes well beyond "debate". Oprah is actively promoting crap that gets people killed. Providing Jenny McCarthy with not just time on the Oprah show, but with *her own show* goes well beyond hosting a debate.

So far, I've got Appeal to Ignorance, Appeal to the False Middle, False Equivalency, and a massive Strawman Fallacy. Do I have Bingo yet?

Jake, try reading the information in my "about" tab above. There is a difference between denialism and debate. And there is a moral obligation when you have a loudspeaker to control who gets to stand in front of it.

I disagree that more voices are always better. Should Oprah give a venue for holocaust denial too? How about HIV/AIDS denialism? How about 9/11 conspiracism? Or tobacco denialism? Just because someone has an opinion, it doesn't mean it deserves to be endorsed by your messiah. These are pernicious ideas that cause harm, like when one of Oprah's audience decided to forgo breast cancer treatment because she watched Oprah's show on the Secret. Oprah did the right thing, and straightened her out, but how many other people bought into this nonsense that we didn't hear about? People with her power to communicate have a responsibility to avoid communicating misinformation, particularly information that is harmful to public health.

The Secret is another pernicious, nonsensical belief. It is magical thinking, and isn't mere "positive thinking". They actually believe they can change the fabric of the universe with thought. You may not want to believe this is the case, but read about it, it's what they believe.

Finally, she did not have any affect on beef processing. She, once again, let some lunatic on who described non-existent practices in food processing. She got called on it in a big way. It's bizarre that you think this means she changed beef processing for the better. It did not change, she merely was asked to stop maligning the food supply with her false experts.

So LanceR, just to be clear, are you saying that anyone who suspects there might be some hazards in some vaccines is so dangerous they should not be allowed to work in the media? Is the science behind vaccines so incredibly watertight that anyone who suspects there might be some danger is an anti-science nutcase, equivalent to a flat Earth believer? And btw, I don't think Jenny's show (if she ever gets one) will focus on vaccines.

CW, that's not Oprah's interpretation of the Secret nor how it was presented on her show.

Among other things Oprah's website currently features a page entitled "The Law of Attraction: Real-Life Stories". If there's anything there which says Oprah doesn't actually believe in or support the contents of those pages I cannot find it. Am I just to take your word for it? What then about the millions of people who you haven't explained this to? What do they believe it means that Oprah promotes this stuff? What do they believe it means when she gives Jenny McCarthy her own talk show?You may know "the truth", that Oprah really doesn't buy into the woo she brings into millions of living rooms every day, but clearly many, many people don't.

Mark H. I think the media should allow a forum to ALL of the ideas you mentioned as long as there's an audience for it. I believe truth always wins out in the end & that the solution to bad speech is more speech, not silencing people.

As for the beef issue, I remember quite clearly seeing an episode of 20/20 in the late 1990s where they stated that following Oprah's show, the practice of feeding ground up cattle to other cattle was banned. You may want to verify if I'm right about that.

CW, you're too worried about Oprah's mostly soccer mom audience being too dumb to examine the ideas she discusses with a critical eye. I think you underestimate the intelligence of Oprah's audience & the intelligence of the American people. Americans are SMART. Thanks to your high standard of living, the average American has a much better nourished brain than much of the world & Americans also enjoy a very high average level of education, literacy & media sophistication. Anyone too dumb to apply Oprah's guidance constructively, probably wouldn't be interested in self-help to begin with. There might be a few isolated cases where her advice is misapplied, but this is true of all media.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of Oprah's audience & the intelligence of the American people. Americans are SMART.

Actually I am concerned with the critical thinking abilities of Oprah's audience, and of Americans in general as well as with their willingness to Follow. And, yes, I am very concerned about that. While they may, in fact, be smart, they are not, on the whole, nearly skeptical (or nearly informed) enough.

I believe truth always wins out in the end & that the solution to bad speech is more speech, not silencing people.

Ah, so you're another one of these people who believes in entitled speech, rather than free speech. You think that just any nutcase with an axe to grind -- whether or not their claims have anything whatsoever to do with reality -- is entitled to representation in the media, and that the media collectively has no responsibility whatsoever (to the public or anybody else) to ensure that the content it provides over the public airwaves is factual and ethical. I see.

Now, if the government were outright banning any kind of speech from occurring in the public square, that would be an infringement of free speech, but requiring the media to give space to every view in cases where the views are factual or nonfactual is just asking for a crank subsidy. Simply because you have come up with the Unified Theory of Time, Space, Consciousness and Left Thumbs doesn't mean that the major networks are obliged to do anything other than tear up your press releases.

Granted, they don't do a very good job at the moment of making sure that the information they present is actually factual, and doesn't present the nonfactual case overmuch (one commenter at Balloon Juice remarked the other day -- "The modern media would give 10 000 experts and 9 kooks the same amount of airtime"), but hypothetically speaking, in a perfect world, yes, the media has a responsibility to present accurate, factual information instead of harmful superstition, and Oprah, being the captain of her own media juggernaut, fails at this miserably.

Given that Oprah was pushing her germophobia on the public years and years and years ago, I have to wonder how many strains of drug-resistant bugs there are out there now, simply because Oprah's terrified of disease...

Jake@20: strawman fallacy. That's not what I said, and you know it. And, yes. The science of vaccines really is that tight, especially in regards to autism. Look it up for yourself.

Jake@22: "We report, you decide", except when we *outright lie* and proactively prevent opposing information from getting heard. Also, strawman fallacy. Nobody is suggesting "silencing" anyone. We are criticizing Oprah for allowing her star power to be used by every quack and nutjob with a book to sell.

Jake@23: "People are smart" fallacy. People don't have time to learn everything about everything. That is why we *have* experts. This is the classic flaw in libertarianism, too. The mythical "informed consumer". When Oprah allows her bully pulpit to be used to promote garbage, in the face of evidence that it *is* garbage, then she is inviting criticism.

Do we have another contestant for the Trollympics(tm)? I'm seeing some real resistance to reality here.

Jake: "You may want to verify if I'm right about that"

You've got it backwards. The way it's supposed to work is *you* check your sources *before* you start talking. You seem to have made the same mistake that Oprah makes.

I'm not saying the media has a responsibility to represent all ideas, but they also don't have a responsibility to censor ideas. Censoring lies is one thing, but Jenny McCarthy is not telling lies, she's just reached a different conclusion from mainstream scientists (many of whom are funded by corporations). I agree it's dangerous to let non-scientists shoot their mouths off about science, but it's also dangerous to ban non-scientists from TV because they too might have something to contribute to the national debate, especially if they have personal experience (a son with autism) and since unlike many scientists, McCarthy is not being funded by those with vested corporate interst in the vaccine debate. I will concede though that if Oprah has her on to discuss autism again, she should be balanced by a mainstream expert.

Carl Sagan once said (approximately) "Intelligence is abundant in the human species. It is critical thinking that is in short supply." Jake is now about the business of demonstrating that remark's continuing relevance.

To make an informed decision about something like vaccines, you need to evaluate sources, balance risks, avoid intellectual shortcuts,and be wary of anecdotal evidence. Those are the skills Oprah lacks and that Jenny McCarthy holds in open contempt. And it is that lack and that contempt that make uncritical thinkers easy prey for the Geiers of this world.

@Jake #20

So LanceR, just to be clear, are you saying that anyone who suspects there might be some hazards in some vaccines is so dangerous they should not be allowed to work in the media? Is the science behind vaccines so incredibly watertight that anyone who suspects there might be some danger is an anti-science nutcase, equivalent to a flat Earth believer? And btw, I don't think Jenny's show (if she ever gets one) will focus on vaccines.

In a word, yes. Science has moved beyond those suspicions, and has done so on a rational manner, notwithstanding those who accuse scientists of various biases.

Science looked at the early studies that posited a link and did what it always does with new information. It asked questions. Here are three of them:

1) Can we reproduce the results from the studies? The answer was a resounding No!
2) Is the mechanism proposed a plausible one, given what we currently know about biology and chemistry. Again, the answer was No!
3) Is there another explanation for the results that is more plausible than the one proposed? The answer was Yes! The explanation at the time was probable contamination in the laboratory (talking of the Wakefield study), since that lab was known to have contamination problems. It's only recently that we learned of the real explanation -- complete and total dishonesty by Wakefield and some of his associates.

You don't think that Jenny's show will focus on vaccines? Well, perhaps not every episode -- others may focus on her son's poop or on the necessity for Botox.

On the "Secret" thing. The "power of positive thinking" is nothing new -- Norman Vincent Peale published in 1952. What's objectionable in "The Secret" is that it goes far beyond positive thinking, into magical and wishful thinking. If you recall the story of the Little Engine Who Could, that engine used positive thinking to overcome an obstacle -- but it still did the work as well. "The Secret" is "sit back, if you think good thoughts, you'll get what you want." Of course, if it fails, and you don't get what you want, then you didn't think hard enough, or well enough.

But enough of that. You're expending too much energy on us -- sit back and wish that we would all go away. If we don't, then it's your fault for not thinking positively enough!

Jake.. This is the only country where "most" of the people in it claim to believe in angels, most of them think evolution doesn't happen, where someone like Hovind can build a dino-museum that looks like its based on Hanna Barabara's Flintstones, and people praise them for it, and a whole host of other stupidities. To quote House, "People are idiots.", and the US, once they realized that science wouldn't "instantly" solve every single problem in the universe, over night, as was believed in the 50s, had a backlash against it, and critical thinking. We are now more concerned with being Rosie O'Donals than Einsteins. No one gives a frack if their kids, for the most part, know "how" to solve problems, or evaluate evidence, they just want them to get "good grades", and even the tests used to determine this are based on "remembering" facts, not on "using them", or figuring anything out.

Truth is, most people don't even have what I would consider a highschool education, even the ones that took college courses, because, if you ask them about nearly any fracking subject they supposedly learned in highschool, unless it is what ever they got their degree in, and even some times if it is, they don't understand "any" of it. History? Lots of Ben Steins in the US, who, as someone put it, if asked what color Spiro Agnew's underwear was, would be able to tell you both the color, an how many pairs, but when asked something about any other country, would pull a Palin and say that the president of France was Iranastan. Math.. Forget it. Most of them can't count change, never mind do actual math. Science... The flower children all grew up and are now selling stuff as miracle cures that isn't covered by the FDA at all, and which can contain anything from none, to 10 times the daily dose of things that you may or may not need to take at all. In some cases, they even buy and sell things from out of country, which, until it kills someone, we know even less about, and, in one case, included Chinese "supplements", which contained copycat pharmaceuticals, some of them in doses 4 times what was considered "dangerous and potentially lethal". But, they all listen to the "experts" on this stuff, which usually means some moron with a book and a "health food" shop, that is so fracking clueless that they carry 10 supplements for "heart health", most of which either don't do anything, or could hurt your heart, if taken with other things, yet "don't" carry the one single "natural" heart medication that has been used since the Roman Empire, Violet Extract. Note, they people that do use it? Doctors, who use a synthetic version, where they can be 100% certain of how much dosage you receive, while the real thing can change based on everything from when/how you picked them, to how they where dried, to the soil conditions, to even what the whether was like that year.

People that know what the frack they are doing are "all" lumped in as "working for big pharma/business", even when they are some professor making almost nothing at some college some place, with no connections at all to business. But, every moron and nut that has magic magnets, some undefined "supplement", which doesn't even match the "known" effects of the stuff in it, or goofball peddling pop-psychology woo, has "only our best interest in mind". By that logic, no one should be buying viagra, or cold medicine, but everyone should be buying fracking Extenze and Airborne, because the "experts" selling the former are all liars, while the later, despite being sued, sometimes by multiple states, for everything from false advertising, to claims that they did non-existent research at non-existent facilities, after the supplements where invented by "non-existent" people, are all just trying to "help people".

No, the simple truth is, in the US, altie medicine, which includes things like palm readings, psychic investigation, etc., has always been a multi-million dollar industry itself. Its also been almost entirely *unregulated*, and every dime it makes can and does go to making more BS products, and making the people selling it rich. Unlike "Big Pharma", which spends probably 25% of everything it makes **trying** to make sure its products a) actually do something, and b) won't kill you, before they can even "sell" them.

The real problem is that, to compete with the snake oil salesmen, they have started to resort to the same stupid TV advertisement tactics. I.e., don't let your "doctor" figure out what you need, ask them about "X", and if it would be good for you. But, what do you expect, when they have to compete with all those "well meaning", "poor", altie med people, who somehow manage to run 10,000 a minute advertisements, often 2-3 times an hour, on the same TV. In point of fact, the alties probably get shown 2-3 times as often. Must be a multi-billion dollar business now, to afford to do that...

You honestly think all these people shoveling BS at us are making no money, and don't have an interest in robbing you more than companies that "must" follow standards and practices? And then, as I said, there are the millions of badly, but overeducated, "idiots" that buy their products, because they can't tell the difference between fake and real products, or worse, they actually think that thousands of snake oil salesmen are "more honest" than people with a dozen federal agencies, 10+ years of required research into the safety and effectiveness of their products, and how **actually can be put out of business by a lawsuit**. You know.. Unlike Airborne, which lost two major cases, and still sells their's, or enzyte, which briefly stopped their sales, only to a) branch off the extenze brand of the same BS, and then b) later start selling the original product again.

That is what you don't seem to get. If its "Big Pharma", and it doesn't work, or its dangerous, you **can't** sell it. If its altie crap, all you do is repackage it, or change the label, so it doesn't say some things you are not allowed to, then go right on selling it, even if it a) doesn't work, or b) its sometimes dangerous. At most, all you might be required to do is say, "Don't take it with X, which can maybe hurt you."

I repeat, "people are idiots". And, the US has, since it abandoned "science" as a *fast* solution to problems, is racing around looking for every other "super fast" solution it can find. We are so obsessed with getting things "now", we are not willing to accept that something can't be done "now". And, that is what Oprah and those like her peddle, "Instant solutions, just add water!".

Jake:

Censoring lies is one thing, but Jenny McCarthy is not telling lies, she's just reached a different conclusion from mainstream scientists (many of whom are funded by corporations)

Jenny McCarthy claimed the MMR vaccine caused her son's seizures. She relates that he was at least two years old when he had his first seizure, yet the MMR is given at about 15 months. That is a consider time span between cause and effect.

Plus, she keeps claiming he is cured, yet then claims she is starting a new treatment for him!

If she is not a liar, she seems to have a very bad memory!

I will concede though that if Oprah has her on to discuss autism again, she should be balanced by a mainstream expert.

I would agree with you on this, with one caveat: the time each spends on camera talking should be proportional to the amount of actual evidence that supports their position.

But I'm not sure Jen can keep her mouth shut for a whole hour.

Oh, and Kagehi wins the thread! +2 Internets!

Jenny McCarthy is not telling lies

Is there antifreeze in vaccines, then?

I'm not saying the media has a responsibility to represent all ideas, but they also don't have a responsibility to censor ideas. Censoring lies is one thing, but Jenny McCarthy is not telling lies, she's just reached a different conclusion from mainstream scientists (many of whom are funded by corporations).

No, Jenny McCarthy has reached amazingly, idiotically, outrageously wrong conclusions:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/jenny_mccarthy_shows_off_her_…

As for Oprah's crankery, check out this post from a good "friend" of mine:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=497 :-)

Racism! Racism! Racism!

Uh Uh Uh...oh no you didn't!

I acknowledge upfront that I'm a terrible, miserable, horrible person, a dreadful excuse for a human being, a big bad meanie, and an utter waste of protoplasm.

That said, I've felt for years that autism would be *my* immediate and self-defending response to finding out that Jenny McCarthy was my parent.

If it's one day proven that one of Oprah's controversial guests (Suzanne Sommers, Jenny McCarthy) is actually correct and the mainstream scientists are wrong, will you guys be man enough to apologize for the crap you've posted?

If it's one day proven that one of Oprah's controversial guests (Suzanne Sommers, Jenny McCarthy) is actually correct and the mainstream scientists are wrong, will you guys be man enough to apologize for the crap you've posted?

Absolutely!* And that is the whole point. Where the evidence leads, science follows. Jenny McCarthy, on the other hand, sticks to her anti-vax position despite the volumes of evidence which directly contradict her. Folks like Oprah call that the "courage of her convictions" and "standing up to the scientific establishment" and other such utter nonsense.

*I ignored the whole misogynistic "man enough" bit, wasn't that generous of me?

Oprah, in a completely different topic showed her credulity. Before the invasion and occupation of Iraq [oct 2002], she had on guests, including Kenneth Pollack and Chalabi's chief flunky, who absolutely assured that we were in danger from Iraqi WMD's and the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. An audience member who asked skeptical questions about the issue was patronizingly put down by the host. clip here. And she had a brief clip from Scott Ritter for "balance".

Interestingly, in later programs just before the war, Oprah did show skepticism about war being the best answer on one program and had another about possible negative effects to America's international standing.

Jake:

If it's one day proven that one of Oprah's controversial guests (Suzanne Sommers, Jenny McCarthy) is actually correct

How can it be shown that the MMR caused seizures at least six months to a year after it was given?

Do vaccines contain anti-freeze?

If McCarthy's son is cured, why is she pushing new treatments on him?

I think we are confusing cause and effect here. The reason that Oprah is so famous, rich, and powerful and popular is precisely because she panders to the prejudices of stupid people (said prejudice being that they don't like hard-to-understand ideas).

That's how she became popular. If she were to do as you ask, her faithful audience would go elsewhere.

Oh, and as for the whole media/free speech thing: yes, the whole point of having a government is to secure the common good, and this absolutely involeves curtailing abuses of power - whether physical, economic, or the power of fame - that compromise the common good. That this power was acquired by legal means is quite beside the point.

Your article regarding bio-identical hormone replacement is an example of the typical bullshit coming from the medical community. While you give "props to Dr. Oz," have you checked into his opinion on hormone replacement? Apparently not, because he agrees with the use of bio-identicals for women, like me, who have benefited greatly from it.

My MD prescribed Premarin, despite that I have a uterus, and without any hormone testing. After I researched Premarin and learned that it could cause uterine cancer, I went to another doctor who prescribed Prempro (again without hormone testing.) After two months of this horrible medication, which thrust me into the darkest period of my life, I stopped taking it, against my MD's advise.

After years of research, I have now found a very knowledge MD who has prescribed bio-identicals and it has saved my life. I feel better than I have felt in 20 years!!!!

The reason there is no "raging debate" in the medical community about hormone replacement is because there is no money in it for big pharm or MDs. Hormone replacement is not a "one pill fits all" issue and one must find an MD that will perform the proper testing and work closely with the woman to "tweek" the dosages based upon her needs. It is an exhaustive process and most of you that took the oath to "first do no harm," do not want to take the time to deal with us!!!!

Hopefully, as more female MDs reach middle age, this issue will come to the fore and you people who espouse the "party line" of big pharm. will see the light! If not, we activist women will just have to take care of ourselves.

Women have been indispensable to the medical profession for decades. Ask yourself, how much research had been done on breast cancer before women became activists? How much research has been done on women and heart disease?....very little.

Perhaps before you criticize that about which you obviously know nothing, maybe you should do a bit more research yourself!! After all, is that not exactly your criticism of Oprah?

Natural Cynic, Oprah did more to try to stop the war in Iraq than anyone else in mainstream American media. Yes itâs true that at first she was a bit clueless about the whole subject (sheâs an entertainer not a journalist) and a little cowardly about allowing dissent, but once she had a chance to learn both sides of the issue, she was BRILLIANT. On page 87 of âDude Whereâs My Countryâ Michael Moore praised Oprah for a Nov 2002 show where she was the only person in U.S. media to release footage exposing Donald Rumsfeldâs cozy relationship with Sadam Hussein in the 1980s. But most importantly, the day after Colin Powellâs pivotal Feb 5, 2003 speech, which decisively made the case for war, Oprah had the presence of mind and courage to run a TWO DAY anti-war show in which she recruited broadcasters from CNN to get footage from all over the world of everyday people begging America not to go to war, and also interviewed the founders of Patriots for Peace. You can see part of the show here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7254048331572558471

In fact the show was so anti-war, at a time when the rest of the media was praising Powellâs UN speech that there was a press conference held by Bush & Powell at the time of the show that some suspect was intended to block part of the show from airing in some markets.

But if all that wasnât impressive enough, just 48 hours before the war occurred, Oprah featured Michael Moore making a last minute attempt to stop the war in Iraq.

Oprah may promote nonsense when it comes to trivial things, but on the most important issues of the late 20th century (equality for gays) & the 21st century (the war in Iraq, the election of Obama) Oprah was WAY ahead of the rest of the American media.

Oh Jake... looks like you've given up trying to argue for the "brave" people fighting the establishment.

Just because she did some really awesome stuff, doesn't mean she gets off scot-free for all the anti-science stuff. Anti-vax harms children. I can even prove it to you. Vaccinations are for things like the mumps(can cause brain damage, deafness, blindness), pertussis(aka whooping cough, which has a higher rate of death than the chance of a child being autistic), and so on. If a child is not vaccinated for any of these diseases, they have a chance of catching them. Once they've caught the disease, they have a chance of the negative side-effects. How did they get the side-effects? Because they didn't get vaccinated.

Another point I'd like to make, is that while McCarthy's situation is sympathetic, having an autistic child is not the end of the world. It can be hard, but I have friends of the family with autistic children, and after watching those children grow up, they, and I, would never want those children "cured". Yes, they are different, but its not like they're being tortured. To act with such revulsion and fear of autism speaks leagues towards the parents who do autistic children, and to the autistic children themselves. I know one autistic boy, Danny, when he heard that vaccines cause autism, and this worried people, he asked me, "Why are people afraid of autism? I'm happy. No reason to be afraid."

Frankly, Jake, you sicken me for your paranoia about scientists. I guess you don't have a family doctor, a dentist? Have you ever taken medicine? OH NO, you've just given money to big pharma! YOU BAD BAD MAN!

I can be just as unreasonable as you. Can you be as reasonable as me?

jake:

I'm not going to get into it with you about vaccines or anything like that. I have strong opinions on that, but they're not relevant to the censorship issue that's been raised, and I think free speech is far more important than vaccines in any case.

I'm not saying the media has a responsibility to represent all ideas, but they also don't have a responsibility to censor ideas.

You are right -- the media has no responsibility to censor ideas. They can print whatever they damn well like, as long as it's not actually libel or a threat to someone's well-being. (Printing death threats is not acceptable, obviously.) That said, there is a thing called "journalistic integrity" that used to be held in very high regard. It was what separated "real" newspapers from tabloids. No law can adjudicate it; that's the responsibility (and decision) of the news agencies themselves. Today, we are seeing major changes in how journalistic integrity gets applied, as the shift to Internet-based media forces the old, traditional new sources to find new ways to sustain themselves. Some have stooped to tabloid journalism, which has less integrity (and therefore hurts their image) but tends to sell more reliably with less cost. (This is the area where Oprah operates, and she is extremely good at it. Please not that "tabloid" does not mean "made up". It just means they have lower standards of integrity, and tend to look to their bottom line rather than an ethics guideline.) Others are folding. Others are managing to squeak by. Time will tell how it all pans out.

But however it turns out, one thing will be true: failure to print an idea is not censorship. If the Associated Press does not see fit to put up somebody's Holocaust-denial, flat-earth manifesto on their wire, that doesn't mean they're censoring the idea. It means they're choosing not to print it. In the day of the Blogosphere, it is increasingly difficult to claim that an idea is being censored merely because some newspaper already struggling to keep itself afloat without sacrificing its dignity decided not to waste space on it. If you've got a revolutionary new idea that you think the mainstream is ignoring, you can print it yourself practically for free. And you have a pretty good chance of acquiring a respectable audience for that belief. Time was, you had to go to AM radio and maybe infomercials for that kind of a platform, and those cost more money (even in those days) than blogs do today.

I think the single greatest thing about this country is the freedom of speech. I will argue passionately for it to the end of my days. But never, ever confuse freedom of speech with the freedom to compel somebody to print whatever you think is best, and never, ever confuse editorial license with censorship. If you have freedom of speech, then surely various media entities of the world also have freedom to decide what they want to say. And the responsibility that comes with that freedom, to whit, their name is attached to it. Oprah likes to hide behind her guests, deflecting criticism by saying that she isn't endorsing anything and you should complain to the guest if you have a problem with it. But she did choose to show that segment, and so her name is associated with it.

She feels she has no responsibility for what she says. She takes the freedom but dismisses the responsibility. To me, that says all I need to know about her journalistic integrity -- she clearly has none.

Calli Arcale you're being a hypocrite. It's easy to support freedom of speech if you demand that only the ideas you like should be given a megaphone. And just because Oprah allows anyone a forum does not mean she's endorsing their view point or lacks journalistic integrity. Does the local library endorse every book it has? It's providing them a platform? Asking Oprah to ban certain guests from appearing on her show because their ideas are "dangerous" makes you no better than the creationists who demanded Darwin's work be banned from the library.

Milly, the difference is that we have scientific proof of the validity or lack thereof of their arguments. By showing their arguments have no scientific validity, we can examine the implications of what they are saying, and what can result from applying those beliefs, which is what they are, versus the science, and the benefits of the science.

This is very different from creationists wanting to ban Darwin's works. Besides, evolution has moved on from Darwin. It doesn't matter if his works get banned, there are much more recent, and better books on evolution. ;)

The difference here, which makes it a strawman argument, is that banning books has not much of an impact, and the creationists have no scientific basis for their opinions; we do.

Again, its not about censorship, its about responsibility. I consider every child that dies of a disease they could have been vaccinated against as dying because of Oprah. It is her fault; she has the responsibility to ensure her actions do not have negative consequences, especially foreseeable consequences.

Zeroth, for someone who has so much respect for the scientific method, thatâs a pretty irrational thing to say. Thereâs no statistical evidence that Oprahâs one interview with McCarthy caused the anti-vax hysteria or even largely contributed to it, especially since Oprah herself never endorsed McCarthyâs views.

Iâm not trying to defend McCarthy. For all I know she could be as ignorant & dangerous as you say. However itâs also possible that scientific studies debunking McCarthyâs theories are wrong too. Not just because the scientists fear offending the people funding them & their universities, but because scientifically itâs extremely difficult to disprove McCarthyâs theory because autism is extremely rare so its hard to get statistically significant samples, especially if the effect size is tiny, and especially because autism is difficult to objectively and reliably diagnose. Any study rejecting McCarthyâs claims risks being a Type II error.

But at the same time, I do agree that Oprah has a responsibility to question McCarthy more aggressively if they ever decided to discuss this issue again. McCarthy does need to be rigorously questioned about the evidence for her claims, though banning her from TV goes too far, because all legitimate sincerely held views (even dangerous views) need to be heard, and there are some scientists who agree with McCarthy.

You're forgetting that Oprah signed McCarthy up for a show, where undoubtedly there will be further talk about anti-vax.

I'm not an expert on medicine, biology, or immunology. Instead, I rely on people like Mark, Orac, and others. I look at their arguments, I look at the quality of the arguments. I have good experience debunking political ideology, and tearing apart erroneous tech arguments, as those are the areas I actually have a bit of knowledge in. The simple fact is, the anti-vax people use fear, and they manipulate emotions. They also treat autism as a horror, and all of this makes me feel that they're trying to trick me, manipulate me.

People like Mark, and co. aren't trying anything like that. They make assertions, prove their point, they don't insult me, they don't manipulate me, nothing like that. I respect their arguments, and tend to believe them, as I've seen them have the humility to accept when they are wrong.

Anti-vax is dangerous. The risks of the diseases logically outweigh any supposed risk of autism. But as has been said before, we don't handle risk well. It is riskier to drive a car, than to ride in an airplane. But more people are afraid of flying, than of driving.

I've noticed you've been changing your argument Jake, because at the start of this, you were going off about connections to big companies. Do you honestly believe that those connections, if they existed, would be strong enough to prevent every single doctor from speaking out if they had evidence? This fails the basic test of possibility, unless you are so jaded and cynical to believe it. Now you're actually using a real, valid argument, about Type II errors. But again, we can check for this. Is it possible for many multiple studies, of differing designs, differing doctors, differing sample sizes, to ALL have Type II errors? Basic probability theory shows the odds of that happening to be about... 0.00[24 more zeroes]9% chance(Assuming 95% CI for each study, and approximately 20 studies. It could be more, it could be less.).

Basically, I have responsibility that what I say is correct. This goes doubly if I am a doctor or a lawyer advising someone. Even more so if I'm an engineer. But if I'm a celebrity, or a media person, I have no responsibility, despite the fact many factors more people listen and are affected by my words and actions? Somethings wrong here...

To be perfectly blunt, Jake, horseshit.

There is not one. single. shred. of. evidence. The best argument *against* McCarthy's argument is that autism rates are similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

She is insane.

You may have a hardon for Oprah, and that's okay. But when you start to ignore reality for your obssession, that is not okay.

Is this simple enough for you? The possibility of all the studies on vaccines being wrong is roughly akin to the possibility that giant space marshmallows spewed their gooey insides on us last Thursday, causing the world to spring into being with all our memories perfectly formed.

It's batshit crazy.

Zeroth, Iâm not suggesting that scientists who have strong evidence supporting McCarthy would keep silent, however strong evidence is rare in science. Iâd be more concerned about all the scientists who have weak evidence who donât bother publishing their studies because theyâre not willing to risk losing funding, losing status in their corporate funded universities, not to mention risk being publicly ridiculed, and risk causing anti-vax hysteria all to publish a study theyâre not all that confident in.

Also, your argument about the rarity of Type II errors on multiple studies becomes much less convincing if the effect size is small because small effect sizes require far more statistical power to detect.

McCarthy is arguing that the ingredients in some vaccines are one of only many, many variables that contribute to autism; sheâs not arguing theyâre the sole cause or even a major cause. The contribution they may make could be so small that it would require an incredibly large sample to reject the null hypothesis with 95% certainty and getting large enough samples when autism is so rare may not be feasible; and even if it were, the study could still incorrectly fail to reject the null hypothesis because of uncontrolled dosage levels, uncontrolled vaccination schedules, unreliable and uncontrolled methods of diagnosing autism, and non-random assignment of people to experimental and control groups (following a correct experimental design may not even be possible for ethical reasons).

Because Type II errors are so hard to avoid it often takes the scientific community decades to get to the truth, with large bodies of empirical literature being overturned when subtle systematic flaws in the research are later discovered.

LanceR, the evidence for McCarthyâs perspective is simply the observations of many, many mothers who noticed an abrupt change in their children after vaccinations. This evidence is of limited scientific value, but all theories have to start somewhere.

To be clear, Iâm not saying McCarthyâs right. She might be every bit as crazy as you say. I am simply cautioning against an over reliance on the conventional scientific wisdom because the great thing about science is that it's constantly correcting itself.

Now, you actually have a very valid point. This something worth debating, but I don't have any of the knowledge necessary. I have the basic knowledge of statistics required to understand what you are talking about, but I don't know the studies, so I can't debate them.

I would like to ask, though, for some proof to back up your claim of "Because Type II errors are so hard to avoid it often takes the scientific community decades to get to the truth, with large bodies of empirical literature being overturned when subtle systematic flaws in the research are later discovered."

Usually, the empirical literature that gets thrown out, iirc, is because the science was bad. This is because of bias, and beliefs distorting the results of the research. Its like the 'scientist' in the 1900's whom claimed that black people had smaller braincases, except he wasn't doing his measurements right. He was found to be pushing beans, his measurement tool of choice, as hard as possible into white skulls, and with no pressure or force into black skulls, to prove his hypothesis.

Science has improved dramatically since then.

The thing is, the mother's observations have been analyzed, and it is simply confirmation bias. The mothers were already anxious because of the crying of the baby, and then any observed behavioural change afterwards, and a positive diagnosis of autism, creates a link in the mother's brain, where there really is none.

Video tapes of the children before vaccinations were analyzed by psychologists, and they were found to be exhibiting symptoms of autism before any vaccines were administered.

Most telling of McCarthy's "evidence" is that her son began showing signs of autism about 8-12 months after his vaccinations. This is an extremely tenuous link to make in the first place.

By understanding the psychology of the motivations behind anti-vax, one begins to see two factions, both united. One, that is worried, pained, and wanting to blame someone; and the other faction wanting to make a profit off of this blame and worry. We have a tendency to try to find a pattern, an explanation when bad things happen. We also tend to blame others for our misfortune. There are further complex and variable motivations and causes to the fear. But by analyzing the fear, and where it comes from, it becomes pretty hard to give any credence to their argument.

Take a look at this press release from the first study to find a "link": http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/MMR-Vaccine-May-Be-A-Reason-B…

Read that, no control groups. Bad science right there.

Zeroth, science gets overturned not so much because the scientists did a poor job, but because the scientific method is an ideal that is very difficult to attain in practice because there are so many confounding variables that are so hard to control, so ideal experimental designs are never realized forcing scientists through no fault of their own to settle for quasi-experimental designs.

With respect to your example of race and brain case, that's an area of research where the conventional wisdom was overturned, and then the overturning was overturned, and then the overturning of the overturned was overturned etc. This is to be expected because when comparing races on physical traits its extremely difficult to get a random sample of an entire human race, define membership in that race objectively, and obtain reliable measurements, control for confounding variables like nutrition, and if the effect size is tiny (i.e. a difference of one cubic centimeter) sample sizes would need to be huge to reject the null hypothesis with 95% certainty.

Research suggests that while autism is mostly genetic, there is still some environmental contribution. Because environmental effects are so small it is extremely difficult to isolate them scientifically, as environmental effects on mental traits tend to consist of a great many diverse and uncorrelated micro environmental effects that differ even among full siblings raised in the same family. Each environmental effect explains such a small portion of the variation in the phenotype that many may never be identified. We know so little about autism that it just doesnât make sense to be dogmatic about what the causes are, though it is important to avoid creating hysteria.

I hope Jenny McCarthy takes all her energy, passion and resources and uses it to help fund more research on autism in peer reviewed academic journals. That would be a more productive than speculating in the media.

Jake said,
"Zeroth, Iâm not suggesting that scientists who have strong evidence supporting McCarthy would keep silent, however strong evidence is rare in science. Iâd be more concerned about all the scientists who have weak evidence who donât bother publishing their studies because theyâre not willing to risk losing funding, losing status in their corporate funded universities, not to mention risk being publicly ridiculed, and risk causing anti-vax hysteria all to publish a study theyâre not all that confident in."

This is BS. If evidence is strong enough, and the study's well designed, it's going to be published. If the evidence is so weak that they can't get it published, then it's no better than speculation anyways. Besides, don't you think that if anyone had stronger evidence than Wakefield that supported a connection, they would spoken up by now? It's not like there's a lack of studies on possible connections between vaccines and autism, unless you're complaining about the lack of competent studies that support a connection? Also:

"Because environmental effects are so small it is extremely difficult to isolate them scientifically, as environmental effects on mental traits tend to consist of a great many diverse and uncorrelated micro environmental effects that differ even among full siblings raised in the same family. Each environmental effect explains such a small portion of the variation in the phenotype that many may never be identified. We know so little about autism that it just doesnât make sense to be dogmatic about what the causes are, though it is important to avoid creating hysteria."

If the effect of vaccines on the rate of autism is so small that the previous studies couldn't pick up on it, then it's still best for everyone who can be vaccinated to be vaccinated.

Thank you Clay for pointing out the major fallacy in Jake's argument. If the effect is so small, then it can be considered a significantly smaller risk than death from the diseases.

Pertussis: 3% death rate
Measles: 0.03% Death rate with health care
Mumps: Pancreatitis in about 4% of cases,
Encephalitis (very rare, and fatal in about 1% of the cases when it occurs)
Profound (91 dB or more) but rare sensorineural hearing loss, uni- or bilateral. Acute unilateral deafness occurs in about 0.005% of cases.

Even just from three diseases, that is a fairly high risk, at least compared to any suspected risk of autism, if the child does not already have it. This is the real issue. If there is a link, its so small as to be negligible, whereas the risk of death from these diseases is well-known. But people don't handle risk well.

But risks are individual so one size fits all advice does not always work. If you have a history of autism in your family and your child is thus already genetically predisposed to have autism, the risk of a hypothetical vaccine that increases the risk by even a tiny percent might not be worth taking. Another unproven possibility is that children may be born on the autistic spectrum, but some vaccines affect how far on the spectrum they end up. This would make the studies especially difficult to interpret if the researchers are treating autism as a discrete variable instead of a continuous one.

Jake:

If you have a history of autism in your family and your child is thus already genetically predisposed to have autism, the risk of a hypothetical vaccine that increases the risk by even a tiny percent might not be worth taking. Another unproven possibility is that children may be born on the autistic spectrum, but some vaccines affect how far on the spectrum they end up.

There have been several large epidemiological studies done in several countries that including hundreds of thousands of children that showed there is no casual link between autism and vaccines. Some are listed here: http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf (real science, not mommy science).

Plus there is real evidence that when vaccination go down, the diseases return. Measles is now endemic in the UK with more than one child dying, and several becoming permanently disabled. Mumps returned to the American Midwest in 2006 and at least four people lost their hearing (by the way, Zeroth, since Japan has made mumps vaccination voluntary, a small office study has shown it causes deafness at about one in thousand cases, An office-based prospective study of deafness in mumps.). Pertussis is coming back with a vengeance, and so is the very scary Hib --- with the deaths of real children in the USA, and causing permanent disability in many more.

Jake, you are pushing a silly straw man. Also, I am still waiting for an answer on how a vaccine that McCarthy's son got at age 15 months caused seizures more than a year later!

The science has been done, the link between vaccines and autism does not exist. It is a dead linkâ¦ âItâs not pininâ! âItâs passed on! This link is no more! It has ceased to be! Itâs expired and gone to meet its maker! Itâs a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadnât nailed it to the perch itâd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now âistory! Itâs off the twig! Itâs kicked the bucket, itâs shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedinâ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-LINK!! â (hat-tip to Monty Python and the dead parrot sketch)

Chris, thanks for the links. I'll have to read them. But for an alternative perspective, you may wish to read this:

http://statismwatch.ca/2009/02/24/vaccine-court-autism-debate-continues/

Um, yeah... Jake? Robert Kennedy is not exactly a good source. Pretty much anything from the Huffington Post is going to be questionable scientifically. And I'm not sure that court case says what you think it says. Pretty much every other link I can find says "Vaccine Court Rejects Autism - Vaccine Link". The only people who claim the opposite are the lawyers for the family, and well-known cranks like Kennedy.

This is what is known as "Cherry-Picking".

And "Statism Watch"? Srsly?

Jake, next time you need medical care, call your nearest lawyer. Obviously since you cite Robert Kennedy, Jr, you must assume that a JD in Law gives someone higher medical/science qualifications than an MD in Medicine.

Chris I cited the article because it claims to inform us how the courts have ruled where both sides, I presume, used scientists as experts. If the courts got it wrong (and courts do get a lot of things wrong), then that's a travesty of justice and I'm very sorry that it happened.

Science is decided in a court of law.

NOT!

Jake, your argument falls down when you assume that better decisions come out of more talk. They don't. In a complex world all that nutcases need to do to win is to get exposure and spread confusion. If someone believes nuclear waste should be added to babyfood the appropriate response is not to give the one glowinthedarkian on the planet equal airtime with the other 6 billion - 1 of us. If you feel the need to discuss it at all the fact that this is a wacko idea with very little support needs to be made clear. In scientific debate this is especially the case as a lay audience relies upon the media to filter the cranks so that the people we see debating are the best in their field and genuinely trying to reach a conclusion on the evidence available. The views of some celebrity with an axe to grind should have very little to do with it, good media that it is. Makes money for Opera Inc - but at the expense of dead children.

Have you written your letter to Oprah yet?

denialism — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:00:29 +0000

Have you written your letter to Oprah yet?

If you have been keeping up with Pal or Orac in my absence, you already know the bad news. Oprah has decided to up her woo quotient from promotion of the Secret and relatively harmless nonsense to actively promoting anti-vaccine conspiracy theories in the form of a Jenny McCarthy TV show. Gawker suggests a good title, "Finding Someone to Blame When Bad Things Happen".

Jenny McCarthy is an insipid, dangerous idiot. And a Wacko. Oprah's move isn't just some harmless addition to the drivel that occupies our screens known as "daytime TV". This is actively dangerous. This is, as Pal says, infectious disease promotion. I don't want the proof that we're right about vaccines (other than thousands of scientific papers and the last 100 years of human history) to be a bunch of dead kids or more kids born with birth defects due to a reemergence of congenital rubella. I don't think Oprah is a bad person, she certainly doesn't have malicious intent. I'm sure McCarthy even has good intentions behind her lies and misinformation. But that doesn't mean such dangerous idiots should be tolerated, given airtime, and their own TV shows. If Oprah does not work to actively reverse this deal, and undo the harm that Jenny McCarthy does as an infectious disease advocate, the resulting illness and deaths will be her responsibility.

Young Australian Skeptics have written their letter to Oprah. Go here and write your own. Mine is below the fold.

To Oprah and the producers of the Oprah Winfrey Show:

I am writing in regards to the recent decision to offer Jenny McCarthy a multi-platform deal and why I believe this is a terrible error. Jenny McCarthy is a leading conspiracy theorist in the promotion of propaganda against vaccines, medicine and public health. Giving her a platform to spread misinformation is tantamount to infectious disease promotion. The result of your advancing her anti-vaccine campaign will be the deaths of children and adults, the return of vaccine-preventable disease, and unspeakable harm to the public health of this country and others around the world.

There is absolutely no validity to the claim vaccines cause autism. There is no validity to McCarthy's claims that the current vaccine schedule is harmful. There is also no scientific basis for any of her health misinformation she has already started posting at her blog. Rather than informing the public and improving our lives you have opted to promote the spread of misinformation and lies about health. This is unethical, immoral and I believe will ultimately create a backlash against you and your show, especially if vaccine-preventable diseases again become endemic as they have in other countries where these denialist beliefs have taken hold.

I believe Oprah, and even Jenny McCarthy, have nothing but the best of intentions. However, their beliefs are unscientific and contradict everything we know about medicine and public health. Oprah has the ability as an excellent communicator to do great things for the public good. Rather than promoting infectious diseases, she should be voicing support for childhood vaccination, science-based medicine, and public health practices consistent with the recommendations of scientific experts.

Regards,
Mark Hoofnagle, MD/PhD

denialism Wed, 05/13/2009 - 03:00

Tags

Anti-Vax Denialism

Thank you for this link - I just sent one off myself. Allowing Jenny to spread her lies is the worst possible thing Oprah could have done, short of supporting Matthias Rath's HIV campaign.

Thanks for this. Your letter served as a nice jumping-off point as I drafted my own.

Orac linked to this some time back, but I think Oprah Winfrey needs to sit down and read this:

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010978.html#010978

I was already in agreement with the science, but this is just powerful as all get out.

how are you iam ok any way i will send to you my email

That's a great letter, thank you for sending it. Can we copy/forward it with our own comments (obviously not plagiarize it, or send it as our own)? Do you think that would help or hurt?

Shows thrive on funding. If McCarthy's show ever hits air it would be a good idea to aggressively target any company that elects to advertise during it. Point out to them what they are supporting. Make a big enough stink and they won't want the PR nightmare and will (hopefully) pull their support.

thank you

You appear to have a "foreign troll" infestation. Better spray.

Oprah has access to competent medical professionals who she uses on her shows. Oprah has almost certainly been advised that Jenny is full of dangerous woo. I'm not sure that fact based letters will change her mind about Jenny if her own medical staff has been unable to do so. Not that we shouldn't try. Just saying.

Mark,

You were probably in grade school so you probably don't remember the silicone breast implant/lupus auto-immune system disease, woo of the 1980's.

Oprah hosted a show that featured scientists form the Mayo Clinic among other reputable scientific organizations that presented overwhelming evidence from multiple studies that demonstrated that silicone breast implants were not responsible for these alleged illnesses.

Oprah had an audience full of hysterical women that were "certain" that their wide array of maladies were caused by their breast implants.

Faced with a choice between multiple double blind studies by several independent scientific bodies and the over-wrought emotional "feelings" of a room full of Jenny McCarthy-esque women Oprah made her choice.

She of course sided with the loopy ladies and dismissed the scientific evidence.

Of course if you think about it she was acting quite logically and in her own interest. Loopy over-wrought women are her core audience after all.

Good luck with the letter writing. I wonât be wasting any ink hoping that Oprah is suddenly going to side with science over emotion.

plagiarizing it...did not think so, Yes, Kevin...if its my letter that is the "good Letter"...your request is my Wish. I do very well appreciate the Link. "be Blessed" ...S0, BLESS. Thank You!

I can't believe "spring semester" Over; there with a lively Hope...I'll not miss The "summer semester" ! Yes, you certainly can use my letter to aid, One; or many. I don't write them often, I wish I would...bad lanuage ; smiles! Thanks for such a Link., I don't look for nothing bad in no one., but if its there., it wont be hid for long, I'm not a judge but have a Judge. Why put people way down...with yourself? Because, if you put them UP beside your PIC "self" ...could be a proven FACT/ reflex\reflect, on passerbyes., with gratefulness...this makes us all want to better not bader. "catch that". GOOD YEAR ROUND INN 2009.pg

The Autism/Vaccines Fraud

denialism — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:56:04 +0000

The Autism/Vaccines Fraud

I have to admit I'm somewhat surprised (even if Orac isn't). We all knew that Andrew Wakefield's research was bogus and the link between vaccines and autism was engineered by ideologues who fear vaccines irrationally. But fabrication of data? Sloppy research is one thing, but the need for cranks to be correct, no matter what reality reflects, has resulted in yet another example of egregious dishonesty.

This is in line, however, with what we know about cranks. Mark Crislip recently wrote an interesting piece on mathematics crankery which bears upon just this phenomenon. Mathematics is a wonderful area to study crankery because as Crislip points out, mathematics is a field in which it is possible to distinguish between the possible and the impossible.

In mathematics there are things that are impossible. Absolutely impossible. No ifs, ands, or buts. Impossible. Can't be done no how no way. In the world of mathematics, things are not only impossible, they are proven truly impossible within the boundaries of the mathematical discipline.

An example of mathematical impossibility is the quadrature of the circle, also called squaring the circle.

It is impossible, using only a straight edge ruler and a compass, to construct a square with the same area as a given circle. It was proved to be impossible in 1882 by Lindeman. Not improbable or unlikely or very, very, very difficult. With in mathematical reality, it is impossible.

But in his review of Mathematical Cranks he hits upon many of the commonalities between cranks we discussed in the Crank HOWTO.

Here is Crislip's description of the mathematical crank:

1) They are convinced that their opinion is superior to the accumulated opinion of 2000 years of mathematics and mathematicians. That hundreds of mathematicians have worked for hundreds of years on these problems and found no errors in the proof that it is impossible to square a circle is of no consequence. Despite the accumulated mathematical knowledge of uncounted mathematicians, they are convinced that their solution is the right solution. Everyone else for all of history has been wrong. There is a tinge of megalomania in all the correspondence, and some appear to me to be clinically insane.

2) To accommodate their solutions, they are willing to alter reality to fit their proofs. There are solutions to squaring the circle, but they require a value of pi that is different that 3.14159265... Pi, for those that have forgotten, is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle and is a constant of the universe. For some circle squarers, Pi has a different value and all the mathematics that has confirmed the current value of pi is wrong. Others deny that pi exists or that the definition is meaningless, since they can construct a squared circle with pencil and paper, and send in the (flawed) construction.

3) When errors of math or logic are pointed out, they respond not with understanding, but a redoubling of efforts to prove that their erroneous solution to the problem is actually correct. They are incapable of recognizing flaws in logic, or mathematics, or flaws that are in opposition to mathematical consistency. A crank cannot recognize their error because they cannot recognize that their reality differs from mathematical reality.

4) Cranks are impervious to arguments based on mathematical reality. They do not recognize or understand that their solutions are in error because the solution contradicts known mathematical reality. They do not base their solutions on known mathematics, but on their own flawed understanding of mathematics.

5) Cranks evidently send their 'solutions' to multiple mathematical departments and rarely receive a reply. This silence from academia is interpreted not that their solution is worthless, but that there is a conspiracy of Professors of Mathematics to keep their solution secret, to the detriment of human kind. Big Math, out to suppress the truth THEY don't not want you to know.

It is obvious to me that no matter what the field, the problem is crankery - the defective thought processes that allow people to believe in nonsense, no matter what obstacles reality throws in their path. Every description of every crank in every field ultimately boils down to these same factors. Cranks believe in something contrary to observable reality. They will do anything to prove it. When reality gets in their way, they ignore, subvert, lie, cheat, or obfuscate to create confusion. And when it's proven beyond all doubt they're wrong? That's when the conspiracies come out. The comments on the Huffington Post coverage of the most recent Wakefield dishonesty are an excellent example of this. Wakefield is a victim of Big Pharma, being persecuted by Brian Deer, it's all a conspiracy against children by doctors and pharmaceutical companies etc.

The more time passes the more I'm convinced that our original thesis on cranks and denialism in general has been confirmed again and again. No matter what the foolish belief the problem the reality-based community is fighting is a defective pattern of thought, an incompetence in evaluating the quality of evidence that afflicts millions of individuals and ultimately is why so many people believe in such stupid things. Wakefield, ultimately, is just another in a long line of cranks. And while biology is never as concrete as mathematics, it is clear that accepting reality was never a part of the the anti-vaccine movement's ideology. And what do cranks do when reality opposes your world view? They do what Wakefield did. Reject reality, and substitute their own.

Even after all this time I was surprised they would find outright fabrication in Wakefield's work, but I shouldn't have been.

denialism Tue, 02/10/2009 - 06:56

Tags

But ... but ... you can square the circle. You just need the right space.

And while biology is never as concrete as mathematics, it is clear that accepting reality was never a part of the the anti-vaccine movement's ideology.

Well, isn't the issue actually that the subject matter of biology is more concrete than mathematics (which deals with abstractions), and because of this biology is much less precise?

Anyways, that's nitpicking. Excellent post over all. I agree totally with your thesis that crankery is the same regardless of subject matter or field. It's probably a manifestation of some common human psychological foibles which can pop up in any field. I've long suspected that crankery succeeds because it exploits certain evolved human social tendencies. Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran have argued that religions form as an evolutionary byproduct--religious ideas appeal to several intuitive cognitive processes, and because of this religious belief feels perfectly natural and rational (as long as it isn't examined too closely). I wonder if crankery and pseudoscience might be a similar kind of byproduct. People readily accept cranky ideas because these ideas fit neatly into innate cognitive short-cuts we all use, and as long as one doesn't look any deeper into the ideas they seem perfectly rational.

That's just speculation on my part, though.

What are your comments on this, genius?

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&new…

Comments? How about "It's a crock" and "Self reporting is anecdotal and thus not data" or "Some people hate sex, thus hate anything to do with sex". Those grab ya nicely?

**facepalm**

very good sites

Actually rita's post is again an excellent example of cranky thinking. Here we have an article about the scientific fraud regarding the MMR vaccine by one of the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement and her response is, "Hey Gardisil sucks". Further it emphasizes the incompetence at evaluating information sources. VAERS is a collection of anecdotes thats monitored by public health authorities to make sure there are no patterns of vaccine injury that need to be addressed. The cranks, knowing this, submit lots of crap to VAERS to increase the noise in the database, at the same time they troll it for informations even though it's a collection of anecdotes rather than a verified and stringently acquired data set. It's got all the natural behaviors of crankery in a single link. It's a great mixture of a red herring to attack Gardasil, it exposes the fact that their general complaint is with vaccines period, no matter what the evidence. And finally it's evidence of scientific incompetence since they think the VAERS anecdotes actually mean something on their own.

OT:

Skeptico has an excellent post using your template to go after an Aussie global warming denialist. It's not mentioned there, but the non-peer-reviewed paper she holds up as overturning the entire AGW edifice is by... her boyfriend.

Also, Nude Scientist has a nice piece on the evolutionary roots of religious belief, the application to denialism being obvious.

MarkH said "Here we have an article about the scientific fraud regarding the MMR vaccine by one of the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement and her response is, "Hey Gardisil sucks"."

I have often seen people pull that trick. Another is claiming that since the influenza vaccine is not perfect the MMR vaccine is bad. huh?

I have sometimes responded with "Gardisil does not work for measles, mumps or rubella. Please show evidence that the MMR is worse than measles, mumps and rubella."

Usually the only response is more crap about Gardisil and/or influenza vaccines.

Given Wakefield's long-since-revealed vested interests in his research results - he had filed a patent on a supposedly "safer" MMR vaccine weeks before The Lancet paper was published and had been paid a tidy sum by trial lawyers looking to cash in on "vaccine damage" lawsuits - I would say that this latest bit of news is not only wholly unsurprising, it reveals that Wakefield is probably NOT a crank in the usual sense.

If Wakefield had engaged in shoddy research practices primarily out of the self-deluding conviction that he was so clearly right that doing the science correctly didn't matter, that would make him an ordinary crank of the circle-squaring, perpetual motion machine variety. Honestly, though, I've never seen all that much evidence of that sort of crank psychology in Wakefield's behavior - although it is certainly very prominent amongst the anti-vaccine faithful he has inspired, and he's very willing to speak their language when he addresses them. Instead, I see nothing but rather pedestrian and self-serving fraud in Wakefield's psychology and motivations: He's a con artist, not a crank. Wakefield was out to make a lot of money, and saw that his profits could be vastly multiplied by deliberately falsifying research to support his booming "expert witness" and "safer vaccine" businesses - all with callous disregard for the harm he caused, both in subjecting his research subject to wholly unnecessary and potentially dangerous biopsies and by undermining vaccination in general.

The bitter pill here - and the one that anti-vaccination nutters are never going to swallow - is that Andrew Wakefield is in fact demonstrably guilty of exactly the sort of lying, callous, money-grubbing, self-serving, harm-ignoring, conspiratorial behavior that the anti-vaccers are always accusing pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies of without the slightest shred of evidence or reason.

Here's the missing link (no Bigfoot jokes, please) from the Skeptico piece I mentioned above.

I think mathematical crankery has a charm that is sadly missing from Antivaxers, HIV/AIDS denialists, AGW denialists, etc. Maybe that's because nobody ever died because someone thought they knew how to trisect an angle.

Besides, a large proportion of the proposed solutions that people send in to the Classical problems (squaring the circle, trisecting the angle, duplicating the cube) simply stem from the fact that they sincerely don't know that you're not supposed to pick both points of the compass up and have it hold its opening, thus using it to transfer a distance to some other place. (Of course, some equivalently make marks on the straightedge, turning it into a ruler; you would think that that would be more obvious as cheating.)

If only the crank theories we're bombarded with today had errors that could be pointed out in such an easy and succinct way. Unfortunately they don't. You basically have to educate these noobs from Kindergarten up through High School to even be able to point out anything to them, and all in about 15 seconds, because that's the extent of their attention span. And then it's another insane misconception, and you've got to start from scratch. Lather, rinse, repeat

Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16" (from the Gardisil study)

"only" 1200 girls.
This coming from the same people that champion Wakefield's study... on 12 children.
Perhaps they are actually mathematics cranks... their ability to count appears to be malfunctioning.

Even after all this time I was surprised they would find outright fabrication in Wakefield's work

Yeah - you'd think that, given all his other errors, there would be no need to actually fabricate anything. It's like when Dick Dastardly stops to cheat.

A different value of pi IS possible in another universe, which is possible as well within the context of a multiverse. But I can see for the purposes of our universe (the known part, anyway) how there are mathematical impossibilities.

Thoughts Regarding Autism Spectrum Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Of these rare neurological dysfunctions, Autism is the most common of these passive developmental disorders. Autism is a disability caused by a brain development disorder of unknown cause, yet some suspect the cause is some sort of neurological dysfunction- possibly with a genetic predisposition.
Usually, symptoms of the disease present themselves before the toddler reaches the age of three. Before Autism was more understood, others inaccurately labeled autistics as childhood schizophrenia or as having a psychosis or mental retardation.
Out of over two dozen diagnostic criteria utilized for these disorders, eight must be present to be considered autistic, according to the DSM. As with all passive developmental disorders, the person expresses language, social, and behavioral difficulties.
Treatment includes what are called psychotropic medications that delay the progression of the disorder, as well as relieve some of the symptoms of one who is autistic. Behavioral therapy is common as a treatment regimen as well. Boys get Autism much more than girls.
Then there is the controversy between many who claim that thimerosal- a preservative containing mercury, which is a neurotoxin that was used in vaccines until 2001, was the catalyst for autism in children.
Over 5000 lawsuits have been filed because of this belief, and some have been successful for the plaintiff. Yet most agree the correlation between thimersal and autism is void of scientific merit. Furthermore, the cases of autism have not decreased since the preservative was discontinued in 2001.
Aside from Autism, the other four passive developmental disorders are known as autism spectrum disorders.
Aspergerâs Syndrome is more common than autism, and the symptoms are milder, as there is minimal delay in language abilities, if at all. What is expressed with Aspergerâs syndrome is mild autistic symptoms. In time, the patient may express atypical personality disorders, though.
While intelligence is within normal limits with the Aspergerâs patient, social interactions and abilities preset difficulty for such a patient. As with Autism, medications and behavioral therapy are treatment regimens with one with this syndrome
Rettâs Syndrome or disorder presents with not only atypical behavior, but also suffers from restricted physical growth and movement. There is cognitive and social impairment as well. The disorder affects mostly girls, and the cause is due to a gene mutation.
Childhood Disintegrative disorder is rare, and is 10 times less common than autism. The disorder has a late onset with mild autistic symptoms. The disorder affects mostly boys, and regression is sudden and possible with this disorder. Skills lost with this disorder may be language, social, self-care, as well as play or motor skills. Decreased function or impairment with this disorder may include social skills and behavioral flaws. Central Nervous System pathology is a suspected cause of this disorder.
Finally, there are passive development disorders that are not otherwise specified. This may include atypical autism, for example. Yet as with the rest of types of these disorders, the symptoms vary in their frequency and intensity, as well as the range of abilities of these developmental disorders vary widely as well.
Medicinal treatment along with cognitive and behavioral therapy prove to be most beneficial for all the different types of Passive Development Disorders that unfortunately exist for unknown reasons, yet further research should be done to discover both the etiologies as well as more effective treatment for the Autism Spectrum.
www.autism-society.org
Dan Abshear

Dan, you point is????

Oy, dan, seriously, it's really easy to start a blog at wordpress...

tl;dr

Blah, blah, blah...

Barry said "Dan, you point is????"

That he is clueless. Each time he does a drive-by post of his book report he has been told that PDD does NOT stand for "Passive Development Disorders"... he is immune to education.

Awesome news for Medical Science:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_he_me/austism_ruling

"WASHINGTON â A special court has ruled against parents with autistic children, saying that vaccines are not to blame for their children's neurological disorder.

The judges in the cases said the evidence was overwhelmingly contrary to the parent's claims â and backed years of science that found no risk.

More than 5,000 claims were filed with the U.S. Court of Claims alleging that vaccines caused autism and other neurological problems in their children. To win, they had to show that it was more likely than not that the autism symptoms were directly related to the measles-mumps-rubella shots they received.

At noon today, Wakefield appeared on Null's radio show(WNYE) pleading innocence and reiterating the usual anti-vax credo. He was joined by a chorus of the usual suspects:Barbara Loe Fisher, David Kirby,attorney Krackoff,and Null and his minions.

What are your comments on this, genius?

Down with genius! Up with stupidity! Go Rita!

A different value of pi IS possible in another universe, which is possible as well within the context of a multiverse.

Incorrect; analytical truth, aka logical necessity, holds across universes.

It's because the decent research implicates father's decisions to have babies in their 40s and 50s with their new young wives. Who wants to swallow that pill?

Vaccines are perfect and saved the world from the evil empire of disease! Sounds a bit like science fiction.... maybe it is.

Here's a question for ya: How can vaccines be studied properly without knowing all of the ingredients? Vaccines fall under trade secret protection and all of the ingredients do not have to appear on the package insert. Vegetable and animal oils are mixed and used in the adjuvant. Traces of the food protein remains so each shot may have trace amounts of various food proteins but not every shot will have the same traces.

Let's see... 170 years ago a French scientist injected egg protein into animals. The first time - no problem. The second time - they died!

1 in 70 people in the UK have a serious peanut allergy. 6-8% of young children have food allergies. When I was a child, we got only 2 vaccinations. Now children get 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age six. Food allergies are almost nonexistant in unvaccinated populations. Sounds like every time a child gets vaccinated, we are playing food allergy roulette? Oh, but we should ignore this!

Vaccines are pure and perfectly safe even though the package insert for tetanus says "BayTetÂ® is made from human plasma. Products made from human plasma may contain infectious agents, such as viruses, that can cause disease..... There is also the possibility that unknown infectious agents may be present in such products. Individuals who receive infusions of blood or plasma products may develop signs and/or symptoms of some viral infections, particularly hepatitis C." But hey, hepatitis C isn't listed as a side effect of vaccines. So even if someone did get a virus from the good old safe tetanus shot, it couldn't be caused by the vaccine! How stupid can you be!!!

Latest research I've seen implicates our very avoidance of these foods in early childhood as the primary cause in the increasing allergies. We panicked and screwed a generation. Time to suck it up and behave with some sanity.

Oh, the new "We don't *know* what's in them!" line from the antivax nutters. Sure we don't. It's whale sperm and zebra sh*t. Right.

When I was a child, we got only 2 vaccinations

Right. That's why so many people *DIED* of easily preventable diseases.

Stupid is as stupid does... and the pot called... something about you being a kettle?

@abcdefg
Then by all means, please go enjoy a heaping bowl of tetanus.

There's a quote on Wayne Hale's blog right now that I really like, and which applies. He was talking about the kinds of nutty ideas that can come up pertaining to spaceflight.

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #19: The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you've screwed up.
from Just put chicken wire in it!

To abcdefg, all of the ingredients don't have to be on the vaccine package, but they DO have to be on the new drug application. Since that application gets submitted to the FDA, it's public record. It's total BS that there are "secret ingredients" in vaccines.

As far as "perfectly safe", goes, none of us is claiming that vaccines are "perfectly safe". *Nothing* is perfectly safe. *Everything*, including going for a walk on a beautiful day, carries some risk. The question isn't whether or not it is possible to be harmed; the question is whether or not the benefit outweighs the risk sufficiently to justify accepting the risk. Vaccines are vastly safer than just hoping you a) don't contract the disease and b) failing that, don't get a really bad case of it.

Addendum: the fact that all ingredients must be disclosed is part of the reason why pharmaceutical companies are so intent on getting patent protection, by the way. They know they can't depend on secrecy to protect their intellectual property.

It turns out journalist Brian Deer made it up:-
"Sunday Times Journalist Made Up Wakefield MMR Data Fixing Allegation":
http://tinyurl.com/djbtzq

And he was helping the US Justice Dept sink 4500 US kids claims for vaccine damage compensation - what kind of normal journalist does that? Ans: none.
"US Federal Court, US Justice Dept & The Sunday Times - More Questions Than Answers"
http://tinyurl.com/ac5xkt

Ooh! The "I Know You Are, But What Am I?" gambit! Sure. That'll work. Liars usually fall back to that sort of excuse.

Hi LanceR JSG

Re your comment February 20, 2009 9:06 AM - you can visit here and see Brian Deer digging himself in deeper and deeper:-

Brian Deer first - links to his denials:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/keith-olbermann-todays-be_b_1…
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1849#comment-56401
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1849#comment-56431
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1849#comment-56437
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1849#comment-56878

Then demands to explain his relationship with the GMC and publish his correspondence:

But we also need to see his correspondence with the US Department of Health and Human Services because of this:-

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1849#comment-56443

"...... the US government sought my help in mounting its case in Cedillo, ...... I was surprised by this. ....... I would come home, find an email from the department of justice asking me for a document, and see that the next day it was being run in court."

Oh noes! An investigative reporter was asked for documents by relevant law enforcement personnel, and HE GAVE IT TO THEM!!!

Seriously? That's what you're going with? Please. Claiming that the reporter who uncovered your heroes malfeasance is just making it up is the oldest lie in the book. We can has evidence? I didn't think so.

I see you have not posted the response showing that Deer was not asked for documents but instead wrote a formal complaint. This was also confirmed in a court judgement citing the dates of Deer's first three letters of complaint. So Deer's account is not accurate, as indeed appears his professional journalism.

Bald assertions do not an argument make, Cliffy. Either pony up with actual citations or evidence, or toddle back to bed.

Wakefield lied and faked his evidence. He got caught. Now you and your ilk are desperately lying to try to save face. It's really sad and pathetic.

Aw... poor Cliffy is upset.

Except it does not matter what Mr. Deer wrote, Wakefield is a fraud.

In an American Federal court there was testimony from Chadwick that showed Wakers knowingly used bad data, and from Bustin that the O'Leary lab results were contaminated.

Then there is more recent studies that totally refute Waker's paper, along with all the other huge epidemiological studies that show no connection between the MMR and autism (the MMR has been used in the USA since 1971).

The finding that the medical records do not correspond what Wakers wrote in the paper is more icing on the cake. That paper was discredited, and the fraud was known years ago.

Cliffy, is your real problem with all of is that a potential revenue stream of being a lawyer suing evil Pharma companies for vaccine damage has dried up? That the evidence does not give support for making money off of stupid law suits?

Cliffy seems to be aspiring to be like his namesake Mr Schoemaker, the US lawyer who makes millions out of the misery of children and parents (via the vaccine courts). Cliffy, why don't you move over to the states like St Andy? Much more profit to be made there, as he will no doubt tell you.

Of the "Wakefield 12", one of the cases of autism was in a child who had had measles, rather than the MMR vaccine.

Seeing as how measles was at that time vanishingly rare in the UK (around 50-100 cases per year) as opposed to MMR vaccination (which was given to more than half a million kids annually), surely Wakefield should have held a press conference stating how "dangerous" measles was compared to MMR vaccine, and how much more likely it is to result in autism?

Surely we understand the value of getting a diverse sample to help mathmatically predict the affects over a mass population of users, But seriously we have to realize that there is no way that a sample of 1200 girls is enough to be accurate.

Fred Smilek is the acting president of the Society to Save Endangered Species. It was founded two years ago by Fred Smilek along with his two best friends Charles and Jonathan. http://www.fredjsmilek.com

Umm, Fred? Not to be a bother, but it isn't necessary, nor is it generally acceptable, to post the whole "Fred Smilek is..." with every comment. Good posts, but netiquette would suggest dropping the excess.

Thanks!

LanceR may or may not be right that "Bald assertions do not an argument make". Let's humour him and pretend he is right.

Brian Deer's argument is he is not the complainant against Wakefield in the GMC [so did not concoct the whole house of cards]. But the uncontested facts in a court judgement says he is. No contest in this argument the.

Brian Deer is still prepared to argue with that. But as you say LanceR "Bald assertions do not an argument make" so Brian should produce the letters or live with the fact he is shown up to be not telling it as it is but as it never ever was - a bit like his news reporting [or is that a lot like it? We will find out in a few months more I should think].

Deer cannot produce the letters of complaint he made to the GMC because he made the complaints - at least three letters of complaint as we know from the Judge and he was never asked to complain - he did it and he planned it as we know from MLI.

If Brian says anything different he better come up with the letters.

He was the complainant and now he is cashing in by creating the news and making documentaries about it whilst Wakefield is gagged by his lawyers.

If Brian says he is telling it as it is not as it never was - produce the letters. Real simple.

Thanks guys for trying hard to be rude and personal. You did not pull it off but I am grateful. It helps make the other guy look reasonable, dontcha think. Keep up the good work.

Actually, Cliffy, *you* are the one making the claim that Brian Deer filed the complaints. Therefore, it is incumbent upon *you* to produce the evidence.

That is also not relevant to the situation, which is that Wakefield is a dishonest, lying scumbag who got paid to fake a study. Any evidence to the contrary?

This whole Brian Deer distraction is the very essence of the ad hominem fallacy. You don't like what Mr. Deer wrote about Wakefield. You have no argument about the actual facts, so you attempt to turn the whole thing back on the reporter. Blame the messenger. Attack the man instead of the argument.

Give it up, Cliff. Your side lost. Be man enough to admit when you're wrong.

LanceR,

There is a binding legal Court judgement on Brian Deer stating he is the complainant and citing the exact dates of his letters. End of.

It is Brian Deer who needs to produce the letters if he wants to dispute it and he has not - because they show he is the complainant - and the judge has found that as a fact on the evidence of the letters.

So you cannot rely on Brian Deer. No letters - nothing Brian Deer says can be believed.

For the fake allegation of data fixing against Wakefield in Deerâs story to be true

"meant that for 10 years, a single-handed action by Wakefield had to have gone completely unnoticed by the other 12 authors on the well-known paper."

"The Times also did not mention as part of the story that an investigation into Wakefield was in triggered by a complaint from Brian Deer himself, meaning that his article was a report on the hearing into his own complaint."

See:
"The Malicious Smearing of a Crusading Doctor"
http://tinyurl.com/as54wd

and
"Sunday Times Journalist Made Up Wakefield MMR Data Fixing Allegation"
http://tinyurl.com/djbtzq

And you and Deer still expect everyone to believe no one noticed. And this is after 10 of the authors retracted the sentence of the Lancet paper - the sentence suggesting an interpretation of a possible environmental cause of autism [ie. the MMR vaccine], to get the heat off them from the Government - and three did not retract.

None of the rest was retracted - and you still say they did not notice? Ha.

The rest of the Lancet paper still stands in The Lancet as a peer reviewed paper and has been replicated in other scientific studies.

And look at Deer's articles - unlike professional journalists the world over where are all the experts making the claims he is supposed to be reporting in his stories - they are not there - on Deer's own admission the world is asked to take Brian Deer's word for it - from Brian Deer the expert gastroenterologist, Brian Deer the expert neurologist, Brian Deer the autism expert, Brian Deer the expert psychologist, Brian Deer the expert psychiatrist, Brian Deer the expert histopathologist, Brian Deer the patent expert etc etc etc.

All this from someone with a Batchelor of Arts in Philosophy from Warwick University and no scientific or medical qualifications.

See:
"Sunday Times Journalist Admits Wakefield MMR âData Fixingâ Allegation Is Unqualified Speculation"
http://tinyurl.com/cvak4f

I hear bells - must be the other legs of everyone in the world all being pulled all at the same time.

Thanks again for the personal abusive and patronising post - makes the other guy look the more reasonable dontcha think. Yep.

Okay, Cliff. Let's assume for a moment that everything you claim about Brian Deer is true. He fabricated his story to smear Wakefield. He filed this complaint to get him into trouble.

So what? It doesn't change the fact that Wakefield got paid to fake a study. MMR vaccines have *no* links to autism. No study has ever shown any evidence *except* Wakefield's.

What you and people like you are doing is called the ad hominem fallacy. You don't like the message, so you try to discredit the messenger. In the world of the Intarwebs, this is known as an "Epic Fail".

personal abusive and patronising post

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. If you *want* abusive and patronising to feed your persecution complex, I'm sure we can arrange something.

Thanks LanceR,

If Brian Deer is not telling it as it is about being complainant and he certainly cannot be telling it as it is about faking the data, then the whole thing falls away.

It is nearly 11 years now. The other 12 authors could not have just not noticed. The paper went through peer review and all of it still stands - save for the one sentence retracted by 10 to get the heat off in 2004 when it all blew up.

And we only have Deer's word for all the latest allegations which at the moment does not stand for much. On top of that he is no expert. He freely admits he did it all himself. And now it seems he has been caught out on two whoppers. To put it conservatively that throws the rest into doubt. How the Sunday Glaxo could have published in these circumstances will now have people wondering a great deal about what goes on inside that newspaper.

And to cap it all, Wakefield did not do the histopathology but just wrote up the results - he did not fake the data - the allegation is just that - an allegation which directly contradicts the evidence:-

Wakefield Responds to Sunday Timesâ False Allegations

As much as you would like to paint this all as Mr. Deer's attack on Dr. Wakefield, sadly that is not the case.

Wakefield got *paid* by trial lawyers suing over vaccines. Wakefield filed for a patent for a "safer" measles vaccine. Wakefield did a "study" that was poorly constructed, poorly conducted and poorly written. His results have never been replicated, and now appear to have been faked.

Whether Deer filed the complaint or not, whether he has a personal grudge against Wakefield or not is all irrelevant. Wakefield is guilty of at least scientific incompetence, and probably malfeasance.

Try to distract from the actual evidence as much as you like, it won't change reality.

You may want to find a different source, as well. Just reading one source is not conducive to a well-rounded opinion. Just sayin'.

LanceR, JSG said "You may want to find a different source, as well. Just reading one source is not conducive to a well-rounded opinion. Just sayin'."

Cliffy is just referencing his own website. I looked at it and with its fun colors and bad formatting, it has the look and feel of a crank website. He is also showing crank behavior by spamming blogs like this:
http://holfordwatch.info/2009/02/08/brian-deer-discusses-andrew-wakefie… (note the admin remark).

I sincerely doubt he has bothered to look at primary sources like the testimony of Chadwick on the US Federal Court website, even though he speculates that Deer is part of getting that testimony:
ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/cedillo/transcripts/day10.pdf

There are a number of fish species which have "sneaky males" in addition to regular males. The sneaky males look and act like females or juveniles.

Is the incidence of autism the same, going down, or going up since thimerosal has been removed from most childhood vaccines?

Seems that if it is the same, you'd have an open and shut case.

Google autism epidemic of misdiagnosis. Also: go to You Tube and search under "autism spectrum seems out of control" for hard evidence on just how far from autism the spectrum has spun. The mum who posts videos of her autistic son under kgaccount on you tube, shows a REAL side of autism (it's severe) There are other videos that show real high functioning autistic too on you tube, but it's important people understand the difference between autism and other conditions that are increasingly being called autism.

Stop the RFK Jr. appointment NOW

denialism — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:19:12 +0000

Stop the RFK Jr. appointment NOW

I would beg everyone who reads the scienceblogs and cares about science to contact the transition team in the Obama administration as Orac has requested.

It should be clear by now to readers of this blog that pseudoscience is not a problem of just the right. The left wing areas of pseudoscience are just as cranky, just as wrong-headed about science, just as likely to use the tactics of denialism to advance a non-scientific agenda. We have been dealing with the denialism of the right more because they've been in control. Now is the time to nip the denialism of the left in the bud so it doesn't take root in this new administration.

RFK Jr. is a crank (Orac for more), and one of the problems with cranks is Crank Magnetism. When people have one type of pseudoscientific belief it tends not to be isolated. Instead it reflects a general incompetence in understanding science, evaluating the quality of evidence, and what constitutes good science. RFK Jr.'s crankery will not be limited to vaccines and autism. He will undoubtably become the poster boy for all sorts of left wing crankery - be it environmental extremism, toxin/radiation paranoia (we'll never get public wifi), or his already well known anti-vax crankery.

My letter to the transition team is below the fold. Please join me in trying to prevent this terrible error on the part of the Obama campaign.

Hello,
I'm a Physician/Scientist in training at the University of Virginia who supported this campaign, the Democratic party, and environmental issues. I also write one of the top scienceblogs in the country for the scienceblogs network.

RFK Jr. must NOT be appointed as head of the EPA. He is NOT a scientist. He does NOT understand science. He does NOT respect science. He is, in fact, a crank, who believes in pseudoscientific nonsense like vaccines causing autism. And when people are cranky and unscientific in one area of belief, it is never restricted to just that area. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of science and an incompetence in evaluating the quality of data and scientific information. This is not remotely a partisan letter, this is a plea for your administration not to make a horrible error.

This is a BAD choice. Do not do this or you will alienate scientists from your campaign very early on, not to mention doctors and especially pediatricians. This man is a crackpot, and I simply can not condone his presence anywhere in government.

Regards,
Mark Hoofnagle, PhD

denialism Fri, 11/07/2008 - 06:19

Tags

Thats your opinion. I can only hope we are lucky enough to have someone like him as head of the EPA instead of some insider of the coal or timber industry. At this point you could put any idiot in the position and have better luck than what we have had for the last few decades. He may have his science wrong but thats what a cabinet is for. And undoubtedly there will be other scientific minds to keep his lack of understanding in check. But what really matters is that he is not going to bend over backwards to industry influences that would like to trade cash for trash.

Actually, williams, what really matters is that a person in charge of a large government agency that works with science understands what science is. We already tried the "well, he's not smart but he'll hire smart people" thing.

Yeah, it almost invariably works the other way around, with people hiring those that share their opinions, and or don't make them feel as clueless and incompetent as they actually are. Its unbelievably rare for someone to have enough respect for "real" experts, to be willing to admit they are wrong, and listen. Its impossible, when the entire career of the person to be in charge has been to babble invalid information about a subject they are about to be put in charge of.

Science over Politics at the EPA? Not going to happen, not even under Obama.

Gee, if Orac called RFK a crank then by all means stop the appointment. Name calling is the mark of great science right?

An ad hominem statement is not a logical fallacy if it is true. Orac's post contains a few details, if you know how to read.

RFK Jr. and his family remained mum when it was discovered the President-elect has close associations with a man who dedicated a book to the murderer of their father.

Enough said.

Write those letters! (and be nice)

This is serious.

PalMd

I gather from the gratuitous insult that you too are a great scientist.

It is ironic that each of you, when discussing a political office, hold high the banner of science while simultaneously lowering it with cheap personal attacks.

"It is ironic that each of you, when discussing a political office, hold high the banner of science while simultaneously lowering it with cheap personal attacks."

So scientists can't insult people? News to me.

Has anyone contacted scientific and medical organizations about the potential appointment, like the American Academy of Pediatrics for instance?

I'm not sure how it's denialism nor antiscience to look at the evidence, consult pre-eminent scientists and come to a conclusion that has not been clearly refuted. My understanding about the linkage between autism and anything else is about 0. However, I'm disturbed when I read this from RFK Jr:

I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government's need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. "Why should we scare people about immunization," Waxman pointed out at one hearing, "until we know the facts?"

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.

I have not seen anything in your post (or the blogs you link to) concluding that there is NO link; only that no causative correlation has been found. Therefore, while there are many other reasons for believing RFK Jr is not fit for an White House post, I don't think his conclusion on this issue is such a reason.

Otheus. The link has been thoroughly studied and dismissed.

Orac has a good article addressing this and here is my history of the issue.

I'm sorry, one of the aspects of writing a blog is expecting people to be familiar with previous writing and the general consensus here on the scienceblogs, and it's very onerous to have to reference every single previous post when writing something new and on the fly. I hope these links are helpful.

otheus:

You wrote (quoting RFK):

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.

And that demonstrates RFK doesn't understand science. The Simpsonwood transcripts had to be tortured beyond recognition to be reported on the way RFK did. The technical description of what he did was "quote mine" - taking quotes out of context to make them appear to mean the opposite of what they actually meant. I explained how he did this in Robert F. Kennedy Junior's completely dishonest thimerosal article and in Lies, damn lies, and quote mining. So he either had already made up his mind before writing his piece (which conflicts with his quote above) and bent the transcripts to show what he wanted it to show, or someone else with an wrote it for him, or he is really so clueless that he honestly didn't understand what he was reading. You choose. Either way, he is a crank, still pushing ideas that have been discredited by virtually all experts in the field.

Gee, if Orac called RFK a crank then by all means stop the appointment.

RFK is not a crank because Orac called him a crank. RFK is a crank because he has demonstrably used the techniques of cranks, one example being quote mining in order to concoct a conspiracy theory. This is not a matter of opinion. It can be documented in great detail.

But then cranks need to stick together, right Harold?

The first time I met RFK Jr. was at a business conference where he was speaking about the environment. I was there to ask for his support on a project that I had spearheaded along with other concerned citizens over one of our local rivers being polluted by a major international corporation.

When I introduced myself and started to tell him about our work, he seemed interested and asked me to sit down next to him so we could talk some more. I soon found out he wasnt the least bit interested in talking!

While I was trying to show him the materials Id brought and a big stack of documentation of our claims against the polluter, he totally ignored what I was saying and instead started touching my leg underneath the table, playing footsies,etcWhen we posed for some photos, he totally shocked me by grabbbing my butt in front of a room filled with hundreds of people. Some of my colleagues noticed and were horrified by his brazen behavior. It was sexual harassment right in public with cameras snapping pictures of it allI was deeply offended and embarassed to be treated this way, especially in front of the people I work with daily.

Bobby Jr. asked for my phone number, saying he wanted to talk some more about our river cleanup project. I should have known better, but our group really wanted Mr. Kennedys help and name recognition to further our cause. I tried to talk about our issue with Mr. Kennedy by phone on several occasions after that and every time he would deflect, avoid the business at hand, and instead try to steer the conversation to a sexual topic. I felt insulted and frustrated by this because the man didnt want to hear a word I had to say (unless it was about sex), and realized this was getting absolutely nowhere. So I cut all ties with him and found another environmental lawyer to help us, one who actually LISTENED to our problem and did not ask me for sexual favors in return.

My point in telling this story is not to make Mr. Kennedys personal life an issue, but to stress the point that this man cannot have normal, routine business dealings with those of the opposite gender. Considering that many in the environmental movement are young, attractive females, I can only wonder how Mr. Kennedy will manage to avoid getting himself caught in a bitter scandal or a sexual harassment/abuse suit before his first week of being EPA director is out.

I have been an environmental activist and a feminist all my adult life. I have also been a big fan of the Kennedys for their supposed support of womens rights issues. But now I have experienced the hypocrisy first hand and know for a fact that when it comes to Bobby Jr., ALL halfway attractive women are regarded as playthings to be seen and not heard.

Ive been dealing with powerful businessmen and politicians in professional settings for 15 years, and NEVER in my entire career did I ever meet anyone who was so resistant to discussing business matters and who was more interested in looking at my cleavage and fondling my backside. During one meeting, Kennedy stopped me in the middle of my presentation to tell me that I talked too much!

If Kennedy gets the EPA appointment, I can only hope that he hires an all-male staff and learns not to sexually harass every woman who walks into his office with a serious environmetal concern or complaint. Based on the way he conducted himself with me, Kennedys EPA will be doling out help only to those women who are willing to sleep with him. Those women who arent willing to prostitute themselves for their cause will be fresh out of luck.

Of course, Bushs EPA has operated in much the same way - but at least the favors being traded are financial rather than sexual. Nonetheless, corruption is corruption. Kennedy does not belong in a position of power inside our government. He should not be placed in a position of public trust.

PS - I should also point out that Mr. Kennedy is married with six children. I feel sorry for his wife.

Mag,

Yeahno. The book in question is dedicated to political prisoners. I guess if you consider Sirhan Sirhan a political prisoner, than it's dedicated to him among others. Personally, I don't, and I doubt Bill Ayers does either. Thanks for playing, though.

The job at the EPA calls for someone with a keen sense of both ethics and science. Kennedy is not that person.

The following letter was written in support of Robert H. Boyle (founder of Riverkeeper and author of The Hudson River, A natural and unnatural history) and others who resigned from Riverkeeper rather than support R. F. Kennedy, Jr.'s compromise of the principle that ethics must never be separate from science.

This letter was first published in the Putnam County News and Recorder, Cold Spring, New York, on August 30, 2000 and they have carried it on their website ever since for which they have my thanks. (AHS, 2008)

Letters:

Supports Former Riverkeeper Board Members' Action
Editor,

The Fishkill Ridge Caretakers, Inc. supports Robert H. Boyle, former president of the Riverkeeper, Inc. and former Riverkeeper, Inc. board members John Fry, treasurer, Nancy Abraham, Kathryn Belous Boyle, Pat Crow, Theresa Hanczor, Robert Hodes, Ann Tonetti and Alexander Zagoreas in the action they have taken in resigning from Riverkeeper in opposition to the hiring of a convicted environmental felon to serve in the position of staff scientist on the staff of Riverkeeper.

In issuing this statement of support, The Fishkill Ridge Caretakers wishes to emphasize that ethics cannot be separated from science and that the environmental movement will prosper best in an atmosphere of demonstrated personal responsibility and earned mutual respect.

We encourage individuals as well as environmental organizations to join us in similar expressions of support for the principled stand taken by Boyle and fellow board members in their defense of the ethical integrity of the environmental movement here in the Hudson River Valley.

Boyle and 8 of the 22 Riverkeeper board members resigned from Riverkeeper, Inc. in protest of the hiring of William Wegner. For eight years Wegner operated a ring of smugglers who stole bird eggs directly from the nests of protected cockatoo species in Australia. Wegner and his ring then smuggled the eggs by air to the United States. Birds that hatched and survived were then sold for as much as $12,500.00 each. A federal judge accepted Wegner's plea of guilty to charges of conspiracy and tax fraud and sentenced him to five years in prison. The judge also found that Wegner had attempted to obstruct justice by committing perjury at the trial of a co-defendant Wegner paid a $10,000.00 fine.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has stated that everyone deserves a second chance and notes that he himself had been given a second chance in that he had once been convicted of a drug offense.

We note, however, that Kennedy's offense was essentially a victimless crime while Wegner's offense was a crime against the environment, the people of Australia, the people of the United States and against the birds. In order to avoid detection during the flight, smugglers flushed newly hatched chicks down the plane's toilet

Although Wegner has been convicted and served his sentence, nothing he or anyone else can do will correct the damage he has done or make his victims whole again.

Wegner's prison sentence seems to have done little to improve his ethical sense. The resume Wegner submitted to Riverkeeper accounts for his period of incarceration without referring to the fact of the incarceration itself Wegner describes work he performed and omits the significant information that he performed this work while he was serving time as a prison inmate.

Kennedy overstepped his position as attorney for Riverkeeper when, in November of 1999, he hired Wegner. Boyle terminated Wegner after learning of the hiring and upon review of Wegner's resume, court records and media accounts. The matter came to a climax at a board meeting on June 20th when Kennedy insisted that Wegner be rehired over Boyle's objection.

While we hope Riverkeeper continues to work to produce changed human beings who think and act differently in regard to the Hudson River and all that pertains to it, we also recognize the primary mission of Riverkeeper is not the rehabilitation of Wegner or of those like him.

Sincerely,

Anthony Henry Smith
Fishkill

(for The Fishkill Ridge Caretakers)
(Fishkill Ridge Community Heritage, a separate organization, has also supported this letter from their beginning.)

"Natalie"-

Re-read the comment. Yeah Ayers does consider him a political prisoner and named in the dedication.

No I don't consider him any such thing-

off your meds?

Posted by Annemarie Nov 8.o8

grabing your butt.........
He surly can not help it,
it run s in the Family

"Kennedy" is a name, not a qualification

sb admin — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:59:34 +0000

"Kennedy" is a name, not a qualification

I can't cover this topic better than Orac; he's the expert. I would like to suggest that you go read his post.

This is important. I voted for Obama. I believe that he is one of the brightest people we've every had the chance to vote for, and I think that after 8 years of open hostility to science, we have a chance to remove some of the politics from the issues that affect all of us.

But Obama has floated a lead balloon for the head of EPA. Robert Kennedy, Jr. is an anti-science wacko. He has drunk the Kool Aid (I know, Flav-R-Ade, stop correcting me!) of the anti-vaccine movement, and crankery is never isolated---it always carries over from one area to the next, as it indicates a flawed way of thinking. Read Orac's post for specifics.

Building an administration is probably hard. Please, Mr. Obama, don't get off on the wrong foot with science. Please?

sb admin Thu, 11/06/2008 - 13:59

Tags

Anti-Vax Denialism

OT (though believe me when I say I find the topic at hand interesting.

Denmark is considering forcing unfit mothers to take contraception. Medical ethics time.

Back on topic,

I agree that Obama must not appoint this man head of EPA, but as I asked on Orac's blog, and as I will ask again here: Somebody give me an address I can write to or something. What can we do to stop this? Another letter from Nobel Prize winners might work, but what else? Give me something to work with here.

To The Chemist

Denmark is considering no such thing. The article you are linking to is talking about the Netherlands.

I suggest taking a more proactive role, as suggested on the Respectful Insolence blog:

Contact the Obama transition team to tell them why Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a truly bad choice for any science-based government post

I already sent in my two sense; I suggest anyone who cares to do the same.

At least then, we can say, "Told ya so!"

I suspect this is just the first in a long line of indicators that Obama is not quite what some of us thought we were getting. The man is not the second coming of Christ. Pro-Obama voters didn't so much vote for him as vote against George Bush. If the Republicans had managed to put up a candidate with any ideas (or even charisma) at all, they would have won. Obama is long on rhetorical flourishes and short on substance.

I predict Obama will be to the White House what David Dinkins was to Gracie Mansion: a short-timer.

Reason Magazine: Michael C. Moynihan on RFKjr

Kennedy is a well-know 2004 election conspiracy theorist who is under the impression that we are all being held hostage in fascist America. Ho-hum. So would you be surprised to learn that RFK II is also a Chavista? Of course not!

Check out the video below to watch the Kook of Camelot argue in favor of the nationalization of oil companies and argue that Chavez is the "kind of leader my father and President Kennedy were looking for" in Latin America.

Oh Sorry Søren, I always, always, always confuse the two in casual conversation. I was quite a thing to watch during the Danish Cartoon Controversy. What's funny is: I know better, it's a bizarre mental block I've got going.

My irony meter just exploded

sb admin — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:12:54 +0000

My irony meter just exploded

How stupid do you have to be for Jenny McCarthy to legitimately toss the epithet back at you?

This question may seem unanswerable, but in this case, McCarthy may have gotten it half right regarding Dennis Leary. The headline at MSNBC delcares: McCarthy calls Leary 'obviously stupid'

I don't know much about Leary, but like many comedians he has said something that he will probably regret and move on. In attempting to be funny, Leary scored an epic fail (you can tell it's an epic fail because Jenny did get it half right):

"There is a huge boom in autism right now because inattentive mothers and competitive dads want an explanation for why their dumb-ass kids can't compete academically, so they throw money into the happy laps of shrinks . . . to get back diagnoses that help explain away the deficiencies of their junior morons. I don't give a [bleep] what these crackerjack whack jobs tell you - yer kid is NOT autistic. He's just stupid. Or lazy. Or both."

OK, in or out of context, not very funny. Autism is a serious neuro-developmental disorder, and his unfunny pseudo-Scientological riff doesn't help advance the cause of autism diagnosis and treatment. So Jenny is right (if somewhat non-specific and unsophisticated) in calling him "stupid". But Leary is up against some serious competition, and when it comes to bringing the stupid, no one does it quite like Jenny McCarthy.

"My fight isn't with Denis Leary, my fight is with the government -- a bigger fish to fry. So I'm still gonna work on the vaccines and I'm still working on pediatricians and Denis Leary can go hopefully be more educated by every mother that stops him from this day forward to give him a piece of their mind," she said.

I'd argue that Leary's comments are an opportunity for public education. To minimize a public figure's idiotic comments about autism in favor of a fight against "the government and vaccines", is a level of stupid unique to Jenny. The only conspiracy in Jenny's world is her own conspiracy of ignorance. He's is a conspiracy that prepares fertile soil for other real conspiracies---those by quacks and charlatans who give parents false hope, steal their money, harm their children, and distract from real autism research.

Brava, maestra!

sb admin Sun, 10/19/2008 - 13:12

Tags

Anti-Vax Denialism

jenny mccarthy

medicine

While Dennis Leary may have put his foot in it (he does it with a certain amount of flair, you must admit), in the bigger picture, there is a point he is trying to make about the way "difficult" children are dealt with in some medical circles. There have always been problem kids whose parents go hopping from doctor to doctor until one of them offers a "diagnosis" that absolves said parents of any responsibility for their child's misbehaviour. Thirty years ago it was "hyperactivity." Twenty years ago it was "ADD." When the definition of ADD was refined enough that it left out a certain grouping of kids, they combined two old pet diagnoses into "ADHD." Then ADHD was refined again until doctors could no longer just dump problem children into that bucket. These days, autism is on the rise in popularity, and while it is certainly, as you say, a serious neurological condition, there is no doubt that it is - as were ADD and ADHD before it - overdiagnosed by weary dcotors desperate to get a pair of whiny, overgrown, spoiled-brat parents out of their hair.

It is this very willingness to stretch a diagnosis - to call a child's behavioural problems part of an "autism spectrum disorder" when they probably aren't - that allows many CAM ideas to take hold. How many parents, when they decide to stop allowing their "autistic" child to consume three bowls of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs and a can of Jolt Cola for breakfast, observe a "miraculous" improvement in his behaviour?

Now, I'm not saying that all kids (or most kids, or even many kids) diagnosed with autism are simply spoiled brats. Evan McCarthy really is autistic, as are the vast majority of children diagnosed that way. But there is no denying that there are some children out there who have been labelled autistic undeservedly. And that's wrong. And that's the point Dennis Leary - in his "I'm an Asshole" kind of way - was trying to make.

there is no doubt that it is - as were ADD and ADHD before it - overdiagnosed by weary dcotors desperate to get a pair of whiny, overgrown, spoiled-brat parents out of their hair.

...

But there is no denying that there are some children out there who have been labelled autistic undeservedly.

Got any, you know, evidence to back any of that up? At all? Or is this just more stuff that "everybody knows"?

Jenny McCarthy doesn't have a fight with this guy--she's glad for the chance to get some publicity. This is especially true while her book is still fairly fresh on the market.

Jenny saved a comment to Amanda Peet for seven weeks, and a comment to Barbara Walters for months and months--holding them until the publicity would create a little buzz for her book. The Leary comments were just fortunate opportunity to put her name back in the public's eye.

The late Dennis Leary is one of the sharpest and funniest of the 'social comentary' comedians of the last couple of decades. I have watched the routine that this quote comes from and laughed my arse off. I have no idea who Jenny is but she has sucked you into agreeing with her transparent character assasination of someone still warm in the grave.

Some of Leary's work has been immortalised on youtube for those who care to look, I suggest starting with the routine where he reduces the ten commandments to two before moving on to the more biting satire reserved for the US educations system.

Opps, I was thinking of George Carlin....cary on....

It's easy to confuse Leary with deceased, more talented, comedians, because Leary has stolen 90% of his stand up act from the likes of George Carlin and especially Bill Hicks (RIP). The other 10% is unfunny, abusive crap (such as what PalMD posted) which Leary thinks is "carrying on the spirit" of the dead comedians he rips off, which pretty much shows you the state of his comedic instincts.

Alan, Alan, Alan... that brief moment of confusion was almost as bad as Leary's stupid. Almost.

As for Leary, I've seen his comedy, and their is a lot that I find lacking. However, giving him the benefit of a doubt, he may have simply confused "autistic" with "ADD/ADHD". Regardless of whether ADD/ADHD are over-diagnosed, something which I haven't examined (no opinion*), I sense that it might have been what he meant.

Unless something suggests otherwise, my suspicion is that his bit was in the same realm as an entire conversation where I had confused Dennis Quaid with Harrison Ford, just like the error Alan made above! (only less egregious)

*I would be interested in a blog post if Chris or Pal want to take it up. Just a suggestion.

For a discussion about ADHD, ASD, etc., being "over-diagnosed" in children, it's important to consider American schools and how they operate. Schools evaluate children for suspected disabilities, including things like ADHD and autism spectrum disorder. Many children only have the school's "diagnosis" of these things, with nothing from any kind of doctor.

In my observation, schools seem to be much less tolerant of "difference" than they used to be. They may pay lip service to "multi-culturalism," etc., but only if the kids, no matter what their culture or background, can sit still, shut up, and do boring, repetitive work to satisfy No Child Left Behind bulls*it.

Many schools have eliminated recess and/or fun playground sports, and teachers throw up red flags for behavior, especially in boys, that is considered "aggressive" or "disruptive." I know of two boys in my area who were suspended from kindergarten for humming in class too much (!!), and for shoving a peer. One second-grader I know got in trouble for doing his homework on the school bus because he was using a pencil, and pencils are considered "weapons" (and therefore are not allowed on the bus).

Kids today get kicked out of school--especially private places, like preschools--for not toeing the line. Maybe it was always that way, I don't know. But in my experience, a child who stands out too much is red-flagged as a "problem," even if that kid's only major issue is that he hums a lot, or wanders around the room when he's supposed to be sitting down and listening to the teacher. I'm talking about three-year-old kids!

Another important issue as far as school evaluation/classification goes is the rather sudden disappearance of the "mentally retarded" label, which used to be quite common. Today, many kids who are mentally retarded receive an "autism" label in school, because many children on the autism spectrum have some degree of mental retardation. So it's probably more likely that the boom in ASD kids has more to do with these school classifications and less to do with loser parents or kids eating too much sugar.

It's only a matter of time ,I fear ( and truely "sick-making" to me), before Jenny herself descends upon my poor, anti-vax embattled state!Deirdre Imus has a "green the clean" program (really) and a "toxinscauseeverythingbad" *research* center at an actual hospital.Last week, the NJ Coalition for Vaccination Choice held a protest rally outside the governor's office, featuring Gary Null (see rant videos at his website).Another rabble-rouser, Barbara Loe Fisher is also involved.*Auslanders!* Why us? Because we now require additional vaccines ( Gardasil and influenza).AND we have the "highest rate of autism"(sic) in the US.So,if Jenny chooses to attack fellow mis-informed entertainers,so be it.Better them than us.

It's only a matter of time,I fear (and truely "sick-making") before Jenny herself descends upon my poor, anti-vax embattled state.Deirdre Imus has a "green the clean"(really) program and a "toxinscauseeverythingbad" research center at an actual hospital.Last week, the NJ Coalition for Vaccination Choice held a rally outside the Governor's office featuring Gary Null(see rant videos at his website).Barbara Loe Fisher is also involved.Why are all of these *Auslanders* coming here?Because we require additional vaccines for school children(Gardasil and influenza).AND we have the "highest rate of autism"(sic)in the US.

Sorry. My bad. I don't know how that happened.Disregard second, it was pre-edit.

Leary has been making his living off of people like Jenny McCarthy for years, find someone who shouldn't have an educated opinion on something and then exploit the fact that they said something at all. He has clearly been mistaken in this case and McCarthy probably does know a lot more about Autism than he does. I suppose the question many people have is somewhat closely related to Leary's comments "What is Autism?" The word is out there enough for people to recognize, but many really don't understand what it is. In simple terms - it's complicated. With so many children being mis-diagnosed with autism, it's no wonder why so many people just don't fully understand it. There is a lot of information out there to discover and hopefully shed some light into autism - its causes and it's treatments. My $.02

To "What is Autism":

I think the point was that it's untrue that "many children are being mis-diagnosed with autism." Another point above was that it would be better (and funnier) for Denis Leary to make fun of Jenny McCarthy (who thinks autism is a curable disease caused by vaccines and environmental toxins) than to make fun of kids with autism. Denis Leary has not, to my knowledge, made fun of Jenny McCarthy, or suggested that she doesn't know about autism.

If you or anyone else is confused about what autism is or isn't, you can start with the DSM diagnostic criteria:
http://www.autism-watch.org/general/dsm.shtml

Another point above was that it would be better (and funnier) for Denis Leary to make fun of Jenny McCarthy ... than to make fun of kids with autism.

I agree that making fun of Jenny would likely have been funnier, but I don't think he made fun of kids with autism. First off, he's a comedian writing a comedy book; this isn't his response to the question, what do you think of autism? As he puts it in his response to this kerfluffle:

"The bulk of the chapter deals with grown men who are either self-diagnosing themselves with low-level offshoots of the disease or wishing they could as a way to explain their failed careers and troublesome progeny."

And that is exactly what I at least took away from the quote in the post. This post leaves as a given an explanation of what specifically is so offensive (I realize the post just accuses of it of being unfunny, which I'm sure you find that many comedians are, to you.) An autism group accuses:

"For Mr. Leary to suggest that families or doctors conspire to falsely diagnose autism is ridiculous."

Good think he didn't suggest that then. The only thing I can find from Jenny is:

"This community has been through so much and to compare and use the word 'dumb-a** lazy' with autism, it's just not fair."

How words are arranged and what words are between them are key for conveying the message; that's why we have sentences. You can't just see the words 'lazy' and 'autism' and freak out.

My apologies for the rant, but it just really irritates me when people have to defend themselves when people put words in their mouths (IMO, Lou Holtz is doing it today). Seriously, this quote is out of context, but even if it wasn't, if you were to condense down what Leary said to one sentence, what would it be? Autistic children are lazy and stupid or dumb-asses? To piggy-back on what The Chemist said, if he would have said ADD instead of autism, would it still be uproar-worthy? I guess I hope it's not just because he used autism in a joke, and "autism is not funny!".

This isn't the immediate topic, but have you heard the stream of anti-vax stuff being spewed on the Don Imus show? It's mainly his wife pushing it, but he's had guests on giving the line of, government gets an opinion and tries to force it on the public in spite of evidence, blah blah blah. I'm too focused on the antievolution rumblings in Texas to even think further about it, but I wanted to bring it to your attention.

Spartan,

You said, "I don't think he made fun of kids with autism," but it seems you're just looking at Leary's forced excuse for his lame joke rather than the actual text from his book. In the chapter titled "Autism Schmautism," Leary calls kids with autism "junior morons" and says the supposed "boom" in autism is because kids who are "not autistic," but "stupid" and "lazy," are being diagnosed incorrectly to make their parents feel better about having a child who is a dullard. So his joke is based on the idea that autistic kids do not have an actual neurological disorder, but are simply idiots embarrassing their parents. Do you honestly think he's not making fun of kids with autism (and their parents to boot)?

I'm all for humor, and I actually do think autism is funny. My son has it, and I live with it every day. It's just not funny for the reasons Denis Leary thinks it is.

Bunny,

In the chapter titled "Autism Schmautism," Leary calls kids with autism "junior morons" and says the supposed "boom" in autism is because kids who are "not autistic," but "stupid" and "lazy," are being diagnosed incorrectly to make their parents feel better about having a child who is a dullard.

I'd have to see the exact quote then where he does indeed clearly call truly autistic kids junior morons, and the only diagnoses I've seen referred to is the parent's diagnosis, not a doctor's (I haven't read the book an am more than ready to stand corrected). The line that I see being ignored in the above post is the preface to the entire 'joke': "There is a huge boom in autism right now because inattentive mothers and competitive dads want an explanation for why their dumb-ass kids can't compete academically,". To me, that makes it pretty clear what he's talking about: parents who are trying to make excuses for their 'junior morons' by falsely attributing it to an actual disorder, because they don't want to admit that their normal kid is just lazy and/or stupid.

So his joke is based on the idea that autistic kids do not have an actual neurological disorder, but are simply idiots embarrassing their parents.

I disagree, and that is exactly the stretch that I object to. His joke is based on the idea that some kids are just idiots and their parents are trying to find an excuse for that by saying their kids are autistic; I've seen nothing (yet) that he says truly autistic kids do not have an actual disorder and are just dumb.

I am glad you are open-minded about 'humor', but I have yet to see a quote where Leary is directly either making fun of autism or is making a joke at the expense of truly autistic people.

Late to the party, sorry, but Leary was on The Daily Show last night and Stewart asked him about "Autism Scmautism". He made it pretty clear that he is not attacking autism, he is attacking parents who seek out a diagnosis of autism to excuse their underachieving children who are underachieving either because they are lazy or stupid or the parents are inattentive or any combination.

He said he was not attacking people who really are autistic, "that would make me the biggest asshole in the world". Stewart agreed, "I know you, and you are a really big asshole, but not the biggest".

Should be available on the Comedy Central website, if you're interested.