Talk to Yggdrasil
The Lancet has retracted Andrew Wakefield’s article that suggested that vaccines could cause autism. Therefore…
Jim Moody, a director of SafeMinds, a parents’ group that advances the notion the vaccines cause autism, said the retraction would strengthen Dr. Wakefield’s credibility with many parents.
I see. Years of investigation that turned up conflicts of interest and ‘the overwhelming body of research by the world’s leading scientists that concludes there is no link between M.M.R. vaccine and autism’ will strengthen Wakefield’s credibility with many parents. What kind of thing would weaken it then?
…an investigation by a British journalist found financial and scientific conflicts that Dr. Wakefield did not reveal in his paper. For instance, part of the costs of Dr. Wakefield’s research were paid by lawyers for parents seeking to sue vaccine makers for damages. Dr. Wakefield was also found to have patented in 1997 a measles vaccine that would succeed if the combined vaccine were withdrawn or discredited.
Would that do it? No? I suppose it would take a shaman and Tom Cruise doing a joint press conference saying no it’s not vaccines it’s the anger of The World Spirit. Or something.
I definitely saw this coming. As delusional as the antivax movement is already, the fact that they didn’t change their position after Deer’s thorough trashing of Wakefield’s study means they are too vested in the belief to be swayed by logic. All the GMC finding shows is that “allopathic” doctors want to get rich vaccinating your kids even though they’ll get autism (ignoring that vaccines are very poor income generators), and all the Lancet retraction shows is that they are in the pockets of Big Pharma, who don’t want the truth to get out and put a dent in their bottom line.
Also, I feel the need to add that it’s disgraceful that the Lancet waited until after the GMC finding of misconduct to retract the article, when its credibility had already been shredded by showing the failure of peer review and the undisclosed conflicts of interest. At best the retraction now is simply ass-covering, instead of showing an actual care for facts, quality, or proper procedure.
Are they mixing homeopathy in with their anti-vax stuff? Less is more? stupid brews more stupid, I guess.
Well, that’s just like conspiracy theorists, right? The 9/11 commission found no conspiracy because they’re part of it, which only proves there is one.
If only this ridiculous vaccine thing wouldn’t hurt so many children.
The anti-vaccine movement long ago stopped having even a nodding acquaintance with science, so I’m not surprised that this retraction hasn’t given them pause. I am a bit surprised that the revelation that Wakefield had severe conflicts of interest hasn’t ruffled them (of course, that was known well before this).
Remarkably similar to what OB was pondering a few weeks back after the Haiti earthquake. In that case it was what could be a bad result for God. The answer appeared to be there is nothing. When it comes to belief, it seems that no matter what happens, it can be twisted to support your existing views
Lancet – credibility plus. For instance, using their medical credibility to publish an inflated claim about Iraqi war deaths in the closing phase of the 2004 US election.
Playing bacterial Russian roulette with other people’s children is one of those areas where personal belief trumps boring old reasoned debate. It’s just like hating women and gays, really. Ask the Pope. He hasn’t any of his kids vaccinated.
When I have discussions with the religious and they ask me what possible harm their non evidence based thinking (obviously my term for their beliefs) can do, this is a prime example.
Children have died and will continue to die due to this sort of attachment to an irrational belief system.
This also serves as a good example to the difference between science and religion, science is a self correcting system, religion is a positive feed back system where extreme behaviour leads to even more extreme behaviour.
steve:”Children have died and will continue to die due to this sort of attachment to an irrational belief system.”
Too true. Breatharianism, ‘alternative’ medicine of many kinds, and even the comforting belief that just one more drink before driving won’t hurt all are irrational beliefs that result in harm and death to children. I am in two minds about state-rationed medicine though. The intertubes are full of criticism about medical rationing in Canada or the UK and the result of waiting lists for ‘elective’ surgery that ends up costing lives and prolonging suffering.
However, I have also been told that wartime rationing in the UK meant that never had children been so well nourished – because mothers who these days feed the kids crisps and chocolate would in those times have made sure they got EVERY SCRAP of rations they were entitled to, including the requisite Popeye spinach and all. Could medical rationing be good for people in some way, making the seemingly irrational actually beneficial?
@ The Lancet: Not too little, but much too late.
@ ChrisPer: The intertubes are full of criticism – full stop. There are no doubt legitimate criticisms to be made of every large bureaucratic system (health care or otherwise), but there are also no doubt lots of illegitimate criticisms of health care systems – and many of the latter harp on the word “rationing.” Every health care system NECESSARILY involves choices and trade-offs about how much medical technology and intervention as a whole can be afforded by the system and how that health care is distributed to those who fall under its purview – including “free” market systems, which distribute health care on the basis of wealth and privilege. What makes a particular system of health care choices and trade-offs “rationing”? The person who calls the system “rationing” doesn’t like it.
Oh. My. Hell. Can he really be this irretrievably stupid? Yes. Yes, he can.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/02/vaccine-saga/
Yup.
He thinks it’s all politics. I’ve just been saying so. What fun – I can reply to Chris Mooney without being blocked! A novel experience.