Vaccines don't cause autism (duh)

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I know people are stupid not taking vaccines for serious illnesses, but as an aside I still worry about the direction that science is going. Science really has now become a '#### you I'm right' type of thing for things like vaccines, climate change, etc.

Science as a whole hasn't become that at all. It does become that when the evidence is so unbelievably overwhelming that an issue is black or white. And it should.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I know people are stupid not taking vaccines for serious illnesses, but as an aside I still worry about the direction that science is going. Science really has now become a '#### you I'm right' type of thing for things like vaccines, climate change, etc.

This is an odd statement, and I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Science is merely a self-correcting tool for investigating the truth. An imperfect tool, but the best one we have. The evidence speaks for itself, and belongs to no faction.

[Science] is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. ... The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.

— Carl Sagan

[chemgear]

Even in this age, we still have this:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/flat-...-interview-876

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by troutman

This is an odd statement, and I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Science is merely a self-correcting tool for investigating the truth. An imperfect tool, but the best one we have. The evidence speaks for itself, and belongs to no faction.

[Science] is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. ... The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.

— Carl Sagan

This is my opinion and very well can be wrong. What I believe is people on certain topics are become more extreme on their opinions (I guess both ways, science based, and non-science). My feeling is Science should never take a extreme position because once you take an extreme black or white you become inflexible and usually wrong in some way at that point.

[troutman]

Science should not be inflexible. How can science take an extreme position? The evidence builds and points towards the truth. The more evidence there is, the more comfortable we can be in the conclusions. With enough evidence a theory becomes fact.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
― Carl Sagan

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Except for the 236 people that have died in Canada this season because of the flu. And that's only 9 of the provinces/territories reporting.

The flu shot helps you fight the flu the exact same way the measles vaccine helps you fight the measles.

For everyone? Or just for kids, older people and people with a weaker immune system due to chemo or other treatments?

I honestly haven't given getting the flu shot much of a thought because the flu is something I get maybe once ever 2-3 years, and it lasts for a couple days and then its gone. Now the cold on the other hand....

If it is shown to help people fight the flu and perhaps save some lives, I have no problem encouraging people to get the shot. But is it really on the same level as a measles shot? Because if it is, it needs to be mandatory as well.

[chemgear]

^ Herd immunity then?

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Tiger

This is my opinion and very well can be wrong. What I believe is people on certain topics are become more extreme on their opinions (I guess both ways, science based, and non-science). My feeling is Science should never take a extreme position because once you take an extreme black or white you become inflexible and usually wrong in some way at that point.

My sense if you're responding more to the rhetoric or language than the actual argument. I don't think 'science' or scientific discourse actively stymies discussion or debate where there is a genuine scientific debate. It does, and should, actively try to shut down opposing views for which there is no scientific evidence, basis or issue.

There ought to be no debate about vaccines, and to pretend otherwise is anti-scientific, anti-progress, and ultimately dangerous. For some reason, we've humoured anti-scientific thought on this point for some time and now we've reached no choice but to shame and embarrass these anti-vaxxer idiots. I do wonder to what extent we've permitted their foolishness as a result of race/gender/class dynamics. I can only imagine if it was 'islamic terrorists' spouting the same garbage, we'd have no problem calling it as such, but that's another discussion.

TLDR: it's disingenuous to claim science has become intolerant of opposing views when those views are anti-scientific or illogical. I think that's the whole point of science - to illustrate those views as such.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I don't know how trustworthy the reporting site is but apparently there's a professor at Queen's University that is teaching vaccines cause autism and other diseases:

https://storify.com/iDuchaine/anti-v...s-universities

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

Science should not be inflexible. How can science take an extreme position? The evidence builds and points towards the truth. The more evidence there is, the more comfortable we can be in the conclusions. With enough evidence a theory becomes fact.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
― Carl Sagan

That's true, until you factor into the equation that science in the 21st century is very much influenced by capitalism. There are industries that use science as a way of misleading to make money. I think people have become critical not because they don't believe in science, but they don't trust the people with the payrolls (pharm companies for example).

That's my take anyway. I generally trust vaccines because I don't see them as big money makers (unless they are manufacturing diseases too, but that would be crazy), but just because something is based on science doesn't make it honest when you factor in the human aspect.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's true, until you factor into the equation that science in the 21st century is very much influenced by capitalism. There are industries that use science as a way of misleading to make money. I think people have become critical not because they don't believe in science, but they don't trust the people with the payrolls.

Much of thing mistrust, IMO, arises out of missinformation. The whole Anit-vaccination mov't is a great example. The "original" study has been shown to be invalid, but that doesn't/didn't slow anyone.....

Make no mistake money drives the "Anti Movement" as well.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Just a hypothetical question for everyone. I'm all for vaccines like MMR and whatnot but I'm really struggling with the flu vaccine. I have not had a flu shot for as long as I can remember and I've also not had the flu. Especially with health analysts saying that those who received the vaccine both this year and last actually having a -15% protection for the flu this year, I'm wondering if we put the flu vaccine in the same category as the others?

I changed my mind on flu shots.

I used to think "I never get it, and even if I do, I'm young and won't die".

But then I realized that if I contract the flu and don't realize it yet, I could end up killing my Grandpa, or any unfortunate immunocompromized person in my path. I will be getting them going forward not so much for me, but for everyone else.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

For everyone? Or just for kids, older people and people with a weaker immune system due to chemo or other treatments?

I honestly haven't given getting the flu shot much of a thought because the flu is something I get maybe once ever 2-3 years, and it lasts for a couple days and then its gone. Now the cold on the other hand....

If it is shown to help people fight the flu and perhaps save some lives, I have no problem encouraging people to get the shot. But is it really on the same level as a measles shot? Because if it is, it needs to be mandatory as well.

The flu shot generally is more difficult to get participation rates high in comparison to measles because of a few factors:
1) Incorrect information like:
-so and so still got "the stomach flu" even though they got the shot. The stomach flu is not in fact a flu and is completely unrelated
-someone knows someone who got sick from the shot. The shot doesn't really give perfect immunity even if it's a perfect match. Plus it takes a week or two to build up an effective level of antibodies. Add in the probability that people are going to get a cold/flu during the same season as the flu shots are being administered and there's bound to be people getting sick right after getting their shot.
-a horrible amount of purposeful misinformation in general on the Internet
2) Measles is given as a series during regular immunizations as a child then you're done (though an adult booster is likely a very good idea). The flu shot needs to be given every year
3) The flu shot is really a guess at best. The influenza virus is constantly and rapidly shifting is antigens vs a relatively stable measles antigen. That means that success rates will always be higher for the measles and each seasonal flu shot is a gamble (though a wise one)


I don't see mandatory flu shots being possible simply due to logistics

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

For everyone? Or just for kids, older people and people with a weaker immune system due to chemo or other treatments?

For everyone, meaning the mechanism by which the flu shot grants protection is the same. The efficacy isn't the same for many reasons including the flu mutates so fast and there's so many strains that guessing the right combination sometimes doesn't happen.

But the mechanism is the same.

Originally Posted by Azure

I honestly haven't given getting the flu shot much of a thought because the flu is something I get maybe once ever 2-3 years, and it lasts for a couple days and then its gone. Now the cold on the other hand....

If it is shown to help people fight the flu and perhaps save some lives, I have no problem encouraging people to get the shot. But is it really on the same level as a measles shot? Because if it is, it needs to be mandatory as well.

If there was a cold vaccine that'd be worth more than all the other companies on earth combined!

My understanding is that the flu vaccine saves lives and reduces morbidity but I don't have anything at hand to support it, and it isn't the same level as the measles shot as Street Pharmacist points out, so I don't think the flu vaccine should be mandatory though I don't have a problem with requiring it for school or work attendance.

[Boo Radley]

As has been mentioned Science is a body of knowledge about nature and our universe generated through use of the Scientific method. Discoveries do not always strictly adhere to the method but in the end we promote ideas and theories that are falsifiable, i.e. how might they be proven wrong. In research, experiments are planned, data is collected, statistics are applied and the results are interpreted. This entire process is highly criticized (or should be) within the research field/scientific community. Do you have the proper controls?, how was the data collected?, what are your assumptions?, is this statistically significant? correlation and causation, etc. I witness arguments all the time between scientists that have interpreted the data differently. This is an important aspect of Science and should not be viewed as a weakness. It is a different story when Science is taken into the public forum and decisions about public policy are made.

Take for example the likelihood that a pathogenic influenza virus will evolve. The lab of Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands investigated the evolution of a bird influenza virus into a human pathogenic virus and the potential risk this posed to the public. At scientific meetings their results were criticized based on how they conducted the experiments (i.e. repeated transmission between lab animals) and if this accurately reflects a real environment. However, when the public became aware of his work they received incredible criticism for being irresponsible. What if the organism was released from the lab? What if terrorists decided to follow their protocols? The debate now became public. This type of research was halted. The discussion shifted to whether we should be doing this type of research in the first place. It should be noted that scientists disagreed whether the evolved virus was even pathogenic. But by this point a greater debate was taking place on the risks/benefits of this research.

The debates we are having in the public forum now (e.g. vaccines, climate change, GMO...) and in the past (e.g. tetraethyl lead, CFCs...) go beyond simply looking at the scientific facts. Policy will/can be shaped based on which side 'wins' the argument. Of course right or wrong they each will point the other as extreme. With respect to vaccines there is overwhelming evidence that they are effective. The fear that some have against them is certainly real in their minds but to make an informed decision the general public needs to understand and appreciate the benefits over the risks. Both sides have dug in deep with their arguments. The anti-vaccine crowd still cling to the idea that vaccines cause autism despite the original study being retracted. In terms of policy I personally do not feel that the government should be forcing us to do anything and this includes vaccination. If this were the case I feel the debate would shift from the importance of vaccines to the importance of our individual freedoms. On the other hand I do like the strategy of some doctors who are now refusing to see patients that have not been vaccinated (unless there are medical reasons).

The problem I have when Science moves to the public forum is that in these debates whether it is on vaccines, climate change, GMO, etc there are people who are not arguing in good faith. They are trying to steer public opinion using false arguments, diverting attention from the facts, over (or under) emphasizing risks, ad hominem attacks etc. These parties often do this without full disclosure (see for instance Andrew Wakefield and MMR fraud). These types of arguments bog down the debate preventing meaningful progress. This is the greatest problem I see right now as we have politicians (either uneducated, scientifically illiterate, pandering) that are more interested in being elected and the main stream media/entertainment (Fox news, MSNBC, CNN, Oprah, Dr OZ etc) failing at their job or promoting wrong ideas because they are more interested in ratings.

If things are going to change the public needs to be educated and if it takes 'extremists' who are promoting good science so be it.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Got to love the Beaverton (it's an Onion like parody news site)

Child dying from measles just glad he isn't autistic

http://www.thebeaverton.com/health/i...isn-t-autistic

[troutman]

Here is a recent example of scientists recently rejecting a prior theory based on new evidence:

Gravity Waves and Science Self-Correction

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...lf-correction/

It was a nice idea that had useful explanatory power. Scientists, however, are not philosophers, theologians, or metaphysicists. It doesn’t matter how pretty, clean, or useful an idea is. They want to know if it is actually correct. Does it make predictions about how reality behaves, predictions that can be confirmed through observation or experiment?

In my encounters with pseudoscientists, cranks, and conspiracy theorists of every stripe I frequently encounter the claim that scientists are closed minded, they are dogmatic, and they protect their pet theories and the status quo. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the scientific community is not monolithic. One scientist’s pet theory may be utter nonsense to another scientist. What these recent examples (and countless others) demonstrate is that, at the end of the day, evidence is king. Different teams of scientists looking at different data came to different conclusions. This demonstrates how the scientific community is a check on its members and provides self-correction. In the end they combined their data and came to a consensus.

We see this played out over and over. Different scientists have different theories, and their task is to convince the broader scientific community with evidence.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I don't know how trustworthy the reporting site is but apparently there's a professor at Queen's University that is teaching vaccines cause autism and other diseases:

https://storify.com/iDuchaine/anti-v...s-universities

Globeandmail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle22787198/

[WhiteTiger]

A succinct cartoon making the rounds:



A cartoon from the '40's. Just as relevant today:

[Tiger]

I guess people are more then right with my opinion being flawed. I guess it is probably more an issue I have with media and social media reporting of science than the science itself. Thanks for restoring my faith in that. I have other concerns but that is more about industry and public perception problems. But I won't bog down this thread with that.