http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123472234


Dr. OFFIT: Oh, I think anybody that saw that paper saw it as a very thin, flimsy piece of evidence. I mean, it was not a study at all. All it was, was a report of 12 children, eight of whom had been diagnosed with autism within a month of receiving the MMR vaccine, and it was Dr. Wakefield's contention that these children also had intestinal inflammation.

It should have never been allowed to be published. I mean, we really shouldn't be able to publish hypotheses. I could, for example, argue that I think peanut butter sandwiches cause leukemia. I'm sure I can find five children with leukemia who had eaten peanut butter sandwiches in the last month. I would like to think that wouldn't get published. I'd like to believe that the editor would come back to me and say, you know, you have to look at tens of thousands of children who either do or don't eat peanut butter sandwiches to see whether or not the instance of leukemia is greater in the peanut-butter-sandwich-eating group.

:| <--- That's my "Not Shocked Face"

But but but.... Jenny McCarthy said it was true and she has boobs!

I had to rub this one in the faces of a bunch of crazy women I know that have refused to get their children vaccinated.

I read this last week. Thought about it again today when I was reading about a huge mumps outbreak in New York, brought to the US from England.

This came out sometime last year also. He basically made up the data.

Makes you wonder just how many other things have been made up to support a hypothesis

Makes you wonder just how many other things have been made up to support a hypothesis

See: Global Warming, Invasion of Iraq, Anything currently before Congress for debate.

Anyone can find evidence to support a claim if they put on a narrow enough set of blinders. What sets real scientists apart is when they find evidence that doesn't support it. Its nice to see that this got pulled, even if it was late in the coming.

A bit late to the party here, but just thought I'd let folks know that while discussing immunity for my second semester majors' Biology course earlier this week, I brought up the vaccine issue and worked this little gem in for emphasis:

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html

It was clear that I had a couple of anti-vaccers, and several others who were ambivalent about the issue, in class, so I added this to a discussion of herd immunity and relative risk. Now as to whether I should stick this page on my office window... ;)

Regards,
Nydia

Does anyone have any thoughts on why listening to incompetent, really loud, blatantly dishonest, and/or totally insane people, while ignoring or even outright distrusting things like real experts, facts, and global scientific consensus is so widely accepted in the US as of late? Evolution, climate change, vaccines, all manner of conspiracy theories that are insulting to everyone's intelligence... Have nutjobs and right-wingers just become really damn good at convincing people to turn off their brains?

Honest question, I really have been wondering why this is type of willful ignorance is considered acceptable.

Yes, I know, not the best place to ask.

Well, in the last election we started insulting intellectualism and the intellectual elite...it's better, I suppose, to have the morons running the country than the educated.