I try to keep an open mind about things, try to keep the mindset that no matter how sure I might be about what I believe, there's always the possibility that I could be wrong. Maybe I misinterpreted something. Maybe I don't have enough evidence, yet, that I'm missing some key bit of data. Along with that, I try to be open to honest discussion, even if I don't necessarily agree with my interlocutor. In fact, that's something that people tend to remark about to me. I have the patience of a saint, they say, because I tend to stay engaged in dialogue well beyond the point that most people would just throw their hands in the air in frustration. It's really because I view those traits as ideals that I should live up to, if I want to be able to call myself a skeptic. Sometimes I'm more successful than at other times, but I try.
What got me thinking about this, about talking with others, and especially with those with whom you disagree, was a brief exchange I had on Twitter. While doing a quick perusal of blog mentions, I came across a comment made by an individual who claimed that Occam's razor says that vaccines cause autism, and any studies that say otherwise are flawed. I saw this as a great opportunity to engage this person in discussion about Occam's razor, what it is and how it applies to the vaccine-autism question. It struck me that perhaps this person did not really understand Occam's razor, viewing it more as a buzz word to prop up their argument than truly getting how it would apply. Here was an opportunity to talk about the issue, to try to share my thoughts with them and to learn why they thought Occam's razor supported their position.
My efforts weren't exactly fruitful.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Brian Hooker's Paper on Increased risk of ASD in African American Boys Retracted
The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article [1] as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused.I sent an email to the journal asking for more details. If I get a response, I will update this post accordingly.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
When Vaccine Injury Isn't Vaccine Injury
A couple weeks ago, I wrote about an incident in Syria in which it was reported that a large number of children had died after receiving the measles vaccine. As I noted, the anti-vaccine community went wild, pointing to this as an example of vaccines being dangerous. This, of course, was before many details were known. I speculated that the vaccine itself was not the cause of the injuries. It was an educated guess, based on the very, very good track record of the measles vaccine. After all, the risk of a serious reaction, like a severe but non-fatal allergic reaction, has a roughly 1 in 1 million chance of occurring. The chances of one child dying after MMR were slim. The chances of dozens in that short a time frame? Next to zero.
The most likely cause was some sort of contamination. One guess floating around at the time was that the vaccines were intentionally poisoned by Syria's Bashad al-Assad as a way to subvert the rebellion. Given the situation in that country, it was not that crazy of an idea. Some suggested bacterial infection with Staphylococcus aureus. Only lab tests would confirm the presence of the bacteria. Another guess was that the vaccines were expired. If that were the case, however, the vaccine would simply have been less effective, not more likely to cause an adverse reaction. And then there were preliminary reports that there was a mixup, with the muscle relaxant Atracurium being used instead of the sterile diluent.
Now we have an interim report from the World Health Organization.
The most likely cause was some sort of contamination. One guess floating around at the time was that the vaccines were intentionally poisoned by Syria's Bashad al-Assad as a way to subvert the rebellion. Given the situation in that country, it was not that crazy of an idea. Some suggested bacterial infection with Staphylococcus aureus. Only lab tests would confirm the presence of the bacteria. Another guess was that the vaccines were expired. If that were the case, however, the vaccine would simply have been less effective, not more likely to cause an adverse reaction. And then there were preliminary reports that there was a mixup, with the muscle relaxant Atracurium being used instead of the sterile diluent.
Now we have an interim report from the World Health Organization.
