Michael Specter: The Danger of Science Denial

This guy's not even a scientist.

He states there's no correlation between autism and vaccines. Autism was so rare in the past that it wasn't even recognised as a condition until the middle of the 20th century – around the time vaccination became common. Now there are peer-reviewed claims that 1 in 70 children have some form of autism. Therefore there is a massive correlation. Whether there's a causal relationship is another matter. Not that Specter would have a clue; he's not a scientist. He rightly points out that measles doesn't kill anybody in the US – despite falling vaccination rates. Which begs the question: if Jenny McCarthy wants to tell people not to vaccinate their kids then what business is it of his? If people take her advice and on the infinitesimal off-chance actually lose a child they have only themselves to blame and those who were vaccinated will be immune anyway. It's called freedom.

Is he familiar with the swine influenza “pandemic” which killed 10% as many people as the seasonal 'flu does every year? Does he think that warranted the ex-pharmaceutical executives running the WHO recommending that everyone on the planet be injected with experimental medicines? Too fucking right he does. 'Cos he's not a scientist. Modern medicine wouldn't cure a disease even if they could: they'd be putting themselves out of business. Then knew helicobacter pylori caused stomach ulcers for decades and sat on it because antacids rang the tills.

Humanity will need 70% more food 50 years from now? Will crapulent obesity be in vogue then? The UN says the human population will peak at about 140% of what it is now around about then before going into decline. There is currently 0.5 hectares of arable land per person on this planet. That much land can easily feed 3 people on a modern Western diet – resourceful vegetarians can reliably feed a dozen from the same space using only organic methods. Even if every fish in the lakes and oceans went extinct and sea level rise miraculously accelerated from the current <3mm per year that it's been since the ice age ended to flood half the farmland on Earth we'd still have plenty of food for everybody 50 years from now. People are starving today because it's an agenda to keep the poor and dark-skinned in their place. The EU regularly destroys food to keep prices artificially high, I assume the US does the same. Thanks to the Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam biofuel is being grown condemning millions more to death by starvation in the name of profit. Monsanto wants the world to grow its terminator seeds so farmers will have to buy more from them every time they plant. It's not vitamin A in rice they're interested in, it's Vitamin $ they want.

When new racial hygiene laws came into effect in Germany in the late 1930's the doctors who ran care homes murdered their disabled charges without question. Not one of them spoke out. You absolutely should question everything “science” tells you. Not that this poncey shill Specter is a scientist.

“When new racial hygiene laws came into effect in Germany in the late 1930's the doctors who ran care homes murdered their disabled charges without question. Not one of them spoke out.”

Source? Proof that, if this indeed did happen, that it was the fault of the scientific method?

I think it makes for a very marketable position on the lecture circuit to say the things he's saying. I don't doubt he believes them but I'm sure his speaking fees strengthens his beliefs. I don't disagree with the general ideology that this country has a hard time dealing with facts and science. However, he's full of shit if he won't give weight to the side that has some mistrust of science because agribusiness and pharamceuticals are big industries that put profits in front of people. Just saying that science can do wonderful things and we need to trust it is naive and silly. We as a society are past the point where we blindly allow any and all authority to tell us what is and it's the internet that has empowered the masses. You can't tell me Mr. Specter that there isn't enough justification or evidence to question much of what passes for authoritative advice when it comes to medicine and food. Can science serve humanity at the highest levels? Sure. Does it? Like anything with the best intentions, sometimes it gets it right, sometimes it gets it wrong and most of the time it falls somewhere in between. He talks about how the arguments people make about gm foods are ones that can be regulated by laws and have nothing to do with the science itself. Is the sky really blue in your world Specter? I think we should govern so that we all must love each other and get along but do you see that happening? Until we as a species, evolve past the point where business and money dictates the progression of science, there's no way science will be so altruistic and 'pure'. How's this for your pure science for humanity's sake argument….remember Nikola Tesla? F'ing genius who wanted to provide power free to the world? Big business didn't like that so much so they thrashed him and propped up Edison and now we have nice billable electricity. So don't go judging those of us willing to do research and take responsibility for our own health. That said, don't replace science with religious clap trap.

There are a fair number of conditions that weren't recognized until recently, especially in the area of mental health.

It has nothing to do with rarity and everything to do with the evolution of modern medicine.

Paragraphs please. They are important for breaking up the flow of words that come out of your fingers.

The video is not supportive of big business; watch the video again. Understand that yours and his stance are not mutually exclusive.

Like he said: Science is not a country. It isn't even an idea. It is a process – or to put it differently, methodology for dealing with problems. Big business has no relation to the fundamentals of science. Big business is within the realm of politics.

You're mistaken. Many sufferers of autism live their entire lives without communicating using anything more than grunts. That seems pretty specific and noteworthy doesn't it? There is next to no evidence of this having been observed prior to the 20th century.

For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to the belief that vaccines cause autism, there are many other possible causes which are just as likely. There is however a very strong correlation with vaccination – whether there's any connection or not – noone can honestly deny that.

Yeah, that's why all of the major medical bodies in the world reject said correlation and numerous well-controlled studies fail to show said correlation.

And the number one study pointed to by those believing in a correlation between autism and vaccines was withdrawn from the journal that published it for being flawed.

Look, I'm really sorry, but vaccination rates have gone up at the same time autism rates have increased. This is a correlation, I'm not saying that one causes the other. At first flush you'd be stupid not to suspect there was causation though and if research on this has stopped because “the science is settled” or some such bullshit then that's criminal.

Just because both rates have increased doesn't indicate any statistically significant correlation. You could also show a weak positive correlation between car ownership rates and autism rates.

. . .or a 0.5C increase in global temperates and a rise from 0.00028% to 0.00038% in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Oh, no, wait, temperature hasn't gone up in 15 years while CO2 increase has accelerated.

Seriously, though, there is little doubt that autism rates are increasing. Last time I read up on it Prof. Baron-Cohen of Cambridge had suggested the condition could be an exaggerated normal male personality (on the assumption that men are terrible communicators) and/or the result of mildly autistic people being attracted to each other thereby exaggerating the characteristic in their children (McCarthy and Carrey both seem a bit wacky but substance abuse can't be ruled out there). I didn't find his insistence on a genetic link very compelling, since the increase seems to be occuring in all societies, even those with limited social mobility.

I'll have to read up on his latest lines of inquiry. I never bothered checking the evidence of the vaccine link before but my trust in science has been shattered in the last year. I will examine the vaccine link now.

Are you a troll? I mean seriously… where did either of us say anything that would imply we'd agree with people being forced to receive vaccinations?

“Free energy, cures for AIDS, cures for cancer have all been found”

There was a well documented complete sequencing of the genome for lung cancer, recently. Public information.

AIDS research – public information.

Free energy – many ideas are out there, most of which have been thoroughly refuted. Public information.

“People go about their lives with these strong beliefs in their heads without questioning them.”

People go about their lives with the idea that there is an alternative reality, that only a special elite are paying attention to. This is just sociopathic.

You say you never get sick; but how can you truly know that? Have you documented your illnesses over a period of say ten years, and then compared the evidence to a host of other people doing the same thing? Or are you just selectively remembering all the times you've felt healthy… to prove a point on a discussion board ??

Oh… you don't get ill because you don't ingest man made chemicals? Well what about all the non-man made chemicals you injest?

FACTS:

1. Not all man made chemicals are harmful.
2. Not all man made chemicals that are harmful at large doses, are harmful at small doses.
3. Not all natural chemicals are safe.
4. Not all natural chemicals that are safe at low doses, are safe at large doses.

Hell… drink too much water, and you'll get ill. Intake too much vitamin C, and you'll get diarrhea.

You're a perfect example of the rising back-to-nature fundamentalist mindset that is creeping into modern society.

Could be placebo. Could be the added satisfaction of growing it yourself. I know when I cook some chicken wings, they're tastier and more satisfying to eat than when I just go and buy a bucket of chicken wings from one of those Halal places down the end of my street.

Point is – anecdotal evidence is not good enough to make objective statements on this sort of stuff. There is a wider issue than you're bloomin' homegrown carrots!

Exactly. The Scientific Method, rational empiricism, whatever you want to call it, is pretty irrefutably beneficial to humanity. “Scientism” — the dogmatic belief that current materialist orthodoxy represents the ultimate and final truth of reality — is as obstructive to actual progress as any other kind of religious fundamentalism. Not only that, but it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. By definition, science never “reveals” objective reality, but approximates it with increasing accuracy and precision, provided only that we keep questioning and refining it.

Sorry you have a problem reading my post. Ignore it if you want, i could care less.

You're delusional if you believe science is just in the realm of politics. It's in the realm of big business too my friend. There are few products that don't have some measure of science and scientific study connected to them. Science process or methodology for dealing with problems, however you want to characterize it still needs funding and the institutions that fund science and scientific study have an agenda which mostly boils down to profits and power. Pure science for science's sake is rare. Is it any surprise that studies come out about the effects of, say emf (electro magnetic frequencies), only to be refuted by another study months or a year later?

I get that you want to isolate science as a pristine and noble entity that is irrefutable with no gray areas and stands on solid ground. I still believe in the scientific method, the pursuit of studying and exploring our universe and more but that doesn't refute political and business influences that creates all manner of misinformation posing as official and true science. Unfortunately, you still need to do your own research.

“You're delusional if you believe science is just in the realm of politics.”

A typo, surely? After all, absolutely no one has voiced this opinion.

Well said, although I would've liked to hear something about linking going to the dentist to get your teeth cleaned with “science”.

Yes, mankind has been genetically 'modifying' food for a long time however mankind has only been genetically 'engineering' food for a relatively short period.

Splicing together cells from completely unrelated species (eg pig + fish) and creating animals that glow in the dark is a completely new science

I don't think the difference between “modifying” and “engineering” is as separate as you are claiming–we've been modifying food with a specific goal in mind for centuries, how is that different from engineering? We designed food. We had designs, we followed the known processes required to create foods meeting the specifications of our designs.

The technology is new and much of the knowledge has advanced very rapidly very recently, that's all.

I agree with you on your point, Tuna.

We have been selectively breeding different types of food over centuries, the difference is with genetically doing it is that it is quicker and safer – in theory.

The problem is that GM food has not been given enough of a chance to develop, because of people who are scared of the concept.

Poppycock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Lots of explanation, right there. Took a few seconds to find it. Shove your crummy agenda where the sun don't shine!

Autism has been a diagnosis that has evolved with time. Asperger's Syndrome is an even more recent diagnosis as being a condition completely separate from autism. The diagnosis of mental health conditions has been an ever evolving issue, moving from eras when people would be labeled as possessed, to asylums, to actual scientists doing research and trying to define & treat conditions.

Well-documented cases of what people suspect was autism are recorded as far back as the mid-1700s – Hugh Blair of Borgue.

I also don't think that it's embarrassing to science that they don't know what causes it – especially if it's a complex genetic condition.

Odd side note…I'm no homeopath, but I saw one in action once. His wife got multiple stings from a ground bee nest…whatever was in that pill he threw together left her breathing comfortably and reduce the swelling to pinpoints in under 15 minutes…and she was allergic to bee stings. I believe in medicine, and I suspect that both traditional medicine and alternative medicine have their share of bunk…but on at least one occasion I saw a substance I had never heard of work like gangbusters.

Same guy…also saw his regular doctor every month like clockwork, took his pills for diabetes, and used regular medicine daily…his homeopathy kit came out only when he was sure of what he was dealing with. (also…he wasn't broke.)

You are quite correct…independent of the topic at hand…science is a process. Cool, emotionless and logical, a pathway toward information/knowledge with accuracy.

Sadly, it is rarely employed this way in modern times. It is a tool employed by hands that have a desired goal in mind at the outset of inquiry…which would be fine…except that the ethos that once held sway and taught us not to manipulate data for the sake of a desired result is dead and buried.

What has replaced science is psuedo-science, and it is employed by business and politics alike. The science you, or I, might admire and trust is a thing largely of history. What we see and hear through todays media (and sadly, Mr Specter, given that he encourages a return to the blind faith that has not served us well) is the science that others speak of, and it is not to be trusted, but scrutinized with ever greater intensity.

I favor neither radical alternatives nor corporate sponsored solutions…only what can be weighed and measured with accuracy, untampered, self evident and appropriate.

Not much point getting involved in debating people who agree with you now is there?

I guess my point is this: it isn't the fault of the scientific method that people use it incorrectly.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/03/the-bayer-compan...

Would you say the situation as outlined above was the fault of science or the fault of the Bayer company?