Newsweek article - "Debunking the Vaccine-Autism Link"... and, "death threats"?

[ElMondoHummus]

Newsweek article - "Debunking the Vaccine-Autism Link"... and, "death threats"?

Newsweek published a story they titled "Debunking the Vaccine-Autism Link", and centered it around Dr. Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a person the article calls an "outspoken advocate for childhood immunizations". The article's writer doesn't get too much into the science - the piece is more on Dr. Offit's new book, and the passion he generates by being so relentlessly on-topic about vaccines - but there were mentions of threats against the doctor for speaking out so publicly against the notion that vaccines cause autism, a death threat being directly mentioned in the piece.

Now, I'm not about to defend the "vaccines-cause-autism" peddlers here (I fully agree with Offit: The scientific evidence is clear, there is no association). That said, I didn't think there was much of a fringe there who'd lower themselves to making threats. Guess I didn't view them as being as looney as, say, 9/11 conspiracy peddlers, but I figure that such threats shouldn't come as a surprise. Passion tends to dull judgement. At any rate, I figured I'd let folks here know about the article, short as it is, given that it covers a personality involved in a topic covered in several other threads here.

Speaking of his book - Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure - it sounds like one I'd like to read. Think I'll hit the local library for a copy (gotta pay my overdue fines first, though ).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I've witnessed the most venemous responses elsewhere are from parents who are CONVINCED (with the help of lawyers) that vaccines injured their kids and caused autism. They need something to blame, and have totally bought into conspiracy theories. They are after money-suing vaccine makers, but are quick to accuse "big pharma" and the guvment of being the money grubbers (like vaccines are soooo profitable). Anyone discovering a really effective and safe vaccine is up for some profit for selling their discovery, but I think they should be awarded for their work (ducks arrows of fire from antivaccinators).

It's sad that people who have saved so many lives get so unfairly accused of maiming children for life when the evidence shows that people who don't get vaccines still get autism.

The logic is gone, it has flown out the window. There is only conspiracy and hate left.

 

[Cavemonster]

There's a fallacy at work here that I'm not sure how to describe, I've seen it a lot lately.
"Person X has been working for decades save lives/help children through silly method y that goes against evidence (ie opposing vaccines). Since person X has been fighting for children's health/lives, person x's viewpoint regardless of evidence is correct."

What would you call that?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Are you talking about people like Dr. Jay that claims to cure autism and ADD?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I've witnessed the most venemous responses elsewhere are from parents who are CONVINCED (with the help of lawyers) that vaccines injured their kids and caused autism. They need something to blame, and have totally bought into conspiracy theories. They are after money-suing vaccine makers, but are quick to accuse "big pharma" and the guvment of being the money grubbers (like vaccines are soooo profitable). Anyone discovering a really effective and safe vaccine is up for some profit for selling their discovery, but I think they should be awarded for their work (ducks arrows of fire from antivaccinators).

It's sad that people who have saved so many lives get so unfairly accused of maiming children for life when the evidence shows that people who don't get vaccines still get autism.

The logic is gone, it has flown out the window. There is only conspiracy and hate left.

Agreed. It's one thing for a person to make a pretty penny off of such work like Offit did. But it's a whole other thing to assume that money was his overriding motivation. That's just too simplistic an analysis, but since when have woo-peddlers been about thinking through things?

I can't speak for the vaccines-autism believers, but from what I've seen over in the 9/11 CT section (and other spots on the 'net where they go), I get the feeling that charges of profiteering are actually half-hearted. It's always presented so superficially, and in laundry-lists of other perceived insults. It's like the ones making the charge don't truly believe what they're saying, but rather they're lazily tossing in an argument to see if it'll stick. I wonder if medical woo peddlers - whether vaccine-autism believers, or others (homeopaths, extreme anti-MD chiropractors, etc.) are also like that. I sort of get the feeling that they are.

-----

Slightly changing topics here: Has anyone read Dr. Offit's book? I don't think it'll present that much new information, but I still want to read it. Just wondering if anyone's cracked it yet, and what they have to say about it.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I would leapfrog others to get my hands on a copy first. There are some great review available until books ordered over the net reach their destination:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=220


And a great blog on an antivaccine MD (Dr. Jay):
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/10/dr_jay_gordon_pediatrician_warrior.php

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There's a fallacy at work here that I'm not sure how to describe, I've seen it a lot lately.
"Person X has been working for decades save lives/help children through silly method y that goes against evidence (ie opposing vaccines). Since person X has been fighting for children's health/lives, person x's viewpoint regardless of evidence is correct."

What would you call that?

Wishful thinking, along with a dose of hero worship. If Person X's silly method y truly goes against evidence - not operates in some gray area where more research is necessary, but really, truly is contrary to what has been established so far - then they're not really helping children. And all the laudatory statements by believing parents doesn't change that fact.

I'd rather have a jerk of a doctor who was competent than the nicest guy in the world who risks doing more harm than good medically. Granted, the best case scenario is having a nice and competent doctor, but if I can't get that, I'll live with the jerk (thankfully, I've never had to make that choice with my MD's, although I did suffer through an orthodontist with a jerk complex for three of my four wisdom teeth extractions).

 

[shadron]

I've witnessed the most venemous responses elsewhere are from parents who are CONVINCED (with the help of lawyers) that vaccines injured their kids and caused autism. They need something to blame, and have totally bought into conspiracy theories. They are after money-suing vaccine makers, but are quick to accuse "big pharma" and the guvment of being the money grubbers (like vaccines are soooo profitable).

If that is what it comes down to (legal action) then I guess I have to say, "Bring it on!". I guess we'll get to see how the religious fervor for an unprovable viewpoint works out for them in a court of law. I would, however, expect their attorneys to not be quite so sanguine about their chances there. I don't think Big Pharma will take it lying down; they can and will afford whatever lawyering skills it takes to see it through. The law doesn't always get it right the first time, but if there is interest in pushing it, it will eventually be seen through to a rational end.

 

[Dunstan]

If that is what it comes down to (legal action) then I guess I have to say, "Bring it on!". I guess we'll get to see how the religious fervor for an unprovable viewpoint works out for them in a court of law. I would, however, expect their attorneys to not be quite so sanguine about their chances there. I don't think Big Pharma will take it lying down; they can and will afford whatever lawyering skills it takes to see it through. The law doesn't always get it right the first time, but if there is interest in pushing it, it will eventually be seen through to a rational end.

Tell that to the makers of silicone breast implants.

(I know, you said the law doesn't always get it right the first time -- I'm not contradicting you, just pointing out a pretty prominent example.)

 

[Chris Haynes]

Tell that to the makers of silicone breast implants.

(I know, you said the law doesn't always get it right the first time -- I'm not contradicting you, just pointing out a pretty prominent example.)

Which is explained starting on page 73 in a chapter titled "A Precautionary Tale" in Autism's False Prophets.

 

[Ashles]

There's a fallacy at work here that I'm not sure how to describe, I've seen it a lot lately.
"Person X has been working for decades save lives/help children through silly method y that goes against evidence (ie opposing vaccines). Since person X has been fighting for children's health/lives, person x's viewpoint regardless of evidence is correct."

It's an interesting point - it seems to be a sub-category of Special Pleading, specifically the "I'm right because I'm thinking of the children" category.

Under this form of Special Pleading the person is allowed to say almost anything they like and cannot be disagreed with, because the implication is that if you do, you are no longer arguing with that person, but somehow with the very children they are trying to protect. And what sort of person would you be to argue with children or wish harm on them?

(A particularly annoying extension of this is when people get offended at things, not because they bother them, you understand, but that the thing in question would bother the children.)

 

[Dunstan]

It's an interesting point - it seems to be a sub-category of Special Pleading, specifically the "I'm right because I'm thinking of the children" category.

Under this form of Special Pleading the person is allowed to say almost anything they like and cannot be disagreed with, because the implication is that if you do, you are no longer arguing with that person, but somehow with the very children they are trying to protect. And what sort of person would you be to argue with children or wish harm on them?

(A particularly annoying extension of this is when people get offended at things, not because they bother them, you understand, but that the thing in question would bother the children.)

I'd call it the Argument From Good Intentions.

(Or, in the specific version of "think of the children," we could call it the Helen Lovejoy Fallacy.)

 

[shadron]

Tell that to the makers of silicone breast implants.

(I know, you said the law doesn't always get it right the first time -- I'm not contradicting you, just pointing out a pretty prominent example.)

I think the point here is that the manufacturers of the implants didn't have their ducks in a row (that is, didn't have the studies done which proved the implants weren't at fault) until after they were blitzed by the complainers' lawyers; that and they crumbled in the hopes they could get past it. At least the former reason is not at issue, and as for the latter, the companies may well just fold their vaccine operations rather than submit to the lawyers.