October 24, 2011
The Overwhelming Data We Refuse To Believe
A group of scientists and statisticians led by the University of California at Berkeley set out recently to conduct an independent assessment of climate data and determine once and for all whether the planet has warmed in the last century and by how much. The study was designed to address concerns brought up by prominent climate change skeptics, and it was funded by several groups known for climate skepticism. Last week, the group released its conclusions: Average land temperatures have risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 20th century. The result matched the previous research.
The skeptics were not happy and immediately claimed that the study was flawed.
Also in the news last week were the results of yet another study that found no link between cell phones and brain cancer. Researchers at the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Denmark looked at data from 350,000 cell phone users over an 18-year period and found they were no more likely to develop brain cancer than people who didn’t use the technology.
But those results still haven’t killed the calls for more monitoring of any potential link.
Study after study finds no link between autism and vaccines (and plenty of reason to worry about non-vaccinated children dying from preventable diseases such as measles). But a quarter of parents in a poll released last year said that they believed that “some vaccines cause autism in healthy children” and 11.5 percent had refused at least one vaccination for their child.
Polls say that Americans trust scientists more than, say, politicians, but that trust is on the decline. If we’re losing faith in science, we’ve gone down the wrong path. Science is no more than a process (as recent contributors to our “Why I Like Science” series have noted), and skepticism can be a good thing. But for many people that skepticism has grown to the point that they can no longer accept good evidence when they get it, with the result that “we’re now in an epidemic of fear like one I’ve never seen and hope never to see again,” says Michael Specter, author of Denialism, in his TEDTalk below.
If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance that you think I’m not talking about you. But here’s a quick question: Do you take vitamins? There’s a growing body of evidence that vitamins and dietary supplements are no more than a placebo at best and, in some cases, can actually increase the risk of disease or death. For example, a study earlier this month in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that consumption of supplements, such as iron and copper, was associated with an increased risk of death among older women. In a related commentary, several doctors note that the concept of dietary supplementation has shifted from preventing deficiency (there’s a good deal of evidence for harm if you’re low in, say, folic acid) to one of trying to promote wellness and prevent disease, and many studies are showing that more supplements do not equal better health.
But I bet you’ll still take your pills tomorrow morning. Just in case.
This path has the potential to lead to some pretty dark times, as Specter says:
When you start down the road where belief and magic replace evidence and science, you end up in a place you don’t want to be. You end up in Thabo Mbeki South Africa. He killed 400,000 of his people by insisting that beetroot garlic and lemon oil were much more effective than the antiretroviral drugs we know can slow the course of AIDS. Hundreds of thousands of needless deaths in a country that has been plagued worse than any other by this disease.
If you don’t think that can happen here, think again. We’re already not vaccinating children against preventable diseases, something that will surely lead (and probably already has led) to lives lost. We have big problems to address in the coming decades—even greater changes to temperature, weather and water as the planet warms; a growing population—and we need to start putting our trust back into science, into the process that has brought us to where we are today, with longer lives, cleaner water and skies, more efficient farming. Because you have to admit, this is a pretty great time to be alive and it’s science that got us here.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
“Study after study finds no link between autism and vaccines “. This should really say, study after study, done by the vaccine industry, finds no link between autism and vaccines. To see how this fraud is carried out, I suggest reading, “Dissecting a Thimerosal Study” (just google it). You may also want to check out Paul Thoreson, the Danish researcher who has produced the majority of these studies and was recently indicted on 22 felony fraud charges.
Growing up in the midwest I have no doubt about climate change. I also work very hard to keep the subject of creationism out of our public schools. Now when it comes to injecting newborns and infants with bolus doses of organic mercury, that’s where you lose me Michael.
I generally don’t like to take vitamins because I’m of the belief that if we eat properly we should be okay.
I get a yearly physical and for the past 3 years my doctor keeps telling me that I am deficient in vitamin D. I don’t understand this because I spend a lot of time outside especially 3 out of 4 seasons. I drink skim milk and eat foods that contain vitamin D.
I am now taking vitamin D because my doctor has told me so many times that I need to be taking this supplement.
Tens of thousands of parents report that their children were born healthy and were developing normally until they received certain routine vaccinations. Suddenly they got sick with things like seizures, bowel disease, and sleep disorders. Many stopped talking and lost learned skills, ending up with an autism diagnosis. Doctors say autism has no known cause but they’re sure their ever-expanding vaccine schedule isn’t to blame and they have lot of pharma-funded studies to prove it. This must be the “overwhelming data” Spector is referring to.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com
Ted Specter gave us Paul Offit and praised his defense of vaccines. Specter also called autism an “epidemic.” He should know that Offit doesn’t believe there is an epidemic. According to him, the increase can be explained by the expanded definition of autism which now includes people we used to call “geeks and nerds.”
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com
Since Ted Specter is so concerned about stopping epidemics, he should pay attention to what Dr. Thomas Insel said about autism.
Insel, head of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) created by Congress to deal with autism, has said that 80 percent of Americans with autism are under the age of 18 and he warned that we need “to prepare for a million people who may be in need of significant services.” Nothing is being done to handle the approaching tsunami of dependent adults that will descend on social services in the coming years. The IACC now calls autism “a national health emergency
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/
The LA Times recently published this stunning review of the new film, “Greater Good,” an in-depth look at the vaccine safety debate. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-capsules-greater-good20111014,0,7995562.story
The short trailer to this movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulmEGbwQsOU makes it clear that there are experts on both side and a lot of serious questions that need to be asked. The medical community and health officials promote vaccines as the greatest achievement in modern medicine yet there is going fear over vaccine side effects.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/
Recently HDNet TV exposed the fact that while health officials continue to tell us studies show no link, the federal government has paid out millions of dollars for compensation for vaccine injuries that included autism. Seeing these children who were born healthy and were suddenly and dramatically affected by their vaccinations should give us all pause.
http://www.ebcala.org/news/video
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/
To Joe (the first commenter)
Is it enough to call question to these studies? The same can be said for the research that first claimed the MMR-autism connection. The Lancet has since retracted the study and its lead author (Wakefield) has been charged with conflict of interest and falsifying data.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim. Is there a wealth of (good) evidence to support the vaccine-autism relationship? I also seem to remember that thimerosal (the ingredient under most heated attack) is no longer as commonly used in vaccines. This could, of course, be a faulty memory, so I don’t stand by that completely, but correct me if I’m wrong.
[...] New Yorker. In a story on Smithsonian.com called The Overwhelming Data We Refuse To Believe HERE a video of Michael Specter is included. “If you don’t think that can happen here, [...]
It is not science when drug companies and the CDC carry out a vaccine safety study. So please substitute the word science for “junk science” “pseudo science” “just plan bad science” or let’s trick the population into believing
that vaccines are the greatest contribution to mankind(except for Sponge Bob) science.
maurine meleck, SC
Michael Specter is the “footnotes coming soon” guy. He wrote a book. No footnotes, no efficient way to check the accuracy of anything he claims in the book. So he promised the footnotes would be posted online. We are STILL waiting for those darn footnotes. http://www.michaelspecter.com/denialism/footnotes-denialism/
Andy at #9. What Wakefield discovered is that the British Government kept a vaccine on the market that was made by a British Corporation (GSK) that had already been banned in Canada for causing Meningitis. He had to be destroyed. That’s the whole premise for eveything that was done to him.
@Andy: you are correct, thimerosol is no longer used in vaccines.
Wow – 6 of 13 comments. That’s pretty impressive, Anne D. Do you usually comment so voluminously?
You missed a critical point about the Berkeley climate study: it was funded by the Koch brothers! http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
Several flu vaccines contain approxiamately 25 mcg of mercury.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm
Joe, you are so right. Outright scientific fraud is epidemic. But, worse, and more insidious, is scientific financial conflict of interest. Virtually all scientific study is funded by capitalist concerns with a financial interest in the outcome. Those involved in such research know what their job is – to serve the financial interests of their direct, or indirect, employer. If the employer doesn’t like the outcome that it paid for, the researcher should expect to be hired again. That’s why FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs can never be presumed to be either safe or effective. Notwithstanding the blatent, open and obvious financial conflict of interest in the drug research and approval process, the record of the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry is an utter disgrace – over 100,000 deaths and over 2,000,000 serious (non-lethal), adverse drug reactions, from FDA approved drugs in the U.S. every year, many from drugs that are later withdrawn from the market because it turned out they weren’t safe or effective.
The comment threads show the epidemic of paranoia best. People are directly told that multiple studies have shown no link between vaccines and autism, and most of these comments have contrary “evidence” provided by fellow conspiracy theorists that in their minds refutes good science. I’d like to see a study done about how people will believe anyone, saying anything, as long as it reinforces previously held beliefs. Was 9/11 an inside job? Was the Moon landing faked? Denver airport part of a plot to spread plague throughout the world? Society has gone mad.
Here are some real scientific facts about global climate:
A summary of the sequence of events for the last 130,000 years (‘real’ years);
150,000 y.a. – cold, dry full glacial world
around 130,000 y.a. – rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e) [Without human interaction]
130,000-110,000 y.a. – global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present.
(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)
?110,000 y.a. – a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e).
105,000-95,000 y.a. – climate warms slightly but still cooler and drier than present; strong fluctuations.
95,000 – 93,000 y.a. – another cooler phase similar to that at 110,000 y.a.
93,000 – 75,000 y.a. – a milder phase, resembling that at 105,000-95,000 y.a.
75,000 – 60,000 y.a. – full glacial world, cold and dry (the ‘Lower Pleniglacial’ or Stage 4)
60,000 – 25,000 y.a. – ‘middling phase’ of highly unstable but generally cooler and drier-than-present conditions (Stage 3)
25,000 – 15,000 y.a. – full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the ‘Last Glacial Maximum’)
(This period includes two ‘coldest phases’ – Heinrich Events – at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)
14,500 y.a. – rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid deglaciation begins. [Without human interaction]
13,500 y.a. – nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today’s
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid onset of cool, dry Younger Dryas in many areas
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) – Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1) [Without human interaction]
9,000 y.a. – 8,200 y.a. – climates warmer and often moister than today’s
about 8,200 y.a. – sudden cool and dry phase in many areas
8,000-4,500 y.a. – climates somewhat warmer and moister than today’s [Without human interaction]
Since 4,500 y.a. – climates fairly similar to the present
about 2600 y.a. – relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas
1,400 y.a. {536 – 538 A.D.} wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere
700 – 200 y.a. (~1300 – ~1800 A.D.) ‘Little Ice Age’
200 y.a. – today – began gradual NATURAL warming from lows of ‘Little Ice Age’
1970′s – 1980′s “scientists” predict coming Ice Age is imminent
1990′s – 2000 same “scientists” predict catastrophic Man-made Global Warming.
Which era do we pick to try to recreate / maintain and spend $$$$$$$$$ with no real impact on nature’s climate whims?
Mandorin @ 18 – I don’t think the world has “gone mad”. No one knows who to believe. For every science article claiming something is safe there’s a contradicting report claiming it’s harmful. Medicines are released to the public only to be recalled a few years later because they cause severe illness or death (late night lawyer commercials list dozens you can get paid if you took). I think people may be paranoid, but why shouldn’t we be. Anything that attacks big business gets shut down immediately. If I reported tomorrow that driving a car caused heart attacks you’d see dozens of reports (by the auto industry) showing the opposite.
I agree with the tone of the article, that we need to get back to a society which trusts in science. But, it’s the scientific sponsorship process which needs to change in order to win the public back.
@19 – Can you site a source?
Follow the money! That will always lead to the truth.