Who is better equipped to solve a major medical mystery, a handful American lawmakers or thousands of highly trained scientists worldwide? Unfortunately for Americans, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform decided that it was the former. The committee held a hearing billed as a conversation with experts on the growing rates of autism, but it was rife with anti-vaccination diatribes and conspiracy theories from members of Congress and their carefully chosen anti-vaccination witnesses. One congressman, Indiana Republican Dan Burton, let loose a rant filled with misinformation and conjecture about the safety of vaccines and their ability to harm children and adults. He told those at the hearing,
Vaccinations have an important place in our society. One of the best health regiments in the history of mankind: people live longer and live better and have less disease because we have vaccinations. What we have always opposed is putting toxic chemicals and metals in the vaccinations. Thimerosal contains mercury. When I was a boy, we used to have mercury in thermometers. They said if you break that thermometer and the mercury gets on your hands, that’s toxic.
But thimerosal has not been present in vaccines (save a few influenza shots) since 2001. Burton went on to discuss the dangers of a chemical that haven’t been used in vaccines in more than a decade. Thimerosal is not the same chemical found in thermometers, and the conjecture by Burton on its safety was an uninformed and dangerous attempt at understanding science that has already been settled by qualified professionals at the CDC and elsewhere. Burton went on about thimerosal, stating,
Ever since 1929, it [thimerosal] has not been completed tested. They continue to use it in vaccinations. It wasn’t so bad when a child got one vaccination or two or three. But when they get as many as 28 or 29 before they go into the first grade, it really hurts them. It creates a cumulative effect. The brain tissues do not chelate it. It stays in there and it causes severe, severe problems.
If Burton had taken the time to visit the CDC website instead of cherry-picking experts (whom he later discusses) he would have discovered how thimerosal works in the body:
Thimerosal does not stay in the body a long time so it does not build up and reach harmful levels. When thimerosal enters the body, it breaks down, to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate, which are easily eliminated.
The rest of his diatribe can be as easily broken down by the FAQ section on the CDC website as well. The question-and-answer portion of the hearing was equally cringe-inducing. Forbes’s Steven Salzberg has an excellent post on the hearing, explaining its danger to public health:
Congress has every right to conduct oversight into medical research at the NIH and the CDC. But when Dan Burton, Bob Posey, and others decide in advance what the science says, and abuse their power to demand “answers” that validate their badly mistaken beliefs, people can be harmed. Over the past decade, the anti-vaccine movement has successfully convinced millions of parents to leave their kids unvaccinated, and the result has been serious outbreaks of whooping cough, haemophilus, measles, chicken pox, and mumps around the U.S. and Europe.
Some anti-vax parents claim that these childhood illnesses aren’t so bad. I wish they would talk to the parents of young children who have died in recent whooping cough outbreaks. These illnesses can be deadly.
When Americans elect representatives to Congress, they are looking for lawmakers, not pseudoscientists. Fortunately, Burton is retiring at the end of this term; unfortunately, however, this hearing lent legitimacy to a movement of anti-vaccination activists who constitute a considerable danger to public health both nationally and internationally.
It is telling in the presidential primaries that when Huntsman "came out" and admitted to believing in evolution and climate change, that it was seen as, "How can he survive this?" n nRepublicans and science don't have a good relationship. In fact, as this article stresses, in many times they are not even on speaking terms. n nConservatives must understand and move in the way Ms Mandel suggests. And it must not be just about vaccinations. Climate change, school curricula (getting "intelligent design" out of classrooms), mental health effects of abortion, stem-cell research, economics (the Laffer curve), these are all areas that conservatives need to abandon their pseudo-science. n n
Baloney. Keep your scientism to yourself, pal.
You're quite right. This image, and not an entirely false image, of Republicans as nuts when it comes to social issues, was at least partially responsible for Romney's loss. Politicians keep harping about our 'Fathers' of the constitution. Many of those 'Fathers' were adamant that religion and politics should never be mixed. James Madison (Article V1, Clause 3 of our constitution), Jefferson, etc.. We worship and believe in God in different ways, but we MUST keep that sentiment out of politics. Otherwise, we get Obama. Nuff said.
Nonsese, Doozer. It's you who is the pseudoscientist here by conflating a number of issues, some of which are not even in the realm of science, and politicising them, with threats to "get with" some sort of a program. n nComparing the fraudulent, evidence-free quackery of "climate change" with the well-established science of evolution won't make the former true. "Intelligent design" is philosophy; it's about ultimate causes and is no more un-scientific than its atheist counterpart of a universe-that-just-happenned. Neither position is empirically sustainable and both are unfalsifiable and faith-based, hence un-scientific. Issues over stem cell research are about ethics, not science. Suppressing inquiries and information on the physical and mental health effects of abortion is not about science either; it's about shilling for a social and political cause and protecting a multi-billion dollar industry. Science is a methodology, not a manifesto, a state of grace or a club membership card, you know.
Point taken on stem cell research, you are quite right there in that I did conflate the ethical objection with stem cell research with the scientific denial of the other areas I mentioned. n nHowever, to deride climate change as quackery is the exact same thing that Ms Mandel is talking about here. And additionally, to suggest that Intelligent Design is not un-scientific is also part of the problem. As you correctly state, science is a methodology, and just like Richard Muller, those who deny evidence will soon get their wake up call anyway. n nIt's kinda like unskewing polls, at some point the bill comes due.
With apologies to being brief due to schedule and having an unlnown word-limit here, but deriding what is clearly a financial scam which has flopped with the science behind vaccination is the "exact same thing." Regarding the first, there is not a smidgen of empirical evidence for any of the claims, no means to test or even view evidence, no falsifiability and plenty of outright fraud with ridiculous cover-ups. The main "argument" behind it is authority; which how other mainstream science frauds such as eugenics, phrenology or Lysenkoism survived as long as "climate change" did. The principles or science behind vaccinations, on the other hand, have been established through proper procedure, they are testable and predictable, with mountains of quantitative evidence from all over the world.
"[Cl]early a financial scam", this is often something I hear. Can you elaborate please? Is this the belief that climate change science is a hoax that is perpetrated by a number of scientists to ensure that their funding keeps coming in from universities? Because that is quite frankly ridiculous and yet another conspiracy theory in the same vein as the anti-vaccination crowd. n nSo I am asking you not to say lots of words that mean "Climate science isnt real", but to please explain what the conspiracy of climate science is? What are the mechanics of the the hoax? Who is doing it? Why are they doing it? How are they getting away with it? Is the media complicit? n nYou see….once you start unpeeling the onion, if it looks like a conspiracy theory and it talks like a conspiracy theory, it probably is a conspiracy theory.
Part 1 n nAs in most things, follow the money. Joanne Nova's site has pretty break-downs. In a nutshell, billions have gone into promotion, setting up of taxation schemes, enriching NGOs, funding for failed and destructive "green technology" cronies and the silly "carbon credits" which have enriched many, including Al Gore who cashed out 30 mil before the scheme went belly-up. All this on the basis of failed computer models and without one scintilla of scientific</> evidence to discount the null hypothesis…that being that climate is behaving in a normative way. n n
And this is different from other conspiracy theories in exactly what way? You see? You conservatives will never give up your tinfoil hats. Isn't this all just Agenda 21 stuff? The black helicopters coming for our golf courses and making us ride bicycles up and down the NAFTA super highway with Ameros in our pockets? I guess now I'm just trying to find the bridge too far. Vaccines are fair game, but climate change is still too far. Good to know.
PS, Agenda 21 is a real, public program that has openly declared its aims. Read about it; it's silly, neo-socialist wing-nut stuff. Sillier than your beloved "black helicopters." Are you saying the authors are lying? And guess what; environmentalists are pushing for limits on cars, development of public transportation and yes, bicycle lanes. They are also riling against "wasteful" use of land and resources such as golf courses. All part of the public record. Why opposition to such inanities makes one into a loonie is a mystery to me…except perhaps, that ridicule is the only weapon the proponents of inanities have.
Part 2 n nYou do understand, I trust, that under the usual rules of science, the burden of evidence is on the warmists to challenge the null hypothesis, not on skeptics to disprove their unproven and unprovable hypotheses. You do also understand that warmists have to prove that: 1) CO2 drives climate; 2) that warming has taken place; 3) that if such warming has taken place, it's not part of our Holocene climate or coming out of the last mini ice age; 4) that warming is bad, rather than good as history demonstrates, and 5) that the "coincidetally" well-designed and costly revenue-grabbing "mitigation" strategies can make difference? n nThis is the burden of evidence the warmists have to address and they have failed on every point. Instead, they rely on arguments from authority, aggressive propaganda, indoctrination, legislation and regulation. Precisely the way every government-sponsored pseudoscientific scam in history has played out.
I will never convince you of climate change. But again, the issue is that you think this is driven by conspiracy. It's a hoax that's being perpetuated for a purpose. I am asking, what is that purpose? Who is doing it? And then I will ask, “Really?” Cause everything I've ever seen from conservatives on these points is a bunch of preposterous nonsense. So please illuminate the whole purpose of the scam and try to make it not sound silly.
Skepticism is not necessarily a "conservative" issue; the warming alarmism has been promoted by many conservatives, including energy corporations and financial institutions, such as Shell, BP, Enron, etc. n nThis is a science issue. The fraud has been busted-up by scientists; mainly statistitcans, physicists, geologists, meteorologists and others specialists.
You will never convince me of climate change simply because you are unable to present a single science or logic-based argument or refutation. Instead you present straw man arguments, a political posture and your own conspiracy theory, namely that skepticism is a conservative conspiracy. But don't feel bad; warmists haven't been able to do better than you.
Do I have all of climate science at my fingertips? No. The null hypothesis has been proven, that human activity has been the reason for global temperature increases. You talk of provability and expect climate science to be the same as chemistry where experiments can be tightly controlled and compared. Using your logic then, rocketry is also not a science. The climate, like rocketry is a complex system in the real world. Chaotic systems are not experimental in the same way as non chaotic systems. They are however observable and traditional statiscal methods applied to those observations have shown with significance that it is the alternative hypothesis. n nOr its the UN coming to replace our dollars with Ameros.
You're making no sense…just repeating zingers from the mis-named Skeptical Sience blog without understand them. The null hypothesis is the status quo …i.e., weather behaving in accordance with nature, the recent, challenging hypothesis is the hypothesis for anthropogenic climate change. Because many believe in it does not mean that it's proven. I don't expect all evidence to be "like chemistry," whatever you mean by that. "Rocketry" is a science in that it can be tested and it predicts; this is why we can calculate launch capacities, orbits and such even with paper and pencil. Chaotic systems are by definition chaotic…so, the null hypothesis remains until a way is found to quantify or qualify "chaotic" scientifically. Computer-generated climate models based on very limited and faulty data are not "statistical methods." They are speculative Gameboy entertainment. Your second last sentence makes no sense at all, linguistically or scientifically…must you make stuff up? And what on earth are "Ameros" you go on about? n
Null hypothesis is that A and B are not related (lung cancer and ice cream) the alternative hypothesis is that they ate (lung cancer and smoking) . When evidence becomes overwhelming the null hypothesiss shifts places. It is now the fade that the burden of proof is on the deniaists. n nAmeros are the currency of the north American union. Another conservative boogeyman.
Part 3 n nOh, and regarding conspiracy theories. Conspiracies, especially financial ones do happen quite frequently, which is why we have laws against them. But, no, I don't think this is a unified conspiracy. More like a convergence of interests by different sectors, with goals to raise the price of energy by creating artificial shortages through fear, to transfer capital from the industrialized nations to the developing ones and to create new financial opportunities. In any case, the UN, "environmental" NGOs and governments have been quite clear on the aim to impose poverty ("sustainability") by reducing energy use and to enforce a new governance regime through regulating consumption and development. If it's a conspiracy, it's certainly not secretive and fortunately, it is finally failing …in part because in spite of billions spent on manufacturing the "science" and pumping out the propaganda, it is impossible to sustain a lie forever. Just long enough for some to make a buck before others catch on.
So how did the UN latch onto an idea from the 70s, and then convince thousands of researchers to go along with it, convince Richard Muller to change his mind, all so that they could impose poverty on everyone.You see, what you are suggesting is just plain silly. “It's the UN coming for our golf courses.” The motive isn't there. And since this isn't about the science, it's really about the motive. And that is the typical conservative UN paranoia.
You are taking this discussion into irrelevant areas. I don't claim to know why or how or who, I can only point out facts and speculate. The best I can suggest is examine the science …the general outlines are not very complicated even for a layman… and "follow the money," a strategy every competent investigator employs. You, on the other hand ascribe absurd ideas and beliefs to me and heap ridicule. I don't nind, but it tells me that means you don't understand the basic issues and you are proceeding from the position of faith. You are a pseudoscientist.
You do not speculate. You say it is quite clear that the UN wants to impose poverty. Don't walk away from that now. n nFinancial scam. UN imposing poverty. Cronies. n nThe motives you ascribe as the purpose to the scam are silly. Is it the illuminati who are doing it? Is it to keep Americans from getting too rich?
I'm not walking away from anything; I'm being honest in admitting that I cannot provide a evidence or a credible reason for motives. However, the UN is pushing for "sustainability" measures which impose poverty on the poorest. These include higher rates for energy, making fuel from food sources such as corn, a genocidal prohibition of DDT without a scientific cause and limits on effective GM stock, again without a scientific cause. These policies are affecting the world's poorest, especially in Africa and are killing millions. You really need to work on that logic thing, Doozer
How exactly does the UN impose anything? It seems like in the conservative mind the UN is both an ineffective useless nefarious willful organization that can muster resources to kill millions for no reason at all. n nReally, doesn't the cognitive dissonance hurt at some point?
The UN imposes many things through voluntary and binding international agreements which are then implement by individual countries…I thought everyone knew that. The rest of your reply is a straw man again. Are you sure you understand the term "cognitive dissonance" correctly?
And everyone is agreeing to climate change for what purpose. To enrich a few people and impose poverty? You just don't get it. You ate saying the UN is the boogeyman. Just like in the hearings saying the pharmaceuticals are.
Anyway, Doozer, as much as I enjoy this topic, I do have a big day tomorrow and need my beauty sleep. I will get back to you, though, and slay, trample and leave in the dust all your arguments
n nUse the time well by brushing up on the climate science controversy. You might be be able to challenge me with better arguments than ad hominem attacks, rants about conservatives and tin foil hats. Good night.
The conspiracy has already been revealed in the leaked emails of the British promoters of climate change at East Anglia.
"thimerosal has not been present in vaccines (save a few influenza shots) since 2001." Bethany's right. Dr. Marc Siegel made that same point in a (welcome) larger rant on Fox News Channel not long ago.
With all due respect, this post is rather biased, to the point of containing factual errors. For example, the link to the CDC does NOT even say that thimerosal "has not been present in vaccines" since 2001. it says: "2001 -Except for influenza (flu), thimerosal is removed from or reduced in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and under manufactured for the U.S. market." Removed from OR REDUCED–not that is it not present. My own pediatrician has confirmed that it is still in most vaccines. Vaccines already produced with the higher levels remained in circulation long after 2001, too. n nI acknowledge that for me, having a child with autism, I am neither anti-vaccine nor, like the above author, head-in-the-sand pro-vaccine–and I have carefully researched this issue objectively, something I cannot say for the author. n nWhat always confounds me ideologically, though, is that a conservative publication like this one should be so in favor of the government having such broad powers over medical decisions for one's children. Whether or not autism is a concern, vaccines do not magically or harmlessly confer immunity–they're whole point is to stimulate significant immune responses. This is not something done lightly, especially with children with allergies or other immune or health concerns. Yet doctors and, apparently, Commentary, rarely let parents make this decision with pressure and intimidation.
Who is better equipped to solve a major medical mystery? A handful American lawmakers or thousands of highly trained scientists worldwide? n nWith the passage of ObamaCare that question is settled: A handful American lawmakers. (And if you are inclined to gag, I suggest you do so quietly and privately or some bureaucrat may dispatch the Boston Strangler to help you solve your problem.)
“But when [various congressmen or senators] decide in advance what the [answers are], and abuse their power to demand “answers” that validate their badly mistaken beliefs, people can be harmed.” n nHoly cow! I sure hope this sort of thing does not occur very often where congressional hearings are involved. [cough, cough]
Dan Burton's ill-informed diatribe on vaccines is but the tip of the iceberg when evaluating congressional ignorance. Scientific malpractice by non-scientists shows up in the form of special-interest legislation covering such fields as energy, the environment, climate change and although not entirely scientific, our economic solutions. n nIt is too bad that conservatives writing on these pages cannot seem find liberals to criticize who incessantly imbue our laws with pseudoscience.
How about the EPA with its designaion of life-giving CO2 as a pollutant? Just for starters.
The ignorants run the circus. Du deja vu! Burton is more TOXIC than mercury.
Judging by his testimony, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) seems poised to take over Burton's "autism is vaccine injury" mantle. n nBut some backstory: Rep. Burton has been anti-vaccination activists' pet Representative for over a decade. As a swan-song, somehow Generation Rescue, Safeminds, and Autism Speaks got Burton to arrange a final Oversight committee hearing. There were no (zero, 0, nada) autistic adults invited to speak at this hearing, until the pro-science autism community put pressure on the Committee. The head of the Global and Regional Autism Partnership (GRASP), an autistic adult, and the head of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN), also an autistic adult, were added either Monday or Tuesday before the Thursday hearing. n nThe anti-science brigade had had weeks to prep the committee's staffers; the two individuals who actually represented autistics were out-played. n nIf there are further autism hearings, expect the science-based autism community to be much more in evidence.
I think Dan Burton knows more about vaccines than any of the gadflies here do. All one has to do is read, actually read, 15-20 page-long vaccine monographs and package inserts to realize that current vaccines are full of dubious ingredients. The bottom line is that NONE of them have been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and mutagenicity, etc..r nIgnorants seem to abound, and sadly they are the ones who are mandating vaccine schedules! Some of us have become wise to their scams/schemes and are now avoiding any vaccines.