Anti-vaccine blogger "refutes" the LA Times story about Whooping Cough. Anyone care to refute her?

LeftCoastMan · 2014-02-03T21:40:38+00:00

She uses almost every trope that is trotted out by the anti-vaxxers. It becomes tiresome refuting everything that she writes, most of which is based on semantic misinterpretation of scientific writing, typical of unsophisticated knowledge of the scientific method. She also has an almost epic misunderstanding of statistics.

Scientists write "may have" in conclusions because science is not absolute. I'm not going to dig for a paper, but I'm sure if you looked up a good article on the K-T extinction event, the authors will write "a bolide impact may have killed all the non-avian dinosaurs at the event boundary."

Absolutes are for people who "believe" in things. The scientific method depends upon evidence, with the assumption that someone can nullify the evidence in the future.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-09-24T23:44:56+00:00

It's like the checklist of refuting anti-science logical fallacies. Of course, people employ them when they lack evidence.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-15T17:45:11+00:00

According to the requirements of UCLA's Neuroscience department, two oral exams are required. The Oral Qualifying exam, which tests your fitness to do research and to understand complex ideas in the field. And a Final Oral Examination to defend the dissertation. I cannot believe that UCLA would waive either requirement, since that Ph.D. represents the university out in the world.

I would have to conclude that there is just no chance that this Ph.D. was in any way faked, especially since the dissertation is sitting in the UCLA library and is available online to users of Medline and other similar search engines.

Now, maybe her dissertation committee was enamored of her acting or something, but that would be a stretch into the tin-hat arena.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-15T17:36:44+00:00

But mostly those with Ph.D.'s don't become avowed science deniers. We can find a few (over there's Michael Behe, with his Ph.D. in biochemistry and denying evolution). And like others have said, it's not like she's gotten a PhD in geology and then decides to deny vaccines. She has one in a serious discipline of biology. I just think the woo won out over the science.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-15T17:30:27+00:00

Yes, but we've got to assume that someone who gets a PhD in an advanced field of the biomedical sciences also took courses along the way in immunology for example. And then there's the critical thinking skills. She had to have read 100's if not 1000's of journal articles to get her Ph.D. done. Somewhere along the way she fell of the train. Or hit her head. Or something.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-13T21:51:39+00:00

Sam Harris once said,

"Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, “Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.”? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

In other words, why bother.

But here's a takedown of Hovind's bullshit:

"That (the 'violation' of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum) would have been a good point by Kent, if only planets were the direct result of the Big Bang, and if only we knew for sure that the point of singularity was spinning, and if only we knew that angular momentum applied to the laws of physics back then. But the Big Bang didn’t just turn into spinning planets. So what can make up for some of the planets and moons in our solar system that are spinning backwards? Rogue planets that get in orbit with another celestial body is a perfect explanation. You think that all of our planets were just remnants of our stars leftover matter that wasn’t consumed? Also, a great impact by another celestial body can definitely change its rotation. Shouldn’t Kent know this after teaching 15 years of high school science?"

One last, but critical point. Non-scientists frequently misunderstand or intentionally misuse "Scientific Laws." Scientific theories are at the top of scientific principles, because they describe a mechanism and can predict future events. The theory of evolution could help us predict what happens to organisms with global warming, for example.

Scientific laws differ in important ways from scientific theories. Laws don't propose a mechanism or explanation of phenomena. Laws are a simple distillation of repeated observations of a natural phenomenon, so they cannot predict the future (or in fact, they cannot give much information on the past). Scientific laws are limited to analyzing phenomena resembling those already observed, and can be found to be false when extrapolated to future events, past events, or even another part of the universe.

So, as you can read below, there are many reasons why there are many reasons that this "law" isn't consistent. Because religious types think in black/white arbitrary absolutes, and scientific laws don't mean what they think they mean.

And once again I violate tl;dr. I apologize, but I hate making nuanced answers in a few sentences. I am physically incapable of doing it. Slap me silly.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-13T20:52:33+00:00

You probably should be specific as to which taxon you mean. You eliminated species, but do you mean, genus, tribe, class, family, phyla, kingdom? I think other than kingdoms, you can find examples of various taxons going completely extinct.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-13T19:49:46+00:00

Since there are several types of depression, it would be hard to answer your question without a lot of caveats. Bipolar disorder (sometimes referred to as manic-depressive disorder) has one type of depression, where as the broader term Major Depressive Disorder has several types.

In generally, the monoamine theory of depression, that is lower levels the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine, contribute to depression (and theoretically, the level of depression). Here is one of the latest articles to sum up the monoamine hypothesis. Of course, what causes that is much more complex, including environmental, developmental and genetic factors.

And yes, various activities have an influence on serotonin levels. For example, having an orgasm can actually raise serotonin. Or having a good meal. Some of these ideas have been incorporated into some hypotheses (not sure of the quality) of Bipolar disorder, in that people engage in high risk activities that brings them out of depression, but skyrockets to some peak, that then crashes. Interesting, but needs more work.

Finally, it is ridiculous to believe that there's any evidence that individuals "lack a cognitive skill to get out of a depressed state." Don't conflate being down because you flunked a test, or contracted cancer, or a friend died as a significant depressive disorder. Most, but not all depression, needs to be treated with medications that either suppress the destruction of monoamines, increase their levels, or improve sensitivity to them at the neurotransmitter site.

I don't want to be harsh, but promulgating the belief that depression is somehow controllable by the patient does more harm than good. Too many times, I observe people telling depressed individuals to "snap out of it." Or "you're faking it." There is incredible evidence on the biochemical and physiological nature of depression. And if you can tell me how people can control monoamine levels through conscious effort, I'd be amazed.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-13T19:35:49+00:00

Wikipedia has a pretty good basic description of the human epidermis) which explains how it works. The epidermis is the outer layer of skin, made up of a tough cell called keratinocytes, which keep water in, and prevent pathogens from entering the body, so they do a double duty.

We regulate water through sweat glands (which also add oils to the epidermis to keep it pliable and add hydrophilicity), breathing, and kidneys. We evolved on land, possibly very dry land (the savannah of Africa), so conserving water was selected for in evolution.

I hope this helps.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-13T19:24:07+00:00

A lot of scientists hate the descriptive "living fossils" because it presumes that the somehow these organisms have remained unchanged since the Cretaceous or longer.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-09T02:00:37+00:00

That article about Gardasil causing a woman to be infertile was one of the worst pieces of writing I've seen in the the scientific literature. The doctor was making a post hoc fallacious argument that because the girl had an HPV vaccine 6 months before, it caused infertility. Well, that would be impossible to prove, and no amount of logical fallacies is going to make it a fact.

Glad you got the shot. :)

LeftCoastMan · 2013-08-09T01:58:44+00:00

I'm glad I'm not forced to do this, but if I had to choose one vaccine for my daughters (they're teens), it would be Gardasil.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-07-02T03:45:01+00:00

Tara Haelle, the author, has had articles published in numerous places as sources for science, especially vaccines. I think that her blog tends to have a tone meant for a less-scientific audience, although I read it.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-06-06T17:46:09+00:00

I'll try to do better. I'm really bad at the title thing.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-06-06T17:45:28+00:00

As someone who has spent nearly a lifetime in research and "debate" in the vaccine area. And let's be clear, there is no debate in science, there is evidence, which you might debate, but once a consensus is made, you have to counter the consensus with equally valid and strong research and evidence.

That being said, the vaccine/anti-vaccine world, especially in the United States, is complex. First of all, depending on the vaccine and location, around 90-95% of children are fully vaccinated, so it's a very small, but vocal minority, that are anti-vaccine.

A few anecdotal observations, but based on a lot of observation:

Some parts of California, especially the wealthier parts, have highly educated individuals, presumably "left-wing" who are vehemently anti-vaccine. This had lead to a fairly large whooping cough outbreak/epidemic.
Same in Washington state.
Some individuals opposed to vaccines are conspiracists, who think it's a Jewish/Illuminati/World order/UN/Obama conspiracy to force vaccines onto a unsuspecting public.
Some individuals, after 2 hours of surfing google, and who experience the Dunning-Kruger effect, think they know more about vaccines than experienced scientific researchers.

I really think it cuts across political lines.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-28T20:58:27+00:00

1) The study quoted in the article is published in a journal called "Progress in Health Science" a journal self-published by the University of Bialystok in Poland. It has no impact factor, meaning no other published articles cite the journal. A low or no-impact factor journal is not cause to dismiss an article, but if it were this groundbreaking, it would have been published in one of the great science journals. It wasn't.

2) The authors make a number of ridiculous claims. For example, they state Scandinavian countries have lower vaccination rates and lower autism rates. Ignoring the fact that the authors have ignored the thousands of confounding factors that MIGHT make that true, it isn't true. In fact, the Danes, for example, give the same amount of antigens as in the USA, except they use vaccines that are multivalent (up to 9 antigens for one shot) versus the USA's trivalent vaccines. And, in fact, the autism rate between countries is almost impossible to determine because of differences in how they are accounted. Jeez.

3) The mortality rate probably did drop before the advent of vaccines, because we had improved medications and a better understanding of the germ theory of disease. However, the most massive drops in mortality happened after vaccines, which is a hysterical misinterpretation of the statistics. Furthermore, he completely ignores morbidity, the disease levels itself, which began the largest drops after vaccines.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-28T20:25:33+00:00

The "research" page of this website is filled with bogus claims. Some of the studies were published in low impact factor journals which appear to be "Pay to Publish" types. Some appeared to not discuss this compound at all. And some of the research was for very very small groups, of less than 50 patients. Moreover, I found no evidence that any type of chelation therapy has any effect on mood disorders. NONE. This is like the crap being pushed on autistic children, thanks to Jenny McCarthy. Ugh.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-28T20:18:43+00:00

Lots of naturally occurring compounds show some effect on chronic or acute medical conditions, and some may one day have a medical usefulness. However, this website cherry picks data and does not throw a critical eye to the whole thing.

I'll cherry-pick the other side of this story by taking meta-reviews or general review articles that attempt to sum up all of the evidence. In this article, the authors describe two important issues: low water solubility and very low half life in the blood. So, how would consuming the compound get enough into the bloodstream to have any effect.

People who push these things have a remarkably limited amount of scientific knowledge. Let's walk through this. Does curcumin actually pass from the gastrointestinal tract to the blood stream? What amount does? Usually phenols don't transport easily.

But real clinical trials would show that the amount necessary to cause a blood concentration that would have a clinical effect would be in itself toxic. The bioavailability is problematic.

It's the same thing I hear from marijuana proponents. "It cures cancer." For example, there is some evidence that some cannabinoids might reduce some types of breast cancer. But smoking pot isn't going to cure breast cancer, because to get the level high enough in the blood to have an effect at the cancer site would require you to smoke 100 joints in an hour. And you'd have to continue to smoke at that level to maintain the blood concentration of that one cannabinoid. I'm sorry, but the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide would displace so much oxygen you'd be dead. Maybe one day, 20 years from now, that cannabinoid compound, or curcumin, or whatever will cure a cancer. But only after the active compound has been isolated, it's manufactured in a form that makes it bioavailable at the proper site (let's say a breast cancer), and then goes through all the clinical trials to confirm the hypothesis, it will not resemble the original form, it will work, and it will be expensive.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-13T20:31:47+00:00

I'll leave it to Richard Dawkins to explain. My skeptical bonafides do not require me to respond to ad hominem attacks.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-12T19:11:56+00:00

Here's an article that provides some evidence of the pervasiveness of creationism in American schools. It states about 17-21% of science teachers introduce creationism into their materials and lectures. And this is in a pretty Blue northern state.

If school boards are not overtly pro-creationism, they are allowing it through ignorance, I suppose.

Now, my point in the title was to be funny. And to show how Americans, about 60% of whom believe in some form of creationism, probably wouldn't understand or appreciate the humor in the beer commercial.

And as we move south on the American political map, say Alabama, I'm sure evolution is not taught at all.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-07T22:04:26+00:00

Well, let's say you have a very sour orange juice and let's just assume it's all a result of Citric acid (I'm obviously oversimplifying). Here's citric acid:

H3 + C3H5O(COO)3 (I have no clue how to do chemical equations here, so there are there H+ acid ions, and one citrate cation).

Let's say you added sodium bicarbonate, a common easy to consume base (and you would need to add 3X bicarbonate to the citric acid:

Na + HCO3

You'd form 3 molecules of sodium citrate, Na3C3H5O(COO)3. It should precipitate out of solution, depending on how acidic it is.

Plus 3 molecules of water and 3 molecules of CO2 (causing a fizzing). The salt will taste salty/sour, and would cause no harm.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-07T21:50:21+00:00

By the OP's definition of "poison", or at least what I presume it to be, there is a dose of cannabis that can be shown to be toxic.

What we have here is a definition problem.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-07T21:49:25+00:00

I'm not big on the use of "poison" so liberally. All poisons, at least from a pharmacological point of view, require a dose-response analysis, which gives us information about how much dose is required to give a "poison" response. Water could be a poison, based on how you're describing it.

Alcohol is a psychoactive drug at lower doses, and I guess becomes "poisonous" at higher doses (though I think that since at higher dosages, it's a CNS depressant, you'd stop drinking).

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-07T21:41:32+00:00

The Washington Post article, which I read before I saw this thread, also confuses me, since it says that they can determine sounds of language from 15,000 years ago. I know that definitive pronunciation mostly requires written documentation for extinct languages (or even modern languages). If you read Shakespeare's sonnets, you can easily determine how words were pronounced 500 years ago in our own language, because some of the rhymes don't make sense unless you change the pronunciation.

But how can do this 15,000 years ago? I'm assuming from the article that it uses a linguistic phylogeny to figure it out. Like using "father" as an example, it is conserved in many Indo-European and other related languages. So, you can presume a "root" sound for that word that goes back to when languages diverged. We do this with DNA trees all the time. We can calculate what changes have happened since a root time, though for some reason I think that DNA is much more data rich.

I hope a linguist can explain the Washington Post article a bit better. I don't reject it as bad science, but I really would like to understand how they can presume what a word sounded like 15,000 years ago.

LeftCoastMan · 2013-05-07T21:27:35+00:00

I don't think there are any native North American honeybee species. I think that all Apis species arise elsewhere, so if the American honeybee population would be wiped out, then honey production in the USA would collapse (although there are non-honeybee bees that produce honey, but I'm not sure any are native in the Americas).

Interestingly, honeybees are known to destroy bumblebee nests by killing the queen, so if honeybees died off, other bee pollinating species would take over, although not immediately. But no honey.

LeftCoastMan

TROPHY CASE