Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Denialism
9:27 PM | 
Posted by
Michael Perkins
A denialist is someone who champions certain beliefs despite clear and overwhelming evidence that the beliefs are false. Holocaust deniers are paradigm examples of denialists. Despite the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that the holocaust did indeed occur, Holocaust deniers claim that the genocide of the Jews during World War II was a hoax perpetuated as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Other examples of denialists are those who deny that HIV causes AIDS, those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 massacre, those who deny that tobacco use causes cancer, and those who deny that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. Some commentators also claim that those who deny evolution, those who believe vaccines cause autism, and those who deny global climate change are denialists in this sense.
In his 2009 book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, science writer Michael Specter claims that denialism occurs "when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie." The denialist denies the facts because the facts are uncomfortable. One might argue, for instance, that the Holocaust deniers are anti-semites who are faced with the fact that anti-semites were responsible for one of the most horrific crimes in the history of mankind. Their denial of the Holocaust resolves the conflict between their anti-semitism and this uncomfortable truth.
In a recent New Scientist report on denialism, Michael Shermer argues that the denialist's discomfort is usually based on a conflict between the facts and an ideological or religious belief. This discomfort causes the denialist to filter the evidence so that these ideological or religious beliefs need not be discarded.
Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.
In the video below, Michael Specter provides an interesting discussion of denialism and the harm that it causes.
Related:
Taxes at Lowest Levels in 59 Years
The Whole Problem with the World
Bertrand Russell
Blind to the Look of Disgust
The Taste of Fine Wine
The UK Statistics Authority
Facebook Linked to a Rise in Syphilis
Labels:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Michael Perkins
12 comments:
A mother takes her healthy baby boy to a doctor, the doctor vaccinates him, and within hours there's a major change in the demeanor of the child; the few words he had learned to say, he can no longer say; sleep comes less easily; the change becomes more easily discernible as regression, continues to become more pronounced until, a year later, the child is diagnosed autistic.
This happens, over and over again. To say correlation is not necessarily causation denies the real possibility that correlation may be causation in this case; more importantly, denies the possibility that, had the child not been vaccinated, he would not have regressed - ever.
There are millions of unvaccinated kids. It's time to study their medical histories to determine the incidence of autism and other childhood diseases that are plaguing us. We need to know.
Shawn, there have been multiple studies of this issue and no causal relationship has been found. The Lancet which published Andrew Wakefield's original paper claiming a causal relationship has retracted the study citing serious methodological and ethical issues involving the manipulation and misreporting of data for potential profit. Wakefield currently faces disciplinary charges over the manner in which this research was conducted. The CDC noted that the retraction was consistent with the "overwhelming body of research by the world’s leading scientists that concludes there is no link between M.M.R. vaccine and autism." Moreover, 10 of the 13 original authors on the paper issued a statement retracting the conclusion of a causal relationship between vaccine and autism.
It is important that we not be swayed by anecdote or simple correlation. We must get this one right because unvaccinated children will die!
If you haven't done so, please review the video. It helps put this issue in perspective.
That's a misstatement, sir; the Lancet study did not definitively claim a causal relationship between vaccine and autism; it opined that, due to the nature of the study, such a correlation was an obvious point of interest and should be studied. Poignantly, it was the public that decided that there was reason to pause in its commitment to vaccination, and justifiably so. The parents of the twelve children who comprised the Lancet case studies had originally taken the initiative and approached Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues, giving unsolicited accounts of regression/bowel disease following the MMR shot. To this day they support the treatment given their children and attest to its efficacy. And to this day, science cannot offer proof that there is no causal relationship.
No, it is important that we seriously consider the continuing accounts of regression immediately following vaccination, and not discount what seems the obvious correlation - a link between the two - just because it seems obvious. Generally speaking, the obvious is the true.
Thus my final point remains the same: it's time to study the medical histories of the tremendous number of unvaccinated children to determine the incidence of autism and other childhood diseases that are plaguing us now, but were comparatively minor concerns in the past. We need to know. It will help put the issue in perspective.
Shawn, you are right that the claim made by the Lancet study was to suggest further investigation. In light of the claim, several large studies were performed and no link was found. A number of health and scientific organizations including the CDC and the UK National Health Service reviewed the studies and concluded that there was no reason to believe that a causal link exists.
You are also right that we should take seriously anecdotal accounts of a correlation between the vaccine and the onset of autism. However, the "obvious" is not always true -- especially when it comes to causal relationships. That is why the proper response to these cases is further study with appropriate scientific methodologies. Again, the studies do not show a causal relationship.
You are also right that the claims made in this matter, despite the scientific evidence, have led the public to "pause in its commitment to vaccination." And this is the problem. The MMR vaccine saves lives. Children will die from the public's lack of commitment to vaccination.
I would never suggest, however, that we should not perform new studies. Science is tentative, and we should never close the door to new knowledge. The studies you suggest seem reasonable and appropriate. Moreover, autism is a serious health issue, and the reported cases appear to be significantly up in recent years. Large scale studies to better understand the causes of autism are certainly warranted.
"We must get this one right because unvaccinated children will die!" More scare tactics! Then how do you explain the millions of unvaccinated adults and children alive today? How did that happen??
Anonymous, are you denying that the MMR vaccine has prevented thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of cases of mental retardation?
Note, by the way, that neither I nor anyone else has suggested that ALL unvaccinated children will die. As far as I know, no one ascribes to that absurd position.
Are you denying the fact that sanitation, hygiene, nutrition, and better health standards have prevented millions of deaths and sicknesses?
Let me ask you, where do those unvaccinated children you are talking about live? Could it be in third world countries which have poor sanitation, food, etc? What about diseases for which no vaccines have been developed? Aren't hygienic conditions the best way to prevent those? Perhaps the billions spent on inoculating those in third world countries would be better spent on improving those conditions and preventing deaths from those diseases as well as MM and R.
Sure, there are a very small few unvaccinated who may die in the US with these diseases (not from them), but what other co-morbid conditions do they have that killed them? What is their access to healthcare, quality foods, and clean water.
Ponder those thoughts before you respond.
Anonymous, I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty seeing the relevance of your comment to anything I have said. I certainly would not deny that "sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and better health standards save and improve lives." For this reason, I am in favor of those things just as I am in favor of vaccinating children.
My only claim is that there have been a large number of peer-reviewed scientific studies of the alleged link between the MMR vaccine and autism and that these studies have failed to provide any reason to believe that a causal link exists. Which part of this do you disagree with?
I for one always hold very dear to the tobacco industry's pseudoscience they tried to sell the public on claiming that there is no link btwn lung cancer and smoking. There were hundreds of families who had suffered from deaths which they felt were from smoking. They were seen as lunatics and crazy and that there hasn't been any links to smoking and cancer so no one cared. No one listened.. all the while the tobacco industry was banking in millions and not to mention the medical industry as well with an overload of cancer patients.. What happened next? AS those families were being laughed at because they failed to scientifically prove "correlation equals causation".. almost 7 decades later.. GUESS what?? they did find the damn link!! And just like Mikey Perkins said himself-- ppl who are in denial of the link of cancer and smoking are pretty much crazy!!!!
Now take this example from above and now replace the smoking with the word vaccine and replace the word cancer with autism.. get the picture??
LOL. the dogma that is associated with these big Pharma companies and the CDC, the WHO.. its unbelievable!! And they call me crazy for believing in a CONSPIRACY THEORY. Well, I rather do my research and make sound decisions on those findings than to just blindly believe that the CDC< WHO< EPA< and them are looking for my best interest at heart!! GO eff yourself.
Anonymous, are you claiming that at some point, there existed a strong body of scientific evidence that showed that there was no relationship between tobacco and cancer? If so, please educate me about it. If not, your analogy fails. The real analogy is between those who deny the relationship between tobacco and cancer and those who assert the relationship between vaccines and autism. In both cases, the best scientific evidence is being denied.
You claim that you have your "own research" on which you base your decisions. I assume that you believe that your research is better than the dozens of peer-reviewed studies performed by leading scientists around the world. I would be more than happy to consider such evidence if you shared it.
Finally, it is typical of denialists that rather than simply explain why they believe the science is wrong, they resort to incivility. They really have no better option.
Michael, why do you focus so much on MMR and autism? There are many more problems with ALL vaccines besides autism, which is better stated as brain damage. Vaccines are known to have many serious adverse effects including encephalopathy, anaphylactic reactions, heavy metal toxicity, paralysis, and even death. Don't forget that people also acquire the disease the vaccines are supposedly 'preventing' from the vaccine itself (live virus vaccines).
What good is it to 'prevent' measles by spending billions when children in third world countries will die from malaria, amoebas, or other diseases for which there are no vaccines and no guarantee they are protected from measles anyway? I said it before, I'll say it again: the money wasted on vaccines would be better spent improving other public health policies in those poor areas.
It seems most public health officials deny that improved public health lead to the decline and eradication of diseases, believing it to be solely or mostly vaccines. Do you deny that these public health policies lead to the decline of diseases?
Let me ask you: why did tuberculosis decline in the US at the same rate as it did in other countries where they used the BCG vaccine? Also, in those countries which used it, there were outbreaks.
From the WHO on TB: "There is a concern that use of the vaccine in persons who are immune compromised may result is an infection caused by the BCG itself. Also, even among immune competent persons, local reactions, including ulceration at the site of vaccination may result in shedding of live organisms which could infect others who may be immune compromised.
The early use of BCG was marked by a tragic accident. In Lubeck more than 25% of the approximately 250 infants who received a batch of the vaccine developed tuberculosis. It was later recognized that this batch was accidentally contaminated with a virulent strain of M. tuberculosis."
I state again, why did TB mostly die out in the US at the same rate as other countries? Interesting, huh?
Also, all other diseases were heading out BEFORE the vaccines were introduced. Yes, the numbers were high before the introduction of vaccines, but the decline (particularly death rates) was as steady before as it was after vaccines.
You ask "why do you focus so much on MMR and autism?" This blog entry is on the subject of denialism. Those that insist on the existence of a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism, despite the preponderance of scientific evidence to the contrary, are often cited as examples of denialists. This is the topic under discussion.
Some readers have felt compelled to defend the view that a causal link exists between MMR and autism. But so far, none of them have offered a single bit of scientific evidence to support their positions. Instead, they have offered anecdote, irrelevancy and verbal abuse. They could better advance their positions by directly taking issue with my claim that the preponderance of evidence is against them. They could accomplish this in one of two ways: 1) they could explain why the dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies that contradict their position are flawed, or 2) they could cite the existence of equally weighty peer-reviewed scientific studies that support their position. But so far, no one has even suggested that either of these are true.
Your comments, though interesting, do not address this issue either. However, I would like to make a few remarks concerning them. First, no sane person would deny that better hygiene and other health practices reduce disease. But this is quite different from the claim that better hygiene and health practices are the ONLY thing needed to reduce disease. This is a radical claim and requires some justification. Second, you SEEM to be saying that no vaccine has ever had an effect on the incidence of disease. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation. On the face of it, this is a preposterous claim, but I would be very happy to hear the evidence you have for it. Third, though the discussion of TB is off-topic, please note that neither the fact that a "contaminated" vaccine harmed people nor the fact that the vaccine is not recommended for those with "compromised immune systems" are sufficient reasons to reject the vaccine altogether.
Post a Comment