tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134939414534637359.post2329721441669408736..comments2024-03-07T02:30:01.675-05:00Comments on Rachel's Rants, Raves, and Recollections: The Accidental Science AdvocateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134939414534637359.post-4862174936547906652009-11-19T21:20:41.973-05:002009-11-19T21:20:41.973-05:00First, Rachel is kidding about the astrology, but ...First, Rachel is kidding about the astrology, but I think had some superstitions about it when we met. I think her earlier tendencies make her an excellent advocate with scientific thinking; the zeal of the converted and all that.<br /><br />I also have had talks with my students about creationism, and pseudoscience masquerading as psychology. We seem to get a lot of that, so part of my job is that students get out of a psych major knowing the difference. <br />However, it is important to acknowledge that this is a real uphill battle.<br />Scientific reasoning is unnatural. Scientific, probabilistic logic and statistical reasoning processes are not "common sense" but often operate counter to what our intuition tells us. Biases and illusions such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy" rel="nofollow">base rate neglect</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic" rel="nofollow">availability heuristic</a> are powerful, come naturally, and are hard to unlearn. <br />Further, the pseudoscientific use of anecdote is powerful and compelling, even to many doctors. <br /><br />Mercola is absolutely a pseudoscientist. Just looking at his own website makes it clear to me, without having to read about the various debunkings, rebuttals, etc that I am sure exist out there. He is selling various pseudoscientific products, ("Energy Psychology? really?) vitamins, etc. His publications listed seem to be editorial comments on other research, rather than empirical research of his own.<br /><br />I also have distrust of corporations, some desire to determine what goes in my body, and a concern about the political consequences of this lawsuit immunity. However, I really don't think this is a conspiracy, but a carefully contemplated and debated public health decision by experts in public health. Frivolous lawsuits can cost millions in and of themselves, but also needlessly undermine the public confidence in public health decisions. This has already happened with the MMR vaccine and thimerosal, when they decided to remove thimerosal (yes it is a form of mercury, but a different kind, witness how we non-biochemists see "mercury" and automatically assume poison) from the vaccines, despite evidence that it was safe. Pseudoscientists declared victory, and then promptly found some other reason that it is supposedly causing autism.<br />So, I think while it is confusing for us to google "swine flu vaccine" and then try to make sense of what comes up, our best course of action is to trust the modern public health system to make the best decision with the best evidence. In these cases at least, I think the people in charge actually have the expertise and the evidence necessary to make the best call. This does not mean that it is going to be perfect, but that it will be far better than if a panel of random citizens were on some committee trying to figure it out.Cedarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13935627443458025397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134939414534637359.post-27605252689434500452009-11-19T20:41:19.796-05:002009-11-19T20:41:19.796-05:00Hi Katherine,
Of course I remember you--Cedar spe...Hi Katherine,<br /><br />Of course I remember you--Cedar speaks very highly of you. I appreciate your reading and, even more, commenting on my blog. It's not often that anyone does either of those things.<br /><br />Before I go on, I want to encourage you (if you haven't done so already) to make sure that you read each of my three posts on this topic carefully and more importantly, that you read the links within those posts. It's a very complicated subject and I don't pretend otherwise. You'll also see through the links how my thinking on this subject has been formed. That is part of what this blog is about, sharing my intellectual and writing processes.<br /><br />I have not claimed certitude about either the flu or H1N1 vaccines, and of course, the flu is different from a disease like polio (I have also stated this). I don't know enough about those vaccines and how they work to make claims about their safety or effectiveness. <br /><br />My main points in these pieces are that a) there's an ethical dimension to whether we vaccinate or not (polio or flu) and b) how should science-and-medicine ignoramuses such as myself inform our decisions on these matters.<br /><br />For healthy people like you and me, getting the flu vaccine isn't necessarily for us but to protect the vulnerable and immune-suppressed among us. I don't usually have flu shots, but I did when I was pregnant to protect the baby. I weighed the risks of having the vaccine versus not having it and decided to have it. I think I made an ethical as well as well-informed decision. I would hope that other parents and people who have to make these decisions would make them much in the same way, based on the science available, but not based on the claims of pseudo-science.<br /><br />Mercola may have expertise in nutrition and other health matters, but he is most certainly guilty of promoting and practicing pseudo-science. There's nothing unfair about saying that. Perhaps he has a political approach, as well; the two aren't mutually exclusive.<br /><br />I would say that the flu vaccines are unavailable to members of the lower risk populations. Has a false shortage been created, as you imply? Maybe. I have not seen proof of this. Will the consumer want it all the more because there's a shortage and it's in high demand? Perhaps. But that's an issue of consumer behavior and has nothing to do with the science behind vaccines or the value of the scientific approach. Furthermore, entities like the C.D.C. would be no more responsible for causing rushed and uninformed decisions than the consumers would be themselves.<br /><br />The 1976 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome related to the flu shot seem to have been proven; that's angering and I can see how they would have sown mistrust. Even having vaccines and shots that have been proven safe can be nerve-wracking. I say a prayer every time one of my own children are due for vaccinations. But 1976 was thirty-three years ago and looking at these sources, I'm not sure the 2009 vaccine is the same one:<br />http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/gbs.htm<br />http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-1007.htm.<br /><br />So, I'm not sure the vaccine is of wobbly merit. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. I'd have to see current scientific findings about this and not an out-of-date segment from 60 Minutes. <br /><br />My point is to let the scientists decide this and not pseudo-science, rumors, and intuition. I am also a general advocate for getting to decide what happens with my body, but if what I decide could hurt someone else, then it's not just about my body, is it?Rachel Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06844728669493681943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134939414534637359.post-38846802982435586412009-11-19T15:14:03.659-05:002009-11-19T15:14:03.659-05:00Hi there, I found this article through Cedar's...Hi there, I found this article through Cedar's facebook link (I was his student at Mills and believe we've met once or twice).<br /><br />I definitely agree with some of your points. Vaccines are important, and I'm aware that I could very well attribute my life to them (particularly the chicken pox vaccine, since I never actually got the pox as a child). <br /><br />But the flu may be a little different than major diseases like malaria and polio. The flu does kill some people, but mostly those with already weakened immune systems. As someone who has only had the flu once or twice and never had the vaccine, I see no reason why this case should be any different.<br /><br />Two more, non-science based concerns (this is an important distinction; I think some of the authors you cite, Mercola in particular, have a political rather than a scientific approach, so it may be unfair to call him in particular pseudo-scientific).<br /><br />It is criminal, to me, that the vaccine is being required in some professions, yet the companies offering the vaccine have impunity from lawsuits. This is frightening, especially when considering the history of Guillain Barr Syndrome: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mh9f_swine-flu-1976-propaganda_webcam . The comments to the video have an interesting debate on the nature of GBS itself.<br /><br />Another thing that gets my attention is the present unavailability of it to the general public, and the promise of its widespread future availability. In effect, a high-demand commodity (and potential sign of status), when it becomes readily available, may not encourage the average consumer to do his or her research on the vaccine.<br /><br />So, while the science may point to the positive effects of avoiding the flu, the social implications of pairing an eager public with a vaccine of wobbly merit seems dubious. I am a general advocate for getting to decide what happens with my body. I may be particularly susceptible to paranoia in regards to people making decisions about my health. I can't claim I'm well researched on this. It is very exhausting to keep track of the many arguments out there -- so I commend your ambition in taking on this issue.Katherinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259961512090018753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134939414534637359.post-78696193339669000362009-11-17T11:24:56.742-05:002009-11-17T11:24:56.742-05:00I love everything about this except for the horosc...I love everything about this except for the horoscope thing. Um, Rachel, you don't really take astrology seriously, right?s000zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00811115125621168911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6134939414534637359.post-65658969390307344072009-11-17T05:13:56.998-05:002009-11-17T05:13:56.998-05:00Nice. I've been talking to some of my student...Nice. I've been talking to some of my students about creationism, and (as you note) it's a similar kind of pseudo-science.<br /><br />In my own life, I've had debates with a very smart friend who nevertheless uses a chiropractor as her family doctor. My sympathies were with her because of my suspicion/acknowledgment of the problems of mainstream science. But this impulse clashed with my worries about a chiropractor's scientific legitimacy -- i.e., my bullshit detector -- especially with their claims about "adjusting the spine," which is basically physically impossible. (If you really want to move a vertebrae, get in a car crash.) But of course you're right - just because the mainstream docs sometimes get it wrong doesn't mean you abandon standards of evidence.The Triscuit's Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15854127676032460748noreply@blogger.com