Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati

[Pale Blue Dot]

When it comes to science, Barack Obama is no better than many of us. Today he joins the list of shame of those in public life who made scientifically unsupportable statements in 2008.

Closer to home, Nigella Lawson and Delia Smith faltered on the science of food, while Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey and Demi Moore all get roastings for scientific illiteracy.

The Celebrities and Science Review 2008, prepared by the group Sense About Science, identifies some of the worst examples of scientific illiteracy among those who profess to know better – including top politicians.

Mr Obama and John McCain blundered into the MMR vaccine row during their presidential campaigns. "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate," said President-elect Obama. "Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it," he said.

His words were echoed by Mr McCain. "It's indisputable that is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it," he said. "There's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in the vaccines."

Exhaustive research has failed to substantiate any link to vaccines or any preservatives. The rise in autism is thought to be due to an increased awareness of the condition.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-illiteracy-all-the-rage-among-the-glitterati-1212406.html

I wish I could post the whole article. I hope you'll check out the link.

[StClone]

1. I coined the term "Ignorati"

The article mentions McCain but Global Climate Change and the Science of Economics are often the target of other mis-informers. People that see Limbaugh a cogent genius, or Stossel as a fresh view on old concerns when in fact the views they spew are meant to confuse and obfuscate reality leaving us with the glittering ignorati.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Unfortunenately many progressives and liberals are tarred with that brush

A few with good reason, but many undeserved. We always need to take the measured approach with documentation, not the knee jerk/feel good one. I am surprised how little credibility we have in technical and scientific areas.

[Muttocracy]

2. "highly trained medical leeches"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Oh dear. How sad is it that these folks make orders of magnitude more money and have far more influence than scientists do.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Autism-Vaccine Connection Nuts are fucking dangerous

It's bad enough they endanger their own children with their nonsense, but they then go and put other people's children in danger, including especially those who cannot be vaccinated due to immune system issues.

[alarimer]

32. Last week's This American Life had a story on a measles outbreak.

That was due entirely to some unvaccinated kid picking it up and then spreading it to others, many of whom were not vaccinated because they were too young still. And the mother who refused to vaccinate her kids was unrepentant. The story contrasted her with the mother of one of her unvaccinated kids' victims. The kid who had measles ended up okay but it is a disease that can kill.

Not all of the people who refuse to vaccinate their kids do so because of the (false) mercury-vaccine thing. Some are just completely ignorant about vaccines and immunity and some simply do not like doctors telling them what to do. They think they know better because they are mothers, as if that trumps years of medical and scientific research. I simply cannot tolerate that level of ignorance. We should start calling them pro-infectious disease because that is what they are. I found myself listening to that show and hoping the anti-vaccine woman's kid would get one of those diseases, just to show her how wrong she is. I want all those anti-vaccine people to go live on an island where they can infect each other.

[earth mom]

4. What a bunch of bullshit. Who gives a damn what this guy thinks?

His scientific "opinion" means nothing to me. :puke:

[Pale Blue Dot]

5. Can you tell us where he's wrong? nt

[Hanse]

6. People who care about science, that's who.

I just saw a pro-vaccine commercial. The commercial had been made because these illiterate fucks are actually convincing people to not vaccinate their kids. If kids are dying they've got fucking blood on their hands.

[earth mom]

7. Show me some REAL Autism/MMR studies that are not influenced or paid for by the pharma giants

then get back to me.

Oh, but you can't because they aren't any.

So the pharma giants & all the naysayers can take their extremely biased aka bought & paid for "studies" and "opinions" and stick em where the sun don't shine. :grr:

[Hanse]

8. No.

I draw the line at entertaining scientific illiteracy and paranoid conspiracy theories.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

10. Look, I understand where you are coming from

I get irritated with people who are ignorant of science and yet insisting that you listen to their opinions on matters beyond them, all the time. However, I too am skeptical of studies showing vaccines to be safe when those studies are being done by the same people trying to profit from the vaccines, or at most one step removed from them. There is a clear conflict of interest here, and we have both seen supposedly scientific "studies" done which were designed to return the results the funders of the study wanted to hear. I am not one who believes on a hunch that vaccines must somehow be responsible, but those who claim they definitely are not seem unable to produce objective evidence that this is true.

I keep hoping someone will produce evidence either way, evidence that can be trusted, but I have yet to see it.

[Hanse]

11. Yeah, yeah. The jury is still out,

That's just what Bush says about evolution.

[tkmorris]

14. True enough, BUT

I can link you right now to REAMS of objective scientific evidence supporting evolution. Can you do the same for vaccines? I really was sincere in asking for it, this is not one of my sacred cow issues so I believed it was possible there was evidence I was unaware of.

I suspect given your flippant reply though that perhaps you are being as uninformed in your opinion as those you refer to as "ignorati" was it?

[Hanse]

15. Tell you what, you research it yourself...

and if you're half as sincere as you claim to be, you'll see vaccines don't cause autism, and I won't have to waste my own time doing your homework for you.

[tkmorris]

16. I have

And I cannot find any definitive evidence that what you say is true except that provided by the same people who want to profit from them. Forgive me, but I am not going to trust Ford when they say Expeditions are safe, I am not going to trust Tyson Foods to tell me their chicken is safe, and I am not going to trust a vaccine manufacturer to tell me the vaccines are safe.

I strongly suspect you have formed an opinion based not on facts, but rather what you wanted to believe in the first place. That would make YOU, in fact, a proud card carrying member of the scientifically ignorant people you were slamming a few scant minutes ago.

[Hanse]

21. Then I can't take your sincerity seriously.

[tkmorris]

23. Too bad. I really was sincere

Perhaps Thimerosal is safe. I cannot say with any measure of certainty. What I CAN say is that whenever someone claims it's proven that it is, their proofs are not entirely credible. To date at least. I was rather hoping you might provide something I had not seen before, thus putting the issue to bed for good.

[Hanse]

24. No, you weren't.

If you had bothered to read the literature, you'd have noticed that plenty is not connect to pharmaceutical companies, or any other conflicts of interest.

[varkam]

28. Not too mention...

that the only studies that do show a connection were done by the Geiers and Wakefield - both of whom had enormous financial conflicts of interests of their own. Not to mention that the Wakefield paper was retracted from Lancet because they made shit up...I mean because teh evil pharma conspiracee had it retracted.

[Junkdrawer]

12. If "Science" means "expensive, large scale study" then Big Pharma does indeed...

have a monopoly on "Science".

I think a lot of parents suspect this and there's starting to be a backlash.

Add to this the "The rise in Autism is all in your imagination" line, and it's easy to see why so many are skeptical.

[earth mom]

17. self delete

[tkmorris]

19. Umm. Yes. I know that

More specifically, mercury contained in Thimerosal which is in some vaccines.

[earth mom]

20. Sorry, I replied to the wrong person.

:blush:

[tkmorris]

22. Forgiven

:hug:

[eridani]

29. Vaccines are far and away the least profitable item to pharma companies

Because of the liability issues, they avoid this area where possible.

[TZ]

39. Do you consider NIH and WHO and the UN biased?

Because they ALL have done plenty of research on vaccine safety. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for the autism shit!
Oh btw, the vaccine woos claim its thimerosol that causes autism...but they also claim MMR is a suspect vaccine.
MMR NEVER HAD THIMEROSOL.
Autism rates have continued to climb since thimeerosol was removed from most vaccines ten years ago.
THERE IS TONS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES...but since they are in scientific journals and not the fucking Rolling Stone magagzine the woos ignore it.
Oh btw, Pharma does NOT make huge profits off vaccines..they are extremely expensive to manufacture. Thats why the UN is always pleading with Pharmas to produce more for third world countries who definitely need them
Here:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/thimerosalqa.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal.htm
Oh I guess all the govt scientists are Bush Shills right?:sarcasm:

[Lance_Boyle]

51. there is no profit in vaccines.

Pharma profit comes from pills and potions that relieve things but don't fix them. Vaccines prevent illness - no money to be made there. There is no sales push from Pharma on vaccines, only from public health officials. And they're right to push. The anti-vaccine nuts need to be quarantined from society.

[Hanse]

74. That's just replacing one loony conspiracy theory with another.

[earth mom]

18. Why don't you educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further? nt

[martymar64]

30. I've been skeptical about science in general these past 8 years

The Bush Regime has engaged in so much scientific obfuscation about so many issues the past eight years that it has made any assertions suspect. The vaccine issue is one example where the "studies " are being conducted mostly by Big Pharma, whom I suspect would come to a pre-determined conclusion that is favorable to their profit margin. Also the alteration and scrubbing of EPA and FDA findings and records is just another example of what this government has done to obscure scientific issues.

With a situation that muddled, I can understand how bad science info gets disseminated. It's a shitty situation indeed.

[TZ]

38. NIH and WHO have plenty.

Go to their sites and READ SOME FUCKING SCIENCE.
You can stick your IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY where the sun don't shine.
Signed,
a biologist with 10 years in the field including working on vaccines at NIH.

[Greyhound]

27. In 20 years when the cause is positively identified and the cover-up

exposed, will you even remember how enthusiastically you defended the perpetrators?

[Hanse]

37. Isn't that after the Mayan apocalypse in 2012?

Are you planning on apologizing to the parents of kids who die of measles?

[Greyhound]

44. I guess your answer is no. I think there is enough of a question to look at alternatives and

the reasons behinds them.

I don't believe the benefit of vaccinations is in question.

[xchrom]

13. recommend

[gratuitous]

25. And who is to blame for scientific illiteracy?

I'm sure the Very Serious Folks at Sense About Science are equally vocal about the vacuous "scientific" research done by our friends at General Motors and the use of lead in gasoline. No? How about the "scientific" research put out by the Center for Tobacco Research and then the Tobacco Institute about the benign effects of cigarette smoking on the public health? Anything from SAS about genetically modified food? Their website says they're still working on a page for that.

A quick perusal of their website might lead the casual observer to think that they're publicity-seeking whores, more comfortable with ridiculing "celebrities" for their scientific illiteracy than in doing any of the actual nuts-and-bolts work required to elevate the sorry state of public discourse about bought-and-paid-for research designed to defend the moneyed at the expense of the public health.

[elleng]

31. The rise in autism is thought to be due to many factors,

by many different people; there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the matter. Senator Obama was CORRECT at the time he made the statement, and President-Elect Obama would be correct if he made the same statement today.

[Recursion]

64. There's no hard evidence of a rise in autism

There's evidence of parents and family medicine practitioners being more aware of the disease and so diagnosing it more. This is part of a larger trend of "medicalizing" what were previously considered "behavioral" issues in children.

The vaccine "debate" is fun to watch but pointless. Neither side is claiming we should give vaccines stabilized with thimerosal to children, so one would think there would be nothing to argue about. But people like to scream at each other about this, and completely miss the larger picture: infectious diseases have been more or less eradicated in the industrialized world due to a three-prong public health attack consisting of vaccination, sanitation, and education.

Most of the misunderstandings come from the "anti" side of the aisle, but the "pro" side for the most part seems to make a fundamental error in thinking that a vaccination confers an individual immunity against a disease; it does not. Immunization is a property of a population not an individual (I have a smallpox vaccination; in an outbreak I could still catch smallpox and die, but the more vaccinated people there are around me, the less likely overall an outbreak is).

The fun bit comes from game theory; it's an example of the tragedy of the commons. An individual child's optimum strategy is actually not to get vaccinated: take no risk of side effects from a vaccine and receive the herd immunity from the surrounding population. The problem is that we can't all do that.

[alarimer]

33. Plenty of liberals are scientifically illiterate.

I see it here all the time. All the hysteria regarding vaccinations and "Big Pharma", never mind that vaccines are not a profit center for them.

And I've seen it on this very thread. "Science must be bad because some bad people or companies do science", because tobacco companies used science. Actually what they did was suppress the evidence that tobacco kills, but that is enough to tar ALL scientists, no matter who they work for or what work they do, with the same brush.

[gratuitous]

41. I'll presume you mean me

Since I'm the only person on this thread who has mentioned tobacco, I presume you mean me when you write that plenty of liberals are scientifically illiterate and that I tarred (no pun intended, I'm sure) "ALL scientists, no matter who they work for or what work they do, with the same brush."

I’d be highly gratified if you could point out specifically where I wrote what you accuse me of writing. Because my point was to show that the wonderful folks at SAS, whose farts don’t stink, and who are the beacon of light and reason in an otherwise dark world, may not be the simon-pure paragons they’d like people to think they are.

Certainly, SAS is quite vocal about celebrities and their alleged scientific illiteracy. That seems like a rather plump target. In reviewing their website, I didn’t see any concomitant press releases from SAS decrying the use of “science” to promulgate erroneous public health issues by industry concerns. To name just two pretty obvious ones, I cited lead in gasoline and tobacco use. I certainly did NOT say that “ALL scientists, no matter who they work for or what work they do” are in the same category.

So without any evidence to the contrary, and notwithstanding your attempt to stuff words into my post, I’ll re-assert my surmise that the folks at Sense About Science appear to be publicity-seeking grandstanders, generating more heat than light on this subject.

[NashVegas]

34. What Did Obama Say That's Was Incorrect?

Are the controlled lab studies conclusive, or aren't they?

Have the lab studies included all possible factors related to vaccination?

Honestly, I don't know the answer to those questions. But I do know this:

18 years ago, "HRT increases your chances of getting breast cancer," was also scientifically unsupported, and yet people who were basing their opinion on empirical evidence said it and took the heat, repeatedly, until the capitalist science establishment couldn't keep a lid on it any longer. For 15-20 years, women were encouraged to harm themselves because someone could make a buck off of it, and the scientific medical establishment ridiculed anyone who cast doubt.

This ridiculing of skeptics never helped anyone, in the long run.

[elleng]

35. RIGHT!

Skeptics WIN! (sometimes)

[Pale Blue Dot]

42. ALL of the properly controlled lab studies show NO LINK between autism and vaccines.

This has been shown time and time again now.

The "skeptics" have NO SCIENTIFIC basis with which to make their claims. None. Zero. Zip.

[NashVegas]

43. Are They Conclusive?

That was the question. Obama's statement was that there was no conclusive study. Is that false?

He said there was "strong evidence" of a link. Unfortunately, I don't have the necessary credentials to pester him for a cite. However, there is more than enough empirical evidence out there to justify a full-fledged, controlled study that would conclusively answer the question.

[Maru Kitteh]

47. Yes. They are.

[NashVegas]

49. Great. Where May I Find a Summary?

And the publisher? Author? Thanks.

[Jim__]

52. NO!!! They are not.

Here's a link to a video in which Dr Bernadine Healey states that the necessary research has NOT been done. It's fairly simple. The number of events where people claim that vaccine led to autism are relatively small, certainly small enough that general population studies will never uncover a statistically significant indication that will validate the connection. Dr Healey talks about the types of studies that need to be done, and states that the Institute of Medicine recommends against these studies (although admitting that they might show a connection) because the IOM believes that doing the studies will undermine public policy of universal vaccinations.

[Terran]

36. That example about autism is not scientific illiteracy.

At worst it indicates a failure to follow the issue closely from multiple sources that provide different explanations. Scientific illiteracy is, for example, not understanding the difference between a theory and a hypothesis

[Guaranteed]

40. Normally not a science-book-thumper, but in this case K & R

It's important we pin down what's causing the increase in autism rates but, you're right, study after study have shown that vaccines have nothing to do with it.

And there are still countless people out there who aren't vaccinating their kids because of these rumors. Dangerous.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

45. Mercury is ALWAYS TOXIC.

The preservative in vaccines is thimoseral which has mercury in it.

I don't know what it's doing in vaccines but it can't be good.

Dentists will tell you that mercury amalgam fillings are harmless when they are in your mouth. The EPA says that mercury is highly toxic BEFORE it's put in your mouth, and after it's taken out. It has to be handled in very specific ways to guard against contamination of people and the environment.

Now why in the hell is it OK when it's in your mouth? Did it change its chemical properties magically?? :sarcasm:

[Maru Kitteh]

46. The science is NOT inconclusive. Vaccines do NOT cause autism.

Oh God, what an incredible blunder on Obama's part. I realize he can't be 100% on every matter but this is one misconception that is resulting in dead children.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

48. How do we know if it's the vaccine or the preservative?

We don't know. Maybe the vaccine itself is OK but the preservative is poisonous? Mercury is a known neurotoxin.

Or maybe too many vaccines in too few years cause some kind of severe stress on a child's immune system and something weird happens?

Maybe the vaccines would be OK if they did not have mercury in them, and they were spread out over many more years?

We got several different issues here.

[Jim__]

53. Yes the science IS inconclusive.

See my post #50 for a link to an interview with Dr Bernadine Healey, former director of the NIH, where she states that the pertinent research has not been done and talks about the studies that need to be done.

[NashVegas]

72. Where Is The Summary of the Conclusive Study?

Who is its author, and where was it published?

Thanks.

[Jim__]

50. Does anybody here want to challenge the scientific literacy of a former director of the NIH?

Dr Bernadine Healey, former head of the NIH, states very clearly that the research on the issue of a connection between vaccines and autism has not been done. Watch the video.

Can anybody refute what she states in this interview?

The US government has agreed to pay a claim where vaccine was a contributing factor to the onset of autism. That decision was made by US government medical personnel. Anybody want to challenge the scientific literacy of those medical personnel?

[trotsky]

54. Former NIH director Healy misstated facts in Schiavo case

Dr. Bernadine Healy, a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and former director of the National Institutes of Health, falsely claimed that "several" neurologists who "evaluated" Terri Schiavo determined that she had "a functional mind" and was "minimally conscious." In fact, discredited Dr. William Hammesfahr is the only neurologist who has examined Schiavo to argue that she is not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). MediaMatters.org

Your lone champion, the one little resource you think is the definitive expert on just how much research is needed to disprove the already-discredited autism/vaccine link, has a proven history of lying/misstating the facts. On the Terry Schiavo circus, to boot. :eyes:

[Jim__]

55. You just misstated the facts in this case.

Does that invalidate everything you say? I have posted elsewhere other medical personnel that have stated that more research needs to be done (e.g. here and here); not even considering the medical personnel who made the ruling in the Hannah Poling case. So, your claim that Dr Healey is my lone "champion" is a misstatement of the facts.

Can you refute any of the facts that she has stated in the cited interview? I have posted the pertinent parts of the IOM report elsewhere, where the IOM states that these studies should not be done, essentially because they may undermine public policy.

I await your refutation of what she stated in the cited interview.

[trotsky]

56. You asked that someone provide evidence of the scientific illiteracy of your champion.

I just did. QED

[Jim__]

57. Are you admitting to scientific illiteracy?

Or, are you claiming that if Dr Healey ever misstated anything, she is scientifically illiterate, but that rule does not apply to you.

I'm still waiting for you to refute anything she said in the cited interview.

[trotsky]

59. You've moved your goalposts.

Can't blame you, since I answered your challenge. You asked for evidence of her scientific illiteracy. I gave it. Now you can continue to try and desperately change the subject and attack me, but you'll only look more foolish doing so.

[Jim__]

61. I asked for evidence of scientific illiteracy.

You provided evidence that she once misspoke on TV. That's pathetic.

[trotsky]

62. She stated it in the context of herself believing Schiavo to not be in a PVS.

Now if you agree with her, and with Trent Lott and Bill Frist, then THAT'S pathetic. However I don't think you do - nor do many folks on DU, or virtually every expert on the subject.

[Jim__]

65. AAPS file a brief in support of Terry Schiavo remaining on life support.

Do you now claim that AAPS and its members are all scientifically illiterate because they disagree with you and most of DU? Sorry, political criteria are not legitimate in determining scientific literacy. Can you refute the facts cited by AAPS to support their position? Your claims of scientific literacy seem to be based more on political considerations than actual scientific knowledge.

Here:

THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, )
Incapacitated ex rel. ROBERT SCHINDLER )
and MARY SCHINDLER, her Parents and )
and Next Friends, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
MICHAEL SCHIAVO, as Guardian of the )
Person of Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, )
Incapacitated; JUDGE GEORGE W. GREER )
and THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA )
SUNCOAST, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
)
Brief for Amicus Curiae Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Filed in Support of Plaintiffs
The amicus curiae Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. (“AAPS”)
hereby submits this memorandum in support of Plaintiffs.

Persistent vegetative state (PVS), the medical basis for the state court orders, is
misdiagnosed as much as 43% of the time. See Andrews K. et al., “Misdiagnosis of the
vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit,” 313 British Medical J. 13-16 (1996).
The state court order denying food and water to Terri Schiavo depends entirely on this highly
unreliable diagnosis. Yet numerous physicians have expressed disagreement or skepticism that
this diagnosis is even correct for Mrs. Schiavo, and the state court refused to holding a hearing
based on their multiple affidavits. The court did not allow a recent, objective evaluation of her.
A de novo consideration of this case requires, at a minimum, a careful determination of whether
she is even in a PVS. This court need not make a finding on this essential factual question, but
an immediate stay is necessary to preserve her condition for this requisite evaluation.
One study of PVS in a rehabilitation unit concluded as follows: “The level of cognitive
functioning present in this misdiagnosed group at the time of discharge was considerable: 60%
were oriented in time, place and person, 75% were able to recall a name after 15 minutes delay,
69% were able to carry out simple mental arithmetic, 75% were able to generate words to
communicate their needs and 86% were able to make choices about their daily social activities.”
“Editorial: The vegetative state – clinical diagnosis,” 75 Postgrad Med. J. 321-324 (1999). Does
Terri Schiavo fall into one of these or other categories showing capacity for improvement? A
neurologist who examined her in 2002 determined that she can swallow, vocalize, feel pain,
differentiate sounds from voices, and differentiate voices themselves.1
It is easy to allow for current, unbiased and thorough medical evaluations, yet that has been
repeatedly frustrated in this action in state court. It violates due process to order one’s death
otherwise.
Even if there were objective and thorough medical evaluations of Terri Schiavo years ago
– which is highly doubtful – far too much time has passed to commit her to death today based on
those determinations. Medical technology improves over time, as do patients. The due process
rights of Terri Schiavo and her parents have been thoroughly violated by state court orders
frustrating a current, objective and thorough medical examination.

[trotsky]

66. LMAO

A letter of support from the AAPS only bolsters my point. Thank you. They oppose national healthcare. They oppose abortion. They even question the HIV/AIDS link. They're a wacko rightwing/libertarian outfit and only serve to further discredit your champion. Thanks again for doing the work for me.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=99

[Jim__]

67. You accept that political criteria determine scientific literacy?

They're a rightwing libertarian outfit, therefore, they're scientific opinions are invalid? In the amicus curiae, they cite studies published in medical journals, but, it's all invalid because it disagrees with your political position.

You have yet to refute anything Dr Healy said in the cited interview, or anything that the AAPS said in tis amicus curiae. Yet, ... what? The AAPS and its members are all scientifically illiterate because they disagree with you politically?

You're completely basing scientific literacy on political positions. That's nonsense.

[trotsky]

68. Read my link.

I'll let every reader of this thread (if there are any left) make up their own minds. So unless you have any additional attempts to attack me instead of discuss the facts, we're done.

[Jim__]

69. I read your link. I also read some of the articles referred to.

Once again, you have refuted nothing. Nothing that was said by Dr Healy in the cited interview. Nothing in the cited amicus curiae. Nothing in the journal articles cited. But, they disagree with your politics, so you claim they must be scientifically illiterate.

If people read the posted link, also read the journal articles. Yes I disagree with most of the conclusions. However, I did not find any non-scientific methodology in the articles that I've read. I'll read further to see if I do come across anything that appears blantantly unscientific, e.g. anything that claims a conclusion is invalid becuase it is politically incorrect.

I don't think trotsky understands the meaning of the phrase scientific literacy.

[trotsky]

70. Again you attack me, but let's take the politics out of it and lay out the facts.

Does it indicate scientific literacy to deny that HIV causes AIDS?

Does it indicate scientific literacy to claim that abortion causes breast cancer?

The AAPS believes those things and more. They discredit themselves, your champion, and by linking to them, they've discredited you.

[Jim__]

71. The simple fact is that you haven't made a scientific criticism of anything.

To say nothing of the fact that you have not made any assertion yet to indicate that Dr Healy is either scientifically illiterate, or wrong in anything she said in her interview. Not surprising, she is extremely well-known, publishes frequently, and I haven't seen anyone question her scientific literacy (I'm ignoring your claims as they are completely unsupported). Question things she says - sure I've read plenty of that. Question her scientific literacy? Haven't seen it, not by anyone qualified to do it.

But, take an example:

Does it indicate scientific literacy to deny that HIV causes AIDS?

Do you have a scientific criticism of the papers that question this? Have you read the papers? How can you claim that a paper is evidence of scientific illiteracy if you haven't read it. Notice that the paper I cite does not claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. It states there may be cofactors. It ultimately suggests an alternative model.

Read this paper Culshaw. Now here is the criticism cited at your link (note that the criticism does not even appear to be of the paper published in JPANDS):

Let me first present an excerpt of her essay. (I suggest reading the thing in it's entirety; it's an interesting piece of writing, even if I think she's wrong.)

Over the past ten years, my attitude toward HIV and AIDS has undergone a dramatic shift. This shift was catalyzed by the work I did as a graduate student, analyzing mathematical models of HIV and the immune system. As a mathematician, I found virtually every model I studied to be unrealistic. The biological assumptions on which the models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense to me. It was around this time, too, that I became increasingly perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint, the major thing they all had in common – other than HIV – was that they lived extremely healthy lifestyles. Part of me was becoming suspicious that being HIV-positive didn’t necessarily mean you would ever get AIDS.

By a rather curious twist of fate, it was on my way to a conference to present the results of a model of HIV that I had proposed together with my advisor, that I came across an article by Dr. David Rasnick about AIDS and the corruption of modern science. As I sat on the airplane reading this story, in which he said "the more I examined HIV, the less it made sense that this largely inactive, barely detectable virus could cause such devastation," everything he wrote started making sense to me in a way that the currently accepted model did not. I didn’t have anywhere near all the information, but my instincts told me that what he said seemed to fit.

Over the past ten years, I nevertheless continued my research into mathematical models of HIV infection, all the while keeping an ear open for dissenting voices. By now, I have read hundreds of articles on HIV and AIDS, many from the dissident point of view but far, far more from that of the establishment, which unequivocally promotes the idea that HIV causes AIDS and that the case is closed. In that time, I even published four papers on HIV (from a modeling perspective). I justified my contributions to a theory I wasn’t convinced of by telling myself these were purely theoretical, mathematical constructs, never to be applied in the real world. I suppose, in some sense also, I wanted to keep an open mind.

Reading this, you would conclude that what she had studied in her research was mathematical models of HIV transmission between people. You'd be wrong. Her work is on the transmission of HIV between infected and non-infected cells in culture. For example, here's one abstract of a paper available on the web:

We consider a two-dimensional model of cell-to-cell spread of HIV-1 in tissue cultures, assuming that infection is spread directly from infected cells to healthy cells and neglecting the effects of free virus. The intracellular incubation period is modeled by a gamma distribution and the model is a system of two differential equations with distributed delay, which includes the differential equations model with a discrete delay and the ordinary differential equations model as special cases.We study the stability in all three types of models. It is shown that the ODE model is globally stable while both delay models exhibit Hopf bifurcations by using the (average) delay as a bifurcation parameter. The results indicate that, differing from the cell-to-free virus spread models, the cell-to-cell spread models can produce infective oscillations in typical tissue culture parameter regimes and the latently infected cells are instrumental in sustaining the infection. Our delayed cell-to-cell models may be applicable to study other types of viral infections such as human T-cell leukaemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1)

And there lies the problem. Mathematical models are highly dependent on the details of their formulation and their parameters. Her work on modeling viral behavior is not modeling viral behavior of HIV in a human host; it's modeling viral behavior in a cell culture. That's a useful thing to understand: it helps us understand how HIV attacks and spreads between cells. But it doesn't really tell us anything directly about how HIV should spread between cells in a dramatically different environment. Viruses don't behave the same in culture and in a complete host. (For example, see this paper, describing how differently Hepatitis-A behaves in culture from in a host.)

She's trying to take a mathematical model created to specifically model one environment, and to apply that model to a different environment, without modifying the model for the new environment.

[trotsky]

75. Deny all you want.

The facts are present on this thread for anyone who's still interested. I'll let the reader decide.

[Jim__]

76. Make a criticism of the science.

So far all you've said is that if someone reaches a politically incorrect conclusion, they're scientifically illiterate. You're talking pure nonsense.

And, anyone still reading should notice, still absolutely no criticism of anything that Dr Healy said in the interview.

[trotsky]

77. Look, I have a little rule.

When someone starts defending the HIV/AIDS denialists, the discussion is over. You go enjoy your little libertarian Randian friends.

(And, should anyone reading still notice, your challenge was to demonstrate Healy's scientific illiteracy. Still desperately trying to move those goalposts, aren't ya!)

[Jim__]

78. The first rule should always be: read the original papers.

It's clear that you haven't.

[Jim__]

58. You have seriously misstated the facts here.

Dr Healy was speaking extemporaneously on Hardball:

HEALY: (S)everal doctors who evaluated her, neurologists, believed that she did have a functional mind and she was evaluated at a time before we fully understood that function. And I think 2002 is too long ago to have evaluated her. ... I would agree that it is possible that if she were evaluated and if in fact she was minimally conscious, which several of the neurologists felt she was, which meant she could have feelings, she was aware, but that her husband, who is her legal guardian, said, well, she doesn't want to live with the mental age of a 12-month-old, that you might turn it off.

and, yes she got it wrong. But not nearly as wrong as you just did. Media Matters had a bolded correction about Dr.Hammesfahr that you cited:

*Correction: In this item, Media Matters previously noted that the Florida Board of Medicine disciplined Hammesfahr in 2003. We have subsequently learned that the board's action was reversed on appeal in 2004 by the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal. We regret the error.

You failed to note the correction. Also, by omitting the actual quote that Media Matters included, you also misrepresented the gist of the quote given by Media Matters.

[trotsky]

60. I failed to note the correction because it's irrelevant.

Healy said "several" neurologists came to the conclusion that Schiavo wasn't in a PVS when it was just one, Hammesfahr. Hammesfahr has lied about being a Nobel nominee. He claimed that he could cure Terry Schiavo. A Florida court found Hammesfahr's testimony in a 2002 Schiavo case to be anecdotal, not scientific. Shall we go on?

[DS1]

63. So in this douchebag's eyes "inconclusive" = "indisputable"

What a dick.

[NashVegas]

73. Well, That's Just Silly

And it's embarrassing to see that so many people will make an assumption about the link between vaccinations and autism and assert it as gospel truth without demands for further study.

However, it's equally embarrassing to see several otherwise smart DUers mistake, "no proven link," for "proven there's no link" and assert it as gospel truth, while calling others rude names.

:hi: