I just read an article in "Popular Mechanics" by Sarah Fecht titled "Junk Science" In the article several cases where bogus research papers have been published, sometimes in questionable journals and even a few in respected journals. Instances cited include a paper claiming 14,000 deaths in the USA were linked to the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Another cites a bogus paper as the source for the antivaccine movement. The paper claimed a higher than normal incidence of autism in children that had been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. Later it was established that the doctor involved had falsified data and was employed by a law firm that was seeking support for a law suit.

Unfortunately claims like these give ammunition to individuals and organizations that support controversial causes like the anti nuclear movement and bans against scientific medical research.

Even though most respectable scientific journals have strict peer review requirements there are an increasing number of web based publications with very proper sounding titles that will publish most anything as long as the author pays their fees.

This is partly why I rarely cite any published scientific papers as I am not qualified to judge in many cases the validity of the journal or the paper.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I'm glad you brought this up Bob. The truth is absolutely no institution on Earth is immune from getting bogus information. The key thing to remember is that we have a correcting system that spots false information and gets rid of it. The system works. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but it does work. False information is always vetted and removed from the system because somewhere along the line, someone else will examine and review your data and find that you were wrong, either intentionally or accidentally.


I once had someone private message me recently, never joined the project or attached a computer to his account, merely created an account to message me and invite me to an email conversation (which I turned down), to tell me about all the corruption in the science journals, and that is why they are to never be trusted according to him.

Obviously I brushed him off as clearly this was just another attack on science by someone with deep beliefs that science has rejected. Rather than accept the established facts of science, people would rather attack scientists instead. Which is why we have a lot of BUNK science, and layman's theories (as opposed to actual scientific theories) such as Young Earth Creationism, Flat Earthers, Intelligent Design, the Moon Landing Hoax.

You're right... it does give them ammunition. But only a fool would mistake their ammunition anything more than shooting blanks.

There's an old quote that has more validity today than in the past....

"Believe nothing that you see and only half of what you hear"

...and it's not just with science but the Internet as a whole as the KenzieB debacle has just proven.

So just where does that leave us?

---

The paper claimed a higher than normal incidence of autism in children that had been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. Later it was established that the doctor involved had falsified data and was employed by a law firm that was seeking support for a law suit.

Hi Bob, how are you? Very interesting post!!!! Thank you.

I have something anecdotal for you re the MMR - autism reference (quoted above). My son, you may have already gleaned from elsewhere in the forums, does have autism. He outstripped his older sister in reaching all the baby milestones, until he received his MMR... then literally overnight, slipped off the radar with every single one. He was not the only one to do so and that contributed to the awful mess that followed where we still have parents refusing to vaccinate their children today.

It was not the MMR vaccination that kicked him down the ladder, because he was born with autism. It was what happened at the moment he received it. He had been a happy, loving, affectionate baby who loved going out and loved meeting new people, doctors included. Up until the moment that needle went into his arm that was what he was - a sunbeam who lit up the room with his smile and made the world laugh with him.

Then he got hurt. The people gathered round him whom he had trusted absolutely and without question, hurt him (and that included me, who put him in the "awful danger" to start with). Not only did they do that... but then they laughed at his pain ("oh my, there's nothing wrong with those lungs ha ha ha ha is there!?" guffawed the doctor whilst the nurse "tee hee hee'd" alongside and I wittered away smilingly "ohh it's okay honey"} whilst he sobbed.

It was a betrayal that in his baby mind he could not understand. It utterly demolished his desire to have anything more to do with what had suddenly become a darkly menacing frightening world populated with faces he could no longer trust. He tuned us out and he turned himself off to everyone except his sister.

So, when people ask me whether they should let their babies have the MMR I say
YES then add "but if he/she cries... cry with them... and if you can get your doctor/nurse to cry along with both of you... do so." because if your baby has autism after the MMR, then they had it before, but you won't "lose" them "because" of it. We were so fortunate he chose to give us another chance... I had to work harder at that than anything else I've ever done. Through him, I've come to know so many wonderful young people with autism. Gain their trust and you find they are the most fascinating thinkers you'll ever come across... far better not to lose it in the first place. :)

... and layman's theories (as opposed to actual scientific theories

Hi um... volunteer tester :) You were obviously quicker to post than I was!

Agreed entirely with what you said, but thought I'd just address the very valid point briefly quoted above, in case of any confusion. :)

My post about autism is anecdotal... it is a layman's view and not scientifically tested - but as advice, I would hope that on balance, it would not do any harm if followed. You might not agree - and that too is fine :)

There's an old quote that has more validity today than in the past....

"Believe nothing that you see and only half of what you hear"

...and it's not just with science but the Internet as a whole as the KenzieB debacle has just proven.

So just where does that leave us?

Well... there's room under my rock...

There's an old quote that has more validity today than in the past....

"Believe nothing that you see and only half of what you hear"

...and it's not just with science but the Internet as a whole as the KenzieB debacle has just proven.

So just where does that leave us?

Well... there's room under my rock...

..has it been scientifically proven it's a rock?

---

... and layman's theories (as opposed to actual scientific theories

My post about autism is anecdotal... it is a layman's view and not scientifically tested - but as advice, I would hope that on balance, it would not do any harm if followed. You might not agree - and that too is fine :)

Yes, your post is anecdotal, and anecdotes are fine. Yours was merely talking about the human aspect of dealing with those issues and not proactively blaming science for your son's condition. You accept that and I can respect that.

There's an old quote that has more validity today than in the past....

"Believe nothing that you see and only half of what you hear"

...and it's not just with science but the Internet as a whole as the KenzieB debacle has just proven.

So just where does that leave us?

Well... there's room under my rock...

..has it been scientifically proven it's a rock?

There's no point to get all sedimentary about it.

There's an old quote that has more validity today than in the past....

"Believe nothing that you see and only half of what you hear"

...and it's not just with science but the Internet as a whole as the KenzieB debacle has just proven.

So just where does that leave us?

Well... there's room under my rock...

..has it been scientifically proven it's a rock?

There's no point to get all sedimentary about it.

He he he he he he he - you comedians you! :)))))))))

I have a nephew who is autistic. His condition manifested itself early before time to be immunized before he started school. His parents, my brother and sister-in-law and his older sister have helped him through his developmental years and as a result he is doing better than expected.

Totally unrelated, I was born with a form of spina bifida which presented my parents with a mountain of challenges. Fortunately I had great parents who continually encouraged me to face my problems and deal with them to the best of my ability. I have outlived my initial life expectancy by about 64 years as I was not given more than 6 months to live. Then I was given to my teens and after I made it to 20 they gave up trying to make predictions. My birth defect may or may not have been triggered by something in my mother's or father's environment but we never looked for someone to blame. That is why I am a firm believer in the concept of "stuff happens" with no regard to any other outside cause.

I survived because of advances in medicine that were taking place at the time of my birth and I have faith that the medical profession as a whole has our well being as it's goal.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Speaking of autism, I think this article is interesting. Geneticist Wendy Chung talked at a TED conference:

Ken Fisher@ArsTechnica wrote:

VANCOUVER—Geneticist Wendy Chung took to the TED stage on Wednesday to discuss one of today’s most perplexing problems: the twenty-fold increase in autism diagnoses in children over the past three decades. What we know for certain (and what she made clear) is that vaccines are absolutely not to blame. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion that vaccination causes autism, and there is plenty of evidence to rule it out.

Autism diagnoses are certainly on the rise, though; one in 88 children will be diagnosed with autism this year. But the rise of diagnoses does not necessarily mean that there has been a rise in autism. In fact, Chung does not believe that there has been a massive increase in autism cases. “The vast majority of it is the increase in diagnoses,” Chung said. Medical professionals are now far better trained to detect and diagnose autism, so it's diagnosed more often.

At the same time, autism is not a single disorder. It's actually a spectrum of disorders, from the completely debilitating to milder cases that may only affect socialization or education.

There’s also an important practical matter to consider: the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act in 1990. This act authorized support for special needs children, including those along the spectrum of autism. Suddenly, parents, teachers, and doctors had practical reasons to identify autism: to get educational help.

But what causes autism? “There’s probably not one single answer,” Chung said. One correlation we've discovered is with children born to older parents. We also now see connections with exposure to certain chemicals during pregnancy. But Chung’s work is focused on the genetic component, which is becoming more and more important not only to diagnosis but to treatment.

Skeptical that autism could be genetic? Chung noted that males are affected at a four-to-one ratio compared to females. This seems to suggest that there is indeed a genetic component. But even in the case of identical twins, autism only occurs in both twins 77 percent of the time. Through a huge number of studies, scientists have found that with some individuals, the cause is a single gene. With others, it can be a combination of genetic influences. Indeed, there could be 200-400 genes that may promote autistic symptoms, which helps to explain why we see such a broad spectrum of its effects.
A common objection some parents have to the genetic argument is that they don't believe autism runs in their family. However, certain individuals can have autism that is genetic but not inherited. Genes can and do mutate in between generations. Through an examination of the DNA changes that occurred in families with affected children, at least 25 percent of the genetic cases were traced to these "de novo" mutations.

Can we use this knowledge to intervene? In the case of genetic issues, early identification could potentially help us target the involved genes with drugs. A better genetic understanding of the autism spectrum could also feed into education interventions. With a clearer picture of the actual changes that underly the outward behavior, we might be able to develop more customized educational programs for children affected by autism.

The really bad thing here is that the falsified report and it's backing by certain familiar celebrities has caused many parents to refuse to allow their children to be immunized. There is a web site dedicated to reporting how many children have died after contracting either the measles, mumps or rubella since 2007. The number is well over 1000, which isn't a big number but it is greater than zero

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

The really bad thing here is that the falsified report and it's backing by certain familiar celebrities ...

Celebrities with double digit IQs. Remember 1/2 the worlds postulation has below average/median intelligence.

---

The really bad thing here is that the falsified report and it's backing by certain familiar celebrities ...

Celebrities with double digit IQs. Remember 1/2 the worlds postulation has below average/median intelligence.

did you mean population?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

did you mean population?

Yes my postulation should have said population. I'm old, disabled and have an organic brain disorder. Or do I?

---

did you mean population?

Yes my postulation should have said population. I'm old, disabled and have an organic brain disorder. Or do I?

He he he he he he :)
(Sorry Batter up - I didn't mean for that to come across as unsympathetic to any possible organic issues you may or may not have :) but you did make me laugh) :)