Body & Soul1 min ago
Why Are Many People Afraid Of Evidence And Reason?
58 Answers
Out of many examples I could site I will choose only four for now:
1. The recent outbreak of measles in South Wales (and the growing fears of the effects of rubella in unvaccinated teenage girls when they soon become pregnant) reminds us that thousands of parents preferred to believe the rumour spread by an untrustworthy doctor (he offered no evidence) than the masses of evidence from all over the world that there was no connection between the MMR jab and autism).
2. GM crops are distrusted by the overwhelming majority despite the fact that genetic modification has been going on for centuries. Every time animals are cross-bred or plants cross-fertilised to transfer ‘good’ genes from one to the other, that is GM. Science now does it faster and more reliably with not a single case from anywhere in the world of any harm to animal or the environment from the GM crops that exist.
3. In December 31 1999 millions of people celebrated the new century and millennium a year early, equivalent to the crowd at Lord’s giving a standing ovation to a batsman’s 99th run while ignoring his century one run later.
4. Schools are subjecting children to nonsense called Brain Gym despite the fact that many claims made for it are demonstrably absurd.
Why does this happen? Is it that people eschew science at school and have therefore never learnt to make decisions based on evidence rather than superstition, prejudice or sloppy thinking?
1. The recent outbreak of measles in South Wales (and the growing fears of the effects of rubella in unvaccinated teenage girls when they soon become pregnant) reminds us that thousands of parents preferred to believe the rumour spread by an untrustworthy doctor (he offered no evidence) than the masses of evidence from all over the world that there was no connection between the MMR jab and autism).
2. GM crops are distrusted by the overwhelming majority despite the fact that genetic modification has been going on for centuries. Every time animals are cross-bred or plants cross-fertilised to transfer ‘good’ genes from one to the other, that is GM. Science now does it faster and more reliably with not a single case from anywhere in the world of any harm to animal or the environment from the GM crops that exist.
3. In December 31 1999 millions of people celebrated the new century and millennium a year early, equivalent to the crowd at Lord’s giving a standing ovation to a batsman’s 99th run while ignoring his century one run later.
4. Schools are subjecting children to nonsense called Brain Gym despite the fact that many claims made for it are demonstrably absurd.
Why does this happen? Is it that people eschew science at school and have therefore never learnt to make decisions based on evidence rather than superstition, prejudice or sloppy thinking?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, //Conclusion: MMR cannot be linked to autism. So the evidence is there. //
That's not quite correct. It should read:
Conclusion: MMR is not currently linked to autism. There is no evidence that it never will be.
Incidentally, the three jabs need not be given at one time. That would defeat the object.
That's not quite correct. It should read:
Conclusion: MMR is not currently linked to autism. There is no evidence that it never will be.
Incidentally, the three jabs need not be given at one time. That would defeat the object.
I'll grant you that the paper concludes "extremely unlikely" and not "impossible", but otherwise that's just creating too much uncertainty. We cannot know what will turn up in future, but MMR has been around for a long time and in that time there has been no evidence for any causal link, no reason provided for such a link and no reason to believe that this will change.
I don't understand why you are continuing to hang on to such concerns about MMR and autism. There is not a shred of credible evidence to support them.
I don't understand why you are continuing to hang on to such concerns about MMR and autism. There is not a shred of credible evidence to support them.
Jim, //There is not a shred of credible evidence to support them.//
Except that a significant number of children – several to my personal knowledge - who were perfectly healthy before being given the MMR vaccine now are not – and that is not anecdotal – it’s a demonstrable fact. We can’t say that MMR is the cause of autism in a percentage of children, but cases have risen over recent years, and for me, the MMR vaccine is a common denominator, and therefore must be a consideration. Never forget that Thalidomide was deemed perfectly safe too – so where does that put the unquestionable accuracy of science? You are free to place your confidence where you will – and so am I.
Pixie, three children – hardly scientifically conclusive, but I’m very pleased to hear it.
Except that a significant number of children – several to my personal knowledge - who were perfectly healthy before being given the MMR vaccine now are not – and that is not anecdotal – it’s a demonstrable fact. We can’t say that MMR is the cause of autism in a percentage of children, but cases have risen over recent years, and for me, the MMR vaccine is a common denominator, and therefore must be a consideration. Never forget that Thalidomide was deemed perfectly safe too – so where does that put the unquestionable accuracy of science? You are free to place your confidence where you will – and so am I.
Pixie, three children – hardly scientifically conclusive, but I’m very pleased to hear it.
Perhaps, but if every child basically has MMR you should hardly be surprised when some of them go on to get autism as some of them were going to anyway.
Again I cite the Japanese study. No MMR vaccine -- it's been banned -- but still significant and rising levels of autism. This ought to be be enough to demonstrate that MMR cannot be responsible, because removing it makes no material difference.
Thalidomide is different. Why? Because it wasn't tested properly at the time. And the lessons have, by and large, been learned -- not that hoary old cliché again, but it is true in this case for the most part. Not that medical tests these days are perfect, by any means -- Ben Goldacre's Bad Science book contains plenty of examples of bad testing. The problem is that linking MMR to Autism is also bad science. It goes against all credible experimental evidence to date, and there is no reason to believe that this will change.
Go on believing what you want. This time you are, almost certainly, wrong.
Again I cite the Japanese study. No MMR vaccine -- it's been banned -- but still significant and rising levels of autism. This ought to be be enough to demonstrate that MMR cannot be responsible, because removing it makes no material difference.
Thalidomide is different. Why? Because it wasn't tested properly at the time. And the lessons have, by and large, been learned -- not that hoary old cliché again, but it is true in this case for the most part. Not that medical tests these days are perfect, by any means -- Ben Goldacre's Bad Science book contains plenty of examples of bad testing. The problem is that linking MMR to Autism is also bad science. It goes against all credible experimental evidence to date, and there is no reason to believe that this will change.
Go on believing what you want. This time you are, almost certainly, wrong.
The likelihood of a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism is insignificant. 10 of the 12 authors associated with Wakefields original paper have retracted their original conclusions, acknowledging that the data was fraudulent.
The reason that the MMR vaccine is associated with autism at all is principally because the age at which a diagnosis of autism can first be made correlates in time with when the MMR vaccine is given - around 12-15 months.
As an associated possible causative correlation, observers have noted a very large rise in the cases of autism that is now being diagnosed - up now to something like 70 per 10,000 individuals. This seeming rise though is largely explained by a broadening of the diagnostic criteria, to include conditions not otherwise described as autism in earlier times - So now we talk about Autism Spectrum Disorder.
In other words - the diagnostic criteria has widened, we are positively screening for it, and we are better at detecting it - all these are the primary factors contributing to what is seen as a dramatic rise. An environmental factor cannot yet be ruled out,but there are many possible candidates that are far more likely to be the culprit than the MMR vaccination.
Other indirect evidence to support the claim that the MMR vaccine is not the causal agent of autism; The proponents of such a link claimed that the actual agent was Thimerosal, a mercury salt used as a preservative. It was claimed that this minute amount of non-elemental mercury was causing neurological damage that lead to autism. As a precautionary measure, vaccine manufacturers removed thimerosal. So if this was the agent, we should have seen a reduction, or at the very least a levelling off in the instances of ASD - we have not.
Numerous case studies have been carried out that demonstrate no causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The most authoratitive organisation on trial data, the Cochrane Collaboration, recently performed a meta-analysis of all the studies and trials of the MMR vaccine -Studies which in total involved nearly 15 million children, to arrive at a series of conclusions about the safety and efficacy of MMR. Their conclusion with respect to a link between autism and MMR is that there isn't one.
Given this weight of evidence, given the lack of any plausible causal agent, given the broadening of the diagnostic criteria, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that there is no link. To conclude anything else absent decent evidence or a plausible mechanism would be speculation - which science allows for, certainly, but we do not attach much weight to it.
http://
The reason that the MMR vaccine is associated with autism at all is principally because the age at which a diagnosis of autism can first be made correlates in time with when the MMR vaccine is given - around 12-15 months.
As an associated possible causative correlation, observers have noted a very large rise in the cases of autism that is now being diagnosed - up now to something like 70 per 10,000 individuals. This seeming rise though is largely explained by a broadening of the diagnostic criteria, to include conditions not otherwise described as autism in earlier times - So now we talk about Autism Spectrum Disorder.
In other words - the diagnostic criteria has widened, we are positively screening for it, and we are better at detecting it - all these are the primary factors contributing to what is seen as a dramatic rise. An environmental factor cannot yet be ruled out,but there are many possible candidates that are far more likely to be the culprit than the MMR vaccination.
Other indirect evidence to support the claim that the MMR vaccine is not the causal agent of autism; The proponents of such a link claimed that the actual agent was Thimerosal, a mercury salt used as a preservative. It was claimed that this minute amount of non-elemental mercury was causing neurological damage that lead to autism. As a precautionary measure, vaccine manufacturers removed thimerosal. So if this was the agent, we should have seen a reduction, or at the very least a levelling off in the instances of ASD - we have not.
Numerous case studies have been carried out that demonstrate no causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The most authoratitive organisation on trial data, the Cochrane Collaboration, recently performed a meta-analysis of all the studies and trials of the MMR vaccine -Studies which in total involved nearly 15 million children, to arrive at a series of conclusions about the safety and efficacy of MMR. Their conclusion with respect to a link between autism and MMR is that there isn't one.
Given this weight of evidence, given the lack of any plausible causal agent, given the broadening of the diagnostic criteria, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that there is no link. To conclude anything else absent decent evidence or a plausible mechanism would be speculation - which science allows for, certainly, but we do not attach much weight to it.
http://
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Evidence as such is usually reasoned by the hard core few that it is flawed in some way. And while people will flock like sheep when the knee jerk comes up, at the end of the day we all have the choice to make our own minds up over what is right or wrong, what is good or not, what is sensible or silly.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Body & Soul1 min ago
Body & Soul9 mins ago
Film, Media & TV29 mins ago
Film, Media & TV33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.