Comments on: Insights from the Paul Offit Interview, Part II: Blame the Scientific Journal, Not the Media

By: Tut, tut. . . not so fast « Why Evolution Is True

Tut, tut. . . not so fast « Why Evolution Is True — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:31:30 +0000

[...] journals, to be free from flaws or, especially, exaggeration. Although some say it’s not the job of science journalists to find and highlight problems with an already-published paper, I strongly disagree. Any science [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:51:29 +0000

Well, that is interesting. Twice I tried to post Dr. Joe Albietz’s article on hepatitis B vaccine from the Science Based Medicine blog for Zach, and neither comment appeared. Not that Zach would actually read it, nor understand it (more for the fence sitters)… but I find it interesting that the link caused a problem.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:49:31 +0000

My comment seems to have disappeared into the ether. Zach, you really need to listen to the podcast where the ethic problems with the “unvax vs. vax” study were discussed in detail.

I would also suggest you go to your local library and check out a copy of Dr. Offit’s book, and actually read it.

Sullivan, he is not only misinformed, but he is commenting on a podcast he has not bothered to listen to. This is obvious when he asks a question that was actually answered!

More information on hepatitis, including stories of kids with HepB here:
http://pkids.org/dis_hep_phr.php

Chicken pox used to actually kill over a hundred people per year. It has also caused blindness. It also never goes away, it comes back as shingles (which can cause further injury, including blindness).

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:36:30 +0000

“…others are just silly why does a newborn hours old need a hep-b shot”

Because HepB can be spread through fairly casual contact.

Because HepB is very serious, and this is especially so when infants get it. The younger a person is, the more likely that person is to develop a chronic HepB infection.

Because it works. The incidence of HepB has dropped since the vaccine was given to infants. It did not drop when it was recommended to at-risk adults.

Is that not enough for you? Were you misinformed?

By: bob

bob — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:33:22 +0000

Zach, did you even listen to the interview? As Dr Offit explained, a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study would not even be remotely ethical. Vaccines are incredibly effective at preventing disease, and the notion of randomly giving children placebos rather than actual vaccines would never pass a review board.

So, no, that’s not the “bottom line.” It sounds to me like the “bottom line” is that you’ve made up your mind already on poor or nonexistent evidence. Where is the evidence that parents (i.e. vaccines) have damaged a generation of children?

By: Katharine

Katharine — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:59:40 +0000

Zach, obviously you live under a rock because there have been MANY of them.

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:50:15 +0000

Dr. Profit is like the docs used by tobacco in the 40s and 50s. Bottom line- have an unvaccinaed vs. vaccinated study. That will show us who is right and wrong. Some vaxs are useful others are just silly why does a newborn hours old need a hep-b shot? why is there a chick. pox vaccine? parents and their blindness to what is happening has helped damage a generation of kids

By: SLC

SLC — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:19:14 +0000

I would have to partially agree with Dr. Offit that Lancet has to bear a considerable responsibility for publishing a paper with results based on a sample of 12. However, the media can’t be let completely off the hook as the reporters should have queried another expert in the field before rushing into print. Of course, the British print media is notoriously addicted to scandal mongering and is generally unreliable, even more so since Rupert Murdock took over the London Times,

By: V.O.R.

V.O.R. — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:28:34 +0000

The difference between an hypothesis and a conclusion sounds like a matter of basic science literacy to me. I agree it’s not unexpected for the media, such as it currently is, to fail to make much of a distinction between the two. But there should be plenty of push back against it. Don’t solely blame the media… but there’s plenty of blame to go around. I don’t think we need to skimp.

As a practical matter restricting conjecture from major journals isn’t a bad idea. OTOH, in doing so while failing to blame the media you stand at the top of a rather steep slippery slope, the bottom of which is zero science reporting on anything controversial because it might be misunderstood.

I know that sounds stupid and extreme. OTOH, maybe we’re already almost there.