Archive for Vaccines

The fall of Andrew Wakefield

I must admit, I never saw it coming.

At least, I never saw it coming this fast and this dramatically. After all, this is a saga that has been going on for twelve solid years now, and it’s an investigation that has been going on at least since 2004. Yes, I’m referring to that (possibly former) hero of the anti-vaccine movement, the man who is arguably the most responsible for suffering and death due to the resurgence of measles in the U.K. because of his role in frightening parents about the MMR vaccine.

I’m referring to the fall of Andrew Wakefield

Posted in: Medical Ethics, Neuroscience/Mental Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (57) →

Autism Onset and the Vaccine Schedule – Revisited

This week on Science-Based Medicine I wrote an article about a new study looking at the onset of autism symptoms, showing that most children who will later be diagnosed with autism will show clear signs of autism at 12 months of age, but not 6 months. This is an interesting study that sheds light on the natural course of autism. I also discussed the implications of this study for the claim that autism is caused by vaccines.

Unfortunately, I made a statement that is simply wrong. I wrote:

Many children are diagnosed between the age of 2 and 3, during the height of the childhood vaccine schedule.

First, this was a vague statement – not quantitative, and was sloppily written, giving a different impression from the one I intended. I make these kinds of errors from time to time – that is one of the perils of daily blogging about technical topics, and posting blogs without editorial or peer-review. Most blog readers understand this, and typically I will simply clarify my prose or correct mistakes when they are pointed out.

However, since I often write about topics that interest dedicated ideologues who seek to sow anti-science and confusion, sometimes these errors open the door for the flame warriors. That is what happened in this case.


Posted in: Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (57) →

The Winkler County nurse case and the problem of physician accountability


Back in September and then again last week, I wrote briefly (for me) about an incident that I considered to be a true miscarriage of justice, namely the prosecution of two nurses for having reported the dubious and substandard medical practices of a physician on the staff of Winkler County Hospital in Kermit, Texas. The physician’s name is Dr. Rolando Arafiles, and he happened to be a friend of the Winkler County Sheriff, Robert Roberts, who also happened to have been a patient of Dr. Arafiles and very grateful to him for having saved his life. The nurses, Anne Mitchell and Vickilyn Galle, were longtime employees of Winkler County Hospital, a fifteen bed hospital in rural West Texas. Although some of you may have seen extensive blogging about this before, I thought it very important to discuss some of the issues involved on this blog. Moreover, there is an aspect to this case that the mainstream media reporting on it has missed almost completely, as you will see. Finally, this case showed me something very ugly about my profession, not just because a doctor tried to destroy the lives of two good nurses through his connections to the good ol’ boy network in Winkler County

Let’s recap what happened, a story that reached its climax last Thursday. In 2008, Dr. Arafiles joined the staff of Winkler County Hospital (WCH). It did not take too long for it to become apparent that there were serious problems with this particular doctor. Mitchell and Galle, who worked in quality assurance were dismayed to learn that Dr. Arafiles would abuse his position to try to sell various herbal remedies to patients in the WCH emergency room and the county health clinic and to take supplies from the hospital to perform procedures at a patient’s home rather than in the hospital. No, it wasn’t the fact that Dr. Arafiles recommended supplements and various other “alt-med” remedies, it’s that he recommended supplements and various other “alt-med” remedies that he sold from his own business–a definite no-no both ethically and, in many states, legally. Mitchell reported her concerns to the administration of WCH, which did pretty much absolutely nothing. Consequently, on April 7, 2009, Mitchell and Galle anonymously reported their concerns to the Texas Medical Board (TMB). In June, WCH fired the two nurses without explanation.

Posted in: Health Fraud, Homeopathy, Politics and Regulation, Science and the Media, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (89) →

Changing Your Mind

Why is my mind so clean and pure?  Because I am always changing it.
In medical school the old saying is that half of everything you learn will not be true in 10 years, the problem being they do not tell which half.
In medicine, the approach is, one hopes, that data leads to an opinion.  You have to be careful not to let opinion guide how you evaluate the data.  It is difficult to do, and I tell myself that my ego is not invested my interpretation of the data. I am not wrong, I am giving the best interpretation I can at the time. For years  I yammered on about how it made no sense to give a beta-lactam and a quinolone for sepsis until a retrospective study suggested benefit of the combination.  Bummer. Now when I talk to the housestaff about sepsis, I have to add a caveat about combination therapy.  It is why my motto is, only half jokingly,  “Frequently in error, never in doubt”.
At what point do you start to change you mind?  Alter your message as a teacher?  Have new behavior?  Medicine is not all or nothing, black and white.  Changes are incremental, and opinions change slowly, especially if results of a new study contradict commonly held conclusions from prior investigations.
Nevertheless, I am in the process of changing my mind, and it hurts.  I feel like Mr. Gumby. ( v=IIlKiRPSNGA)
It is rare that there is one study that changes everything; medicine is not an Apple product.  Occasionally that there is a landmark  study that alters practice in such a dramatic way that there is a before and after.  As I write this I cannot think of a recent example in infectious diseases, but I am sure there is one.  The problem is that once practice changes, it seems as we have always done it that way.
For me, three is the magic number.  One study that goes against received wisdom warrants an ‘interesting, but give me more.”
Two studies, especially if using different methodologies with the same results gives and ‘well, two is interesting, but I can argue against it.”  However, with two studies the seed of doubt is planted, waiting to be watered with the water of further confirmation.  Yeah. Bad metaphor.
Three studies with different methodologies independently confirming new concepts?  Then I say, “I change my mind. My brain hurts.”
There are now three studies concerning the issue of efficacy of the flu vaccine in the elderly.  You might remember my discussion of the Atlantic article several months ago. In that entry I discussed two articles  that suggested the flu vaccine may be less effective in the elderly than the studies demonstrated.
The argument was that the elderly who received the influenza vaccine were healthier at baseline than those that didn’t receive the vaccine and the deaths during flu season was not due to the protection from the vaccine, but due to the fact that healthier people are less likely to die when they get ill. In part this was demonstrated by showing decreased deaths in vaccinated populations when influenza was not circulating.  If insomnia is a problem, you can go back and read my post.   To quote my favorite author, me, I said
“One, it is an outlier, and outliers need confirmation. The preponderance of all the literature suggests that influenza vaccine prevents disease and death. If you do not get flu, you cannot die from flu or flu related illnesses. When outliers are published, people read them, think, “huh, that’s interesting”, but there is going to have to be more than one contradictory study to change my practice. But if “study after study” shows mortality benefit, and one study does not, it is food for thought, but not necessarily the basis of changing practice. The results, above all, needs to be repeated by others… In medicine we tend to be conservative about changing practice unless there is a preponderance of data to suggest a change is reasonable. Except, of course, if our big pharma overlords take us to a good streak house.”
Now we have a third article, “Evidence of Bias in Studies of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Elderly Patients” from the Journal of Infectious Diseases.
In the study they examined the records of the elderly in the Kaiser Health System, their vaccination records, and their risk of death.  And the results were interesting.
“The percentage of the population that was vaccinated varied with age. After age 65, influenza vaccination increased until age 78 in women and age 81 in men, then decreased with increasing age. Vaccination coverage also varied in a curvilinear fashion with risk score, increasing with risk score to a risk score percentile of ∼80%, then decreasing. In addition, as the predicted probability of death increased, vaccination coverage increased. Vaccination coverage was highest among members with a probability of death of 3%–7.5%. Those with a predicted probability of death in the coming year of 17.5% had a de- creasing likelihood of influenza vaccination”
They then looked at mortality when flu was not circulating.
“A change in the pattern of vaccination had a striking effect on mortality. For members > 75 years old who had been receiving influenza vaccinations in previous years, not receiving a seasonal influenza vaccination was strongly associated with mortality in the months ahead (Table 1). A person who had received an influenza vaccination every year in the previous 5 years had a more than double probability of death outside the influenza season if he or she missed a vaccination in the current year, compared with a person who was vaccinated as usual (odds ratio, 2.17; P < .001). On the other hand, if a person did not receive any seasonal influenza vaccination in the previous 5 years, then receipt of a vaccination in the current year was associated with a greater probability of death. “
If they had a history of flu vaccine for five years and missed it, the probability of death went up.
If they did not have a flu vaccine for five years and got one, the probability of death went up.
They suggest in the first case, the patients may have had an increase in their co-morbidities and as a result did not get the vaccine and died of underlying diseases. Their increased risk of death was from accumulating prior illnesses.
In the second case, people who were healthy and did not seek care subsequently developed diseases that lead them to a doctor who advised the vaccine.  Their increase risk of death was due to new illnesses.
Either way, the uptake of the flu vaccine is more complicated than I had suspected and makes interpretation of efficacy of the vaccine in prior studies harder to evaluate.  The table shows an unexpected relationship between age, risk of death and use of the flu vaccine.
table here
They say in the discussion
“We showed that, despite strong efforts to increase vaccination among the elderly population, vaccination is relatively low in the oldest and sickest portions of the population. Persons 65 years old with a 17.5% chance of death in the upcoming year are less likely to receive the influenza vaccine. Because persons who are most likely to die are less likely to receive the vaccine, vaccination appears to be associated with a much lower chance of dying; thus, the “effectiveness” of the vaccine is in great part due to the selection of healthier individuals for vaccination, rather than due to true effectiveness of the vaccine. Previous studies have argued that worsening health is associated with increasing vaccination. We found this to be a curvilinear relationship, in which increasing illness means increasing vaccination, up to a point, and then, as people come closer to the end of life, there is a decrease in vaccination coverage.”
They do not say the vaccine is not effective, but they suggest that there is a bias that may make the vaccine appear more effective in the elderly than it really is.  Reality is often more complex than one would think at the beginning.
After three studies I am reasonably convinced that efficacy of the flu vaccine in the elderly is potentially not as well understood as I had thought.
So do I think the flu vaccine is no longer useful in the elderly?  No.  I still think it is a reasonable intervention but it may not have the efficacy I would like.  But I have always known that, for a variety of reasons, the flu vaccine is not a great vaccine. But it is better than no vaccine. There are, as discussed in the earlier post on the vaccine, many lines of evidence to show that the flu vaccine has benefit; at issue is the degree of the benefit.  Perhaps what is needed is a better vaccine with adjuvants or multiple injections to get a better result in the elderly, who respond poorly to the vaccine.  Or perhaps it will be better to focus on increasing vaccination in those who care for or have contact with the elderly.  But when I talk to my patients and residents, when I get to part about flu vaccine efficacy, I will be a little more nuanced, use more qualifiers. I will tell them that the vaccine is like seat belts.  It does not prevent all death and injury, but if you had a choice, would you not choose to use seat belts?
In the end the data has to change the way I think about medicine, not matter how much it hurts.
Compare and contrast that with the anti-vaxers who have the belief that vaccines cause autism.  They look for data to support the pre-existing belief and ignore contrary data.  Opinion does not follow from data.
The most representative statement of their approach is on the 14 studies website where they say  ““We gave this study our highest score because it appears to actually show that MMR contributes to higher autism rates.”
The key phrase in the whole site. Data that supports their position is good, data that does not is bad. What makes a study good is not its methodology or its rigor, or its reproducibility, or its biologic plausibility,  but if it supports vaccines casing autism.
Dr. Wakefield, as has been noted over the last week, had his MMR/autism paper withdrawn from Lancet not for bad science, but for dishonest science.  In medicine you can be wrong, but you cannot lie.  If the results of medical papers were shown to be fabrications, such as the papers of Scott S. Reuben, no one the medical field would defend the results.  Dr. Reuben, as you may remember, was found to have fabricated multiple studies on the treatment of pain.  Nowhere can I find web sites defending his faked research.  No suggestions it was due to a conspiracy of big pharma to hide the truth. No assertions that he is still a physician of great renown.   He lied and is consigned to ignominy.   Physicians who used his papers as a basis of practice no longer do so, or so I would hope.
The response to Dr. Reuban is in striking contrast to the defense of Dr Wakefield, where bad research combined with unethical behavior, results in reactions like this
“It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.
The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.”
Opinions did not change when the Wakefield paper was demonstrated to be not just wrong but false, the researcher’s behavior unethical, and the study could not be reproduced using similar methodologies (  Instead, the defense of Dr. Wakefield became, well, like a Jim Carrey shtick. The Mask defends retracted autism research. Fire Marshall Bill on the medical literature.  Jenny and Jim’s defense does make more sense read as comic performance art.  Andy Kaufmann would have been proud.
I wonder if the more grounded in fiction an opinion is, the harder it is to change, the more difficult it is to admit error.  I have to admit I cannot wrap my head around the ability of people to deny reality.  It is the old Groucho line come to life, “Who are you going to believe, science or your lying eyes?”
So I will, I hope, keep changing my mind as new information come in.  It is what separates real health care providers from acupuncturists and homeopaths and naturopaths and anti-vaxers.  It is what some truly great minds admit to doing (  As one deeper thinker and better writer ( than I said, kind of,
“The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.
But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines and anti-vaxers. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood?”

Why is my mind so clean and pure?  Because I am always changing it.

In medical school the old saying is that half of everything you learn will not be true in 10 years, the problem being they do not tell which half.

In medicine, the approach is, one hopes, that data leads to an opinion.  You have to be careful not to let opinion guide how you evaluate the data.  It is difficult to do, and I tell myself that my ego is not invested my interpretation of the data. I am not wrong, I am giving the best interpretation I can at the time. For years  I yammered on about how it made no sense to give a beta-lactam and a quinolone for sepsis until a retrospective study suggested benefit of the combination.  Bummer. Now when I talk to the housestaff about sepsis, I have to add a caveat about combination therapy.  It is why my motto is, only half jokingly,  “Frequently in error, never in doubt”.

At what point do you start to change you mind?  Alter your message as a teacher?  Have new behavior?  Medicine is not all or nothing, black and white.  Changes are incremental, and opinions change slowly, especially if results of a new study contradict commonly held conclusions from prior investigations.

Nevertheless, I am in the process of changing my mind, and it hurts.  I feel like Mr. Gumby.


Posted in: Clinical Trials, Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (28) →

Success in the fight against childhood diarrhea

Rotavirus is the world’s most common cause of severe childhood diarrhea.  In the U.S. alone, rotavirus disease leads to around 70,000 hospitalizations, 3/4 million ER visits, and nearly half-a-million doctor office visits yearly.  But it rarely causes death.

The same is not true for the developing world.  Rotavirus disease is estimated to kill around a half-million children a year world wide.   Finding a way to mitigate this is an active public health concern, with the World Health Organization specifically recommending rotavirus vaccinations in areas where the virus has a significant public health impact.

Rotavirus causes a severe diarrheal illness. It is passed via a fecal-oral route, meaning that contaminated food, surfaces, and water can all be sources.   In developed countries like the US, rotavirus disease is unpleasant and inconvenient.  Since rotavirus spreads more readily in areas without access to clean water and medical care, it takes a greater toll in these areas, and children afflicted are at risk of death due to dehydration.  The US has seen a decline in rotavirus disease in the last few years, an effect that appears to be due to increased vaccination and a herd immunity effect.

Given the large number of pediatric rotavirus deaths in developing countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) has made vaccination a priority. Two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine report on the progress of the fight against rotavirus.


Posted in: Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (64) →

The General Medical Council to Andrew Wakefield: “The panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest”


In my not-so-humble opinion, the very kindest thing that can be said about Andrew Wakefield is that he is utterly incompetent as a scientist. After all, it’s been proven time and time again that his unethical and scientifically incompetent “study” that was published in The Lancet in 1999 claiming to find a correlation between vaccination with MMR and autistic regression in autistic children with bowel symptoms was at best dubious science and at worst fraudulent. For one thing, as investigative journalist Brian Deer found, Wakefield was in the pocket of trial lawyers, who were interested in suing vaccine manufacturers, to the tune of £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses beginning even before his infamous “study” started accruing patients. Even though the study itself used the typical careful and relatively neutral language that we all expect from scientists, Wakefield himself was not nearly so circumspect. In a press conference announcing the Lancet study, he said:

He told journalists it was a “moral issue” and he could no longer support the continued use of the three-in-one jab for measles, mumps and rubella.

“Urgent further research is needed to determine whether MMR may give rise to this complication in a small number of people,” Dr Wakefield said at the time.

And so began one of the most contentious health stories of this generation.

Wakefield’s Lancet paper, even interpreted as sympathetically as possible, concluded nothing that justified such language. Yet his rhetoric, along with sensationalistic and credulous British journalists, ignited a firestorm of fear over the MMR that has not yet subsided now, over a decade later. Vaccination rates plummeted in the UK, and measles, a disease once thought to be under control, has surged back and become endemic again. It is a feat that Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey appear to be trying to replicate right here in the U.S. with their wonderfully Orwellian-named Green Our Vaccines activism and ceaseless promotion of anti-vaccine messages.

More recently, at the Autism Omnibus hearings, we learned from a world expert in the polymerase chain reaction, Dr Stephen Bustin, that the techniques used in the laboratory running PCR on the clinical specimens from Wakefield’s clinical trial were so shoddy, so devoid of routine controls necessary in any PCR experiment, that the measles sequences reported as amplified in Wakefield’s followup to his Lancet study were false positives derived from plasmids with measles sequences in them contaminating the laboratory. Then, in late 2008, Mady Hornig and colleagues at Columbia University published an attempted replication of Wakefield’s study. They failed. There was no association between vaccination with MMR and autistic regression, nor could Hornig find any evidence that measles in the gut was any more common in the autistic children studied than in the neurotypical controls. This study was particularly devastating to Wakefield because it was carried out by a researcher who had previously been sympathetic to the myth that vaccines cause autism, as evidenced by her infamous “rain mouse” study and, even more close to home, using the same laboratory that had performed Wakefield’s PCR, which had apparently cleaned up its act in the years following its work on Wakefield’s specimens.

When it comes to the science, there is no doubt. No reputable scientist has been able to replicate Wakefield’s findings, and there is a remarkable convergence and agreement of findings of major studies looking for a correlation between MMR vaccination and autism: There ain’t one. Indeed, closing out 2009 was the publication of yet another study that failed to find any correlation between MMR and autism, or, as I put it at the time, yet another nail in the coffin of the myth that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Andrew Wakefield’s repeated claims that the MMR can cause or “trigger” autism in some children is deader than dead as a scientific hypothesis and without a basis in scientific or clinical evidence. True, Wakefield tried to counter with a horribly unethical and badly designed primate study that seemed custom-designed to be used in court rather than in the court of scientific inquiry. It didn’t help and only made Wakefield’s Thoughtful House, Wakefield’s Fortress of Solitude in Texas to which he retreated in the wake of the revelations about his conduct, look even worse. Even a credulously “balanced” TV story by NBC news and Matt Lauer couldn’t hide the dubiousness nature of what goes on there.

Of course, while the science refuting Wakefield’s pseudoscience and evidence showing Wakefield to be incompetent and unethical continued to roll in, a little less than a year ago, it got even worse for him. Brian Deer reported that Wakefield very well may have engaged in scientific fraud in the “research” (and I do use the term loosely) that led to the publication of his Lancet paper in 1999. Through it all, the General Medical Council began an inquiry into whether Andrew Wakefield behaved unethically in the “research” that resulted in his 1999 Lancet report. It should be pointed out that the investigation of the GMC began before Deer’s latest revelation of potential fraud; rather it was far more concerned with how Wakefield ran his study and recruited patients. Nonetheless, the revelations nearly a year ago about Wakefield’s playing fast and loose with research methodology could not help but contribute to the sense that the Good Ship Wakefield had been torpedoed below the water line and was taking on water fast.

As the investigation and hearings wound on seemingly endlessly for two and a half years, Wakefield’s supporters intermittently waged an increasingly histrionic and ridiculous propaganda offensive to try to preemptively discredit the GMC’s findings. As it became clear that finally after all this time the GMC was on the verge of announcing its ruling, I noticed that the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism was ramping up an increasingly bizarre and unhinged last minute propaganda campaign, complete with reposting a hilariously inapt post by Mark Blaxill comparing Wakefield to Galileo and the GMC to the Inquisition, complete with references to Stalin and Mao (I suppose I should be relieved that Blaxill refrained from playing the Hitler card); a defense of “that paper” by Wakefield himself; claims that parent witnesses had been “silenced” at the GMC hearings; and a whole series of posts by John Stone trying to discredit the GMC.

And then on Thursday, the GMC ruled.


Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Science and the Media, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (34) →

You can’t hide in the herd

Can you hide in the herd?  Well, I suppose the title has given away the punch line.

Herd immunity is a fascinating effect, and one of the mainstays of a public vaccination effort.  The idea is that if enough people in the community are immune to a particular disease, then those who are susceptible will rarely come into contact with a person who is contagious, and the disease will be unable (or find it difficult) to spread.  This results in a greatly reduced risk of infection for the entire population regardless of their individual immunity.

This has lead to the belief that because of the protection of the herd’s immunity, individuals now have the option to avoid even the minimal cost and risk of vaccination while having the same reduced risk of infection as if they had vaccinated.

Let’s set aside the fact that that there are people who have no choice but to rely upon herd immunity as their sole line of protection against these infections.  Forget that there is a threshold below which herd immunity collapses, and that our current vaccination rates tend to be right on the cusp of that threshold.  Pay no attention to the fact that the personal decision to not vaccinate deprives others of their sole protection from these infections.  Finally, ignore the ethics and self-defeating nature of benefiting from the sacrifice of others while simultaneously eroding the efficacy of the herd immunity being exploited.  On a small enough scale, doesn’t the tactic of hiding in the herd provide the same protection as getting vaccinated without incurring the minimal risk of vaccination?

Not so much. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (84) →

$10,000 reward not offered for scientific proof of supplements and alternative medicine therapies and effectiveness

Inspired by a post today

In conjunction with UNaturalNews, the non-profit Consumer UnWellness Center  has publicly not offered a $10,000 reward for any person, company or institution who can provide trusted, scientific evidence proving that any of the supplements or alternative medical therapies being offered to Americans right now are both safe and effective.

Supplement or alternative medical therapies promoters keep citing their “science” in claiming that supplements or alternative medical therapies are safe and effective. UnNaturalNews asks one simple question: Where is this science?

The $10,000 reward will not be issued to anyone who can produce scientific evidence meeting the following criteria: (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Humor, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (15) →

The anti-vaccine movement strikes back against Dr. Paul Offit

In my five years in the blogosphere, two years blogging for SBM, and over a decade in Internet discussion forums about medicine and “alternative” medicine, I’ve learned a few things. One thing that I’ve learned is that one of the biggest differences between those whose world view is based on science and who therefore promote science-based medicine and those promoting pseudoscience, quackery, and anti-science is that science inculcates in its adherents a culture of free, open, and vigorous debate. Indeed, to outsiders, this debate can seem (and sometimes is) vicious. In other words, if you’re going to be a scientist, you need to have a thick skin because you will have to defend your hypotheses and conclusions, sometimes against some very hostile other scientists. That same attitude of a Darwinian struggle between scientific ideas, with only those best supported by evidence and with the most explanatory power surviving, is a world view that those not steeped in science have a hard time understanding.

Among those who don’t understand science, few have a harder time with the rough-and-tumble debate over evidence and science that routinely goes on among scientists than those advocating pseudoscience. Indeed, in marked contrast to scientists, they tend to cultivate cultures of the echo chamber. Examples abound and include discussion forums devoted to “alternative” medicine like CureZone, where never is heard a discouraging word — because anyone expressing too much skepticism about the prevailing view on such forums invariably finds himself first shunned by other members of the discussion forums and then, if he persists, booted from the forum by the moderators. In marked contrast, on skeptical forums, most of the time almost anything goes. True, the occasional supporter of woo who finds his way onto a skeptical forum will face a lot of criticism, some of it brutal. However, rarely will such a person be banned, unless he commits offenses unrelated to his questioning of scientific dogma, such as insulting or abusive behavior towards other forum participants or trolling. Such people may annoy the heck out of us skeptics sometimes, but on the other hand, they do actually from time to time challenge us to defend our science and prevent us from becoming too complacent. Indeed, that’s what I like about skeptics and being a scientist. Nothing or no one is sacred.

Posted in: Chiropractic, Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (41) →

The “pharma shill” gambit

Editor’s note: Since I happen to be on vacation (sort of–in reality I plan on spending most of next week holed up in my Sanctum Sanctorum at home writing a grant that’s due in February) and because readership tends to be down during the week between Christmas and New Years’ Day, I thought I’d resurrect something from well over three years ago and revise it to fit this particular blog. In doing so, I hope to provide you with something amusing to read, as well as something to link to time and time again whenever you want to refer to a particular gambit beloved by promoters of quackery and pseudoscience. I present here….The “Pharma Shill” Gambit! Enjoy!

I’ve mentioned before on this blog at least once that I cut my skeptical teeth, so to speak, on Usenet, that vast untamed and largely unmoderated territory full of tens of thousands of discussion newsgroups which used to be a lot more active before the rise of the World Wide Web and then later blogs. These days, few ISPs even offer much in the way of Usenet access; it’s become pretty much irrelevant since Google archived Usenet in the form of Google Groups. My forays into skepticism started out with combatting Holocaust denial on a newsgroup known as alt.revisionism (as good an excuse as any to remind you that nearly all Holocaust “revisionism” isn’t historical revisionism but is actually denial) and then branched out into more general skepticism, particularly about the claims of creationists and, of course, promoters of “alternative” medicine, the latter of which ultimately led me to being the editor of this wild and woolly thing we call the Science-Based Medicine blog. After I began to participate in the debates in the main newsgroup where alternative medicine is discussed,, it didn’t take me long to encounter a favorite tactic of promoters of alt-med who were not happy with one who insists on evidence-based medicine and who therefore questions claims that are obviously not based in valid science: The “Pharma Shill” Gambit. This is a technique of ad hominem attack in which a defender of “alternative” medicine, offended by your questioning of, for instance, his/her favorite herb, colon or liver flush technique, zapper, or cancer “cure,” tries to “poison the well” by implying or outright stating you must be in the pay of a pharmaceutical company, hired for nefarious purposes.

Since I entered the blogosphere several years ago under another guise, I’ve only occasionally checked back at my old stomping ground, mainly because blogging is so much less constraining than posting to Usenet, where mostly I used to respond to the posts of others, rather than writing about what I wanted to write about. A while back, though, out of curiosity I checked back and found this interesting little tidbit from a poster calling himself PeterB that demonstrated such a perfect example of the “pharma shill” gambit that I thought it might serve as a perfect example of the sort of thing I’ve had to put up with ever since I started speaking out against quackery:

Posted in: Humor, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (114) →
Page 21 of 32 «...101920212223...»