Written by Christopher Morris
Edit by E. K.
"Facts are
stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the
dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
"
- John Adams @ Boston
Massacre Trials (12/4/1770)
In 1998, the esteemed
British medical journal, The Lancet,
published a study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield claimed that the two-shot
vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (M.M.R.), caused an epidemic of
autism [1][2]. M.M.R. was, and still is, a common childhood vaccine
The CDC claims that if vaccinations were stopped, each year about 2.7 million
measles deaths worldwide could be expected (10). Wakefield’s
research and “autism by vaccine” public statements caused widespread panic and
outrage, especially from parents. The CDC claims that 95% of all domestic children
received the vaccine in 2007 (10). Dr. Maurice Hilleman created this
M.M.R. vaccine in 1971 After Wakefield’s damning study, Dr. Hilleman’s name,
reputation and life’s work were officially tarnished. In his latter years
Hilleman received scorn from colleagues and hate mail in light of Wakefield’s
research [1][2][5][6].
Fast-forward to April
2013, when the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council imposed their most
penalizing reprimand in a ruling against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr.
Wakefield was fined and is now banned from practicing medicine in the UK.
Wakefield’s movements over the past decade may indicate that he knew something
of this nature could happen. Closing his British medical practice in 2004,
Wakefield set up shop in Texas despite not being licensed as a physician in the
United States. Dr. Wakefield’s allegations that the vaccine M.M.R Vaccine
was not only harmful, but potentially lethal; many inquires into the 1998
studies were made by multiple independent and respected researchers in the
field. . Since 2001 “14 large epidemiological studies consistently showed no
association between the MMR vaccine and autism” and in 2004 the Institute of
Medicine (IOM) formed an Independent Immunization Safety Review Committee to
review and critique those findings (4). The Committee concluded that
the body of epidemiological evidence rejects the “causal relationship between
the MMR vaccine and autism” and concluded that the body of epidemiological
evidence “favors rejection of any causal relationship between thimerosal (containing
mercury) vaccines and autism”[4].
The
American Medical Association wholly endorsed the IOM’s findings. Over the years,
evidence keeps mounting that Wakefield’s research was either fabricated or
negligibly false.
The original publisher of this
controversial research, The Lancet, officially
removed Wakefield’s work from their journal’s annals in February 2010. On the
heels of The Lancet’s retraction of
the 1998 study, Pediatric’s released
their anticipated, decade-long, exhaustive study on prenatal and infant
vaccination and autism. Pediatric’s conclusions
were consistent with the IOM’s
Immunization Safety Review Committee’s 2004 report: still no link between
vaccines (now including vaccines contain mercury) and autism (5).
To date, Wakefield stands
by his study despite ever-mounting evidence to the contrary and the fact that the
rest of the medical researchers requested their names be removed from the study
[2][3].
The “autism by vaccine”
argument has long been discredited. Despite the overwhelming evidence of doubt,
educated and working-class parents of all political affiliations accept this (now)
common “autism by vaccine” misnomer. This is part of a larger trend of science
skepticism. These trends seem too ubiquitous to have happened by societal
osmosis. In other words, this
cultural phenomenon has been tactfully planned and executed.
Liberals and progressives
were the first to fuel the fires of the vaccine fears; this seems much more
naturally happenstance. We are all aware of the stereotypical bleeding heart
naive liberal. Well, this stereotype
is based in some truth. Liberals
are generally more open to new ideas and shifts in the status quo and
traditionally have an inherent urge to help the “little guy”, especially if
pharmaceutical company are per However, as the science caught up to itself and
the autism fear-mongering subsided, liberals learned to let go of their newly-found
skepticism.
Needless to say, the vast
majority of science skeptics identify as conservatives and independents
(13)(14). Yes, you may still find the occasional stubborn “liberal” who
subscribes to such absurdities. In my experience, these “liberals” tend to be pseudo-progressives
who make up a very small faction of the left. These small factions are divided into
many splinter groups that are often lumped into the broad category of “left”. Socialist and Green party members,
militant environmentalists, confused libertarians, fundamentalist atheists,
nihilists, anarchists, old hippies, and “occupiers” who never branched out into
the more productive off-shoots of the Occupy movement. These very small factions
of the left are generally ‘totally informed’ as in up-to-date current events
(that happened 10 years ago) Their gap in knowledge can be attributed to faulty
arguments, belief in unscientific analyses, not reading newspapers; lacking a
radio, TV, and computer; or living in a secluded commune. However, the liberal
crowds that still subscribe to "autism by vaccine” (that do not typically
smell of weed, patchouli and/or insanity) have rapidly dissipated since the
scientific and medical communities consensus was clear.
This
is in stark contrast to most self-identifying conservatives who subscribe
to science denial. Most of these individuals would only give up their denialism
if you “pry’d it from their cold-dead-hands”. Obviously this is an
extreme stance that reasonable people, left or right, are not going to even
attempt to penetrate. Science
skeptics are best known for their “Academic Freedom” fights; attempting to
liken the Theory of Evolution to creationism. The originally fringe
science-denialists, combined with a recent push in populist skepticism and
general mistrust of authority, set the stage for science fear-mongering and
political pandering to extremist partisans. A perfect example is Congresswoman
Michelle Bachmann falsely proclaiming that the HPV vaccine causes cervical
cancer on national television. This politically charged skepticism was
ignited further by the financial collapse of 2008. The “barn doors” to science
denialism swung open in a coordinated coalition of fundamentalist conservative
Christians, conspiracy theorists, right-wing extremists, the Koch Brothers[16][A]
and, unfortunately, vulnerable and frustrated groups like the families touched
by autism that still subscribe to Wakefield's misleading 1998 study. In
sum, the “autism by vaccine” movement has been coalesced into the assault on
intellect, academics and science. The denying of science is undoubtedly
an issue but the motivations behind denying science are a moot point. Regardless
whether religious zealotry, conspiracy paranoia, frustration, or cold political
calculus is the driving factor, this is dangerous ground and has real life
consequences.
Over several decades this
level of skepticism, which was once only home to the “trust-no-one"
conspiracy crowd, has reverberated a negative influence on public perception of
issues from public health to environmental concern alike.
A few of weeks ago I
was visiting with married friends of mine. Politically speaking, this couple
leans center right but they are in no way extremist. As I matter-of-factly
mentioned that it was Earth Day, the husband grew a cringe on his face.
After inquiring if he had a problem with Earth Day, he shared that Earth Day
was just "a propaganda tool for more regulation" and "government
spending." I disagreed but pivoted topics in the spirit of civility. I
would have conceded to my friend that Earth Day has went gone the way of
most holidays; a marketing tool for consumerism: my email was filled with
"special offers" of "green" bathroom sets,
"eco-friendly" hot tubs and even a Williams-Sonoma “Easy
Eco-pod” unit. but I didn't want to participate in anymore anti-Earth Day
fervor.
How conservation became an
anti-conservative initiative, I don’t know. How could Earth Day, the holiday
celebrating the very thing that sustains all of us, be
controversial? I don’t assume a trend just by one man's cringe or opinion.
The effects of science denial can be seen in a multitude of societal
phenomenon and shifts in public trends.
Participation in Earth Day
has been decreasing for many years. April 22nd, Forty-three
years ago a massive, coordinated demonstration of twenty million participants
kicked off the first Earth day nation-wide. Earth Day was originally the
brainchild of Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson. Senator Nelson contacted almost
all the governors and mayors across the country asking them to issue Earth Day
Declarations, raised funds and sent literature to domestic colleges, high
schools and grade schools explaining Earth Day. What dedication Senator Nelson
had to his planet. The closest thing to social media and the Internet Senator
Nelson had were telegrams, typewriters and the US postal service. On the
first Earth Day in 1970 the “House and Senate Chambers emptied” because lawmakers
on both sides of the aisle were out making pro-conservation speeches on what
was 1970’s “most popular and least risky” political issue. Could you
imagine Eric Cantor, Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal giving speeches on the importance
of our environment?
The current interests that
want academic and scientific findings discredited are not gaining their
momentum by gaining a majority of citizens’ support. Similarly, science
denialists are not gaining ground in the battle on facts because they’re
changing public opinion. No, the fact is the minority extremists gain ground
and win these battles because the reasonable folk have been largely silent. The
indifference of reasonable people may very well be our downfall. In 2013
the result of this indifference is a political right full secessionist,
anti-science zealots, conservatives politicians who are wholly owned
subsidiaries to the robber baron financiers and fossil fuel tycoons. Well
educated and fiscally conservatives Republicans who used to be Liberal social
issues now propose anti-LGBT, anti-choice legislation. However, the most
disturbing and clearest indication that our American political spectrum has
been yanked too far to the right is that reasonable Republicans cannot refer to
global warming as Climate Change unless they want to lose their position in
office. Calling global warming the “Climate Controversy” is a shrewdly subtle
way to disengage the public from the very real problems we face environmentally.
The political left is not much better. Neutered by their own campaign contributors
and silenced by their fear of alienating the 5-10%[est] of voters that are
considered “Independent”, most Democrats are just as ineffective at legislating.
My theory is that
conservative politicians pander to the extreme factions of their base by supporting
science denial, something most of them do not believe themselves. Congressman Eric
Cantor, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal may be our worst offenders. Eric Cantor
received a Juris Doctor from William & Mary Law School and a Master in
Science from Columbia University. Ted Cruz graduated cum laude from
Princeton University and magna cum laude from Harvard Law. Bobby
Jindal graduated with honors from Brown, passed on Yale and Harvard and studied
as a Rhodes Scholar at New College, Oxford receiving an MLitt (Master of
Letters) in Political Science with an emphasis on Health Policy. I find it
impossible that any of these three, highly educated men actually believe in vaccine
conspiracies and science denial.
I have empirical
proof that at least one prominent conservative doesn’t believe his own science
denial hype: Just Google the only 5 year old YouTube video “2008 Nancy Pelosi
and Newt Gingrich alternative energy”<Below>.
So who really cares if these American politicians
play partisan politics with scientific facts? On the surface, this science
denial may seem arbitrary to some. Elected leaders blatantly deceiving their
constituents in order to win elections is frightening enough for many. To see more dire ramifications of
science skepticism we need only look a crossed “the pond”.
The measles vaccine came to the UK in
1968. Prior to 1968 about half a million people caught measles each year, causing
the deaths of hundreds of citizens from Britain, Scotland and Wales [7].
The rate of deaths caused by measles modestly decreased over the next 20 years.
When the MMR vaccine came to the UK in 1988 deaths from measles drop down to
single digits thanks to the widespread.
Those signal digit deaths were consistent from year to year until recently
[7]. In April 2013 the United Kingdom’s department of health (DOH)
announced an outbreak of measles in South Wales. The outbreak in South Wales
has affected almost 700 people; the DOH believes parents refusing to
vaccinate their children are largely to blame [6]. It is no surprise
that there is a consensus between UK citizens and government officials who
believe that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 panic-inspiring study is largely to
blame for this current outbreak [6]. The moral of this tale:
science
denial can equate to real-life consequences, including the loss of life.
NOTES:
[A]“The Kochs have
also contributed vast sums to promote skepticism towards climate change, more
even than the oil industry according to some estimates. Greenpeace, for
instance, has calculated that ExxonMobil spent $8.9m on climate-skeptic groups
between 2005 and 2008; over the same period the Koch brothers backed such
groups to the tune of nearly $25m.”
Citations:
1) Conniff,
R A Forgotten Pioneer of Vaccines. THE
NEW YORK TIMES. May 6, 2013
2) Burns,J.F. British Medical Council Bars Doctor
Who Linked Vaccine With Autism. THE NEW
YORK TIMES. May 24, 2010
3) GENZLINGER, N. Vaccinations: A Hot Debate Still
Burning. THE NEW YORK TIMES. April
26, 2010
4) IOM Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and
Autism Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee.
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25344/#_ncbi_dlg_citbx_NBK25344
5)
Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Croen LA, Hinrichsen VL, Marcy
M, Robertson A, Eriksen E, Lewis E, Bernal P, Shay D, Davis RL, DeStefano F
(2010) Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines and
Immunoglobins and Risk of Autism Adobe PDF file [PDF - 365 KB]External Web Site
Icon. Pediatrics 126(4):656-664
7) Associated Press. “Ministry dismisses Andrew
Wakefield's criticism over Wales measles outbreak”. ()4/13/13
8)
9)
10)
12) Adams, J. “John Adam’s Speech”, federalistpapers.org
(12/4/1770) http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/john-adams
No comments:
Post a Comment