From Fellow Skeptic Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine and "Skeptic" columnist for Scientific American
Dear Bill,
Years ago you invited me to appear as a fellow skeptic several times on your ABC show Politically Incorrect, and I have ever since shared your skepticism on so many matters important to both of us: creationism and intelligent design, religious supernaturalism and New Age paranormal piffle, 9/11 "truthers", Obama "birthers", and all manner of conspiratorial codswallop. On these matters, and many others, you rightly deserved the Richard Dawkins Award from Richard's foundation, which promotes reason and science.
However, I believe that when it comes to alternative medicine in general and vaccinations in particular you have fallen prey to the same cognitive biases and conspiratorial thinking that you have so astutely identified in others. In fact, the very principle of how vaccinations work is additional proof (as if we needed more) against the creationists that evolution happened and that natural selection is real: vaccinations work by tricking the body's immune system into thinking that it has already had the disease for which the vaccination was given. Our immune system "adapts" to the invading pathogens and "evolves" to fight them, such that when it encounters a biologically similar pathogen (which itself may have evolved) it has in its armory the weapons needed to fight it. This is why many of us born in the 1950s and before may already have some immunity against the H1N1 flu because of its genetic similarity to earlier influenza viruses, and why many of those born after really should get vaccinated.
Vaccinations are not 100% effective, nor are they risk free. But the benefits far outweigh the risks, and when communities in the U.S. and the U.K. in recent years have foregone vaccinations in large numbers, herd immunity is lost and communicable diseases have come roaring back. This is yet another example of evolution at work, but in this case it is working against us. (See www.sciencebasedmedicine.org for numerous articles answering every one of the objections to vaccinations.)
Vaccination is one of science's greatest discoveries. It is with considerable irony, then, that as a full-throated opponent of the nonsense that calls itself Intelligent Design, your anti-vaccination stance makes you something of an anti-evolutionist. Since you have been so vocal in your defense of the theory of evolution, I implore you to be consistent in your support of the theory across all domains and to please reconsider your position on vaccinations. It was not unreasonable to be a vaccination skeptic in the 1880s, which the co-discovered of natural selection--Alfred Russel Wallace--was, but we've learned a lot over the past century. Evolution explains why vaccinations work. Please stop denying evolution in this special case.
As well, Bill, your comments about not wanting to "trust the government" to inject us with a potentially deadly virus, along with many comments you have made about "big pharma" being in cahoots with the AMA and the CDC to keep us sick in the name of corporate profits is, in every way that matters, indistinguishable from 9/11 conspiracy mongering. Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 ("because it worked"), applies here: the idea that dozens or hundreds pharmaceutical executives, AMA directors, CDC doctors, and corporate CEOs could pull off a conspiracy to keep us all sick in the name of money and power makes about as much sense as believing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their bureaucratic apparatchiks planted explosive devices in the World Trade Center and flew remote controlled planes into the buildings.
Finally, Bill, please consider the odd juxtaposition of your enthusiastic support for health care reform and government intervention into this aspect of our medical lives, with your skepticism that these same people--when it comes to vaccinations and disease prevention--suddenly lose their sense of morality along with their medical training. You excoriate the political right for not trusting the government with our health, and then in the next breath you inadvertently join their chorus when you denounce vaccinations, thereby adding fodder for their ideological cannons. Please remember that it's the same people administrating both health care and vaccination programs.
One of the most remarkable features of science is that it often leads its practitioners to change their minds and to say "I was wrong." Perhaps we don't do it enough, as our own blinders and egos can get in the way, but it does happen, and it certainly happens a lot more in science than it does in religion or politics. I've done it. I used to be a global warming skeptic, but I reconsidered the evidence and announced in Scientific American that I was wrong. Please reconsider both the evidence for vaccinations, as well as the inconsistencies in your position, and think about doing one of the bravest and most honorable things any critical thinker can do, and that is to publicly state, "I changed my mind. I was wrong."
With respect,
Michael Shermer
Follow Michael Shermer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelshermer
Peter Christian Hall: Will We Suffer Two Flu Seasons This Year?
In this season of swine flu discontent, the annual shot aimed at quelling "normal" flu may have a bad year.
Andy Borowitz: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Swine Flu Virus Says He's 'Thrilled' With Vaccine Delays
Despite the avalanche of publicity he's received in recent weeks, the virus dismissed charges that he's a publicity whore.
Harold Pollack: Get your flu shots -- and ignore Bill Maher
I just want to endorse Linda Bergthold's recent HuffPo column about Bill Maher. Maher is a funny guy who often displays a sharp intellect. On...
Seem to be some people who've read Jefferson's stuff.
I know that Jefferson doesn't reject vaccination. I saw some of the abstracts where he goes great, great,great.
He questions flu shots and he questions the pneumonia vaccine.
For both of these how far do his conclusions go. Is he saying 0%. Makes no sense
Broken down by age groups cites.
Thanks
Here's some more data on the topic:
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html
http://vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html
But this is a straw man, because no-one is actually claiming that vaccines have directly reduced deaths per se, what they have done is contributed to a big reduction in the actual cases of disease. In some cases this has led to a fall from hundreds of thousands of cases each year to a handful (eg measles). And since cases have declined, deaths also decline in their wake.
To demonstrate this in a bit more depth, say the case fatality rate for measles used to be 1 death for every 200 cases (as it was in the prewar years, and still is in the developed world). Since then a combination of better nutrition and medical care has meant that only one case in around 5000 will die today. That is all without vaccination.
But back then there were millions of measles cases each year. No matter how well fed or careful you are, all kids get measles. (Unless they are vaccinated or protected by herd immunity that is). Vaccination has reduced the incidence of measles, and consequently the deaths have declined even further than they would do otherwise.
I often read Mr. Shermer in Scientific American, and do not always agree with him. Having myself seen UFOs and experienced "paranormal" activity, and having talked with many others who have had similar experiences, I believe it is wrong to completely discount the massive amount of anecdotal evidence on these matters. While it is a fact that it is very hard if not impossible to test for these things under controlled conditions in the laboratory, the amount of evidence from people from all walks of life is so extensive, that to deny that it is even possible that something real exists behind all of the evidence, itself seems unscientific. Perhaps if Mr. Shermer himself had ever experienced an unreproducible "paranormal" event, he would change his mind.
Therefore, I deny that I am doing the same thing as Mr. Shermer, in this instance.
Have you never heard is account of his alien abduction?
Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
1) antiviral drugs are expensive and their effectiveness is questionable. I agree.
2) seasonal flu shots aren't always a perfect fit for that season's flu strains. I agree.
3) vaccinations may not be as effective in older populations, a highly vulnerable demographic. I agree.
But this does not mean that vaccination technology doesn't work nor does it mean that the dozens of studies supporting the flu shot's effectiveness are in question.
The article concludes, "There is little immediate danger from getting a seasonal flu shot, aside from a sore arm and mild flu-like symptoms." It also admits, "The safety of the swine flu vaccine remains to be seen," to which I say, it's made exactly like every other season vaccine, previous side effects are minuscule relative to its benefits.
It's irresponsible to conclude from The Atlantic article that vaccines are dangerous just as it is irresponsible to conclude that vaccines will save society. The article admits, vaccination is a "partial defense." As a healthy person who frequently visits loved ones who are not, I chose to get a seasonal flu shot and intend on getting the 2009 H1N1 shot. Your results may vary.
The elderly have some immunity to 2009 H1N1. 2009 H1N1 is more dangerous than the annual flu to children and adults. Apply that knowledge to the November 2009 The Atlantic Monthly and at a minimum, you have the authors and a researcher otherwise supporting Tom Jefferson agreeing that children and adult should be vaccinated.
Oops.
The money quotes:
"Unfortunately, the very people who most need protection from the flu also have immune systems that are least likely to respond to vaccine. Studies show that young, healthy people mount a glorious immune response to seasonal flu vaccine, and their response reduces their chances of getting the flu and may lessen the severity of symptoms if they do get it."
"Majumdar, the Ottawa researcher, says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is established.."
"In Jefferson’s view, this raises a troubling conundrum: Is vaccine necessary for those in whom it is effective, namely the young and healthy? Conversely, is it effective in those for whom it seems to be necessary, namely the old, the very young, and the infirm?"
"the idea that dozens or hundreds pharmaceutical executives, AMA directors, CDC doctors, and corporate CEOs could pull off a conspiracy to keep us all sick in the name of money and power makes about as much sense as believing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their bureaucratic apparatchiks planted explosive devices in the World Trade Center and flew remote controlled planes into the buildings. "
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/an-open-letter-to-bill-ma_b_323834.html
Anti-vaccine people have legitimate concerns and I think medicine has become extremely short-sighted--treating one thing without caring about the repercussions. A perfect example would be C-sections which now shockingly constitutes 23 %of US births. Are there really that women in danger? Or is it faster, more lucrative and easier to schedule for the male dominated profession of doctors.
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=391
The flu shot is cheap, effective and the risks are small. Hundreds of millions of doses are manufactured and administered annually and the manufacturing process doesn't change from year to year nor do the adjuvants, just the plasmids from that season's strains. It's no secret on how it's made:
http://www.influenzareport.com/ir/vaccines.htm
I also haven't seen any examples of misogyny in flu vaccine public policy. Maybe it's a pseudonym for a man, but a Tara Parker-Pope reported in the New York Times that pregnant women are nine-times more likely to be hospitalized in intensive care by the 2009 h1n1 virus:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/health/10primer.html
She (or he) also cites some early safety findings from the distribution of the 2009 h1n1 flu shot in China.
It's pretty common knowledge that thimersol, different oils and squalene have been tried (some being taken out of the realm of possibilites as in squalene after the Gulf War syndrome problems with the Anthrax virus.) Peanut and sesame oil sound pretty harmless because we eat them, but they were never meant to enter the bloodstream.
Anyway...an article using the words of CDC and WHO officials: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15452
None of the US 2009 H1N1 vaccine has an adjuvant added
There are no plans to add an adjuvant to the US 2009 H1N1 vaccine.
There is a slight chance strains of the virus become much more dangerous. If that happens, no will wait to see if those strains become prevalent and the US might add adjuvant.
Why? Because, surprise, a mutation that makes it much more dangerous doesn't mean the vaccine will be much less effective. So there will be a huge spike in demand for vaccine and not enough available to meet that demand for vaccine NOW. US vaccine use 15mcg of viral particles per dose. Canada only uses 3.75 mcg per dose. The difference? Canada adds GSK's AS03 adjuvant. The An adjuvant that contains squalene. Safety shouldn't be an issue because millions of Canadians have proven it safe.
ILot and lots of people will start praying* to get vaccinated and then keep praying* they won't get infected before the end of the 14-21 days it takes for protection against the flu virus.
*Affirming is allowed providing it is not audible within 100 feet of a church,synagogue, temple, Bob or dormitories with representations of FSM in any of his schisms.
And are you alties aware that Gary Null, one of your poster boys, is also an HIV denialist?
If you intended to represent science or critical thinking, you have failed miserably.
Conflicts of interest have been endlessly studied throughout human history, and there are plenty of peer reviewed studies in medicine alone that illustrate quite clearly that conflicts of interest -- particularly financial ones -- introduce bias. This is why most professions and government institutions create and enforce strict conflict of interest guidelines. Medical science in the US and the regulatory bodies that monitor them seem to be under the delusion that they are immune from bias so they don't need to have or enforce these rules that almost every other profession has long ago implemented.
Even the Supreme Court of the US acknowledged these facts and recently ruled against both Pharma
and the regulatory bodies (FDA) because recent historical evidence shows us quite clearly that public health has suffered at the hands of pharma profits under the eye of these hopelessly conflicted regulatory bodies.
While I certainly agree there is no grand conspiracy to sicken people on purpose, these are two basic points you overlook scream of logical and scientific dissonance.
Of course there are high profile cases in conventional medicine where bad science and corporate greed has led to tragedy. But there were (admittedly imperfect) mechanisms in the system to try to rectify mistakes. Clinicians looked at the corrupt data and prescribed safer alternative anti-inflammatories to Vioxx and Merck paid the price for their crime. Thalidomide was pulled from the market when it was found to deform babies. The medical community responded. Compared to the billions of people who have benefited from modern medicine's successes, these incidents represent a tragic, but fixable, flaw in the system. The problem is in the people, not the science.
(cont'd)
"Meanwhile, the alternative medicine community seems to be stubborn and entrenched."
Again discussion of alternative medicine and homeopathy has no bearing whatsoever on the points I made and is a red herring argument.
"Homeopath Dana Ullman admits, "it is not presently known with certainty how homeopathic medicines work.""
You should be careful, because much of modern medicine today relies on the same principals. Modern Medicine can't explain even a small fraction of the mechanisms of illness let alone some of the treatments. The methodology of pharmaceuticals is to test compounds against individuals and observe the responses. Take vaccine adjuvants for example: There is still little understanding of how they work, yet they widely used in modern medicine and have been for a long period of time. Your example from Homeopathy is replicated in mainstream medicine.
"Healthy skepticism leads to better science. Blindly fixed ideology leads to disaster."
I agree completely, which is why a healthy skepticism of influenza vaccines in face of strong evidence of lack of efficacy is exactly what leads to the breaking the medical belief system that is propagated by well meaning but misled scientists.
"The medical community responded. Compared to the billions of people who have benefited from modern medicine's successes, these incidents represent a tragic, but fixable, flaw in the system."
Your point about benefits from modern medicine's success is not in debate here, nor is the fact that it can be fixed. I certainly agree that the problems are fixable, but I disagree that they have been fixed. The points I made are: medicine's policy and recommendations regarding influenza vaccine runs contrary to the scientific evidence and that the regulatory systems in place to protect the public have been corrupted by financial conflicts of interest. These directly address key points made incorrectly by the author of this article.
"Clinicians looked at the corrupt data and prescribed safer alternative anti-inflammatories to Vioxx and Merck paid the price for their crime."
Clinicians also reported similar discrepencies between the policy and evidence wrt to Avendia, yet were actively shut down by the FDA. The systems in place are not designed to listen to clinicians, but rather to the studies that are funded, reviewed and presented by the same group of people. As for Merck paying for the crime, I am highly skeptical. You need to demonstrate that the financial penalty outweighed the profit made before making that claim.
Meanwhile, the alternative medicine community seems to be stubborn and entrenched. Consider homeopathy. In the face of contradicting data to their treatments' effectiveness, they make arguments like, "the most respected cultural heroes since the early 19th century have used and/or advocated for homeopathy." (Ullman) A claim like that does not invalidate the overwhelming data discounting its effectiveness. Homeopath Dana Ullman admits, "it is not presently known with certainty how homeopathic medicines work." If that's the case, how can you innovate? How can you formulate better treatments for emerging diseases? Here again, I blame people and applaud the science.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathy-for-allergies_b_320998.html
Healthy skepticism leads to better science. Blindly fixed ideology leads to disaster.