Re: [silk] War on Science?
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 01:50, Heather Madrone wrote: > It's also the reason to question science and its findings, warts and > all. It's the scientific method all the way down. Checking past work and > assumptions is part of it. > > "Measure three times and cut once" is from carpentry, not science, but > it's a valid practice when making any irreversible change. New evidence > comes in all the time. It's worth taking a breath to ask whether we are > on course. > > This gets muddier when you have interested actors (and we always do) on > both sides of the scientific equation. There are always people who try > to force-map available data to get the conclusions they want, and it can > be very difficult to tell when they're doing so. > > Pharmaceutical companies have a long history of massaging, suppressing, > and manufacturing results so they can bring drugs profitably to market. > > I did my vaccine research after my daughter had a life-threatening > reaction to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. > > I discovered that vaccines are not a monolithic issue. The tetanus > vaccine, for example, is a safe and effective preventative of a horrible > disease that lies in wait in the soil everywhere around us. It's usually > quite long-lasting as well. WWII soldiers who were vaccinated against > tetanus exhibited immunity over 50 years later. > > The crowd disease vaccines, on the other hand, share the distinction of > being much less effective at conferring immunity, shorter-lived, and > with more side effects. Many of the crowd diseases are largely benign in > healthy children and confer lifelong immunity. The diseases are bad news > for pregnant women and people with immune disorders, but it's not clear > that vaccinating healthy children against these diseases is our best > public health option. > > Some public health officials agree that it might be better policy to > vaccinate against many diseases at puberty and again in early adulthood, > but they can't enforce vaccination of teens and adults. Young children > are a captive audience, though, so they are repeatedly vaccinated > against the crowd diseases, which don't pose a particular threat to > their health, and also against hepatitis B and HPV, which they are > extremely unlikely to contract. Meanwhile the adults who should be > vaccinated against those diseases mostly aren't. > > We don't yet have longterm data on the effects of our current aggressive > vaccine policy. How do repeated doses of a wide variety of vaccines > affect the health of individuals over 50, 75, 100 years? How long do the > vaccines confer immunity? What percentage of the population remains > susceptible to the disease after aggressive vaccination as opposed to > after natural immunity to the endemic disease? > > About 15 years ago, we discovered a bat colony inside our chimney as > well as a bat bite on my shoulder. The rabies vaccine is not > particularly safe. It requires 6 doses that cause flu-like symptoms over > the course of a month. Rabies was then invariably fatal. The whole > family received all six doses of the rabies vaccine, and we were > grateful for it, flu-like symptoms and all. > > When I was a child, doctors ordered up x-rays for every minor mishap and > handed out antibiotics like candy. "Better safe than sorry," they'd say, > completely unaware of the effects of overindulgence in those particular > kinds of medical technology. > > So let's see, what is the experiment and what is the control? In > adopting a new medical technology, should we err on the side of over- or > under-prescribing it? How much data do we need before we decide that a > technology is safe and effective? How long do we need to follow patients > to determine whether there are deleterious side effects? > > These aren't easy questions to answer. > > It's not unscientific to want new medical technologies to prove > themselves before submitting one's self and one's children as > experimental animals. We do our research and make the best choices we > can, knowing that Mother Nature always bats last. > > --hmm It is not unscientific, but then we are faced with the question of whether we have time. While an individual might hold oneself responsible for making choices for their children, I'm not sure there are serious enough repercussions if they cause the death of somebody who is immune compromised because of their decision. So are the individual parent(s) the best place to make the decision on whether to vaccinate or not? We could legislate so that vaccination is mandatory like Australia, but legislation numbs the debate paving the way for somebody to make that their campaign platform against government overreach. They might win, and over time get the legislation revoked and then round and round we go. I agree there aren't easy answers, but unless everybody is as concerned about the rest of humanity as they are about their own children - all kids should be vaccinated. We can debate individual
Re: [silk] War on Science?
The rabies vaccine has gone a long way from the 6 dose goat brain cultured vaccine to the new (as of 3 decades ago or more) chicken embryo cultured ones. As for crowd diseases being benign and immunity, I'd suggest looking at either whooping cough or polio for counter examples. Or German measles (rubella) - which, if a pregnant woman contracts it, is mild for her, but can and will cause severe retardation in her child. Do update your research on pertussis though, the vaccine given these days is, in general, acellular. Less long lasting than the whole cell one so needs booster shots, but much less likely to provoke reactions. On 04/02/19, 1:50 AM, "silklist on behalf of Heather Madrone" wrote: Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote on 2/3/19 2:44 AM February 3, 2019: > This leads me to the point I'm trying to make - the reason to accept > science and its findings, warts and all, is simply because we are human and > the scientific method is the best method of enquiry we have at our > disposal. This obviously doesn't mean blind acceptance, but it does mean we > ask for a preponderance of evidence which peer review (sometimes) supplies. > The system is not perfect but that is a problem with actors in it who are > unfortunately human. Add to this the last para of Heather's response on > whether we can ever truly know something. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision It's also the reason to question science and its findings, warts and all. It's the scientific method all the way down. Checking past work and assumptions is part of it. "Measure three times and cut once" is from carpentry, not science, but it's a valid practice when making any irreversible change. New evidence comes in all the time. It's worth taking a breath to ask whether we are on course. This gets muddier when you have interested actors (and we always do) on both sides of the scientific equation. There are always people who try to force-map available data to get the conclusions they want, and it can be very difficult to tell when they're doing so. Pharmaceutical companies have a long history of massaging, suppressing, and manufacturing results so they can bring drugs profitably to market. I did my vaccine research after my daughter had a life-threatening reaction to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. I discovered that vaccines are not a monolithic issue. The tetanus vaccine, for example, is a safe and effective preventative of a horrible disease that lies in wait in the soil everywhere around us. It's usually quite long-lasting as well. WWII soldiers who were vaccinated against tetanus exhibited immunity over 50 years later. The crowd disease vaccines, on the other hand, share the distinction of being much less effective at conferring immunity, shorter-lived, and with more side effects. Many of the crowd diseases are largely benign in healthy children and confer lifelong immunity. The diseases are bad news for pregnant women and people with immune disorders, but it's not clear that vaccinating healthy children against these diseases is our best public health option. Some public health officials agree that it might be better policy to vaccinate against many diseases at puberty and again in early adulthood, but they can't enforce vaccination of teens and adults. Young children are a captive audience, though, so they are repeatedly vaccinated against the crowd diseases, which don't pose a particular threat to their health, and also against hepatitis B and HPV, which they are extremely unlikely to contract. Meanwhile the adults who should be vaccinated against those diseases mostly aren't. We don't yet have longterm data on the effects of our current aggressive vaccine policy. How do repeated doses of a wide variety of vaccines affect the health of individuals over 50, 75, 100 years? How long do the vaccines confer immunity? What percentage of the population remains susceptible to the disease after aggressive vaccination as opposed to after natural immunity to the endemic disease? About 15 years ago, we discovered a bat colony inside our chimney as well as a bat bite on my shoulder. The rabies vaccine is not particularly safe. It requires 6 doses that cause flu-like symptoms over the course of a month. Rabies was then invariably fatal. The whole family received all six doses of the rabies vaccine, and we were grateful for it, flu-like symptoms and all. When I was a child, doctors ordered up x-rays for every minor mishap and handed out antibiotics like candy. "Better safe than sorry," they'd say, completely unaware of the effects
Re: [silk] War on Science?
Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote on 2/3/19 2:44 AM February 3, 2019: This leads me to the point I'm trying to make - the reason to accept science and its findings, warts and all, is simply because we are human and the scientific method is the best method of enquiry we have at our disposal. This obviously doesn't mean blind acceptance, but it does mean we ask for a preponderance of evidence which peer review (sometimes) supplies. The system is not perfect but that is a problem with actors in it who are unfortunately human. Add to this the last para of Heather's response on whether we can ever truly know something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision It's also the reason to question science and its findings, warts and all. It's the scientific method all the way down. Checking past work and assumptions is part of it. "Measure three times and cut once" is from carpentry, not science, but it's a valid practice when making any irreversible change. New evidence comes in all the time. It's worth taking a breath to ask whether we are on course. This gets muddier when you have interested actors (and we always do) on both sides of the scientific equation. There are always people who try to force-map available data to get the conclusions they want, and it can be very difficult to tell when they're doing so. Pharmaceutical companies have a long history of massaging, suppressing, and manufacturing results so they can bring drugs profitably to market. I did my vaccine research after my daughter had a life-threatening reaction to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. I discovered that vaccines are not a monolithic issue. The tetanus vaccine, for example, is a safe and effective preventative of a horrible disease that lies in wait in the soil everywhere around us. It's usually quite long-lasting as well. WWII soldiers who were vaccinated against tetanus exhibited immunity over 50 years later. The crowd disease vaccines, on the other hand, share the distinction of being much less effective at conferring immunity, shorter-lived, and with more side effects. Many of the crowd diseases are largely benign in healthy children and confer lifelong immunity. The diseases are bad news for pregnant women and people with immune disorders, but it's not clear that vaccinating healthy children against these diseases is our best public health option. Some public health officials agree that it might be better policy to vaccinate against many diseases at puberty and again in early adulthood, but they can't enforce vaccination of teens and adults. Young children are a captive audience, though, so they are repeatedly vaccinated against the crowd diseases, which don't pose a particular threat to their health, and also against hepatitis B and HPV, which they are extremely unlikely to contract. Meanwhile the adults who should be vaccinated against those diseases mostly aren't. We don't yet have longterm data on the effects of our current aggressive vaccine policy. How do repeated doses of a wide variety of vaccines affect the health of individuals over 50, 75, 100 years? How long do the vaccines confer immunity? What percentage of the population remains susceptible to the disease after aggressive vaccination as opposed to after natural immunity to the endemic disease? About 15 years ago, we discovered a bat colony inside our chimney as well as a bat bite on my shoulder. The rabies vaccine is not particularly safe. It requires 6 doses that cause flu-like symptoms over the course of a month. Rabies was then invariably fatal. The whole family received all six doses of the rabies vaccine, and we were grateful for it, flu-like symptoms and all. When I was a child, doctors ordered up x-rays for every minor mishap and handed out antibiotics like candy. "Better safe than sorry," they'd say, completely unaware of the effects of overindulgence in those particular kinds of medical technology. So let's see, what is the experiment and what is the control? In adopting a new medical technology, should we err on the side of over- or under-prescribing it? How much data do we need before we decide that a technology is safe and effective? How long do we need to follow patients to determine whether there are deleterious side effects? These aren't easy questions to answer. It's not unscientific to want new medical technologies to prove themselves before submitting one's self and one's children as experimental animals. We do our research and make the best choices we can, knowing that Mother Nature always bats last. --hmm
Re: [silk] War on Science?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 16:25, Alok Prasanna Kumar wrote: > Thanks Kiran. I think that's a really great way to put things. I've been > thinking about this in multiple contexts, especially when scientific > research and findings are reported in mass media. It's quite easy for > people to "debunk" claims when they haven't understood them in the first > place and that's why I guess it's really important to understand how the > scientific method works. > > Although the scientific world has made the world comprehendable, I do feel > a section of the populace have replaced priests in their lives with > scientists. Or treating scientists as priests, which is possibly worse (Jordan Peterson). Even worse is when reputation in one field somehow confers scientific credentials (Gwyneth Paltrow). > That instead of understanding the method and the principles > behind a finding, they rely on the authority of the person or the prestige > of the institution carrying out the research. > Name dropping should prick up everybody's ears. Being a successful practitioner of the scientific method does not (and should not) allow you to subvert it at your convenience or to your advantage.
Re: [silk] War on Science?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 16:14, Kiran K Karthikeyan < kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote: > This thread has had me huffing and puffing (or perhaps hand wringing) for > a while, but the topic is such that any response can be countered. A proper > discussion on the various nuances of each cited instance where science has > apparently failed is one I am woefully inadequate for. Therefore, I say my > piece: > > One of the few things that has stuck with me since my school days is the > concept of significant figures [1]. There are more details to this concept, > but in the context of this discussion what is relevant is that an accurate > measurement [2] would run into infinite significant figures. In other > words, we would need infinite resolution in the measuring instrument to > make an accurate measurement. > > So the fact that science is approximate, imprecise etc. is a fair > complaint if the goal is accuracy, but accuracy is not practical. I am glad > some wise humans decided I should be told this sooner than later. Instead > we have the scientific method, peer review etc. which is probably the best > that we humans have come up with to deal with the infinitely complex > universe we live in. > > This leads me to the point I'm trying to make - the reason to accept > science and its findings, warts and all, is simply because we are human and > the scientific method is the best method of enquiry we have at our > disposal. This obviously doesn't mean blind acceptance, but it does mean we > ask for a preponderance of evidence which peer review (sometimes) supplies. > The system is not perfect but that is a problem with actors in it who are > unfortunately human. > Should add here, just in the interest of completeness, that time is also an actor here that leads us to accept approximations i.e. should we wait 10-20 years for conclusive data on a vaccine for a disease that will become a pandemic in months. > Add to this the last para of Heather's response on whether we can ever > truly know something. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision >
Re: [silk] War on Science?
Thanks Kiran. I think that's a really great way to put things. I've been thinking about this in multiple contexts, especially when scientific research and findings are reported in mass media. It's quite easy for people to "debunk" claims when they haven't understood them in the first place and that's why I guess it's really important to understand how the scientific method works. Although the scientific world has made the world comprehendable, I do feel a section of the populace have replaced priests in their lives with scientists. That instead of understanding the method and the principles behind a finding, they rely on the authority of the person or the prestige of the institution carrying out the research. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 4:14 PM Kiran K Karthikeyan < kiran.karthike...@gmail.com wrote: > This thread has had me huffing and puffing (or perhaps hand wringing) for a > while, but the topic is such that any response can be countered. A proper > discussion on the various nuances of each cited instance where science has > apparently failed is one I am woefully inadequate for. Therefore, I say my > piece: > > One of the few things that has stuck with me since my school days is the > concept of significant figures [1]. There are more details to this concept, > but in the context of this discussion what is relevant is that an accurate > measurement [2] would run into infinite significant figures. In other > words, we would need infinite resolution in the measuring instrument to > make an accurate measurement. > > So the fact that science is approximate, imprecise etc. is a fair complaint > if the goal is accuracy, but accuracy is not practical. I am glad some wise > humans decided I should be told this sooner than later. Instead we have the > scientific method, peer review etc. which is probably the best that we > humans have come up with to deal with the infinitely complex universe we > live in. > > This leads me to the point I'm trying to make - the reason to accept > science and its findings, warts and all, is simply because we are human and > the scientific method is the best method of enquiry we have at our > disposal. This obviously doesn't mean blind acceptance, but it does mean we > ask for a preponderance of evidence which peer review (sometimes) supplies. > The system is not perfect but that is a problem with actors in it who are > unfortunately human. Add to this the last para of Heather's response on > whether we can ever truly know something. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision >
Re: [silk] War on Science?
This thread has had me huffing and puffing (or perhaps hand wringing) for a while, but the topic is such that any response can be countered. A proper discussion on the various nuances of each cited instance where science has apparently failed is one I am woefully inadequate for. Therefore, I say my piece: One of the few things that has stuck with me since my school days is the concept of significant figures [1]. There are more details to this concept, but in the context of this discussion what is relevant is that an accurate measurement [2] would run into infinite significant figures. In other words, we would need infinite resolution in the measuring instrument to make an accurate measurement. So the fact that science is approximate, imprecise etc. is a fair complaint if the goal is accuracy, but accuracy is not practical. I am glad some wise humans decided I should be told this sooner than later. Instead we have the scientific method, peer review etc. which is probably the best that we humans have come up with to deal with the infinitely complex universe we live in. This leads me to the point I'm trying to make - the reason to accept science and its findings, warts and all, is simply because we are human and the scientific method is the best method of enquiry we have at our disposal. This obviously doesn't mean blind acceptance, but it does mean we ask for a preponderance of evidence which peer review (sometimes) supplies. The system is not perfect but that is a problem with actors in it who are unfortunately human. Add to this the last para of Heather's response on whether we can ever truly know something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
