Can We Trust Expert Scientists?

[Theland]

Most notably on climate change, but on many other subjects as well such as vaccinations, diet, and a myriad of other things, can we trust scientists?
How do we mame decisions?

My personal interests are origin of the universe, origin of life, and evolution.

What do you think?

[jim360]

Also, not that it particularly matters, but you are not the arbiter of what is or is not my area.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Jourdain's claim that three vaccines at once may be less safe than three separate ones is utterly baseless, and yet I notice you haven't picked up on that at all? //

Why would I? I agree with her. That's precisely what we're talking about - well, at least she is, and I am. I'm not so sure what you're talking about now. Do you actually know what the MMR vaccine is?

[jim360]

On what basis do you agree with her? Because it certainly isn't a scientific basis.

MMR is three vaccines in one. I'm intrigued to see what more you can add to that.

[jim360]

Also, I was as it happens aware that there was a legal claim against the Japanese government, but since science is not decided in courts of law, it doesn't affect the scientific picture that they won. My reference to "public pressure" may have been vaguer than you were wanting, but it amounts to the same thing. I believe the meningitis claim was more to do with bad medical practice, eg allowing vaccines to be used past their expiry date, rather than to do with the vaccine itself, which is safe by any normal medical standard.

[naomi24]

Oh, so you do know. Jolly good.

On what basis do I agree with her? Experience has led me to believe that the three-in-one vaccine isn't entirely safe.

[naomi24]

//since science is not decided in courts of law//

Perhaps in some instances it should be.

[jim360]

Is that experience backed up by in-depth research? Have you data to back it up? Has it been supported by blinded trials, analysed according to rigorous statistical methods?

And, of not, why are those standards so objectionable?

[jim360]

Courts and Science are separate disciplines, working according to separate standards, and should be treated as such. It in no sense belittles one or the other field to say so.

[Gromit]

Science is the best guess based on the available evidence (facts and real world examples).

The alternative is made up prophesies that are hundred if not thousands of years old that go against knowledge we have accumulated in the past 2000 years.
Science might amend its collective option in the light of new discoveries (ie facts), but it is better than being based on 2500, 2000 or 1300 year old folk stories.

[naomi24]

Jim, from thread to thread and subject to subject, all you are doing is insisting that science must be right. I question that, so here’s an idea. Instead of arguing with me why not, as a scientist, spend your time more profitably - a least in human terms - in seeking the reason for the alarming rise in recent years in cases of autism? Logic dictates that there must be a reason No?

[jim360]

No. I'm insisting that the scientific process, when properly engaged in, is far more reliable a means of investigating the world than any other method we have to date. It is certainly more reliable than "belief", or "just my opinion", or any of the other unselfcritical viewpoints expressed on this thread and in other places.

I'm happy that I have spent my life pursuing the questions that interested me the most; I'm equally happy that other scientists, the community as a whole, is more or less competent, and I don't therefore see a need to reconfirm what countless huge studies have already shown: that there is no evidence of any link between vaccines and autism, and continuing to insist that the question hasn't yet been answered is indeed a danger to health. Measles can be fatal, and a decade ago was still claiming over 100,000 lives annually. Many countries were almost rid of it, but the misinformation over vaccine safety has seen its return in countries that were previously free of the disease.

[naomi24]

Jim, //I'm insisting that the scientific process, when properly engaged in, is far more reliable a means of investigating the world than any other method we have to date.//

No, Jim, that is not what you’re saying. You’re saying that in this instance science has got it right.

So, why have cases of autism risen at such an alarming rate over recent years?

[Mozz71]

Reading through the responses here, it seems like the response to the original question is "yes, we believe in what scientists tell us unless it disagrees with our general beliefs (be it social, political or religious) then god darn it, those science type are a load of money grabbing hacks*."


*and don't go and try to prove Greta right either you bunch of lefty, tree hugging hippies.

[jim360]

The simple answer to your question, Naomi, is that nobody yet knows why autism rates have increased. However, there is even debate about whether autism rates have increased at all, or whether it's merely a relic of increased awareness and/or changes in diagnostic practice.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144007

What *is* understood, though, is that there has been no observed link between vaccinations and autism. Once again, I can only refer you back to the study in Japan, which has had the unique opportunity to review autism rates before and after the withdrawal of MMR. As you will have seen, there was no decrease after the withdrawal, and in fact rates continued to rise. Coupled with evidence gathered across the world from multiple studies and bodies, it should be clear by now that whatever the causes of autism, it has nothing to do with vaccination.

[Khandro]

ichi; //An electirican came to our house and advised us that the everything needed re-wiring.
Electricians, who needs 'em.
A month later, when our house caught fire,........//


Faulty wiring?

[naomi24]

Jim, whatever happened in Japan parents sued successfully and the MMR vaccine has not been reintroduced. In practically every report I’ve read in favour of it the recurring statement is ‘no significant increase’, but what is ‘significant? Children aren’t statistics and in the quest for economic expediency - which is what this is all about - or even to prove science right, the odd child falling foul of this unnecessary procedure should not be written off as collateral damage. If only one child in a thousand - or even one in ten thousand - is adversely affected by the triple vaccine then it should be withdrawn in favour of separate injections. Children are ‘significant’.

[jim360]

Whenever the measles vaccine has been withdrawn in favour of separate injections the take-up rate drops, and the resultant rate of measles in particular tends to increase. Given a choice between prevention of potentially fatal diseases, and kowtowing to public pressure based on nothing but hearsay and rumour with no evidence of substance whatsoever, there is no doubt which is the better decision to take in favour of children's health.

[emmie]

i do trust most science that i read about. Though there is a degree of scepticism where the bible is concerned.

[emmie]

i think it's appalling that some parents won't have their children vaccinated, putting them in peril the whole of their lives.

[Ellipsis]

> the quest for economic expediency - which is what this is all about

No it isn't. It's about maximising the number of children who are vaccinated.

Of course, if fewer children become ill because they are vaccinated, then that is an economic gain. Treating very sick children is expensive. But the main thing is that fewer children become ill.

This document is stuffed with facts about MMR:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mmr-vaccine-dispelling-myths/measles-mumps-rubella-mmr-maintaining-uptake-of-vaccine

Of course, anybody can choose to ignore it because they know better.