Dumbasses in the news

I've been meaning to do an entry about this for some time, and I read some news last night that prompted me to get my ass in gear.

Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy split. Yeah, I'm all broken up about it, too.

I haven't cared about those two idiots for some time—he hasn't made a funny or interesting movie in a over a decade, and the last thing I remember her in was some crappy sitcom—but they have certainly pissed me off in a big way with their anti-vaccination stance. Long story short, McCarthy has an autistic son, and for years she has gone around talking about the link between autism and vaccines. I first became fully aware of their involvement in this ignore-the-science issue when I saw them both appear on Larry King Live last year. I was struck by their smugness ("Oh, you silly non-celebrities...we obviously know so much more than you do!") and their easy dismissal of doctors and scientists who stated that study after study showed no link between vaccines and autism.

McCarthy can speak about the issue as much as she wants, but merely being the mother of an autistic child (or in Carrey's case, the boyfriend of the mother of an autistic child) does not make her an expert. I wonder at our willingness to accept as experts those who have not been trained in a particular field, merely because they've had some experience with the situation. I'm sure she's an expert in dealing with her own autistic child; that does not make her an expert in scientific research and study.

However, she has positioned herself as just that. Partly because of her influence, many parents have chosen to forgo certain vaccines for their children, resulting in an increase in preventable infectious diseases such as mumps, measles, and meningitis. I believe this is negligent on her part, and on the verge of criminal, because it's not just those unvaccinated kids that are affected; it's all those who come into contact with them, and some might be immunocompromised and in more danger of severe illness and death. Some see her as a menace to public health, and I agree. It is very much a case of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. If you are not fully versed in all the aspects of an issue, you can cause much more harm than good.

In the March 8, 2010 issue of Time magazine, she is quoted as saying, "Come and see our kids. Why won't the CDC come and talk to the mothers, talk to the families? Then tell us there isn't a link." It doesn't work that way, you silly bitch. You don't prove theories by "talking to the mothers." I absolutely despise such an attitude, and I'm seeing it more and more from people so willing to discount scientific evidence whether it concerns evolution or the importance of the flu vaccine. It's an acceptance of others who are "just like us" and a distrust of the "elite." Just a thought: doing some online research and reading up on something does not make you qualified to make decisions concerning matters of public health, and it does not make you a doctor. People go to school for that, and it's a smart idea to accept their expertise (nothing wrong with getting a second opinion, of course, and that's recommended for major diagnoses) rather than believing that you know more than they do because you "read up on it."

I'm not implying that doctors or scientists are infallible. In the Microbiology lab, we would occasionally get calls from doctors wondering what to treat an infection with. We couldn't issue recommendations, but based on susceptibility patterns we tracked over the previous year and on known resistance mechanisms, we could often say that a particular antibiotic wasn't effective for that organism. This wasn't just our opinion; it was based on solid data and documented studies.

That's where people like McCarthy and Carrey are dangerous. They base their statements on opinion and theoretical assumptions rather than relying upon empirical evidence. Because they are in the public eye, there are people out there listening to them who decide it's a great idea to also be a dumbass, and follow along with whatever they say. (McCarthy also said that if there was a "purpose from God," it's that she could get booked on talk shows in order to spread her anti-vaccination rhetoric.)

Despite the recent retraction of the 1998 Lancet article, due to unethical practices and faulty conclusions, that started all this nonsense, McCarthy and her adherents continue to cling to this bad science and misinformation and support its author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield. In the meantime, how many children have died from diseases that could have been prevented? How many kids have gone deaf because they got meningitis, and how many little boys were rendered sterile because of the recent mumps outbreak? Not to mention the buckets of money that have been thrown at multiple studies disproving the connection that could have gone towards finding causes and cures for autism. Alison Singer of the Autism Science Foundation said, "I felt that 22 vaccine studies were enough. Given that we don't have unlimited resources, it made sense to say we looked at vaccines and found no causal relationship."

According to the CDC's website:

Recent estimates from CDC's Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring network found that about 1 in 150 children have ASD. This estimate is higher than estimates from the early 1990s. Some people believe increased exposure to thimerosal (from the addition of important new vaccines recommended for children) explains the higher prevalence in recent years. However, evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association. Furthermore, a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines an autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion.

Here is a partial list of several studies cited by the CDC in support of its conclusion. You can find the entire list here: Chart of Autism Studies.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine August 2003: This study took advantage of the cessation of thimerosal use in Denmark and Sweden in 1992 to conduct a before and after comparison of the incidence or case numbers of autism. In both countries, autism increases throughout the years 1987-1999, contrary to the decrease in autism that would be expected after 1992 if thimerosal exposure was related to autism. The increasing trend for autism is most notable in Denmark where the number of autism cases rises substantially even after the discontinuation of thimerosal use.

Pediatrics November 2003: No association was shown with autism.

New England Journal of Medicine September 2007: The weight of the evidence from this study does not support an association between early ethyl mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or immunoglobulins and neuropsychological functioning at ages 7 to 10 years.

Pediatrics February 2009: The overall results of the study [conducted in Italy] do not support neurological or developmental harm to children resulting from thimerosal exposure. This strong study adds to the body of scientific evidence that thimerosal in vaccines is not harmful to children.

New England Journal of Medicine November 2002: This study [conducted in Denmark], which followed more than 500,000 children, over 7 years, found no association between the MMR vaccination and autism.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders April 2006: The study provided no evidence of an association between regression in ASD and MMR vaccination.

William Schaffner, professor and chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said, "Since Wakefield's study came out, some 20 other studies have come out, and each one of these studies, done by different researchers, in different populations and in different countries, has denied the associations between vaccines and autism. Scientifically, this story is over."

Scientifically, this story is over. It's time for wannabe scientists like Jenny McCarthy to start following the science and stop preaching about the dangers of vaccination. The risks of death and disability from preventable infectious diseases is far greater than any alleged (and now disproven) risk of autism.

Blog Blog Baby

Wow, I'd forgotten about that parody, and what an awful song the original was! What a blatant ripoff of Queen’s “Under Pressure.” I think this clip was on "In Living Color." Recognize that guy? It's Jim Carrey. Now that I've stopped laughing, I'll move on to my topic, which is blogging.

I know, I know, we've all talked about it before, nigh unto death, but some interesting new statistics have come to light. Also, Cousin Shane's friend Doug (Hi Doug! [waving]) wrote to me and said that he wants to start a blog and would like to talk to me about it. We had a nice conversation, and talked about different platforms, ease of use, etc. So it's on my mind today, and I have to say that I was quite surprised to read some of the statistics.

My friend Dan (Milwaukee Dan #1...Hi Dan! [waving]) sent me a story on Facebook from the New York Times concerning blogging. Follow the link to read the entire article, which was quite interesting. According to the article, blogs have a higher failure rate than restaurants. For anyone who has ever thought that it would be "fun" to own a restaurant and did a little research and found out just how hard it is to maintain a steady clientele and income, that comparison is shocking. Restaurants drop like flies (although that's probably an unfortunate metaphor) every day, so I would think it would be hard to have a higher failure rate than that! Not so.

According to a 2008 survey by Technorati, which runs a search engine for blogs, only 7.4 million out of the 133 million blogs the company tracks had been updated in the past 120 days. That translates to 95 percent of blogs being essentially abandoned, left to lie fallow on the Web, where they become public remnants of a dream — or at least an ambition — unfulfilled.

95%?! That's astounding to me! What's even more astounding is to realize that those of us that update regularly constitute only 5% of the blogs on Technorati. Doesn't that make you feel a little bit special? It does me. I've said before that I send a salute to all bloggers who are able to keep it up and keep going. Of course, real life gets in the way, and not everyone has enough time to make regular entries--I'm fortunate in that regard. The article also mentions the popularity of MySpace, Facebook, and most recently, Twitter (which made the cover of Time this week, believe it or not). I think that those of us who made the transition from AOL Journals to Blogger have definitely noticed the drop-off of some regulars at AOL, and I think that some of that has to do with microblogging sites.

I like to mix it up a little. I still love writing here, but I love connecting with work friends and blog friends who use Facebook--I also love how easy it is to share articles or videos there. I never got into MySpace, although I have an account there, and I'm not quite as enamored with Twitter as so many seem to be at the moment. (Fame is fleeting Twitter...you've been warned.) I do sort of like posting random thoughts (à la Jack Handey), but I still prefer and need to expand a little more upon my thoughts. Maybe the next au courant site will consist of one word updates. Twitter is fun for stalking following the famous and semi-famous, and my latest acquisitions (makes me want to read The Collector again) are Russell Brand and Jason Segel (after watching "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"). Russell Brand is quite the enigma. But I digress. Back to the article.

Richard Jalichandra, chief executive of Technorati, said that at any given time there are 7 million to 10 million active blogs on the Internet, but “it’s probably between 50,000 and 100,000 blogs that are generating most of the page views.” He added, “There’s a joke within the blogging community that most blogs have an audience of one.”

Again, astounding. How cool is it to build up a little following, to know that there are people out there who want to know what you have to say? It's way cool, that's how cool. It makes me very grateful that I get feedback from you all, and to have people reading this other than family! I am very happy about that, and I thank you all.

To Doug I say "safe passage and bon voyage!" I look forward to reading what he has to write, and if he chooses to make his blog public, I will definitely put up the link here. He's a wonderful writer who was stationed in Afghanistan and recently opted out of the Navy and returned home. I suspect he might have plenty to say!

*****

One more topic, and then I think I’m done for the evening. I’m not letting this one go by without rebuttal. I read something today in which the writer included this picture of Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni at the D-Day tribute in France over the weekend. They interpreted it as Mrs. Obama having “issues,” and took it as some sort of indication of nastiness or hatred on the first lady’s part. The general attitude was that it was typical of her.

Oh, for God’s sake. And people wonder why I find such writings ridiculous, counterproductive, irrational, illogical, and foolish. Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah…stoopid.

I’ll tell you what. Let’s say we have…oh, how about a hundred? That’s a nice round number, although it’s probably much more than that. Let’s have a hundred photographers from all over the world follow you around at, if not every waking moment, every time you appear in public. Let’s say that each of those hundred photographers takes a hundred pictures in the space of an hour—again, a very conservative estimate, because most photojournalists will take many more than that. Let’s then say that you spend five hours in the public eye, with those hundred journalists taking one hundred pictures per hour. [picture me wearing a green visor, an armband, and punching in numbers at an adding machine]

By my calculations, that is a conservative estimate of 50,000 pictures.

So you’ve got 50,000 images of every expression you make while you’re out and about. Every grimace of pain as a pebble works its way inside your shoe. Every sideways glance you make. Every squint as the sun proves to be a little too bright, and since it’s impolite, you can’t wear sunglasses at certain times. Every time you get a wedgie because your panties creep up on you. Every moment that you aren’t smiling. Every time you feel a muscle twitch or experience a pain in your neck or back because you worked out a little too vigorously the previous day. Every time you experience all the little aches and pains and twitches and irritations that we all experience every fucking day, you’ve got someone there snapping a picture of you. Think about what sort of pictures might be captured of you.

Cut it out, people. This is bullshit, and you know it. If any of you want to say, “But Beth, you put up pictures of Sarah Palin’s office, and talked about that!” Yes, I did. That is a physical space, a reflection of her philosophy and her environment, and not a split-second snapshot of her face interpreted as something sinister. Putting up such a picture and portraying the first lady as angry or elitist or feeling contempt for other first ladies or for ceremonies honoring those who have served in the military is foolish, it’s hateful, and it’s an incredibly stupid argument that shows nothing of substance, only the contempt and hatred you feel for the President, and apparently for his wife.

And that’s all I have to say about that.