Science Advocacy
Science Advocacy
If you read the news regularly, you’ve probably heard that Alex Jones and his company, Infowars have recently been banished from social media – specifically Facebook, Youtube, Spotify, Vimeo, and others. Pretty much everyone other than Twitter (which gave him a timeout) has pulled the controversial conspiracy theorist from their platforms. The reason for this was ostensibly his repeated violation of policies against hate speech and inciting violence – activities that Jones and Infowars have gleefully been engaged in for years.
But while hate speech and incitement of violence are undoubtedly awful, it seems like social media platforms are overlooking – or perhaps just ok with – the batshit insane list of anti-science conspiracy theories Jones and Infowars have been promoting for years. So while the rational world celebrates the small victory of removing a voice of hate from the social media (if only for now), let’s also reflect on the impact Jones and Infowars has had on the propagation of science-related misinformation over the years.
Jones has frequently suggested that fluoridation of water is a government plot to poison us and control our minds – a ridiculous and all too common conspiracy theory. He also supports the disproven theory that vaccines cause autism, and advocates against life-saving vaccinations. From there it only gets weirder. Jones has suggested repeatedly that the US government has machines that can create tornadoes, and bombs that can turn people gay. According to Jones, the government is also trying to poison us using chemtrails, a theory so insane it seems to require a break from reality. Together with “Big Pharma,” the government has also turned frogs gay and created HIV, according to Jones. And if Jones is to be believed, Bill Gates, whose foundation has spent almost 70 million dollars to develop cures for neglected tropic diseases, is running a eugenics effort.
It may surprise you to know that Jones probably makes most of his money selling dubious health supplements. He spends a considerable amount of his air time on Infowars giving health advice and promoting his dietary supplements. He claims to have pills that will boost your “vitality,” just like an old-timey snake oil salesman. Naturally, Infowars sells a fluoride-free toothpaste for those who don’t want their mind controlled by the government. My favorite Infowars supplement, however, is the Survival Shield. Third parties have tested it, and it contains only iodine, an important element you can literally get by putting salt on your fries. Yet Inforwars describes it like it’s the most advanced supplement ever invented:
“Derived from ancient sea salts found more than 7,000 feet below the Earth’s surface, the evolution of Survival Shield is here and much stronger than our original formula.* Every drop contains 650 micrograms to keep you in prime form.
Feel the relief and strength of the next step in proprietary nascent iodine, developed using our Thermodynamic Pressure Sensitive High Energy Sound Pulse Nano-Emulsion Technology that allows for a highly unique and powerful nascent iodine that is both concentrated, and free of unwanted additives and genetically modified ingredients to make sure that your organic nascent iodine supplements are the best for your body. During our quality control phase, we screen for any harmful additives – even up to radiation.”
I have so many questions!!!! How did Jones GET 7,000 feet below the Earth’s surface? Does he own a Dr. Evil-style giant drill? Is he the first person to ever use the words “nascent” and “iodine” consecutively, and why? How could you “add” radiation to something? How do you genetically modify iodine? Then there’s the term “Thermodynamic Pressure Sensitive High Energy Sound Pulse Nano-Emulsion Technology” – a masterclass in pseudoscience technobabble – it sounds cool, while actually meaning nothing. Jones might be the greatest snake oil salesman ever.
Jones and Infowars even went so far as to make up a nonexistent fungal epidemic – one they conveniently have the cure for! Two bottles of the stuff will cost you about $100.
It’s easy for rational people to make fun of this kind of tomfoolery, but we need to remember that Infowars has been around since 1999. They are still on the radio today, and their website is active. While I’d like to think we live in a world in which the majority of people who hear his crazy claims think of them as entertainment only, I don’t think we can be naive enough to believe this. Millions of people visit the Infowars site every year, and they sell a lot of useless supplements.
Infowars was rightly pulled off of the air for hate speech against victims of unspeakable tragedies. This is a victory for everyone concerned about the impact of “fake news” on our society. However, we have a long way to go in this regard. Sites like this still makes millions of dollars promoting anti-science theories that can be easily disproved, and by selling supplements that provide no health benefits at all. We can’t ban sites from social media just for lying to make a buck – but we can educate our friends and family and spread the word of science. Maybe someday, Jones will run out of people to take advantage of.
Welcome to part 3 of our series on how to talk to your friends and family who hold anti-science views on vaccine safety. Click here for part 1, and part 2, which covered the benefit/risk of childhood vaccines, reliable sources of data, and conspiracy theories. Now on to part 3.
PART III: Misunderstanding science and/or over-simplifying how science actually works
Science can be complicated. Fully grasping the basics of a single field of study can take a lifetime. Most of the anti-vaccine arguments you will hear do not stem from bad science. Instead they come from the mistakes outlined in our previous posts – misunderstanding the risk/benefit profile of vaccines, trusting bad data, or believing in conspiracy theories.
Anti-vaccine arguments based on science are the easiest to refute given time, but they are often the hardest to refute in the moment. If someone pulls out an obscure research paper that you haven’t read before as evidence that vaccines are dangerous, a good scientist needs to take the time to read it in order to refute it. This is a big reason why we at UYBFS don’t like to try to argue science in the comments section of Facebook posts. In order to get our science right, we often need to do research – that’s how science works.
With this said, most anti-vaccine scientific claims fall into several general categories – seven by our count. Let’s go through each with some examples from the anti-vaccines posts from our recent Science humor Facebook post (see part 1).
1) Misunderstanding basic science.
This one is pretty straight forward. Scientific misconceptions are everywhere, and getting the basics of science wrong can lead to faulty conclusions. Here are some examples:
“If you look at what caused polio it sure as hell was’nt [sic] apples. So it was caused by toxins in the environment, ddt etc”
Polio is caused by a virus, not by toxins or pesticides.
“If you’d like, I also cite studies that show that cell denovo replication can be affected by damage to certain proteins caused by febrile seizures and axonal stretch injury.”
These words literally mean nothing in the order above. It sounds smart, but it’s nonsense.
“Hmmm, she gets vaccinated to protect herself, but if I’m not vaccinated then I can spread my virus to her? How does that work, exactly, if this vaccination you speak of actually does anything?”
This is an important principal of immunity that the author of this comment seems to have completely missed. Vaccines are not 100% effective – no medication is. In a small number of vaccinated persons, the vaccine won’t work. This generally happens when there is an inadequate immune response to the vaccine (driven by biological chance or a suppressed immune system) or because the person’s immune system is compromised at the time of infection and unable to response despite the vaccine.
Let’s say this happened to your child – they were vaccinated against measles, but it just didn’t work. If every other child in their class was vaccinated, their risk of contracting measles is still very low – because no one else in their class would have measles due to the vaccination. If however, several kids in their class weren’t vaccinated because their parents didn’t understand this concept, they could catch measles, and measles can be fatal. This is called “herd immunity.” It’s ok if a small percentage of people fail to develop immunity following vaccinations, as long as the rate of vaccination is high among their peers.
“I still haven’t read one good reason for hepb shot , and the ‘vitamin’ k shot at birth. Other than to thwart the immmune system or constitution. The facts are that people [sic] pineal glands are being filled with fluoride which is caused by the mercury. The pineal gland is our holy grail if you like, our internal antenna.”
The author of this comment clearly has no background in science. The reasons for the hepatitis B vaccine (hepb) and vitamin K shot at birth are self-explanatory. Fluoride does not “fill” your pineal gland – if you take too much of it, it goes into your bones. We are not sure if they are inferring that mercury “causes” fluoride (that makes no sense), or if it causes fluoride to “fill” your pineal gland – which it does not. The pineal gland produces melatonin, which helps regulate your circadian rhythm, which we guess is like an antenna, somehow? Finally using the word “constitution” as a medical or scientific term is a classic red flag. This term means nothing at all in modern evidence-based medicine – don’t trust the opinions of anyone who uses this word incorrectly.
2) Misunderstanding data
Here are some published studies that one commenter linked to as supporting evidence of a lack of vaccines safety:
Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity. This is a cool study because in pharmacology and medicine, a classic dose-response relationship (higher dose = a greater effect) is usually taken for granted. The authors didn’t observe that here, which is SUPER interesting, but not useful as a basis for human risk assessment. Mice are not little people – data generated in mice needs to be understood mechanistically before it can inform risk.
Evidence Concerning Pertussis Vaccines and Central Nervous System Disorders, Including Infantile Spasms, Hypsarrhythmia, Aseptic Meningitis, and Encephalopathy. This is another really nice study, and it’s clear that the person who posted it didn’t read beyond the title. The authors found no link between the DPT vaccine and any of these disorders.
3) Trusting the wrong data or Confusing science and propaganda
“There is considerable evidence from human studies implicating ultrasound. Parents in the US are not being given this information.”
The author actually linked to a Chinese book on this topic available through Amazon. Literally every baby born since the 1970’s has been exposed to ultrasound – it’s perfectly safe and every doctor and scientist will tell you this, but this person is going with the opinion form a non-peer-reviewed Chinese book available for $9.99 on Amazon with the following product description:
“Ultrasound is argued, with much supporting evidence, to be the primary initiator of fetal vulnerabilities. The Bibliography lists and discusses arcane documents, previously unknown, modern, high-tech studies, conducted in modern China, surpassing Western science. These studies empirically demonstrate ultrasound disease causation.”
That is some next-level gibberish right there.
So how does this happen? Why would someone believe such a clearly untrustworthy source over pretty much every scientist and health professional in the world? This is a difficult question to answer. People likely believe clearly fake information like this for the same reasons that people believe non-scientific fake news. Many hypothesize that the desire to “know” or reinforce things they believe already drives people to ignore obviously fake information sources. Research also shows that many people have a difficult time recognizing false or biased information, especially when it comes from social media.
This topic is related to the conspiracy theory discussion from part 2: it’s important to understand that there is bias inherent in many of our information sources. As such, we should always be skeptical of any scientific information we read and seek to confirm it from unbiased sources. Peer-reviewed journals are a great source of “unbiased” data, but data published in this way is generally not written for non-scientists and can be misinterpreted by those without proper training. Other good sources include the news sites of the high end scientific journals Science and Nature, Science News, and Sciworthy. Avoid sites that are heavily politically biased in either direction.
4) Over-interpreting data
Here are a few peer-reviewed publications posted in the Facebook comments. Each is a solid study, but the person who posted these links seemed to think they “proved” that vaccines are unsafe. They do not.
B-Lymphocytes from a Population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal. There is no link between mitochondrial defects and autism, which pretty much disproves this hypothesis.
Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders. Large, well-controlled sudies consistently show no link between vaccines and autism. There is only correlation and no causation here (see below).
Transcriptomic analyses of neurotoxic effects in mouse brain after intermittent neonatal administration of thimerosal. Changes in gene expression are not necessarily adverse, and this study used thimerosal levels 20-times higher than used in vaccines.
It may surprise some people to find studies clearly looking for a connection between vaccines and autism in the published literature, but it shouldn’t. This is how science works. After Andrew Wakefield published his falsified (now withdrawn) paper claiming a link between vaccines and autism, scientists around the world have looked into the issue. Some of this data, when over interpreted or taken out of context might seem to suggest a link between vaccines and autism, but the totality of the data tells a very clear story. Outside of the discredited work of Dr. Wakefield, there is no evidence of such a link.
5) Mistaking correlation for causation
“the exponential rise in autism linked to high rates of aluminium in the brain.”
No causal connection has been identified.
“The US has by far the highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized world–higher even than many Third World nations. The US also administers the most vaccines to children under 2 years old. These issues are connected.”
Nope. Did you know that if you eat enough chocolate you will definitely win a Nobel Prize? correlation does not equal causation.
Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. There is no data at all suggesting that these antibodies cause autism.
Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? Again, a correlation without any evidence at all of a causative link between aluminum and autism.
6) Failing to recognize how data fits into the evolution of the field
This is a big one, since science evolves as more data is generated. There was a time, in the the 1990’s when much of the scientific community considered it possible that vaccines were indeed linked to autism. However, after the work by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was disproven and withdrawn from publication due to fraud, this changed. Today, you won’t find reputable scientists who believe there is any sort of ink between vaccines and autism, or who question the extremely high benefit-to-risk ratio of childhood vaccinations. Citing the work of Dr. Wakefield or early work in the field before a scientific consensus was reached is not an argument against vaccines – it’s just out of date information.
7) Not actually listening to the other side
Science should never be about winning or losing an argument. It’s about seeking truth. It is important to always be open to considering that your position may be incorrect, and even more so if that position is held by the vast majority of experts in a particular field. Unfortunately, some people are just not ready to listen:
“Lol congrats. I appreciate the response and refutation with citation. But I have many many more hahaha so I’m glad I can take these ones that you have refuted out of my list.”
So I guess this person’s plan is just to keep on lining up “evidence” to support his side without considering that with each refutation their position is more and more untenable?
“Considering I am currently taking my Bach of science, I think I have a tiny bit more knowledge in this area than you do. Thanks for playing! Don’t let the Door hit your ass on the way out”
This one hurts me. Every scientist starts here – you learn a little bit and think you know everything. Good scientists take the next step and realize they know very little. Then they can really learn. It doesn’t sound like this person is ready to learn just yet.
Welcome to part 2 of our series on how to talk to your friends and family who hold anti-science views on vaccine safety. Click here for part 1, which covered the benefit/risk of childhood vaccines. Now on to part 2.
In order to understand the risks involved in vaccinations, we need to understand the side effects that occur after vaccinations, and the rate at which thee side effects occur. We covered vaccine side effects in part 1, so where did we get our data? This is critical – much of the confusion and false information surrounding vaccine safety comes from people who try to research the topic, but choose unreliable sources for their data – incomplete data sets, self-serving summaries from people with an anti-vaccine agenda, or just plain poor science. So where can you access vaccine safety info? Here are the best non-biased options:
The CDC website has specific safety information for many of the most common childhood vaccines as well as some background data on common concerns, vaccine safety research, and the methods used to track vaccine safety. This is probably the best one-stop shop to learn about vaccine safety.
For specific vaccines, the drug label is required to contain all the pertinent safety data, including side effects and rates of side effects from the controlled clinical trials run in order to demonstrate an acceptable risk/benefit ratio for FDA approval. Just google the vaccine name and the word “label” and look for a .pdf file with “label” or “package insert” in the name. Keep in mind that these labels have to include all adverse side effects seen on the clinical trials – even those that were very rare or for which a direct link to the vaccine has not been established. These labels may require some background in medicine or science to read and interpret.
We at UYBFS like a good joke. In that spirit, we posted a cartoon poking fun at Jenny McCarthy, D-list actress and notable anti-vaccine advocate, to a Facebook page called Science Humor. It’s a funny page, if you’re in to science puns and jokes you need an advanced degree to understand, which we totally are.
People liked the cartoon, but we were very surprised by a vocal minority of people who responded to the post with very vehement anti-vaccine views. Our surprise stems from the fact that the name of the page is “Science Humor”, which we assumed would narrow down the active readers to people with a strong background in science, of which we know exactly zero who oppose the use of vaccines or believe (as Jenny McCarthy does) that vaccines cause autism.
Our assumptions were wrong. Some of the anti-vaccine supporters clearly had some background in science. They posted articles supporting their views and seemed to be looking for debate. Meanwhile, some of those who took the pro-vaccine side just resorted to name calling rather than engage in scientific debate. (In all fairness, there was name calling on both sides).
We stayed out of the debate. In part, we wanted to see where the discussion went, but mainly, we are of the mind that the comments section in a Facebook post is not a good place hold detailed scientific discussions. However, we need to acknowledge that there are people out there with very strong anti-vaccine views . Making fun of them or dismissing them as “nuts” is not productive. Our goal should be to educate, to bring them along and lay out the facts. We won’t convince those who are not open to impartially weighing the scientific evidence, but if we do our job right, we may just change a few minds for the better.
But how? Some of these people were VERY passionate about their anti-vaccine posts – can we actually change their minds? Should we go point-by-point, refuting each reference they posted? This last approach would be the most thorough, but it would also be BORING, and we actually want people to read this blog. So instead, we will focus on the major pillars of “evidence” used to support anti-vaccine views. For those aligned with science, think of this as a guide for speaking to others with opposing views. For those who hold anti-vaccine views, we hope this may bring some clarity to the science behind vaccine safety. There is a lot to unpack here, so this we’ll break our discussion into 3 parts. When possible, we’ll use some examples from the Facebook page thread, with all names redacted.
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then we give you the facts.
The bad science:
There are a lot of dubious supplements being sold online, and we could spend years discussing them one by one. However, Truehope deserves to be highlighted because of their over-the-top claims and the sad story behind it.
What do they claim?
Truehope is a supplement company that markets supplements specifically for the treatment of mental illnesses. The specificity of their claims is alarming. On their website, they don’t even bother to change the wording of their claims, just substituting one condition (like autism or bipolar disorder) for another:
“If you or your child suffer from [mental illness, mood disorder, or autism] and you want to address the cause effectively rather than “cover up” the symptoms with medication, Truehope EMPowerplus Advanced can help.”
“Extensive independent research shows that when the body and brain are provided with the essential nutrients found in EMPowerplus Advanced, they are able to function properly—often negating the signs and symptoms of [ADD-ADHD, autism, bipolar disorder, or depression].“
Are they trying to sell you something?
Of course. It will cost you about $80 per month for the EMpowerplus supplements.
Is any of this true?
No. There are some limited studies that suggest a small benefit for some of the listed disorders, however, if you actually look at the reports themselves (click on “Research”), you’ll note that all the reports they list call for larger, more thorough follow-up studies to be run to confirm the preliminary findings. Such studies have either not been run or been negative.
On top of that, their claims are wildly overstated – no one, not even the experts they quote on their website can reasonably expect that these supplements can “negate” that signs of autism, bipolar disorder, ADD-ADHD, or depression. This is a dangerous assertion, since you’ll notice that right on every bottle of EMpowerplus is a warning not use use this supplement with pychotropic (mood-altering) drugs without consulting a physician. No reasonable doctor (MD or DO) is going to treat these serious diseases with supplements only. That would literally be malpractice.
Supplements don’t “cure” diseases, and treating any illness with a nutritional supplement like this would only make sense if the disease was caused by a vitamin or mineral deficiency. It is extremely uncommon for persons in developed nations to suffer from serious nutritional deficiencies, and the mental illnesses that Truehope claims to treat are not known to be linked to vitamin or mineral deficiencies of any kind. For most of these diseases (autism and bipolar disorder included), modern medicine cannot offer a “cure” either. It is sufficiently difficult to treat the symptoms of the diseases listed above with the advanced pharmaceuticals of our day. The best you could hope for out of a nutritional supplement is a slight improvement on top of standard medical care. However….
Is any of this dangerous?
It could be. Most of the ingredients in this supplement are just standard essential vitamins and minerals with some amino acids (protein building blocks) and anti-oxidants thrown in. These are things you’ll get in most multivitamins. However, it contains a few other potentially dangerous ingredients. We can’t say for sure these are dangerous, because they don’t say how much is in there (it’s proprietary). However, it contains:
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then give you the facts.
The bad science: A recent article circulating around Facebook claims that the new flu vaccines don’t work and are actually dangerous because of new additives in the vaccines.
What do they claim? The main claims are that the new flu vaccines are not safe and that it’s less risky to skip the vaccine this year and risk the flu.
Are they trying to sell you something? Just the usual anti-vaccine conspiracy theory madness. This article was distributed on Facebook by a site called “Earth We Are One”, but there is no tag line identifying the author or even giving a date. It’s not clear who wrote this or why.
Is any of this true? It is actually amazing how little of this is true. Let’s go point-by-point!
In fairness, this is a picture of a bristle worm, a deep sea creature that is not a human parasite. However, sometimes dank memes transcend taxonomy.
But seriously researchers are developing vaccines for parasitic disease like malaria tho: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.09.057
