![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they also laughed at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right." -- Michael Shermer
Over the weekend, I read "Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure" by Dr. James Offit. The book starts by a bit of history about autism before delving into the meat of the matter -- how the idea that vaccines caused autism got started, the arguments for and against, and the story of what happened. Spoilers: usually what happened is along what happened when it was assumed that the thiomersal (a compound containing mercury, and used to keep bacteria from growing in vaccines) caused autism -- read, when it's actually looked into, there's no evidence at all for it, but that doesn't seem to stop people. All names have been changed, since I am lazy.
( Thiomersal, a Play in One Scene )
Yeah, don't read this if you are prone to getting angry about doctors telling parents that they need to do things like subject their kids to mercury-removing drugs, gluten-free diets, testosterone suppression, and hyperbaric oxygen chambers, because some or all of these (expensive and/or sometimes risky) things will cure their kids. Add in that the author, who does work on vaccines and even invented a vaccine for rotavirus, gets death threats for daring to suggest that parents should vaccinate.
Besides the nitty details, the last couple of chapters are on how science is portrayed in the press, and are a good primer for all my lay scientist friends in 'how to avoid the fact the media is sometimes full of garbage regarding science', and about how we really like the tale of Galileo going up against the Church or the little lawyer fighting Big Whoever in the name of the sick kids. We like mavericks and revolutionaries, to the point where everyone with contentious science seems to think of him or herself as Copernicus or the Wright Brothers. No one wants to admit they are Gene Ray.
Over the weekend, I read "Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure" by Dr. James Offit. The book starts by a bit of history about autism before delving into the meat of the matter -- how the idea that vaccines caused autism got started, the arguments for and against, and the story of what happened. Spoilers: usually what happened is along what happened when it was assumed that the thiomersal (a compound containing mercury, and used to keep bacteria from growing in vaccines) caused autism -- read, when it's actually looked into, there's no evidence at all for it, but that doesn't seem to stop people. All names have been changed, since I am lazy.
( Thiomersal, a Play in One Scene )
Yeah, don't read this if you are prone to getting angry about doctors telling parents that they need to do things like subject their kids to mercury-removing drugs, gluten-free diets, testosterone suppression, and hyperbaric oxygen chambers, because some or all of these (expensive and/or sometimes risky) things will cure their kids. Add in that the author, who does work on vaccines and even invented a vaccine for rotavirus, gets death threats for daring to suggest that parents should vaccinate.
Besides the nitty details, the last couple of chapters are on how science is portrayed in the press, and are a good primer for all my lay scientist friends in 'how to avoid the fact the media is sometimes full of garbage regarding science', and about how we really like the tale of Galileo going up against the Church or the little lawyer fighting Big Whoever in the name of the sick kids. We like mavericks and revolutionaries, to the point where everyone with contentious science seems to think of him or herself as Copernicus or the Wright Brothers. No one wants to admit they are Gene Ray.
