Bad Science

This has me irritated.  Maybe more than it should... I am really irritated that people still find the need to share as if this was gospel truth.  This article claiming that childhood vaccinations are the cause of not just autism, but pretty much every other horrible thing that can happen to your child, is based on bad science.  Really bad science, in my opinion.

Let me tell you why.

But first, if you are a parent it is YOUR responsibility to make decisions in your child's best interest.  You need to base those decisions on good information from both your pediatrician and your own research.  Be an informed consumer.  If you conclude that vaccines do more good than harm, then get your child vaccinated without guilt and second-guessing yourself.  If you decide to forgo them, that is also fully your right.  I AM NOT OFFERING MEDICAL ADVICE OR EVEN AN OPINION ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD CHOOSE TO DO.  That's up to you!  I am only explaining why I believe this article shouldn't be used to inform that choice and, hopefully, giving you some tools to spot bad science when you see it.

First, you're going to have to read the article for yourself. While you are, notice some things that should be red flags any time you are reading an article based on a scientific study.

• There's no link back to the original study just the landing page of the publishing journal.  You should be asking yourself why. We'll get to that in a moment.
• The supporting studies that are, oddly, linked are old.  They are dated 2006 and 2007.  This is 2018.  Ten plus years will most likely have seen the findings in those studies obseleted many times over.  There are a few exceptions but generally, you should base your decisions on research that's not older than five years.
• The author notes that the scientists conducting the study showed correlation.  And she hints that they recognize correlation is not necessarily causation.  Just hints at it with a single weakly worded sentence.  Correlation means they observed a relationship between the variable (vaccines) and a result (an illness).  Causation means they proved that the variable caused a specific result.  This article wants you to believe these scientists proved something they did not.

So... you're feeling some skepticism?  Good!  It's time to look a little deeper.  The lead scientist's name is given and you know the topic.  Google it.  Google knows everything!

Go ahead.  Google "Anthony Mawson vaccine study."  Dig through all those hits.  See where the Journal of Translational Sciences, the publisher of the study's findings, has retracted it?  When a peer-reviewed scientific journal retracts an article, it's a big deal.  That's not a decision they come to lightly.  It's an embarrassment to them so there has to be a very good reason.  Except...  You knew that was coming, didn't you?  The Journal of Translational Sciences isn't a respected scientific journal.  See the OAT at the top?  It stands for Open Access Text.  And if you dig deep enough, you see that oatext.com hosts a vast number of journals that you can pay to publish your study.  They give the reviewers 20% off the top, even.  You've heard the term "pay to play" on the evening news usually in regards to a government contract?  This is what it looks like in medical research.  And even they retracted this study!

If you do find one of the copies of the original study that still shows up now and then (because someone downloaded a PDF copy when it was still available and has posted it somewhere again) and start reading there are more problems.  John Q. Average probably doesn't know what a "cross-sectional sample" is in a scientific study so they may not pick up that what Dr. Mawson goes on to describe after those words is the survey of a "convenience sample."  Convenience samples do not have the same validity because all they can tell you is the opinion of a group of people who choose to answer your survey questions.  Think about who is going to choose to participate in any survey... only people interested in the topic (unless they are paid and there was no compensation involved in this particular survey) and ask yourself if that method provides a true representation of the entire population you are studying, in this case the American general public.  Sometimes it might.  This is called generalization.  Not being generalized is a big technical flaw in a study.  Big.  Huge.

And consider the survey itself.  He selected a bit more than 600 homeschooling mothers in 4 states and asked them if their children were vaccinated (not at all, partially, and fully were the choices) and what health problems those children experienced.  No records review to see if their memory was correct.  No independent assessment of the children's health conditions.  No control group.  Faulty data collection method, poorly constructed survey questions, no substantiation.  There are also several issues with bias ranging from Dr. Mawson's role as an outspoken advocate for the anti-vaccine movement, funding from anti-vaccine groups to do the study, and using the same parents he surveyed to promote and disseminate information from it. Bias is a bad thing in scientific research because it can lead you to swing results to a pre-determined conclusion. If you're cherrypicking for the answer you want, is it really research?

Vaccines are a subject where I have no expertise so I can't offer you an opinion about whether or not they are a good thing.  And that's not the point I'm trying to make anyway.  What I hope you've learned from my dissection of Dr. Mawson's study is how to spot bad science in the future whether it's descriptive journalism in the popular media or seeking out a scientific journal and reading the published study findings.  Good research and the truly awful exist side-by-side and are shared widely and quickly with today's technology.

In a world where everyone sells themselves as an expert, be a skeptic.  Ask questions and read critically.  Use your mind instead of your emotions even when it's an emotional topic.  Make sure you've got good information as the basis for your choice.  Google is your friend - look up words you don't know.  Consider both sides of the argument fairly.

And then...

Make your choice.

(And for goodness sake, when you find bad science DON'T SPREAD THE TRASH FARTHER by posting it on Facebook!)

How to Be a Good Human

Hidden away in a dark and often snarky corner toward the back of my brain, I keep a list.  Actually  I keep several of them there.  I’m going to tell you about one of them today… the one about human behaviors that just need to be ripped from the planet to make all of human-kind better.  My list comes from many places.  Some I’ve smirked about reading on Facebook and other blogs as people there complained about something unstellar someone had done in their presence.  Many I’ve witnessed myself.  Most, if you stop and think about it (which apparently a vast number of fellow inhabitants of the planet don’t) should be obvious rules for being a good human.

• Don’t spit your gum (or tobacco chew or a loogie) where everyone walks.  Why should be self-explanatory to anyone who has 2 brain cells that still rub together. 
• If you find something that doesn’t belong to you, turn it in.  It isn’t a gift.  The owner is probably looking for it.  Do unto others... and all that.
• When you are walking along in a big crowd, don’t fart just because no one else will know it’s you.
• Pajamas are not appropriate even for a Walmart run.  Go out in public looking and acting your best and give others a reason to be impressed with what you’ve made of yourself.
•  Be slow to judge.  My best might be radically different than your best due to circumstances I can’t control.  A little understanding will do more than all the condemnation that can be mutually dished out.
• When your dog takes a crap, clean it up ASAP.  Stepping in someone else’s dog’s pile of doodoo is far from a happy moment and even farther from anything that might even slightly resemble a flattering thought about the dog's owner.
• When you knock stuff off store shelves bend yourself over, pick it up and put it back where it belongs.  Most 2-year-olds have mastered this life skill.  Surely you haven't forgotten how?
• When a grown person smiles at your baby, it doesn’t mean they are a pedophile.  People like babies and, generally, people are nice.  Maybe you can show that you’re nice, too, and assume the positive?
• Take an occasional sniff at your pits.  If you can smell them, you can bet your last dollar so can everyone else!  And a bath is what's called for... dabbing some perfume on it only makes it smell worse.
• People go to dance clubs to dance, not be felt up by strangers. Keep your hands where you know they are welcome and don’t assume every girl (or guy) there wants you to rub her (or his) backside. 
• If you receive a gift, say thank you.  No words inspire future kindnesses better.  Seriously... magic words!
• People who are old, injured or ill need the seat so move your able body and give it up to them.  It's not just respectful; sometimes it's a matter of matter of health and safety.
• Just because it feels anonymous, don’t think you’ll get away with being a jerk on the internet.  Electronic Karma is a bitch, too!
• It's really appreciated when your kids publicly show that you've taught them good manners.  When they run wild, bang into our legs, break toys, throw tantrums and call you vile names in the checkout line, it's a terribly shocking and uncomfortable situation for the rest of us even if you can bring yourself to overlook it.
• On the flip side, don't you ever hit or curse at or otherwise abuse your child.  If I see it, odds are my good manners will slip as my fist meets your face in an attempt to lay you out like a rotting carcass on the streets of some battle-torn third-world city.
• When a person you've disagreed with proves themselves to be ok and not the satanic spawn of your over-active imagination, swallow your pride and tell them.  Your day, and theirs, will be better!
• Littering is not cool!  Don't toss your cigarette butts and other random trash on the sidewalk or into nearby bushes for someone else to come behind you and clean up.
• And this shouldn't need to be said, but... don't be a P-I-G at the table.  Bodily noises need to be kept to yourself!  Burps, lips smacks, chewing like a loosely dentured goat, picking at your teeth and checking out what you just blew from your nose aren't habits that leave a favorable memory of your presence at dinner.  So don't.  Just don't.

Photo credit: http://pinterest.com/pin/263319909434768329/

I used to think we all knew that good manners are about more than just using the right fork at dinner.  It's about being sensitive to how the people around you feel and savvy about how those feelings affect their perception of you.

Good manners can take us places that neither money nor education can.  And lacking them can deny us that advantage!

Sometimes I wonder what's happened to this little gem of truth in our society.  Some days it seems that the most simple and basic manners are the exception not the rule any more.  Why have we forgotten how to be a good human?

Maybe you agree with my list and maybe you don't.  Maybe you find my sarcastic edge today humorous or maybe you think I'm a mannerless jerk for saying what's on my mind in this way.  Maybe you even have rules you'd like to add to the list?

What would America be like?

Photo credit: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=387149518047253
&set=a.208092022619671.45952.130368870391987&type=1&theater

In the last Presidential election my candidate lost even though, in my opinion, he's by far the better man.  I judge him better both for the job of President and as a human being that I'd care to know based on the actions I observed in both he and his more successful opponent.  And now, months past the election, some of those actions are in the news again.

Attached to this picture (which I think was from participating in another charitable act during the political campaign which, sadly, his opponent saw as cause for character assassination) was this blurb drawn from a story on politico.com.

Photo credit: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
fbid=10151290961874094&set=a.128185264093
.106732.89173254093&type=1&theater

"Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign quietly donated nearly $90,000 to the Red Cross in late November, according to a report filed Thursday night with the Federal Election Commission.

The donation came on Nov. 30 – about one month after Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on the East Coast, stretching thin the organization’s resources, and weeks after the GOP candidate lost to President Barack Obama.

Neither Romney nor his campaign publicized the donation…"

I really admire that it was done quietly and only came to public attention because of a report he was required to file with the FEC.  Kindness and compassion are best given both generously and quietly for it's the things that no one else knows about that show a man's true character.   To do charitable things for attention shows a lack of integrity.  America needs more men, and women, who have integrity and are kind and generous with their time, material goods and influence. We need them in government, industry and especially in more homes teaching their children how to live life with the same qualities.

Yes, I'm part of the America that is extremely disgruntled with where our current President seems to be leading us but that isn't what this blog post is about.  This is about envisioning a world where holding a political office is a civic duty not a career choice... where welfare is really a hand up to a better life not making mooching a lifestyle... where family, friends and neighbors actually know and speak to and take care of each other... where parents step up their game and are decent examples for their children to emulate... where charity comes from the heart and not by taxation... where the good you can do with your time, talent and money is more important than your time, talent and money.

What would America be like if true statesmen held political office?  If elected officials saw themselves as common men not an elite class entitled to better than the rest of us?  If representing the best interests of the people who elected them was more important than raising funds for the next campaign?  What if all government transactions were transparent and not shrouded in secrecy and suspected deceit?  What if we didn't have all sorts of lobbyists and special interest groups pressing their agenda over the constituents' needs?

What would America be like if corporations cared as much about their employees as they do their executive and large stockholder's financial statements?  What if the loyalty they demand of the people who work there went both ways and the company was loyal to its people?  What if executives saw themselves as common men and not an elite class entitled to better than the rest of us?

What would America be like if every home had a father who was caring and kind and decent?  Where parents kept their promises to love and honor each other and be faithful and stuck together through good times and bad?  What if kids saw their parents work through difficult situations together and have both mom and dad stand solid in supporting those decisions?  What if families did charitable activities together?  What if parents took back the responsibility of teaching morals and values and respect for self and others instead of pawning it off on schools and peers?

What would America be like if everyone, child and grown up alike, were influenced by positive peer pressure?  Where we pushed each other to be better human beings...