Last year, The Lancet withdrew a controversial study that had purported to find a link between autism and childhood vaccination because “several findings” of the paper were “incorrect.” The study, by Wakefield, et al., was the only study published in a respected medical journal reporting a potential link and was routinely cited by those claiming childhood vaccinations could cause autism, despite obvious flaws and a wealth of contrary research. Now a new report shows the study was not just wrong, it was “fraudulent” as well.
A report by journalist Brian Deer in the British Journal of Medicine, the first in a series, reveals that the Wakefield study relied upon “bogus data” that was “manufactured” by those who conducted the study. Specifically, Deer found that the study’s authors misrepresented medical and other information about the children in the study, including the timing and appearance of relevant symptoms, creating a false impression of a vaccine-autism link that was not there.
An accompanying editorial in the BMJ pulls no punches.
The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.
Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the [General Medical Council's] 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study’s admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards. . . .
Meanwhile the damage to public health continues, fuelled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals, and the medical profession. Although vaccination rates in the United Kingdom have recovered slightly from their 80% low in 2003-4, they are still below the 95% level recommended by the World Health Organization to ensure herd immunity. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales. Hundreds of thousands of children in the UK are currently unprotected as a result of the scare, and the battle to restore parents’ trust in the vaccine is ongoing.
(citations omitted)
Perhaps now, finally, the vaccine-autism charade is over. I’ll await the reports on Oprah and MSNBC’s “Countdown.”
More here.
Laura(southernxyl) says:
An extreme example of the problem with credentialism. “Peer-reviewed” doesn’t mean anything like what people think it means, and what it should mean.
” he sought to exploit the ensuing MMR scare for financial gain”
Is that it? He put children’s lives at risk for money?
“The satisfaction of adding to one’s CV must never detract from the responsibility to ensure that one has been neither party to nor duped by a fraud. This means that coauthors will have to check the source data of studies more thoroughly than many do at present—or alternatively describe in a contributor’s statement precisely which bits of the source data they take responsibility for.”
I found out years ago that no one checks the source data in a “peer-reviewed” article and that it’s considered offensive to even ask to. My boss, who told me this, was amused at my surprise. But I only have a B.S. and so I’m too unsophisticated not to follow the data trail all the way back to look for sloppiness or error before I put my name on anything.
January 6, 2011, 6:22 amK.Chen says:
Unparalleled damage, and for what?
Unfortunately, we have only the law to rely on when men cannot be constrained by shame.
January 6, 2011, 6:42 amtriangle_man says:
Jenny McCarthy was on Oprah recently. I watched to see if she would renounce, or even acknowledge, her unwitting foolish participation in this fraud. Nope. She only talked about “the autism years” in relation to her former marriage to Jim Carey, and their subsequent divorce.
January 6, 2011, 7:08 amMarty L. says:
Good timing — you can see the next one coming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?_r=1&hp
January 6, 2011, 7:18 am“Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent” says:
[...] A British Medical Journal editorial confirms that scientific misconduct by then-Dr. Andrew Wakefield was even worse than previously assumed. The resulting media-fueled panic led parents to refuse vaccination in large numbers, and childhood scourges such as measles soared as a result, with disability and even death resulting. Wakefield was being financed by lawyers hoping to sue the vaccine industry. [Respectful Insolence, CNN, AP, Adler] [...]
January 6, 2011, 7:37 amValentino Rossi says:
Dr. Peter Venkman beat this guy by more than a quarter century.
January 6, 2011, 7:37 amMarcus says:
I wonder if this story will get as much coverage at FOX News as the amount of time spent propping up the well-debunked report that claimed to prove scientists falsified climate change data? Things that make you go “hmmmmm”.
January 6, 2011, 8:07 amWallace says:
I’d like to think that this retraction will caus a change of heart but most of the vaccine-austism believers I’ve met have stronger faith in their beliefs than the Pope has in the Holy Trinity.
January 6, 2011, 8:09 amNI says:
As someone who does not do science for a living, the first thing I noticed about the Wakefield study was that he had a grand total of twelve subjects. Twelve. Out of how many thousands who’ve taken the vaccine? That strikes me as an incredibly small sample size, and I’ve always wondered why his studies weren’t dismissed on that ground alone.
It reminds me of the old joke about the study being done on a medication for a chicken disease. One-third of the chickens got better, one-third of the chickens died, and the third chicken ran away so no results could be observed.
January 6, 2011, 8:18 amSenX says:
“A report by journalist Brian Deer…”
Isn’t that the same reporter that has been after Wakefield since day one?
I tend to agree with the criticisms of the study but I wouldn’t get too breathless about this latest debunking by the same old guy.
January 6, 2011, 8:34 amRich says:
NI:
You are right about the sample size. Normally that size would be a pilot to determine if your process and procedures are measuring what you want and to work out kinks in them. In Information Systems anything that small would not even be considered for publication as fact, but only as a research in progress paper to elicit comments that could help you refine your research.
January 6, 2011, 8:35 amThe Ghost of Spalding Smails' Booger says:
I must have missed this debunking.
January 6, 2011, 8:51 amHarry O says:
I am sure that Wakefield’s results were “fake, but accurate”. That’s the new standard now, isn’t it?
January 6, 2011, 8:52 amSteve says:
The next fraud will be the epidemic of childhood bipolar disorder.
January 6, 2011, 9:24 amPersonFromPorlock says:
The debunking consists of repeatedly saying “debunked,” an approach pioneered by certain German political activists in the last century.
January 6, 2011, 9:29 amRicardo says:
That’s a rather strange ad hominem. If the same guy has been after Wakefield since day 1 and if his charges turn out to have been vindicated by evidence (as you appear to agree), doesn’t that lend more rather than less credibility to him?
January 6, 2011, 9:41 amBob from Ohio says:
Do you see no difference between the two topics?
Climate change is a major, major political issue. Is autism in that league?
January 6, 2011, 9:43 amTriangle_Man says:
@Rich
A small sample may have adequate power to detect large effects.
Reye’s syndrome was linked (correctly) to aspirin use in children with influenza in a study with 7 cases and 16 controls.
January 6, 2011, 9:44 amMatthew in Austin says:
I do not want to through Lancet under the partisan bus, but aren’t they the same publication that grossly exaggerated the number of Iraqi civilian deaths several years ago? Should they be written of as a partisan magazine pretending to post objective scientific research, or did they just have a couple off days? Anyone actually familiar with the publication who can give a fair opinion?
January 6, 2011, 9:49 amCrimso says:
I once reviewed a manuscript submitted to what would be considered the top journal in my field. The results the authors reported were exactly the opposite of what every study published up to that time had reported (we’re talking about perhaps 5 previous papers, so not exactly a mountain). I recommended it not be accepted as submitted for two reasons: 1) one of the previously published reports showing the opposite of the submitted manuscript was from the same lab; and 2) (and a much more important factor in my decision) the authors suggested a reasonable explanation as to why they got the opposite of all of the other studies, and this was testable with a very simple experiment. I suggested that they do the experiment, then resubmit. I happen to know (don’t ask how) that the other reviewer also rejected the manuscript. The editor overruled us both. I can only assume for “political” (not Dem/Repub-type but powerful figure in the field-type) reasons.
January 6, 2011, 10:00 amRichard says:
I’ll await the reports on Oprah and MSNBC’s “Countdown.”
You need to add Don Imus on Fox News to your list. He recently had a friendly interview with Wakefield, allowing him to repeat his bogus claim that vaccines cause autism.
January 6, 2011, 10:10 ambailey says:
The fake research was funded by the plaintiff’s bar. Can we mention that as well. Do they get to share in the responsibility for the damage caused by the decline in vaccinations?
January 6, 2011, 10:20 amXI says:
@Triangle_Man
January 6, 2011, 10:34 amI would imagine the difference b/t this and the Reyes study is that in the latter, the original small study was followed by larger ones that confirmed the original result. After no one could successfully repeat Wakefield’s work, his conclusions should have been easily dismissed. The fact that it was a fraud is really just insult on top of injury.
Floridan says:
BS – there are plenty of peer reviewers who check sources. We are, however, very impressed with your unsophisticated diligence.
January 6, 2011, 10:43 amToday's Tom Sawyer says:
There, I fix’t it for you.
January 6, 2011, 10:50 amGiant Frog says:
Jesus wasn’t autistic or vaccinated.
January 6, 2011, 10:52 amDave N. says:
A lot of the autism discussion (not just this one) seems to be a matter of “making it up as you go along.”
In the “Autism Speaks” ad campaign, the number of children with autism seems to shrink with every passing year in the advertisements (the number shrinks from 1 in 150 to 1 in 110 in two versions of the same PSA) — and with no explanation as to whether the numbers are changing because more children really are autistic or whether they are defining more children as autistic as they expand the definition of “autism spectrum disorder.”
I guess I became REALLY cynical when it became apparent Autism Speaks makes up the contrasting statistics. Are the odds that Ernie Els would win 3 PGA majors actually 1 in 780,000,000 (for example)? How do you get THAT number? The number just doesn’t seem right — particularly when we are talking about one of the top golfers in the world.
Don’t get me wrong. Autism is a horrible disorder. I applaud all efforts to help the public understand it and to find effective treatments for it.
I also want to make it clear that I recognize that the Lancet study and the Autism Speaks ad campaign are separate and, as far as I know, Autism Speaks hasn’t been out there defending the Lancet study.
But I do want honesty — because that is better in the long-run than scare tactics.
Full disclosure, my younger brother is autistic.
January 6, 2011, 10:53 amRoger says:
Did people stop believing in stem cell research when the prominent researchers were exposed for fraud?
Lots of medical studies turn out to be wrong. I think that all people will get out of this is that the medical establishment has carried out a vendetta against Wakefield because they did not like the consequences of what he had to say.
January 6, 2011, 11:01 amef says:
Then adapted by the UN and “climate science” to create consensus out of repeatedly saying “consensus’?
January 6, 2011, 11:03 amTatil says:
So what? Of his 12 cases, 3 of them did not have autism in the first place and 5 of them had problems before the vaccine. He changed medical histories of the children to fit his hypothesis. Oh, by the way, he was getting paid by the lawyers who were planning to use his results to sue vaccine companies and he did not disclose this relationship when he published the paper. Of all these facts, is the identity of the messenger the most interesting for you?
January 6, 2011, 11:24 amXI says:
@Roger
January 6, 2011, 11:28 amIf no one else had found any value in stem cells, then yes, people would have stopped believing in stem cell research. However, in this case, the fraud revelation is not what debunks his research. That was done quite some time ago, when literally NO ONE could verify his results.
A vandetta? He didn’t just “turn out to be wrong.” The guy falsified a medical study to support his pet theory. That’s not OK. Unless you believe that Wakefield’s study was, as someone above said, “fake but accurate”… but that’s not how science works.
Tatil says:
I don’t get your point. There are tons of stem cell research papers if one group turns out fraudulent, so what? This was the only paper that claimed a link between autism and vaccines.
January 6, 2011, 11:36 ambailey says:
Some of the above posters must be affiliated with the American Association for Justice and are seeing their dreams of contingency fees flutter away. Of course, as with brachial plexus injuries, actual science doesn’t prevent the courts from doing their duty.
January 6, 2011, 11:47 amRoger says:
There are also tons of papers on vaccines and autism. The Wakefield paper is insignificant whether it was fraudulent or not. The persecution of Wakefield is driven by politics, not science.
January 6, 2011, 11:52 amA.W. says:
i think its time to say that the lancet is a poc. or a pos if you want to be (more) vulger. This is the same mag that published the lame studies of iraqi war casualties. the first one claimed we killed something like 200K iraqis, give or take about 200K. I am just saying they have a record of publishing sensationally wrong articles.
January 6, 2011, 11:54 amDave N. says:
Do you have a link? Your argument suggests that there are other papers that reach the same conclusion (or at least a similar conclusion) as Wakefield’s. I admit I am not a research scientist, but a quick Google search found exactly one other paper, a CDC report that disagreed with Wakefield.
So isn’t your argument just a tad misleading?
January 6, 2011, 12:06 pmMDJD from NY says:
My understanding is that Lancet is privately owned and that its peer review policies are not as rigorous as those of other leading journals. Most journals are organs of professional associations, and have an accountable and well defined editorial policy. Not Lancet.
Peer review is about the quality of the methodology, the internal consistency of the resluts, and the relevancy of the discussion. It is not about the accuracy of the data.
Even so, it is surprising that a study of this quality cleared any sort of peer review.
Routine auditing of raw data would be tedious, expensive, and impractical. A review of a randomized trial with 500 patients in two arms would require someone to go through >>10,000 pages of documents.
January 6, 2011, 12:10 pmJames Gibson says:
I’ll await the reports on Oprah and MSNBC’s “Countdown.”
With Oprah leaving daytime TV and Olbermann having his own troubles my suggestion is don’t hold your breath. As for people who need to at least apologize how about Robert Kennedy Jr. or even the NRDC. If my memory is correct they also were big promoters of the Autism-Vaccine link.
January 6, 2011, 12:12 pmDennis says:
Science + Enough Money => Fraud.
Substitute any profession of your choice for Science. People are people.
Peer review means nothing. It is easily manipulated, and subject to the same problems as my first sentence.
Much as the adversarial legal system is reviled by some, it is still the best way to ferret out the truth. The defense industry, an area well plagued with money and nifty ideas in search of it, often uses the Red Team concept. They set up opposition teams who are tasked with shooting down the proposal. You have to defend yourself against ridiculous as well as founded counter arguments. Where it is used, it can strengthen the process.
January 6, 2011, 12:14 pmRoger says:
No, I am not suggesting that. The other papers reach other conclusions. Having a medical paper reach contradictory conclusions is not unusual. It happens every day. It is the vendetta against Wakefield that is unusual.
January 6, 2011, 12:21 pmA. Cooper says:
You mean the research was funded by a particular consortium of plaintiffs’ attorneys. No need to smear the entire “plaintiff’s bar”.
January 6, 2011, 12:23 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Floridan, did I touch a nerve?
I asked my boss about an article in NEJM, if I recall correctly, that had to be withdrawn b/c a reader noticed that the data in two tables were the same although the tables were supposed to be different. It turned out that all of the numbers were made up. I asked my boss why this wasn’t caught during peer review when the source data were looked at and she laughed at me.
Do you have an alternative suggestion? It’s not like this kind of thing doesn’t happen from time to time. I can find examples if necessary.
January 6, 2011, 12:29 pmASlyJD says:
I see this story, and all I can think is “negligent homicide lawsuit.”
That being said, I’ve never understood the parental logic that holds a kid dead of measles is better than a kid living with autism.
January 6, 2011, 12:33 pmMark Buehner says:
Remember back when science involved things like falsifiability and repeatability instead of relying on the OK of peer review?
Anyway, the fact that the anti-vaccine crusaders haven’t shown up yet is heartening. I don’t believe for a second this changes their minds (you can’t reason somebody out of a position they weren’t reasoned into in the first place), but maybe at least they’ll keep their heads down for a while.
January 6, 2011, 12:41 pmDennis says:
It’s a perceived relative risk thing trumped by a bit of the alternative medicine fad, and further trumped by resistance to the idea that “if some is good, more is better.” There is some indication we are over vaccinating. Hardly anyone dies of measles. Most of us old farts had it as kids. Autism is scary, and overdiagnosed.
I’m more upset that, by reducing herd immunity, they make it more clikely that they will get sick and contaminate my kids. Vaccines aren’t perfect either. And these people are bringing back some of our oldies and goodies, like Polio.
January 6, 2011, 12:45 pmMike says:
Because vaccination is a society level issue.
There are few things safer than being the only non-vaccinated member of a vaccinated society, as you have none of the risks incurred by vaccination (which do have risks, even though autism is almost definitely not one of them), but will not catch an infection as the population at large cannot carry it. You are free-riding, but free-riding is always an attractive option as long as the host society can support it.
January 6, 2011, 12:46 pmDan Weber says:
Probably because the amount of fraud perpetrated by Wakefield is so unusual.
(Ow, I’m getting this very annoying tooltip on the comment box.)
January 6, 2011, 12:57 pmASlyJD says:
I understand the society level issues. But this “vaccines cause autism” crap has dropped vaccination rates rather precipitously. (England is down to 80%!) Five years ago, an anti-vaxer’s kid might be the only one at school without his shots and thus be safe thanks to the herd immunity, but I think we’re past that point in the demographic groups that buy this nonsense. Glen Reynolds recently linked to a study that showed a number of these diseases are most prevalent among the upper middle class demographic. And kids are dying from missing their vaccines; 8 were killed by whooping cough that had transferred through the herd.
So if you’re an upper middle class parent in that kind of environment who believes this garbage, you have a small chance of your kid dying to a preventable disease or (you erroneously believe) you have a small chance of your kid getting autism. Yet, parents still prefer to take real risks to avoid fake ones. The fact that to these parents autism is apparently worse than death is an interesting commentary on their morals.
January 6, 2011, 1:04 pmzuch says:
Was Countdown pushing the vaccine-autism link? Any links to such? If so, I’d like to see what they said.
Looking around, I do see that Olbermann apparently gave Wakefield a WPITW award. Might this count as the ‘update’ you’re looking for?
I see someone was mad at how Olbermann treated Brian Deer and David Kirby, but I see nothing terribly wrong with saying that Deer was not exactly a disinterested person and should have mentioned it (even if it was Kirby that brought that to Olbermann’s attention). What does Olbermann’s admitted penchant for jumping on Murdoch’s tabloid journalism have to do with the autism controversy?
Thanks,
January 6, 2011, 1:04 pmDan Weber says:
Well, here’s Brian Deer’s response to Keith Olbermann: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/brian_deer_responds_to_keith_olbermann.php and it includes specific errors made by Olbermann. I don’t know how the legal things unfolded since then.
(Brian Deer has an image of a check he got from Wakefield in settling a failed suit brought by Wakefield to silence Deer.)
January 6, 2011, 1:15 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Triangle_Man wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but it would be very remarkable to accept as scientifically proven a proposition demonstrated in a single case-control study involving only a handful of patients.
The Reye’s syndrome article to which you linked was published in 1980. But my understanding is that the FDA did not require a warning until 1986, and it was a temporary one enacted pending the completion of an epidemiological study of the association with aspirin.
As the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence notes,
Michael D. Green et al., Reference Guide on Epidemiology, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 333, 356 (2d ed. 2000).
January 6, 2011, 1:26 pmDan Weber says:
Small samples sizes can be entirely appropriate for initial studies. You don’t start everything with tens of thousands of people in a double-blind randomized clinical trial.
Of course, you also shouldn’t just go making stuff up for your small study.
January 6, 2011, 1:31 pmNeo says:
A scientist notices that when he yells, a nearby spider jumps.
January 6, 2011, 1:44 pmThe scientist removes one leg from the spider, yells, spider jumps.
The scientist removes 2nd leg from the spider, yells, spider jumps.
…
The scientist removes last leg from the spider, yells, spider is motionless.
Scientist notes … when all legs removed, spider becomes deaf.
The Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Dan Weber:
I do not disagree. But one would not make a firm conclusion about causation based on “initial studies” involving “small samples” either. Even if the Wakefield study had not been a fraud, it would be very odd to credit its findings in the fashion that many did, particularly as contrary results accumulated in the literature.
January 6, 2011, 1:47 pmwfjag says:
Brian Deer is employed by the Sunday Times which, like Fox news, is also owned by News Corp. So, obviously the facts that Wakefield had received over $600K from US and UK plaintiffs’ attorneys to develop “evidence” for suits against MMR’s manufacturers; that Wakefield held a patent on a measles vaccine that would have been the ready replacement for the measles component in the MMR, had the MMR been declared unsafe; and that Wakefield’s claims were complete, fabricated bollox (but frightened many parents into not vaccinating their children and so indirectly caused many avoidable deaths and injuries), are just like the man standing behind the curtain — pay no attention to them zuch.
By the time Olbermann interviewed Deer, and relied primarily on Kirby, all of this was known, and Kirby’s anti-vax claims had also been discredited.
However, the only thing that is important is that Murdoch and any company he owns an interest in, especially News Corp subsidiaries, are bad. Since Deer works for a Murdoch publication, QED he must also be a bad person and his reporting must be based solely on a partisan agenda. Accordingly, Olbermann is once again shown to be a heroic, crusading journalist of the correct thinking variety. Right, zuch?
January 6, 2011, 1:49 pmAnthony says:
Not really, except in the sense that some vaccines may be wastes of money, most vaccines have risks so low they can’t even be reliably studied. As for measles, the mortality rate of measles (0.3%) is about ten thousand times higher than for measles vaccine (and measles vaccine is dangerous, as vaccines go).
January 6, 2011, 2:26 pmDennis says:
There’s not enough difference between our positions to argue about.
January 6, 2011, 2:29 pmMDJD from NY says:
I see this comment, and all I can think is “proximate cause.” But I really sympathize with your sentiments. Scum like Wakefield should be punished somehow for the death and suffering they cause. (Sorry about the snark!)
January 6, 2011, 2:43 pmMDJD from NY says:
Umm…it’s the peer reviewers who are supposed to determine whether papers meet scientific standards, some of which you have mentioned in the block quote just above. How did you think journals would determine this, if it were not for some sort of editorial review.
Since you have been following this thread, you have probably come to realizes (1) that peer reviewers are fallible for a variety of reasons, and (2) that The Lancet does not use the usual peer review process.
The peer review process consists of the editors shipping the submitted manuscripts out to 2-3 experts in the field (the “peer reviewers”), who provide critical comments regarding the stengths and weaknesses of the papers. The editors make the final decision regarding publication, taking into account the comments and recommendations of the peer reviewers. When they accept a paper, they usually request revisions they believe enhance the quality of the paper.
I’ve both published manuscripts and have served as a peer reviewer.
January 6, 2011, 2:54 pmASlyJD says:
While proximate cause ought to be a problem in conducting a negligent homicide lawsuit, we live in a country where Phillip Morris was considered legally responsible for state health care expenditures. From here, it seems that the proximate cause requirement can be overcome with enough rhetoric and a sympathetic enough plaintiff.
January 6, 2011, 2:59 pmMDJD from NY says:
That’s because of the utter rarity of Reye’s syndrome. It’s a lot harder to demonstrate rare causes of common conditions than common causes of rare conditions.
January 6, 2011, 3:00 pmMDT says:
zuch,
What does Olbermann’s admitted penchant for jumping on Murdoch’s tabloid journalism have to do with the autism controversy?
Well, do you think Olbermann’s weighing in on the wrong side of the “autism controversy” had zero effect?
January 6, 2011, 3:06 pmHenry Schaffer says:
I’ve reviewed many manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals. There is only so much that a reviewer can do. The reviewer typically doesn’t request the original data, plus the computer codes which were used to analyze the data, plus the software which was used to display the results, … But even if this is done, must the reviewer also check the scientific apparatus used, redo the experiments, …? Doing all of this is just not possible! (Note that some manuscripts are the result of many person-months of effort, perhaps even person-years,and of a sizeable investment of $$$ for materials, equipment and space.)
As a reviewer, I proceed with the assumption that the author(s) are working with good faith and don’t question that until/unless there is evidence that would make me suspicious.
That does not mean accepting, without question, too-small sample sizes, or tables with identical results.
January 6, 2011, 3:19 pmzuch says:
Uhhhhh, was Olbermann wrong to give Wakefield a “Worst Person in the World” award, you think? Certainly got some of the anti-vaccine people’s panties in a bunch….
Or maybe you’re a Republican where black is white, up is down, and “Worst Person in the World” is actually “Mankind’s Most Glorious Saviour”. Or maybe you just don’t look at links when proffered. Help me out, I want to know….
Cheers,
January 6, 2011, 4:08 pmzuch says:
Speaking of interesting articles, we have this alluring tidbit today. Read and discuss.
Cheers,
January 6, 2011, 4:10 pmzuch says:
I understand that. I alluded to it. What does it have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka (or to the truth of Wakefield’s claims)? Did Olbermann say that because of Deer’s lack of objectivity and lack of disclosure of involvement in a story he was reporting on, that therefore Wakefield’s theory was true? Not exactly; if awarding Wakefield a WPITW is any indication. Disclosure is [arguably] a journalistic [and maybe political] obligation, not necessarily a scientific one [although it doesn't hurt there either].
Who ever said such a thing? “Straw man” much?
Not exactly what Olbermann said. He said that Deer was not a disinterested reporter but one of the principals in the dispute (and therefore partisan [albeit not necessarily wrong]). He said that Deer ought to have disclosed this. He said (or hinted) that this was pretty much par for the course for Murdoch’s ‘journalism’.
Cheers,
January 6, 2011, 4:22 pmMDT says:
zuch,
Uhhhhh,
Quite.
For what it’s worth,
Looking around, I do see that Olbermann apparently gave Wakefield a WPITW award. Might this count as the ‘update’ you’re looking for?
Actually, Wakefield got a WPITW the day before Deer got one for saying nasty things about Wakefield’s research. I don’t think this rates as an “update.”
January 6, 2011, 4:29 pmMDJD from NY says:
What is the relevance of the journalism to the facts?
January 6, 2011, 4:42 pmjosh says:
“Perhaps now, finally, the vaccine-autism charade is over. I’ll await the reports on Oprah and MSNBC’s “Countdown.””
That’s certainly a reasonable thought, but does the same thinking apply to complaints about Lancet’s credibility? Seems to me that the publication has been the target of a lot of conservative criticism, perhaps rightly, but, like most credible publications, it seems, at least here, to have done the work to get to the truth.
I’ll await Glen Reynolds’ reports on Lancet’s return to credibility.
January 6, 2011, 4:59 pmleo marvin says:
My expertise on science matters consists essentially of what I read in the Times Science section and the occasional blog. From that layman’s perspective I get the impression the mostly left anti-vaccine camp has a lot in common with the mostly right climate change denial camp.
January 6, 2011, 5:05 pmJoe says:
Based on my observations and discussions with families with autistic children and individuals working in the field, there appears to be a high correlation to the age of the mother at the time of the birth (and/or the age of the father) with the incidence of autism. Granted this is a limited observation, but most of the autistic children seemed to be from older mothers – similar to the correlation with down’s children. Unfortunately, i could find little if any information in the professional literature on the issue.
Anyone with knowledge care to weigh in on the subject.
January 6, 2011, 5:15 pmzoltan says:
It is the vendetta against Wakefield that is unusual. Roger(Quote)
Unusual in how righteous and awesome it is? This man falsified data that led to the deaths of many children. He deserves to be vilified by not only the scientific community, but all people who respect honesty in science.
January 6, 2011, 5:19 pmK.Chen says:
For what its worth, the Lancet retracted the Wakefield before this peice came out (2004? years ago, and 10 of the co-authors disavowed it as well (although how 10 co-authors managed to get snookered with falsified data on a sample size of 12, I don’t understand).
January 6, 2011, 5:21 pmzoltan says:
Here’s a link about maternal and paternal age and autism. The study found that the incremental risk of having a child with autism increased by 18 percent — nearly one fifth — for every five-year increase in the mother’s age. A 40-year-old woman’s risk of having a child later diagnosed with autism was 50 percent greater than that of a woman between 25 and 29 years old.
Advanced parental age is a known risk factor for having a child with autism. However, previous research has shown contradictory results regarding whether it is the mother, the father or both who contribute most to the increased risk of autism. For example, one study reported that fathers over 40 were six times more likely than fathers under 30 to have a child with autism.
January 6, 2011, 5:22 pm
Joe says:
Zolton – thanks for the info
The question I always had with the vaccine/autism link was why so much time, research and money was spent/wasted on the link when other factors had much higher correlations (discounting the obvious plaintiff attorney link or being hard for the parents to blame themselves).
This question remains similar to the other causation links the have low correlation relative to other factors such as the increased risk of premature mortality due to the increase in ground level ozone – when other factors have much higher correlation.
January 6, 2011, 5:32 pmDruceratops says:
@Josh
I am not sure if I would be heralding this new information as some “return to credibility” for the Lancet. Their most signficant roles in this controversy were in the publication of the “retraction of interpretation” by a subset of the original authors in 2004 and then retraction of the paper in 2010 after the General Medical Council made its ruling. These were both very obvious, low risk actions at the time they were taken. I may be wrong, but I am unaware of any signficant investigations performed by them to uncover the truth of this matter. I do think that the proof of active fraud on the part of Wakefield does reduce their culpability in the matter, but certainly the controversy has not left them untouched (nor should it).
The newly revealed information was published in the British Medical Journal and is based on the work of journalist Brian Deer. That I am aware of the Lancet played no role active role in his investigation.
As for the media members for which a mea culpa would be appropriate, in my opinion Olbermann should apologize to Deer, but otherwise was a relatively minor offender compared to the likes of Kennedy (and several others on Huff Post), Imus, Maher, Oprah, Salon, and Rolling Stone.
January 6, 2011, 5:36 pmFloridan says:
So? If you have dinner at Per Ce, do you expect Thomas Keller will cook your entire meal?
January 6, 2011, 5:55 pmFloridan says:
I didn’t say it never happened, as there are lazy people in every field. Your comment seemed to imply that not checking sources (to the extent possible) was the norm.
January 6, 2011, 6:02 pmBarbara Skolaut says:
Oh, dear, honey, don’t hold your breath while you’re waiting – unless you really look good with a blue face.
January 6, 2011, 6:17 pmDruceratops says:
@ Joe
“The question I always had with the vaccine/autism link was why so much time, research and money was spent/wasted on the link when other factors had much higher correlations (discounting the obvious plaintiff attorney link…”
Arriving at the correct answer to a question is made much more difficult when you discount the answer that best fits the data. Of course there are some other contributing factors, but as the materials in the Wakefield case make plain, there was a premeditated, ongoing effort to position this as a product liability issue. The fact that there was a small but longstanding and vocal anti-vaccine movement that could be marshalled to the cause was a means to an end. Wakefield himself applied for a patent on an alternative measles vaccine that he thought would not share the hypothesiszed safety issues of the MMR vaccine, so he was obviously not initially motivated by anti-vaccine sentiment. However, as time went on the anti-vax movement became his only ally and he is now pandering to them. Having watched Wakefield sow the wind, I have to admit to a touch of schadenfreude as he now reaps the whirlwind.
January 6, 2011, 6:33 pmwfjag says:
zuch, I readily concede your expertise at constructing straw man arguments. Who can, therefore, doubt your expertise at recognizing them.
RE: Olbermann — he offers neither informed fact-based analysis, nor logical insight, nor humor. Why would anyone but an extreme partisan who seeks none of those pay the slightest attention to him?
[Hint -- that's called a rhetorical question.]
I take it that you haven’t bothered to google “measles deaths” or “measles deaths + US”. The following took about 3 seconds to locate (and I type slow):
Center for Disease Control, MMWR Weekly, August 22, 2008 / 57(33);893-896, online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm
From Update: Measles — United States, January–July 2008:
“During January–July 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC, compared with an average of 63 cases per year during 2000–2007.”
[Hint – that is a little over 2x as many deaths in 6 months as had been reported annually for the previous 8 years. It is not a statistical fluke.]
“During January 1–July 31, 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC from 15 states and the District of Columbia (DC): . . .”
[Hint – meaning that CDC was reporting a 2x increase in half the time for only 16 out of 53 jurisdictions (50 states, DC, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands). So, you don’t know what the number would be if all jurisdictions reported their annual deaths.]
“Among the 131 cases, 17 (13%) were importations: . . .”
[Hint – meaning 114 or 87% were not cases imported from foreign countries. FYI, it appears that many of the importation cases were contracted in Europe, where homeopathy is widely practiced. Homeopaths deny the efficacy of vaccinations.]
“Among the 131 measles patients, 123 were U.S. residents, of whom 99 (80%) were aged <20 years (Table). Five (4%) of the 123 patients had received 1 dose of MMR vaccine, six (5%) had received 2 doses of MMR vaccine, and 112 (91%) were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status. Among these 112 patients, 95 (85%) were eligible for vaccination, and 63 (66%) of those were unvaccinated because of philosophical or religious beliefs (Figure 2).”
[I trust that this is self-explanatory – While vaccination is not 100% effective and not every child should be vaccination due to various conditions which make it unsafe, note the 85% figure. Nearly every one of those deaths was needless.]
From the Immunization Action Coalition, Vaccine Information, for the public and health professionals, Questions & Answers online at http://www.vaccineinformation.org/measles/qandadis.asp
“How serious is measles?
Measles can be a serious disease, with 30% of reported cases experiencing one or more complications. Death from measles occurred in approximately 2 per 1,000 reported cases in the United States from 1985 through 1992. Complications from measles are more common among very young children (younger than five years) and adults (older than 20 years).
What are possible complications from measles?
Diarrhea is the most common complication of measles (occurring in 8% of cases), especially in young children. Ear infections occur in 7% of reported cases. Pneumonia, occurring in 6% of reported cases, accounts for 60% of measles-related deaths. Approximately one out of one thousand cases will develop acute encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain. This serious complication can lead to permanent brain damage.
Measles during pregnancy increases the risk of premature labor, miscarriage, and low-birth-weight infants, although birth defects have not been linked to measles exposure.”
[and]
“How common is measles in the United States?
Before the vaccine was licensed in 1963, there were an estimated 3–4 million cases each year. In the years following 1963, the number of measles cases dropped dramatically, with only 1,497 cases in 1983, the lowest annual total reported up to that time.
Beginning in the latter part of the 1980s, the incidence of measles increased due to large outbreaks in many U.S. cities. From 1989 to 1991, 55,622 cases were reported with a total of 123 measles-associated deaths. Half of the cases and deaths were in children younger than five years of age. The most important cause of this epidemic was low vaccination rates among preschool-age children.
Due to extensive vaccination efforts, the number of reported measles cases began a rapid decline during the 1990s. By 2004, only 37 cases were reported—a record low. However, new cases continue to be reported, primarily in populations that have refused vaccination for religious or personal belief reasons. In 2008, CDC received reports of 140 measles cases from 19 states and the District of Columbia—the highest number since 1996. Of the 127 cases in U.S. residents, 120 had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was unknown. Ninety-nine of these individuals were children whose parents chose not to have them vaccinated. Fifteen of the patients, including four infants, were hospitalized.”
[Hint -- the reason that there are so few people dying or being seriously disabled from measles in the US today is due to the exceptionally high MMR vaccination rate in the US. If you still feel like playing Russian Roulette with kids' lives and health, do the google searches indicated. I expect that you can find some articles that have pictures of what the disabilities look like, and there's much more information -- none of it particularly pleasant. Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children against preventable diseases, such as are protected against by the MMR. Rather, they are exposing others -- their children -- to needless suffering illness, and risk of disabilities or death. At the very least, they should fully inform themselves of the possible consequences of their decision to gamble with the health and lives of others.]
January 6, 2011, 6:50 pmdavenoon says:
The answer here is that Wakefield’s fraudulent paper wasn’t intended to be a “sample” at all, but rather a case series. It’s a very different kind of study that makes no inherent claims to population-wide statistical representation. The problem, however, was that Wakefield staged a pre-publication press conference that pushed the MMR-autism link much harder than the original, fraudulent paper would reasonably have allowed. The UK press swallowed the tale and flipped out, and the rest is all sordid history.
January 6, 2011, 6:55 pmThe Ghost of Spalding Smails' Booger says:
Three statisticians go hunting. When they see a rabbit, the first one shoots, missing it on the left. The second one shoots and misses it on the right.
The third one shouts: “We’ve hit it!”
January 6, 2011, 7:10 pmAnthony says:
Because the supposed link got turned into a public cause and resulted in a drop in vaccination rates. If it weren’t for the publicity around the original study, it would simply have dropped out of sight like other discredited work and no-one would be pursuing the issue further.
January 6, 2011, 7:14 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I guess that the concept of “recording data” went the way of “laboratory notebooks”.
Seriously, I know that technology has pretty much made paper records a thing of the past, but if it’s really not possible to ask to see data then maybe we’ve gotten too complex for our own good. It’s not like that never happens.
Furthermore, every humble lab I’ve ever been in has kept easily accessible records on instrument calibration and maintenance. It’s not a big deal and is considered quite necessary. Otherwise, you have no confidence in the data you get from them. If somebody were looking over my work I’d pretty much expect them to ask to see those. But there again …
January 6, 2011, 7:21 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
What is more disgusting is they intend to surf as free riders on the more responsible behavior of other parents, who assume the risk and discomfort of vaccinations (not, of course, including bogus links to autism, but still extant). IMHO, these idiots should get the same treatment as the clods who treated their daughter’s juvenile diabetes with prayer (predictable fatal results): jail time.
January 6, 2011, 7:27 pmRoger Zimmerman says:
Regarding the peer review vs. falsifiability question:
Peer review and even publication are *not* constituents of the scientific method. They are modern artifacts of the funding environment and prestige-seeking culture which has increasingly permeated the activities of people that are (often) involved in science, but do not have any import in terms of the value of the experiments which are reported.
Only the actual experimentation – the design, the replicablity, the statistical significance of the results – is worthy of being referred to as part of the method. “Falsifiability” – although I hate the term – simply refers to whether the experimental design is such that another outcome than the reported one was attainable, which is, of course, required for a valid experiment.
Now, in order to contribute to scientific advancement, it is advantageous for _good_ experiments to be reported as widely as possible. But, the fact that some “qualified” individual said it was ok to publish an experiment in a journal is irrelevant to its value as science. Most experiments are not worthy of publication, and the bulk of the enterprise of academic/government science is a pointless game.
January 6, 2011, 7:33 pmisland says:
How come everyone is fixated on measles?
It is a measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.
Why not give them separately in time, which would provide a lower impact to the little baby bodies. And they can also give a dead vaccine instead of the live vaccine which is much safer. But they don’t tell you that.
And for what it is worth- in England most of it seems to be a religious exemption where Muslims refuse to take it- but that is never mentioned.
And in America, what about all the illegal immigrants in school- where are their vaccination records? Are they the ones infecting native Americans? I read that some of these diseases are carried over in the “stool” in nursery schools so the kids that are forced to be vaccinated give a free ride to the non vaccinated ones by cross contamination. And the government knows that and is happy with this “herd” immunity.
And who paid the journalist? Was he paid by vaccine companies to “debunk” this study so they could make more money?
Just wondering.
January 6, 2011, 7:42 pmzuch says:
I bow before the master.
Nah. Get your fallacies straight. That’s called a “red herring”.
Care to address my fundamental question: Why is Prof. Adler seemingly asking Olbermann to denounce Wakefield:
when Olbermann has already given Wakefield a WPITW?
That’s not a hard question now.
FWIW, Oprah’s been a bit of a rube/sucker/eedjit on this, and she ought to know better … or have staff that can enlighten her. She would do a real service in denouncing Wakefield and telling parents to vaccinate their kids.
And personally, as a person with a relative who is autistic, I find the likes of Wakefield … the hucksters that proclaim a cause and even “cures” … detestable people preying on the hopes and emotions of people suffering because of such tragedies, whether for money or fortune and fame or both.
Just don’t use that to slime Olbermann for something he didn’t do, just because you don’t like his POV over all.
Cheers,
January 6, 2011, 7:59 pmzuch says:
Actually, as I said above, Deer got it for not disclosing that he was one of the principals in the dispute (an arguable violation of journalistic ethics). That’s a different matter than the truth of the matter at issue (which Olbermann acknowledged might well not go to Wakefield’s credit).
You’re right that Olbermann’s takedown of Wakefield is not thus an “update”. It’s actually his first position, which makes Prof. Adler’s comment even more incongruous. As well as this comment of yours:
Cheers,
January 6, 2011, 8:06 pmDruceratops says:
@island
Wow. Nice post chock full o’ anti-vaccine canards. Against my better judgment I will assume you are sincere and answer your questions:
“How come everyone is fixated on measles? It is a measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.”
We are fixated on measles because that was the virus Wakefield implicated in the development of neurological disorders. He claimed to have detected replicating measles virus in the guts of children with autism by RT-PCR (now debunked). It is also the most prevalent of the three diseases and arguably the most serious (for the infected individual).
“Why not give them separately in time, which would provide a lower impact to the little baby bodies.”
Ah, the too many too soon argument. We give combination vaccines because they are cheaper, more convenient, and offer protection faster than giving them separately. In the case of MMR there is no significant inhibition of safety or efficacy by combining them, so we do so. Of note, Japan moved to single vaccination following the Wakefield reports and saw the autism incidence continue to rise at the same rate as when MMR was given.
“And they can also give a dead vaccine instead of the live vaccine which is much safer. But they don’t tell you that.”
Now we get to the “I’m not anti-vaccine, I just want safer vaccines”. Well the reason we don’t use inactivated vaccines for M, M, and R is that they likely will not work as well. Likely they would require at least one and probably two additional administrations to get the same affect. Also, they require the use of an adjuvant which can also be associated with adverse events. So, we stick with an effective live vaccine with a good side effect profile that has a > 40 year track record.
“And for what it is worth– in England most of it seems to be a religious exemption where Muslims refuse to take it– but that is never mentioned.”
Typically one would offer some sort of reference to support a statement such as this.
“And in America, what about all the illegal immigrants in school– where are their vaccination records? Are they the ones infecting native Americans? I read that some of these diseases are carried over in the “stool” in nursery schools so the kids that are forced to be vaccinated give a free ride to the non vaccinated ones by cross contamination. And the government knows that and is happy with this “herd” immunity.”
Frankly, I am having trouble following your disjointed argument but here goes:
1. Vaccine coverage in Mexico is excellent by virtually any world standard. See for example: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/measles-elimination-mexico
2. Herd immunity is a well understood phenomena and is an important element in the success of vaccination on a population basis. However, it occurs primarily because of lowering disease burden in the population rather than transmission/shedding of vaccine among populations. Moreover, herd immunity is also responsible for the false sense of security that has led people to reduced frequency of vaccination exemplified by the “I didn’t vaccinate and my kids are healthy” opinion frequently used to justify non-compliance.
“And who paid the journalist? Was he paid by vaccine companies to “debunk” this study so they could make more money?”
Now of course we conclude with the pharma-shill gambit. Of course presented without evidence. Deer has pursued the truth doggedly for 10 years and is vindicated. The only financial conflict of interests that have been definitively established are with Wakefield (payment by plaintiffs attorneys and non-disclosure of his patent).
January 6, 2011, 8:30 pmChrisTS says:
island:
Wait, you think the vaccine is carried in the stool of vaccinated kids and then, somehow, gets into the unvaccinated kids? What?
‘Herd immunity’ has nothing to do with vaccinations passing from one person to another. (I must be misunderstanding this. It is beyond ignorant.)
January 6, 2011, 10:44 pmChrisTS says:
Oh, duh. Druceratops was there long before me.
January 6, 2011, 10:45 pmHoward says:
You need to be really careful about the way these numbers get reported in the press. If the average risk of having an autistic child is 0.1% you’re talking about a risk increasing from something like 0.08% to .12%, or an increase of .04%.
As someone observed earlier, the review system is not intended to catch fraud. Basically, it would be a full-time job for many people– do you want to pay for that? The presumption is always that people aren’t falsifying their data, partly because the costs of getting caught are too high..
This reminds me of the global warming
denialistsskeptics. There seems to a tremendous number of non-scientists around who want to lecture scientists on the scientific method.People who do science have to decide what to read. Not such a big problem in Kepler’s day, much bigger problem today. So there are journals that have (usually blind) peer reviewing, to throw out the really bad stuff and publish the good stuff. No one believes for a second that this is the end of the story and what ever gets published must be true. That’s just the beginning of the process. Then you have people trying to replicate it, challenging the methodology, challenging the interpretation. Does good stuff get thrown out by dumb referees or for personal reasons? Yes. (I know.) So then you revise, try another journal, etc., and hope that truth will out. There’s no other magical “scientific method” that works hands-free.
Better yet, why don’t we read the paper itself (see link in article)? I’ve started it (it’s long) and it’s not like these guys were born yesterday, and it’s not like they’re unaware that everyone will be extremely skeptical, and it’s not like no one is going to be trying to reproduce their results. Probably this will go the way of cold fusion, but a small chance of a really big result.
Um… how about the fact that other than this fraudulent study, there’s no evidence whatsoever?
Come off it, guys. I can give you a link but will anything convince you, or will you just say they’re part of the progressive conspiracy?
January 6, 2011, 11:02 pmCody says:
Yes, Olbermann did give Wakefield a WPITW award, and deserves some credit for that. Unlike so many of Olbermann’s targets, Wakefield is an actual bad person. But he then turned around and gave Deer – the hero of this piece – a WPITW award. Moreover he did it for reasons which were 1) untrue, 2) easily verifiable, and 3) would have been stupid if true.
In specific, he claimed that Deer was the complainant in the Wakefield investigation, and was therefore, somehow, biased. This is where actual, rational people blink and say “bwa…huh?”, because if true, this implies a journalistic standard where investigative journalists can only write about things they don’t report to the authorities. Find out about some stock market fraud? You can write a story about it or tell the SEC but not both.
Why…yes! Yes that is barking mad, thanks for noticing. But it gets better, because a cursory Google search would have turned up copious evidence that Deer was not the complainant at all!
To be fair to Olbermann, he did not – quite – ever weigh in on the side of the autism-vaccine link. But he did spout wild falsehoods on the air, and make a groundless ad hominem attack on an excellent investigative journalist, leaving the impression that there are two sides to the debate, with villains on both sides. But there isn’t, and there aren’t.
Olbermann’s critics would no doubt say this was just par for the course, but for my part I still found it saddening to watch.
January 6, 2011, 11:18 pmElliot says:
If we can blame humans for various problems, then we can feel a sense of control over outcomes. All we have to do is change something to fix the problem. But if humans are not obviously responsible, there is less sense of control. It also gives people stricken with some malady a convenient target to blame.
January 6, 2011, 11:20 pmzuch says:
Did he? I though Olbermann gave it to Deer because he didn’t disclose the fact that he was a principal in the article he was reporting (this is not a claim of unavoidable bias, but rather an admonition on standard journalistic ethical canons of disclosure of such facts, so that people reading may decide for themselves if there’s reason to take the story with a grain of sand). Do you have evidence that he did it for the reason you suggest?
Cheers,
January 7, 2011, 1:58 amzuch says:
Just a little FYI: Sometimes there are villains on both sides. This is not an impossibility (see here for related concepts). Or just watch an NBA game….
Cheers,
January 7, 2011, 2:03 amCody says:
zuch: You are being obtuse, Did you even read the transcript of Olbermann’s show?
Let’s go to the transcript:
But the investigation was not the result of a complaint by Deer, Wakefield’s research isn’t “in doubt”, and Deer has no conflict of interest, vast or otherwise! Every claim is wrong!
(If Deer had been the complainant – as Olbermann incorrectly claimed – then the situation would be less clear cut. Given the specific circumstances of this case, I think it would still be clear that no conflict of interest existed, and no disclosure was required. But of course, Olbermann was wrong, and the issue is academic.)
And, yes, of course there are often villains on both sides…but by no means always. And in the autism-vaccine case, all the villains I can think of offhand are on the side of the anti-vaccine cranks. Certainly Deer’s actions have been beyond reproach – which is why Olbermann’s calumny was so disappointing. I wish we had more journalists like Deer (and fewer like Olbermann…)
January 7, 2011, 3:27 amJake Truth says:
You are mixing apples and oranges with your post.
Here are a few facts:
There is a vast and documented record of doctors receiving millions of dollars in payments from pharmaceutical companies to promote certain drugs.
The vaccine industry is a multi-billion dollar global business with deep legal, PR, advertising and marketing pockets.
The MMR vaccine is not what the vast majority of people are referring to when they talk about connections between vaccines and autism.
The controveries are these:
1. Until quite recently, most vaccines in the US have used mercury as a preservative. The injected flu vaccines still do.
2. The number of immunizations that children receive has skyrocketed over the past two decades. Up until recently, if you tallied up all of the mercury contained in all of the vaccines that the medical establishment has deemed safe, healthy and effective, the aggregate level of mercury consumed vastly exceeded our government’s own guidelines for what is deemed safe.
Obviously billions of dollars in potential lawsuits are at stake. But with the government’s help (and lots of lobbying $$$) , the global pharma industry has been immunized from legal liability when it comes harm inflicted by immunizations.
Remember how our all-knowledgeable medical establishment tut-tutted women into thinking that not taking Estrogen supplements
after menapause was practically tantamout to smoking unfiltered Lucky Strikes because “the data” say so?
Conflicts of interest regarding $$$, corporations and medicine are a much more powerful force when it comes to the value of medical research than the work of any individual scientist, regardless of his or her lack of integrity.
January 7, 2011, 7:33 amsardonic_sob says:
Using the term “little baby bodies,” or its functional equivalent, in any discussion of pediatric medicine immediately disqualifies you from further comment and means your side loses the argument.
I have spoken.
January 7, 2011, 10:11 amzuch says:
Yes, I read the transcript. And?!?!?
Your proof (or evidence) for these assertions?
Yes, now we have plenty of evidence on Wakefield (and even Olbermann admitted that Wakefield was looking pretty shady; he even gave him a WPITW) … but Wakefield’s research is not relevant to Olbermann’s complaint against Deer.
But one thing that STANDS OUT HERE!!!: Any claim about Olbermann’s supposed lapses HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER HE WAS FLOGGING WAKEFIELD’S AUTISM/VACCINE LINK. Because Olbermann did NOT do that. Olbermann claimed [allegedly wrongly] that Deer had not disclosed his own role in the story. But that’s not flogging the vaccine/autism link, particularly since Olbermann had given Wakefield a WPITW award already. OK? Let’s discuss Olbermann’s other alleged faults somewhere else, but this one implicit charge by Prof. Adler doesn’t pass the smell test….
Cheers,
January 7, 2011, 11:15 am1040 says:
This is a reasonable summary, but the inmates run the asylum only in one of these cases.
January 7, 2011, 11:32 amVlad Konings says:
The mercury-autism link has also been debunked. Autism rates continued to climb in Scandinavia after thimerosal was removed from all vaccines.
January 7, 2011, 11:48 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Howard:
It doesn’t have to be fraud. People make honest errors, and they unthinkingly engage in sloppiness that needs to be pointed out. The tables matching up could have been something like that. It still needed to have been caught, and the fact that it wasn’t tells me that no one was really looking until after the article was published.
Funny, it reminds me of the global warming true believers I have known, one in particular who used to tell me, “But these things are published in peer-reviewed journals, Laura. Peer-reviewed!” Like that meant gone over with a fine-toothed comb by totally objective people and certified error- and sloppy-thinking-free.
No one believes for a second that this is the end of the story and what ever gets published must be true.
Sadly, yes, they do, which is why the original Lancet article was so deplorable.
I think there’s not a concensus as to what “peer-reviewed” means – see Floridan above, who assures me that he looks at source data. And if people who do it don’t agree on what it is, then John Q Public surely doesn’t know.
January 7, 2011, 12:13 pm1040 says:
The claim that peer review can have mistakes – every process does – does not even begin to equate the slender pickings of literature supporting the autism-vaccine link, and the overwhelming mass of literature that has backed anthropogenic climate change. To claim that the latter is not supported by peer reviewed literature, one needs to show evidence that peer review is by and large flawed, not that it can make mistakes or lets a few bad ones slip through.
(Or one can claim that there is a conspiracy despite that claim not having held up even after multiple investigations.)
January 7, 2011, 12:18 pmDruceratops says:
Once more into the breach…
@Jake Truth
“There is a vast and documented record of doctors receiving millions of dollars in payments from pharmaceutical companies to promote certain drugs.”
Yes. This track record should be considered when evaluating deployment of medical interventions. However, it is in essence an ad hominem argument and should be backed up with facts relevant to the specific issue at hand. Do you have any evidence to suggest that payments to doctors influenced the use of vaccines and reporting of safety issues?
“The vaccine industry is a multi-billion dollar global business with deep legal, PR, advertising and marketing pockets.”
Yes. It is a multi-billion dollar industry with resources. However, to put it into context the 2009 sales of every single vaccine in the world combined was lower than the single largest selling drug (Lipitor).
“The MMR vaccine is not what the vast majority of people are referring to when they talk about connections between vaccines and autism.”
It is in the UK because of Andrew Wakefield. Here in the U.S., for a variety of reasons, the focus became, as you pointed out Thimerosal.
“1. Until quite recently, most vaccines in the US have used mercury as a preservative. The injected flu vaccines still do.”
January 7, 2011, 12:34 pmIf you consider quite recently to mean 2001-2004 when thimerosal was removed from virtually all childhood vaccines, then yes. However, from the perspective of analyzing the effects of removal, 5-10 birth cohorts is actually quite a bit of data. Correction regarding the influenza vaccines – there are both thimerosal containing and thimerosal free formulations.
2. The number of immunizations that children receive has skyrocketed over the past two decades. Up until recently, if you tallied up all of the mercury contained in all of the vaccines that the medical establishment has deemed safe, healthy and effective, the aggregate level of mercury consumed vastly exceeded our government’s own guidelines for what is deemed safe.
Talk about apples and oranges. The governmental guidelines were for methylmercury whereas thimerosal is ethylmercury. Ethylmercury has a much shorter half life and is much less toxic. The total doses of ethylmercury did not vastly exceed the guidelines for methylmercury. They would be higher than the recommended daily exposure only on administration days – by area under the curve it wasn’t even close. Moreover, there has been substantial work demonstrating that the levels of thimerosal did not pose substantial health risks (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228). Nonetheless, it was removed from virtually all vaccines under the precautionary principal.
“Obviously billions of dollars in potential lawsuits are at stake. But with the government’s help (and lots of lobbying $$$) , the global pharma industry has been immunized from legal liability when it comes harm inflicted by immunizations.”
Fortunately, the system has worked in this case and all of the so called “best cases” selected by the plaintiffs attorneys to prove vaccine induced autism were rejected by the Special Masters, so it appears that the stakes have been reduced substantially. Although I cannot dismiss that lobbying was involved, the government created the vaccine injury compensation fund because it saw that vaccine manufacturers were choosing to discontinue production because of the liability risks for which they could not get adequate insurance. Due to the critical public health significance of vaccines, the government recognized that it could not allow this trend to continue, so it stepped in and created the injury compensation fund from fees on vaccine sales that partially protects the vaccine manufacturers from liability.
“Remember how our all-knowledgeable medical establishment tut-tutted women into thinking that not taking Estrogen supplements after menapause was practically tantamout to smoking unfiltered Lucky Strikes because “the data” say so?”
Wow brilliant. You managed to come up with a case where the medical establishment was wrong (although recent data suggests that the issue is more nuanced). I could point out a 100 more cases if you wanted. But here’s the thing, how did we find out that the hypothesis was wrong? More research and more well conducted clinical studies! This self correction is the beauty of clinical medicine grounded in the scientific method. If you have a better method for arriving at safe and effective medical interventions I am all ears…
Druceratops says:
@1040
“This is a reasonable summary, but the inmates run the asylum only in one of these cases.”
But in all fairness, there is no comparison between the vast amount of data supporting the cost benefit of vaccines versus the still developing understanding of the cost benefit of AGW mitigation strategies. It is scientifically defensible to question what severity of consequences will be for AGW. The same cannot be said for questioning the efficacy of vaccines in disease prevention.
January 7, 2011, 12:49 pmHoustonSelgin says:
Another thing to keep in mind regarding “herd immunity” is that those who do not vaccinate not only put the very small extra risk of vaccinating onto others, but also risk spreading disease to the very folks that were responsible and vaccinated in the first place. Vaccines are not perfect, and to think that I or my children could get infected with a disease that we were responsible enough to be vaccinated for, because somebody else didn’t get vaccinated and relied on “herd immunity”, really gets my goat, cow, and any other domesticated food animal you can come up with.
January 7, 2011, 12:57 pmzuch says:
The point, Laura, is that given enough time, the process fixes itself (such as here, where the fraud is uncovered and the paper withdrawn). No one claimed that peer-review was perfect on the first pass (see, e.g., l’affaire Benveniste). The point is that peer review and replication weeds out the fraud and error.
Which is why the giant corpus of AGW research stands. It’s replicated, it’s mutually consistent, it’s robust. Which is why most rational scientists consider it to be well-proven. The deniers have to insist that nits (arguably properly) picked against certain individual papers and reports invalidate the whole thing. This is not true.
It’s much the same as the ICR/Discovery Institute approach to attacking evolution: Pick at nits (or even manufacture them), and ignore the rest, say the whole edifice is crumbling and rotten, and therefore one particular alternative (their ideological favourite, of course) is in fact the true one.
Cheers,
January 7, 2011, 1:26 pm1040 says:
I think the appropriate response to AGW is a reasonable policy question. I am talking about Brownback or Inhofe style denial, which seems to me to be on very thin ice.
January 7, 2011, 1:27 pmA Day Of Reckoning For Jenny McCarthy, And Not Just For “John Tucker Must Die” | Around The Sphere says:
[...] Jonathan Adler: A report by journalist Brian Deer in the British Journal of Medicine, the first in a series, reveals that the Wakefield study relied upon “bogus data” that was “manufactured” by those who conducted the study. Specifically, Deer found that the study’s authors misrepresented medical and other information about the children in the study, including the timing and appearance of relevant symptoms, creating a false impression of a vaccine-autism link that was not there. [...]
January 7, 2011, 1:36 pmKatahdin says:
Indeed. In our impatience, we tend to forget the time factor. For a not-politically-controversial example, the theory of continental drift was first published by Wegener in the early 1900s. He was considered a crackpot until the 1950′s at least. By the 1970s maybe half of geologists had come around. By maybe the 1980s it was universally accepted as the foundation of modern geology.
There are times – Fermi splitting the atom – where revolutionary results can be duplicated simply enough that consensus can swing rapidly, but for messier questions – continental drift, vaccines and autism, power lines and cancer, and global warming – you have to wait for the data to come trickle in, people to do fieldwork, and so on. You just can’t expect certainty in a year (or maybe decades).
January 7, 2011, 1:57 pmsubpatre says:
That is sheer and utter BS. Nobody in the US died from measles, the numbers you cite (and the word is used loosely) are simply cases of measles.
The use of the word ‘death’ in the CDC report is “No deaths were reported.”
January 7, 2011, 2:37 pmwfjag says:
You are correct subpatre, I shouldn’t have tried to do multiple things at once. No one has died “in the U.S.” for a few years from measles. The most current information available is:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/content/in-the-news/measles.aspx
I guess as long as its foreigners that die, measles isn’t a threat to Americans. So, let’s just end the silly practice of vaccinating against it.
January 7, 2011, 4:28 pmChrisTS says:
@Druceratops:
Quija board, conspiracy blogs,what my pastor thinks … are you sure you want an answer?
January 7, 2011, 4:54 pmMark Buehner says:
Note that nothing in the above mentions ‘testing’, which brings us back to the verifiability and repeatability. Peer review is little more than an appeal to authority. How about repeating the testing in different labs? No need to worry about whether your anonymous referees are friendly or under pressure or anything else. The truth will out. ANY study that hasn’t been reproduced ought not be publicized like this.
January 7, 2011, 4:57 pmMark Buehner says:
But is it predictive? At least aside from ‘the world is going to hell in a handbasket and we’ll let you know what the symptoms are as they go by’.
The controversy over AGW would be a lot less destructive if warmists would come out and make some concrete predictions that we can measure and that they would agree allow for the falsification of their premise. Whats the average temperature going to be for the next decade? or the decade after that? And if it not will you reexamine your assumptions or blow some new smoke (so to speak).
January 7, 2011, 5:09 pmAnthony says:
They have. All models predicted that the 2000s would average warmer than the 1990s, and this in fact proved true. The weather system is far too noisy to do more than predict trend lines over a multi-year period, and those trend lines are consistent with the thesis of AGW.
January 7, 2011, 5:23 pmMDJD from NY says:
Buehner says:
Who is repeating this testing, and who is paying for it? People who submit these things aren’t grubbing around in a basement with a microscope any more. Most science is done by teams of scientists (on salary) using expensive equipment. The data in a typical manuscript in the medical literature take many month-hours or year-hours of work by people at the doctoral level to collect, analyze, and write up. The sort of clinical trial that is adequate for getting a drug approved costs millions of dollars to run. (Of course, it is audited by the FDA.) There isn’t enough money to have an independent scientist replicate every study. Even if there were someone to pay for it, it would be grunt work that nobody would want to do. People want to run their own experiments.
If the work is important enough, scientists will attempt to repeat it, possibly with slightly different design. And scientists (as opposed to the lay public) generally don’t regard any one study as definitive. Certainly not doctors. Stuff doesn’t get introduced into standard medical practice until it has been repeated. Each experiment, study, or trial is subjected to pre-publication peer review for plausibility only. Eventually, after a number of studies in the area are conducted and published, a scientific consensus forms regarding the issue in play. I’m pretty sure that goes for most areas of experimental basic science as well. I don’t know about theoretical physics. In math, of course, a proof is a proof, though important proofs are scrutinized carefully for errors by other mathematicians.
You’re right that no one study should be accepted as a demonstration of anything. But it’s naive to think that every study should be repeated before it gets published.
January 7, 2011, 5:30 pmMDT says:
Anthony,
The weather system is far too noisy to do more than predict trend lines over a multi-year period, and those trend lines are consistent with the thesis of AGW.
That’s right. But when every record high, every record low, every hurricane, every tornado is touted as evidence of
January 7, 2011, 5:44 pmAGWAGCC, some of us do start to wonder whether there is any weather pattern that isn’t evidence of AGCC. If people would just respect the weather/climate distinction, and stop claiming individual weather events as evidence of climate change, it might actually look like science.1040 says:
Yes. In fact there have been gazillions of predictions that have matched observation. Although nature might be in on the conspiracy, so all bets are off.
January 7, 2011, 5:46 pm1040 says:
Can you point me to scientific peer reviewed publications that do this?
You mean, like what the Corner did after the blizzard last week when it said the blizzard had the global warming crowd swarming for explanations?
January 7, 2011, 5:47 pmzuch says:
Oh, we can predict that the globe won’t warm and see if that holds up. Oh, wait….
Cheers,
January 7, 2011, 7:27 pmMDT says:
1040,
Can you point me to scientific peer reviewed publications that [point to every weird weather event as evidence of AGCC]?
Well, of course not. Scientists, by and large, have more sense. Newspaper editorial pages and evening news broadcasters, on the other hand … And which is the general public more likely to encounter?
We’ve had a spate of really cold weather in the US and Europe recently; this is apparently evidence of AGCC (so says a NYT op-ed piece, and I’ve seen the argument elsewhere as well). If we were instead having a very warm winter, I doubt we would see op-ed pieces counting that as evidence against AGCC. Even if we were having a perfectly average winter, that would merely prove that “weather isn’t climate.” There simply isn’t a weather condition that can’t be spun as evidence for AGCC.
January 7, 2011, 7:48 pm1040 says:
First off, you have the op-ed wrong. It speaks not about “weather”, but about climate. A spate of cold winters, not spate of cold weather, and not “every record high, every record low, every hurricane, every tornado”. Second it specifically contrasts the persistently unseasonably cold winters with the overall warming trend. Third, unseasonably cold or warm weather i.e. dramatic departures from history over decade long timescales, is specifically the kind of thing AGCC is about. So it seems like a fundamental misunderstanding on your part, coupled with an exaggeration about “every record high, every record low, every hurricane, every tornado [being] touted as evidence of AGW AGCC”.
This is goalpost changing. Anthony was talking about scientific remarks in response to a question about the quality of scientific predictions, and you responded with the statement that “every record high, every record low, every hurricane, every tornado is touted as evidence of AGW AGCC” leading to skepticism about AGW/AGCC. Now you say, well, the scientific community does not do that. So I assume that should mean that there shouldn’t be skepticism about AGW/AGCC?
January 7, 2011, 8:54 pm1040 says:
If you have credible evidence, as opposed to a predetermined belief, that the recent NYT op-ed was spin, you should get it published. I am sure even the NYT would be happy to do so.
January 7, 2011, 8:56 pmElliot says:
Can someone tell us what would falsify AGW/AGCC?
January 7, 2011, 10:54 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
The thing is, this makes the process look like a bunch of political game-playing and gate-keeping that has nothing to do with rigorous science and bears some resemblance to the crap I thought I left behind in middle school.
January 7, 2011, 11:21 pm1040 says:
“This” was investigated. The scientists were obnoxious and sharp elbowed (just like their opponents were, and whose emails have not been made public), but independent investigations by lawmakers showed that the peer review process was not perverted. So, yes, Phil Jones might not be the buddy you want to hang out with after middle school, but he still got his science right.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63591
Somehow all the people who latched onto the emails seem to have missed that investigation after investigation after the kerfuffle has found no wrongdoing.
January 7, 2011, 11:53 pmMDT says:
1040,
I suggest that you read this, and then explain how a prediction of less snow and a prediction of more snow are compatible. Myself, I think someone is just wrong. Don’t you?
January 8, 2011, 9:07 amMDJD from NY says:
Good peer reviewers check for internal consistency in an article. Things slip through.
Look, peer review is not intended to do what you want it to do, and never will do it. The purpose of peer review is to tell the editors if an article is of interest to the relevant scientific community. As a peer reviewer, I’ve recommended flawed articles for publication because I thought the observation should be out there. I’ve pointed out the flaws to the editors.
Journals are not compilations of truth. They are one medium through which scientists engage in dialog. Errors are corrected when subsequent articles fail to replicate the erroneous results.
January 8, 2011, 1:45 pm1040 says:
Huh? You go on and on about how weather is not climate, and then link to an article that talks about how the “snow crisis of Christmas 2010″ discredits long term predictions of less snow?
January 8, 2011, 2:21 pmMDT says:
1040,
Wasn’t this you?
First off, you have the op-ed wrong. It speaks not about “weather”, but about climate. A spate of cold winters, not spate of cold weather [...] Second it specifically contrasts the persistently unseasonably cold winters with the overall warming trend.
Reconcile that with predictions that children aren’t going to know what snow is. Look, you can predict nasty snowy cold winters, or snowless warm winters, but if you predict either or both, it does look as though you’re hedging your bets just a bit.
January 8, 2011, 2:31 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
MDJD, it’s not so much what I want it to do. It’s that I would like for people to stop deferring to peer-reviewed journals like everything in them has God’s stamp of approval on it.
January 8, 2011, 4:15 pmMDJD from NY says:
I don’t know anyone who actually reads them who feels this way. It isn’t the fault of the journals if people outside science don’t understand what they are.
January 8, 2011, 5:27 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Sigh.
MJDJ, (a) your circle of friends and colleagues are no doubt a meritorious bunch, but not representative of the population at large, and (b) I never said the journals were at fault.
It seems that you want to pick a fight or something. It will have to be one-sided.
January 8, 2011, 5:31 pmDon’t Panic! It’s Only Junk Science! « American Elephants says:
[...] The great scare that purported to find a link between childhood vaccination and autism is reported in the British Journal of Medicine to be an [...]
January 8, 2011, 6:46 pmMDT says:
1040,
Enh. What evs. From here it looks like someone argued that snow was going to be a has-been, while someone else argued that we were going to have lots and lots of snow. Since AGCC means that we are due for freaky weather, these are equally valid predictions.
January 8, 2011, 8:41 pmHoward says:
Let’s just review here.Last winter, we had snow in Washington, and some idiot congressman had his kids build a snow fort and put out a sign reading, “Al Gore’s new home.” Then we had one of the hottest summers in history. Now we’re having a cold winter and people are saying, “What global warming?” I know people don’t want to think about history, but this is ridiculous. No, people don’t know exactly how global warming is going to play out. So let’s do nothing until we know exactly??
Fine. Nobody who knows anything thinks that it should. On the other hand, I’d give more credence to a publication in a peer-reviewed journal than to your Uncle Fred, or, God knows, your congressman. Here’s an idea: Why don’t we ask the people who specialize in the field what they think?
January 9, 2011, 11:25 amkerr says:
Going after a scientist/con man who kills children with his lies is a vendetta? Pointing out bad science, that puts lives at risk and causes multiple deaths is not a vendetta, it is a civil and moral duty
January 9, 2011, 11:27 amMDT says:
Howard,
Let’s just review here. Last winter, we had snow in Washington, and some idiot congressman had his kids build a snow fort and put out a sign reading, “Al Gore’s new home.” Then we had one of the hottest summers in history. Now we’re having a cold winter and people are saying, “What global warming?” I know people don’t want to think about history, but this is ridiculous. No, people don’t know exactly how global warming is going to play out. So let’s do nothing until we know exactly??
And I’m saying that if some scientists are predicting much warmer winters, and some other scientists are predicting much colder winters, someone is just wrong. (And possibly “predicting” only that which is actually happening at the moment. Do you think the NYT op-ed would have run during a warm winter?)
January 9, 2011, 11:37 amChrisTS says:
MDT (Michelle):
My understanding is that predictions turn on location. Some places will have unusually cold/snowy winters; some will have unusually mild/unsnowy (ouch) ones. So, it might well seem that predicters are claiming ‘both’ or ‘either’ in a general way when, in fact, they are predicting both in local ways.
On a related note, I read an article about a climate scientist who thinks too much is made of ocean temps and not enough of wind patterns across the Himalayas. Anyone know anything about this?
January 9, 2011, 2:44 pmMark Buehner says:
We all know this weather stuff is nonsense. I’m talking about bigger picture falsification. Global warming is supposed to accelerate, because if it doesn’t something in the theory doesn’t make sense Catastrophic AGW isn’t based on CO2 concentration- thats a popularized misnomer, its built on feedback cycles.
So indeed, the 00′s were warmer than the 90′s, but as much warmer as predicted? Well Hansen’s famous Congressional testimony was clearly off http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/ (needless to say, in the interim there has been a rugged defense of why, in fact, the climate was off, not Hansen).
Certainly that doesn’t disprove AGW, but it does bring up the moving goalpost issue. The simple question is what average temperature would the 2010′s have to fall below for the climate industry to step back and say that something may be wrong with the theory? Is there such a number? If the 10′s are on average cooler than the 00′s (and recall that temperature is supposed to increase even faster as time goes on), does that have ANY implication on our current understanding of global warming? If not, is this science at all?
January 10, 2011, 10:18 amAnatid says:
Why does a lab choose to reproduce a study?
Because they read about the study in a publication, and either think it’s awesome and want to learn more, or think it’s BS and want to disprove it. In order for this to happen, the study has to get published somewhere, or the other lab will never hear about it.
MDT,
One thing that the popular press articles generally don’t get into is that local weather is really really complicated, because if they use words like “albedo” or “Coriolis” or “precession” or “carbon cycle” in their writing, they’ve only going to confuse the majority of their readership, rather than convince them of anything.
Farmland turning into desert over 50 years in one part of the world but desert turning into temperate forests over 300 years in another part … logging tropical forests increasing warming but logging temperate forests decreasing it … there are a lot of shifts that will bear seemingly little relationship to one another if you skim over the details. Consider that with today’s global climate, we have hundreds of different weather patterns across various regions. If we shift that climate, the shifts in weather we see will be equally diverse.
Not to mention there’s all kinds of things that haven’t started to go wrong yet, but very well could, and we’d rather like not to find out. For example, there is a vast amount of methane locked in the seafloor. (Methane, you recall, is over an order of magnitude more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.) Current conditions keep it there. But if ocean temperatures rise too far, this methane may become soluble and be released, rising to the surface and mixing with the atmosphere. What impact will this have? Do we have to find out before we try to stop it?
Earth planetary science. Complex stuff. Oversimplifying it only makes it harder to understand, not easier.
January 10, 2011, 4:04 pmShopfloor | A Manufacturing Blog Featuring Manufacturing Strategies says:
[...] Overlawyered.com, see also Respectful Insolence, CNN, AP, Jonathan Adler. VN:F [1.9.4_1102]please wait…Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) Andrew Wakefield, autism, British [...]
January 11, 2011, 11:51 am1040 says:
Apparently, the liberal bias of reality strikes again. And in the well known leftist scroll, the USA today! That stupid warmist, nature!
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-01-12-2010-warmest-year-climate-change_N.htm
2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, according to data released Wednesday by the National Climatic Data Center. Records began in 1880. The Earth’s temperature was 1.12 degrees F above the 20th-century average, which was the same as 2005.
It was the 34th-consecutive year that the global temperature was above average, according to the data center. The last below-average year was 1976.
The global land surface temperatures for 2010 were the warmest on record at 1.8 F above the 20th-century average.
The satellite data show that the globe continues to warm unevenly. Warming increases as you go north: The Arctic Ocean has warmed an average of almost 3 degrees in the past 32 years.
For the contiguous USA alone, the climate center reports that the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.
January 12, 2011, 6:44 pm