Logical Fallacy

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

My reading of this table --

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1

 -- 

is that most vaccines given to children never contained any Thimersol in the first place.  

Not that they used to contain it but it was later removed.    The table clearly distinguishes between vaccines that never contained Thimerisol, those that used to contain it but have since been reformulated, and those that contain a trace of it.

---

Correct. 

[Medhue Simoni]

I love how you think you are proving something here. Heck, don't tell me why I'm wrong.

You post 2 links that are irrelevant, and 1 actual study, that states openly that the child only needed 1 qualifying condition.

Somehow you think this is science.

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm looking at the column on the far right of the table, headed "Approval Date for Thimerosal Free or Thimerosal / Preservative Free (Trace Thimerosal)*** Formulation".

This tells me that

• Infanrix does not now contain Thimerosal, used to contain a trace, and the thimerosal-free version was introduced in 2000;
• that Daptacel does not now contain Thimersol and never has done;
• and that Tripedia contains a trace and was licenced in 2001

And if you go further down, you see entries for other vaccines that were licenced more recently and have never contained Thimerosal.   

How do you interpret the phrase "Never contained Thimerosal"?

[Medhue Simoni]

A good majority of the vaccines on the list have existed and been injected for many, many years. Where are the old vaccines? Just because it lists a date and then says Never Contained Thimerosal, only means that versions. It doesn't not mean all past versions. If it did, it would state that clearly. It does not. I can only assume it is referring only to the current vaccine.

A proper table would include all past vaccines, with dates made and distributed. That would be relevant. This can only be looked at as relevant for today.

[Innula Zenovka]

The point of the table is, I take it, to address people's concerns about the situation at present.   

I take the dates to refer to products licenced, or re-licenced in a new formulation, after concerns about Thimerosal became an issue and guidelines were issued in 1999/2000 (as described in the section Recent and Future FDA Actions).

If a product that's never contained Thimerosal was licenced before then, why is the date of its first licence relevant?  You know it's never contained the stuff, so why does it matter?

I just don't understand what you're saying here; are you concerned that when it says, for example, that Daptacel does not contain Thimerosal and never has done, nevertheless, there may have been some version of it that did and they're not telling us about it?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/autism-treatment/AN01488

---

While reading about chelation therapy, I stumbled across this...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18949650

If the abstract accurately represents the situation, one could wonder if there's a logical fallacy there. The patient was killed by administration of the improper chelating agent (in another article I did not bookmark, I think it was stated that the wrong agent was delivered at the dosage for the correct agent). The conclusion of the report is that chelation therapy can have tragic consequences. From the abstract alone, the conclusion I would draw is that medical errors can have tragic consequences. Administration of the correct chelating agent at the correct dose would, one might guess, not be fatal.

While I don't think Medhue is arguing his case terribly well, I don't think any of us are suggesting that science is error free. This might be an example of of that, twice over.

[Medhue Simoni]

Which is why my son is drinking a cilantro mix, not doing an EDTA treatment. There are actually lots of treatment centers tho, and are usually filled with older patients. It's not an uncommon treatment.

[Medhue Simoni]

Look at the title to the last column on the table "Approval Date for Thimerosal Free or Thimerosal / Preservative Free (Trace Thimerosal)*** Formulation". If read as it should be read, it is stating that all the vaccines in the list once had Thimerosal, and the dates in that column are it's approval dates for Thimerosal free or trace amounts. Now, I'm sure this is a mistake, because I know of some of them that have never had it. So, either some1 doesn't really know how to label a table, or it's saying they all had Thimerosal. You'd think some1 in government could write a clearly stated table.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

And, I've already explained that I'm not against immunization. It can be done in a safe way. I am against injections for vaccines, especially with Thimerisol, on babies.

---

First, most common childhood immunizations

never

contained Thimerosal or mercury.   Scroll down to see table one: 

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm

 

Second, autism has

risen

, even though vaccines are without Thimerosal.

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/clinical-care-research/20080116autismstudy.html

 

Third, I urge you to listen to the podcast located here:

http://www.world-science.org/podcast/seth-mnookin-panic-virus-autism-psychology-fear-medicine-disease/

 

---

You are late to the game. Much of this has been covered.

The first link, Says exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Thanks for telling me to look at the charts, cause it totally says the opposite of what you say. Plus, a good amount of the vaccines that are on the list are new versions, which it shows the release date. This does not mean the old versions didn't have Thimerisol. Why don't they post the old vaccines? This is all also contradicted by your 2nd link, which eccentially says that it's down to trace amounts, which is not the same as removal.

 

2nd link is based on the premise that mercury was removed, which it disproves itself by stating elsewhere that there were trace amounts, and is also flawed by the non testable aspect of the diagnoses. Also, look at this, which I pulled directly from the study

"The DDS administers a statewide system of regional centers and developmental centers that serves persons who are substantially disabled because of autism, mental retardation, and other developmentaldisabilities."

"An individual needs only 1 qualifying condition to achieve active status; clients with more than 1qualifying condition may be coded under 1 or multiple diagnosticcategories."

 So, they dumped a ton of kids in that aren't autistic at all, and call this a valid study about the link to autism. Notice how they refuse to do a study with totally non vaccinated children, to see how many are autistic. You'd think, if they are right, this would prove every part of their theory, without a doubt. Oh, that's right, independent tests have already been done on Amish communities. In this study, there were 3-4 autistics found, all of which were vaccinated. No children with autism that were not vaccinated. That's in 2 of the videos I posted.

 

3rd link is a video about the MMR study, and has no relevance to thimerisol.

 

Strike 1!!!! Try Again.

Actually strike 3 but who's counting

---

I have long since begun to wonder why anyone is even replying to you anymore. You may have some actually worthwhile opinions but rather than give links, facts, or links to facts, you've done almost nothing here but accuse those who disagree with mental issues. This last one, for me at least, was the show-stopper. If you feel comfortable about saying something IN THIS THREAD that can be readily refuted by anyone who bothers to read, than I have to be suspect of a lot of the things you are saying and you are just talking to hear yourself talk. I know: one of the Fallacies addresses that issue. Guilty.

Celestiall said:

First, most common childhood immunizations never contained Thimerosal or mercury.   Scroll down to see table one: 

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm

 

You said:

The first link, Says exactly the opposite of what you claimed. 

I looked at Table 1, titled, oddly enough: "Table 1. Thimerosal Content of Vaccines Routinely Recommended for Children 6 Years of Age and Younger". It lists, if I counted correctly, 31 vaccines. Of those, 19 are listed as "Never contained Thimerosal". 19 is MOST of 31. It lists two more which contained only trace amounts of thimerosal. That would be 21 of 31 or for us vague people, about two thirds.

That isn't the opposite of what Celestiall 'claimed'. It is precisely what Celestiall 'claimed'. If you will stoop to a flat-out misrepresentation of something that is right here in this thread, how can you expect most people to react?

Yes, yes, I know. You could be absolutely right about something; the fact that you either deliberately or accidentally fabricated a falsehood about the comment doesn't prove you wrong about other things. I'm just saying it doesn't help your cause.

 

Edited to add the Bold font

[Innula Zenovka]

I take it to mean that if there was once a formulation of a particular product that contained Thimersosal that's been superceded by a formulation that doesn't contain any or only contains a trace, then this is when the newer formulation was approved.  

However, if a product never contained the stuff in the first place and was approved before the new recommendations/regulations/whatever that seem to have been introduced some 11 or 12 years ago, then it simply says, "Never contained Thimerosal."   And most of the "Vaccines Routinely Recommended for Children 6 Years of Age and Younger" appear never to have contained it, whether because they were introduced after its use was discouraged for new products or they never contained it in the first place.

[Dillon Levenque]

How come it took ME so long to say that?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Look at the title to the last column on the table

"Approval Date for Thimerosal Free or Thimerosal / Preservative Free (Trace Thimerosal)*** Formulation".

If read as it should be read, it is stating that all the vaccines in the list once had Thimerosal, and the dates in that column are it's approval dates for Thimerosal free or trace amounts. Now, I'm sure this is a mistake, because I know of some of them that have never had it. So, either some1 doesn't really know how to label a table, or it's saying they all had Thimerosal. You'd think some1 in government could write a clearly stated table.

---

It is clearly stated. The column shows the approval date for those re-formulations which got approval. If something wasn't reformulated, it wouldn't have an approval date. That is indicated by "Never contained Thimerosal". This is like the NA entries you often see in data lists indicating "Not Applicable". This labeling practice is pretty commonplace.

ETA: I see Innula responded while I was on the phone and my post sat waiting for "Post". A girl likes to be seen, so I'll leave my response, even though it's superfluous.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

I don't own a television, nor do I know what a LIfetime drama is.  

---

Nor do I.

I'm beginning to spot a pattern here, Celestiall.

;-)

---

You had the opportunity to debunk all the stuff in the videos, yet you have given not 1 arguement other than crazy, in a thread about logical fallacies? Every single so called credible study that the CDC uses to defend the non link to vaccines has been discredited in this thread, and you have given no response but crazy. That's not a valid response.

---

It appears that Celestiall, who is far more familiar with mercury/autism than I, has provided some links for you. I hope you don't mind if I defer to her expertise in the details while I stick to the issue of logical fallacy and methods of argumentation elsewhere in this thread.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Did you really watch the video? 

---

I provided you with a reply that contained over half a dozen quotes from the video, complete with time markers spanning through the first hour. Having been given that, you ask if I watched the video.

From this, I could conclude (and this is not an exhaustive list):

1) You have significant problems with comprehension.

2) You believe that insulting people is an effective way to win arguments.

3) You are too emotionally invested to argue rationally or with civility.

There is a little edge in that list, but I think I can be forgiven for my frustration given the abrasive nature of your participation in this thread. I do not continue to engage you with any thought that I might change your mind. I have had many discussions like this with others over the years and I know better. My interaction with you is intended to give you the opportunity to publicly paint yourself in the most unflattering tones.

I am curious to know if you are able to resist my charms.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

I don't own a television, nor do I know what a LIfetime drama is.  

---

Nor do I.

I'm beginning to spot a pattern here, Celestiall.

;-)

---

You had the opportunity to debunk all the stuff in the videos, yet you have given not 1 arguement other than crazy, in a thread about logical fallacies? Every single so called credible study that the CDC uses to defend the non link to vaccines has been discredited in this thread, and you have given no response but crazy. That's not a valid response.

---

This is deeply, deeply funny although perhaps not in a way you'd appreciate.

Can you quote the text/s you imagine discredited every "so called credible study that the CDC uses to defend the non link to vaccines"?

 

I don't believe you've understood the contents of the OP, and I'm nearly at a loss for words reading your posts.  If your 18 years of research was conducted using the same quality of reasoning your posts in this thread show, it's not all that unlikely that you've spent 18 years getting it wrong to be honest with you. 

[Paladin Pinion]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Again, you missed the twisted logic.

You can do whatever you want with yourself or your children. What you don't have the right to do is enforce that on other people.

---

Since we're dealing with widespread public health issues here, we do indeed have that right. In the UK, where this controvery took hold even more strongly than in the US, children are now dying of common, preventable childhood diseases because they now have reduced herd immunity. Those are pointless deaths.

We do in fact know exactly what autism is, and it is defined precisely in the diagnostic journals. It is a wide spectrum disorder, originally thought to be several different diseases, but now recognized as a single disorder with varying degrees of profundity. My son is profoundly affected and I'd be very happy if all he had was Aspergers, which is on the high end of the scale.

Long before this vaccination business was thought up, the most common cause of autism was well known to be Fragile X Syndrome. Almost 25% of autistic males have this genetic anomaly, as does my son. It is X-linked, passed through the women and affects mostly males, though my female cousin is mildly affected. There are five others in my extended family (or maybe seven; two are clearly delayed but too young to tell for sure) with variously severe autism and retardation and they all are Fragile X.

You are incorrect that autism began with vaccinations. It's been identified and diagnosed for at least a hundred years or more, and undoubtedly was around before that, though it was known then under several different diagnoses.

Fragile X is a breakage of the X chromosome that causes hundreds or thousands of gene repetitions on one leg of the X. The more repetitions, the worse the autism. It affects the nervous system and brain function, as well as some types of physical appearance. It's been well studied and there are now therapies evolving that sound very promising -- but they won't happen for a while and we must wait.

I understand your pain. We tried everything too, every breakthrough sounded like the real deal. If cilantro appears to make your son better then there's no harm, just as some of the drugs we tried appeared to make our son better. But it isn't the cure you're looking for. These children do evolve slowly and what you may attribute to this cure or that thing turns out in the long run to be their natural progression. It was easier on us when we stopped looking for fixes and just accepted who he is. But that takes a long time. In retrospect I wish we hadn't submitted our son to unnecessary restrictions and all the other hogwash that was going to "fix" him. I know you want something to work; you will absolutely WILL it to work. I suppose you need to go through that stage. We did.

I am encouraged that science will provide relief eventually with gene therapy. They are making progress; just last week I read an article about some success in adult mice. This was a breakthough because it was thought until now that only the very young would respond well. I am hopeful.

When the vaccination debate first began the medical community did take it seriously. There were three major controlled studies to see if the connection existed. Three independent studies could find no significant correlation. It was after that that the medical community dismissed the idea.

The Wired article that was cited here is extremely interesting -- I read it when it first was published. It questioned why the autism rate in California was four times higher than in the rest of the U.S. (All children in the US get the same vaccinations so that alone should make you question.) The theory in a nutshell is that the genes that cause autism are highly desirable traits in programmers (ergo, me.) A light dose of those genes gives you some antisocial behavior (think "geek",) balanced with an attention to detail and a dogged perserverance -- necessary to be a good programmer. Wired suggests that people with these traits tended to gravitate to Silicon Valley, where the jobs were. They met, married each other, and their children were on average four times more likely than the rest of the population to be autistic, having received a double dose of those genetic qualities from both parents.

The videos you posted are not scientific studies and the author has published no peer-reviewed results. But there are lots of studies correlating genetic disorders, particularly Fragile X Syndrome. There's a test for that now -- you might want to have your son take a blood test. It is one of the most common mutations that is found in every culture, race, and  country around the world in about the same proportions (except California apparently.)

I hadn't meant to get sucked into this discussion, but when you dismissed genetics so cavalierly I had to correct that. It is frankly just patently wrong. I have the paperwork, the genetic workup, and the medical literature to show it. You might be interested in a subscription to the National Autism Foundation newsletter where they discuss the latest research. They mention Fragile X frequently. And if you do find that your son has Fragile X, you'll definitely want to follow the research the Fragile X Foundation is conducting.

I know how you feel, I truly do. The loss is indescribable. Please don't waste time with some of these unsupported theories -- go get your son a blood test so you'll know which avenues to pursue.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

Taking a stand against received wisdom is indeed difficult and likely to be ridiculed.

---

Indeed, and that does sometimes spring from irrational thought. Irrationality is natural and not without benefit. Just as mutation is a fundamental component of biological evolution, irrational thinking seems to be an important part of our technological evolution. I'm sure my analogy is imperfect, but selection may be to mutation as science is to "crazy" thinking.

---

Yeees, I'm not great on philosophy of science, mostly getting it from Popper's books and general history.  Let's be clear about 'irrational thought and 'crazy thinking' though, in the context of medicine at least.  I would say irrational thought is just that, with no evidence or 'system' to support it.  While it's possible something (currently considered) irrational is true there's absolutely no good evidence to support it.  That sodding teapot orbiting the sun is an example.

In contrast theories like circulation of the blood, germ theory, etc. were "crazy thinking".  They went totally against the perceived wisdom at the time so 'educated' people automatically called them crazy.  As with Galileo 'perceived wisdom' often had the force of law and the power of life and death.  And yet those theories weren't proposed irrationally but because there was good evidence to support them.  Eventually this evidence was examined and accepted by enough people that it became the new perceived wisdom.

To avoid a logical fallacy we now have to say that there are two useful definitions of a 'good scientist/doctor'.  The first is someone who has learnt, understood and applies the current perceived wisdom.  The second is someone who spots errors and ommissions in perceived wisdom and works - rationally but perhaps crazily :-) - to correct them.  Collectively we hope those are the same people, but they often are not.  All too often the dogma of perceived wisdom, reinforced with awards for agreeing and ridicule for disagreeing, prevent a lot of doctors thinking crazy 'outside the box' things.  If nothing else, they're just too busy applying what they know to evaluate what they don't know.

On your more general point - mutation|selection, ideas|science - I'm quite happy with that as a concept, I like the theory of memes, for instance, but I think we need a better definition of 'science'.  (Or at least I do, it not being my field).

[Sy Beck]

---

Paladin Pinion wrote:

...These children do evolve slowly and what you may attribute to this cure or that thing turns out in the long run to be their natural progression. It was easier on us when we stopped looking for fixes and just accepted who he is. But that takes a long time. In retrospect I wish we hadn't submitted our son to unnecessary restrictions and all the other hogwash that was going to "fix" him. I know you want something to work; you will absolutely WILL it to work. I suppose you need to go through that stage. We did.

---

This I recognise to be the truth, as probably will other parents of children with Asperger's and autism.  There is no magic bullet and that the best we can do is to provide the best environment for them to learn and mature in.

 

[Medhue Simoni]

I'm gonna make a general statement, and if this does not apply to you, ignore it.

To me, this autism arguement is done. Why? Cause I'm arguing with people that do not show me the same courtesy that I show them, by actually reading/watching what is posted. Almost every person that is making any comment at all against what I'm saying hasn't watch any of the videos, nor have they read my responses. You people are going in circles, cause you refuse to give the same respect that you get back. I have read every post and every link posted and commented on them. Can any1 else make the same claim? No, you can't because that is obvious in your responses. Why do you even engage in a debate if you aren't going to read or watch what the other side posts? Seriously, are you afraid, cause that is what I see. Oh, and I really hope this is not how you do your job or how you educated yourself, cause that would truely be sad.

[Medhue Simoni]

What I will do is continue on the actual topic of this thread, as I LOVE the topic.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

Taking a stand against received wisdom is indeed difficult and likely to be ridiculed.

---

Indeed, and that does sometimes spring from irrational thought. Irrationality is natural and not without benefit. Just as mutation is a fundamental component of biological evolution, irrational thinking seems to be an important part of our technological evolution. I'm sure my analogy is imperfect, but selection may be to mutation as science is to "crazy" thinking.

---

Yeees, I'm not great on philosophy of science, mostly getting it from Popper's books and general history.  Let's be clear about 'irrational thought and 'crazy thinking' though, in the context of medicine at least.  I would say irrational thought is just that, with no evidence or 'system' to support it.  While it's possible something (currently considered) irrational is true there's absolutely no good evidence to support it.  That sodding teapot orbiting the sun is an example.

In contrast theories like circulation of the blood, germ theory, etc. were "crazy thinking".  They went totally against the perceived wisdom at the time so 'educated' people automatically called them crazy.  As with Galileo 'perceived wisdom' often had the force of law and the power of life and death.  And yet those theories weren't proposed irrationally but because there was good evidence to support them.  Eventually this evidence was examined and accepted by enough people that it became the new perceived wisdom.

To avoid a logical fallacy we now have to say that there are two useful definitions of a 'good scientist/doctor'.  The first is someone who has learnt, understood and applies the current perceived wisdom.  The second is someone who spots errors and ommissions in perceived wisdom and works - rationally but perhaps crazily :-) - to correct them.  Collectively we hope those are the same people, but they often are not.  All too often the dogma of perceived wisdom, reinforced with awards for agreeing and ridicule for disagreeing, prevent a lot of doctors thinking crazy 'outside the box' things.  If nothing else, they're just too busy applying what they know to evaluate what they don't know.

On your more general point - mutation|selection, ideas|science - I'm quite happy with that as a concept, I like the theory of memes, for instance, but I think we need a better definition of 'science'.  (Or at least I do, it not being my field).

---

Yep, I should have been more careful to set a scope on "crazy", but pithy must be compact, right? I was indeed trying to get at what you're saying, that we need some people who are rational enough to make actual progress in some endeavor, but irrational enough to oppose direction (dogma).

We have the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. I am ever aware of this in myself, as my mind jumps to most bizarre conclusions at times. I believe this explains my sense of humor, my professional success, and my Father's lifelong attempts to give/send me away ;-)

Taken to extremes, this propensity to find meaning leads to imaginary actors. A great many of those actors have been immortalized in books, some of which may still be found in hotels or burning in piles on city streets. On smaller scales, they poison our water and our children and tell us stuff that just ain't so. I've read theories (or maybe they were ramblings) that mixing a pinch of oppositionality (which is irrational) with a bit of paranoia (also irrational) may be the engine that has powered some of our greatest discoveries.

Newton was at once brilliant and subversive, discovering the laws of motion and gravitation while trying to disprove the Holy Trinity at Trinity college. That does make me smile.

We're all irrational somewhere and sometime, Peter. Maybe that's a curse and a blessing?

[PeterCanessa Oh]

Ansolutely.  Progress needs creativity and creativity is usually not rational, although there are those few times when someone does something new (ie; creative) and everyone just slaps themselves and says "Of course!  Why didn't I think of that".

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Medhue Simoni wrote:

I'm gonna make a general statement, and if this does not apply to you, ignore it.

To me, this autism arguement is done. Why? Cause I'm arguing with people that do not show me the same courtesy that I show them, by actually reading/watching what is posted. Almost every person that is making any comment at all against what I'm saying hasn't watch any of the videos, nor have they read my responses. You people are going in circles, cause you refuse to give the same respect that you get back. I have read every post and every link posted and commented on them. Can any1 else make the same claim? No, you can't because that is obvious in your responses. Why do you even engage in a debate if you aren't going to read or watch what the other side posts? Seriously, are you afraid, cause that is what I see. Oh, and I really hope this is not how you do your job or how you educated yourself, cause that would truely be sad.

---

Again, this is amusing.  It's you who is being rude, coming to a conversation and expecting to dump videos on others and demand they watch them, so you don't have to bother to argue your own point, and as if this is not discourteous enough, you then call those who wish to do their own reading and arguing, lazy and launch attack after attack, calling others brain washed and asserting others cannot think for themselves and are "afraid, all the while, you wish to rest on the laurels of some video, refuse to argue reasonably without persistent childish and snarky name calling and insults. 

Where do you get off thinking that the discourtesy is on someone else's part? 

 

If you've read Madeline's posts, as you claim, then how can you still be claiming that everyone in this thread has not watched your videos?  It's very, very obvious that Madeline did watch your video.

 

But the fact remains, you've no more right to turn up to a conversation here demanding people watch your video, than you have anywhere else.  This is a conversation, not a video review convention.   Do your own arguing or don't complain if no one gets your point.  We're not here to watch videos, and if someone chooses to let you let a video do your arguing or conversing for you, that's a bonus, not an entitlement.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Paladin, thanks so much for your post. I just heard about the Silicon Valley connection and found it compelling. I too have hope that the scientific community will find solutions to a great many problems in medicine and elsewhere.

The general public is simply unaware how science and the scientific community work. It's a messy business and "conspiracies" (which one might call herd-think) are constantly subjected to scrutiny. Nothing looks better on a resume than a highly publicized peer-reviewed paper that overturns a few apple carts.

As more and more epidemiological data is banked online, we'll see meta analysis bloom. People will be digging through everything with ever more sophisticated analysis tools, looking for the countless needles in the haystacks of our research data. I find this growing collection of, and access to data very encouraging.

But while science does have self correcting properties, there really can be large scale aberrations in the process that work against the public good. They are hardly secret, but they're difficult to rectify. As an example, there is evidence that pharmaceutical companies direct their research towards treatments that turn deadly diseases into manageable chronic conditions, rather than cure them. There is no long term profit in eliminating your customers, either by killing them or curing them. So the financial rewards of our economic system are not quite aligned with our best interests. I have friends what work in big pharma who witness this profit pressure at work in the internal review process for new research. While they are frustrated, they remain in the game with a hope of affecting the outcome for the positive.

It's not hard to find other examples where this happens, such as in education and social welfare programs and military expenditures. Science is not immune to the effects of money. Not much is.  I do think people in general want to do the right thing, knowing what's right is the problem and discovering that requires patience and thoughtfulness.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

Ansolutely.  Progress needs creativity and creativity is usually not rational, although there are those few times when someone does something new (ie; creative) and everyone just slaps themselves and says "Of course!  Why didn't I think of that".

---

I just finished reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything". It's a delightful travelogue through some of the sciences, replete with oddball characters. It's a perfect tutorial on the messiness of science and the people who do it.