4th Grade Creationist Science Quiz

A recent post by Phil Plait reminded my of something I came across a while back. I had intended to blog about it earlier, but I needed to make sure I could verify it before I posted it. When I first saw it, I couldn't believe that it was true. So, I did a bit of digging. No mere search on the interwebz turned up the evidence I needed. I had to trek incredible distances and delve into long-forgotten cafés and cobweb bedecked back rooms. Shady characters named "Barry" become well-known to me in my quest. In the end, I discovered that what you are about to see is totally, completely as real as Miracle Max.

Brace yourselves.

Sylvia Browne is a Ghoul

On November 17, 2004, an episode of the Montel Williams Show aired, featuring self-proclaimed "psychic" Sylvia Browne and Louwana Miller, who came on the show desperate for information on her daughter, who had been missing since April 21, 2003, a day before her 17th birthday. With no good leads from police or FBI and having spent considerable effort putting up fliers and talking to people, Miller finally contacted the Montel Show after seeing Browne on an episode.

According to transcripts of the episode (e.g., at StopSylvia.com, posted in 2007), Sylvia Browne told the worried mother the worst possible news: "She's not alive, honey." She described the supposed abductor as "Cuban-looking, short kind of stocky build, heavyset" and put his age at around 21 or 22. Browne also asserted that it was only one person, despite witnesses saying they saw Berry get into a car with three men. In an interview with WKYC's Bill Safos, Browne is quoted as saying:

“I think he really had a crush on her,” she said. “And I think she rebuffed him. I think she thought he was harmless enough to maybe drive her home.”

A year and a half later, in early 2006, Louwana Miller died of heart failure. She died with the belief that her daughter was dead.

MIND Institute: No Difference in Immunization Rates

There are a lot of studies on vaccines and autism. The majority (read: the ones that are well-designed to minimize the influence of biases and confounders) show that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. Or, rather, I suppose I should use a more scientific turn of phrase: they have failed to find any causal connection between the two. There are some rather bad studies (small sample sizes, methodological flaws, etc.) that anti-vaccine activists like to crow about, like a horribly flawed macaque study that should never have been approved by an IACUC (IACUCs are institutional ethics boards that review studies using animals) in which there were not enough controls, missing conflict of interest statements, missing authors, and so on. In short, it put a bunch of macaques through needless procedures and death for no reason.

Of course, the anti-vaccine folk invariably pooh-pooh the rigorous studies, saying that they are horribly tainted and unreliable, the authors in thrall to Big Pharma^TM. As they rationalize away any study that doesn't agree with their near-religious adherence to their preconceived notion that vaccines are the most evilest of all evilosity, they call for "independent" research looking at vaccines and autism. However, finding what they consider to be independent researchers is a bit dicey. Funded by NIH or equivalent governmental agencies? Nope. After all, government is in league with Big Pharma^TM, dontcha know. Universities? Doubtful, since a lot of universities receive grants from corporate foundations. It doesn't matter that the researchers don't actually see any of that money, of course. The merest hint of a whiff of a connection is enough for them to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with their ideology. Is there any organization that they'll trust that actually has qualified researchers who don't stand to gain from finding a vaccine-autism connection?

Well, they might be okay with the University of California-Davis MIND Institute.

The NECSS of Thought and Reality - Year 3 (Part 2)

This past Monday, I shared my recap and some thoughts on day 1 (April 6) of the 2013 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism, or NECSS, held each year in New York City. NECSS is a joint effort by the New York City Skeptics and the New England Skeptical Society. The conference is an opportunity for those interested in, well, science and skepticism to gather together for two days of talks, panels and performances that challenge you to examine what you think you know. This was the fifth year of the conference and my third year attending.

The first day opened with a look at how our minds can influence how we behave and how we perceive the world around us. From there, the program drifted into the realm of philosophy. How do skeptics determine what is right and wrong, what is ethical and moral? This included a discussion between Massimo Pigliucci and Michael Shermer, before breaking for lunch. The afternoon kicked off with a live show of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, then a panel discussion on storytelling. Simon Singh closed out the main program with an overview of the Big Bang. But the day wasn't over with that. A fundraising reception allowed attendees to mingle with the speakers, and then it was off to Drinking Skeptically or a private show of the SGU.

It was a full first day, and day two was no less engaging.

The NECSS of Thought and Reality - Year 3 (Part 1)

Over the weekend of April 6-7, I attended the fifth annual Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS). Organized by the New York City Skeptics and the New England Skeptical Society, NECSS is a conference that focuses on science and critical thinking. They invite scientists, educators, artists and activists on a wide range of topics, but all of which tie into those two themes. There are individual presentations, panel discussions and performance pieces. If you're interested in the first two years I attended, here are my reviews of the third NECSS and fourth NECSS conferences.

My reviews of NECSS have become a good opportunity to address just what "skepticism" means. As I've said before, colloquially, it has taken on some baggage, often carrying a pejorative connotation or equated with cynicism. A lot of people view skeptics merely as naysayers who will simply jump to "I don't believe X" or "X doesn't exist". They are often viewed as close-minded and unwilling to examine the evidence. But nothing could be further from the truth. To me, skepticism is a manner of thinking, a set of tools by which to understand the world around us. Every conclusion is provisional and open to revision, based on the available evidence. It is the application of logic and the methods of science to evaluate claims and examine data. It is not a belief system, religion, ideology, or position, and it has no subject or claim that is off-limits. Or, as the Skeptic Society says, "no sacred cows allowed". It's an approach I try to apply in my life. I may not always be successful, and I know that there are simple biases that affect me just as every other person, but I try, and I think it a noble feature when I see it in others, as well. This is a theme that came up during the conference, as well, but more on that later.

For now, on to the conference.

Measles Running Rampant in Pakistan and Wales

Whenever I hear someone say that vaccine-preventable diseases are harmless or that they are just a right of passage for children, I can't help but shake my head a bit. Part of the reason behind this mindset is a lack of experience with these diseases. Many young parents have never seen them in action. The most they know is their own childhood experiences with them; they clearly survived and, with death being thankfully uncommon, probably don't know or remember anyone who died of one of these illnesses, especially if anyone contracted a disease at a young age. And then there's the rarity of the diseases thanks to the success of vaccinations. I have to admit that before I developed an interest in vaccines and the manufactroversy surrounding them, I probably would have held a similarly flippant opinion of childhood diseases.

But I learned more about them. I read about their typical presentation, what some of the more serious complications are and how commonly they occur, and how long a person is contagious (often starting before any symptoms appear). I learned that while one needn't panic and run for the hills when there's an outbreak, a healthy respect for the seriousness of vaccine preventable diseases doesn't go amiss. Above all, I've learned that they are worth preventing, if not for one's own health, then for the health of those around them. While I might be healthy and think I might fare well if infected, the same may not be true for others I infect.

To this end, vaccinations are one of the best public health measures in modern medicine. When people avoid or reject them in sufficient numbers, we invariably see outbreaks of disease sooner or later. Outbreaks like the current measles outbreaks in Pakistan and Wales.

Thoughts on the 2013 Boston Marathon

Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you probably know that on April 15, 2013 there were two explosions near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Some of you might not be aware that I am in the Boston area. For those that do, this post is mainly to let you all know that I am okay, but I also wanted to get some of my thoughts out about the day's events. I will do my best to stick to the facts and avoid spreading unsubstantiated claims.

A Pox on Health Reporting

Science and health reporting in the U.S. can be a bit of a mixed bag. Sometimes, reports on these topics are level-headed, presenting accurate information in the proper context. There is often a great deal of nuance involved. More often, though, news outlets do a less than optimal job. They oversimplify. They leave out important details. They get details wrong. They engage in inappropriate emotional appeals to spin the story, often to the detriment of truthful reporting.

You may have heard in the news, recently, of FrankieElizabeth Staiti, a 5-year-old New York kindergartener who has been barred from school because she has not received the varicella vaccine. The reason? Her pediatrician refuses to give the varicella vaccine to any child who has an infant sibling, believing that the varicella vaccine poses too great a risk, since it uses a live, weakened virus. FrankieElizabeth has a 14-week-old sister. Her mother, Elizabeth Wagner, applied for a medical exemption for her daughter, but it was rejected after the Department of Education reviewed it with her and FrankieElizabeth's pediatrician.

That is the basic story. But there are some problems with the way that a lot of outlets are reporting on this.

Off to the NECSS of Thought and Reality

Just a quick post to let you all know that tomorrow, April 5, I'm off to New York to attend NECSS, the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism. This will be my third year attending (here are my reviews of my first year and my second year), and I'm very excited for it. It is a great opportunity to learn about new topics, expand on what you may already know, and most importantly, meet other intelligent people. If you are going to be there, find me and say hi! Best way to reach me will probably be via Twitter (@Tweek75). I will be bringing some of my VPD Wanted Poster cards with me, so seek me out if you want a set. And just as a reminder, if you are not going to be there, but still want a set, you can click the button below to request one.

Hope to see you at NECSS!

Have You Seen This Pathogen?

They're heeere.

Back in August last year, I introduced a little art project I had been working on. It consisted of a series of sixteen digital posters. Since August was Immunization Awareness Month, and my posters were somewhat related, I thought it a fitting time to publish them, releasing them one a day over fifteen days (with a bonus two-for-one in the middle).

Well, I finally got around to printing up 4" x 5" cards of my Vaccine Preventable Disease Wanted Posters.