Bad science ....

[Digit]

According to some of my reading Zan very few of the people actively involved with the IPCC are/were climatologists. I take eeyore's comments on board about mathematicians, but my point was that a mathematician may well be needed to collate, interpret, etc, but that in no manner qualifies him to comment on the accuracy of the original research work.
Apparently many of those who signed never even attended the symposium, they received a copy of its conclusions and were asked to sign if they agreed with it.
Many apparently refused simply because they had no access to the original research, as I would have done.
Remember the Cold Fusion fiasco?
If anyone is to assess the skill of the cancer surgeon who operated on me I would prefer it not to be a mathematician!

Roy.

[zan]

But a mathematician could give you an accurate probability that you would survive the procedure carried out by that surgeon Sorry, I know that's pedantic!

The thing is that a problem as vast as climate change needs a multidisciplinary approach. You need oceanographers to measure the ocean currents, climatologists to study past and current climate, astrophysicists to assess the effects of the sun, geologists to assess the prehistoric data, economists to assess the costs of action vs inaction, mathematicians and statisticians to actually create a model and provide as good an answer as they can, as well as biologists, chemists etc to monitor secondary effects on species numbers, ocean acidification and so on. All of them are needed to both carry out the primary work and evaluate it (mathematicians and statisticians would be vital in this as they would assess the methods used to interpret the original data, which you could argue is the most important step anyway).

On the other point you make, I would also not sign a document that I agreed to something I'd never seen, so fair enough, and if that's true I agree it's a pretty poor state of affairs for such an important topic. On the other hand, I'm deeply suspicious of statments that begin with 'apparently'

[Digit]

True Zan but I strongly suspect that any Consultant who rises through the hierarchy sufficiently to judge other consultants would be able to count, and based on my own experiences I can assure that there is more to a surgeon's skill than his death toll!
Here is another example of those who question, not so much the science, but how it has been interpreted and used by those who we would hope know better, like politicians!

http://brneurosci.org/reviews/satanic.html

and look at this list!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Roy.

[zan]

I know, I was just being pedantic, sorry! And I agree about politicians, I think they are often the worst for short-term planning because of the length of time they're in office...

I don't really want to get into an argument about the ins and outs of climate change though because it's not an issue I am qualified to comment on. I try and keep an open mind, and if it turns out I was wrong, and global warming isn't our fault then great, I'll be happy. Maybe we'll have wasted resources on 'green' research or had to cut down on our comforts more that we'd have liked to along the way, but I can live with that I think. What worries me more is that misinterpretation of data or even perfectly correct statments about scientific research, but that isn't properly explained will just lead to confusion and apathy amongst teh public, which would be disastrous if global warming is due to anthropogenic effects.

[Digit]

Agreed, I think people are being bludgeoned into accepting a given line.
I would love to see a debate between both parties, but I suspect there would be blood on the carpet before the end!

Roy.

[Bullseye]

Re, Mercury and the MMR, I did not state the mercury was the sole cause of autism with the MMR,merely that rates of autism have fallen where mercury has not been present in the MMR. Many people have had health problems with mercury fillings,when fillings have been removed and replaced with other non mercury amazingly the health problems have after a short while dissapeared,placebo effect no doubt .As for "all the reports about MMR being safe",when it happens right in front of your eyes it does bring more than a tiny seed of doubt into your mind !.Of course everyones tolerance to mercury must be exactly the same,just as everyones ability to consume alcohol is the same.................ah,no wait...............

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by weirdwolf

Whilst I am very sorry that your son has a disability the immunization link to autism has been disproved by numerous studies.

I'm sorry but I think that statement is just as much "bad science" as the daily Mail article that Paul kicked this thread off with. No study has ever "disproved" a link between MMR and autism. Numerous studies have failed to find a link but that is emphatically NOT the same as disproving a link.

There is much talk of Andrew Wakefield's research being discredited but has it really? I remember reading that he had not been completely open about who was funding his research but I have never seen, in any media, anyone suggesting that he faked evidence or that his methodology was flawed. Of course this could just be another example of the media having a field day with the original scare story and not bothering with the "it was all a panic over nothing, weren't we silly to get you all worked up" story. I don't know.

What I do know is that if my boys (both of whom had the MMR, fortunately without any serious side effects) were born today they'd get the measles vaccine - privately if necessary - but they wouldn't get the MMR.

Dave P.

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by pressld2

........

There is much talk of Andrew Wakefield's research being discredited but has it really? I remember reading that he had not been completely open about who was funding his research but I have never seen, in any media, anyone suggesting that he faked evidence or that his methodology was flawed. Of course this could just be another example of the media having a field day with the original scare story and not bothering with the "it was all a panic over nothing, weren't we silly to get you all worked up" story. I don't know.

...........

Dave P.

I think there were indeed serious flaws in his methodology, lack of controls, small sample size and so on..

Professor Trisha Greenhalgh appraises Andrew Wakefield et al

and yes you can't disprove (or prove) it but larger, well designed, better controlled research projects have failed to find any data to support his conclusions.

[zan]

We looked at the case surrounding the MMR in one of our biology labs a few years ago, and while I can't remember all the details of it, the research we saw suggested quite clearly that there was only a significant risk of autism in children who showed certain contraindications, and in those cases should not receive the vaccine. For children without those contraindications, the vaccine had not been shown to be linked to MMR.

[ollyk]

Originally Posted by zan

We looked at the case surrounding the MMR in one of our biology labs a few years ago, and while I can't remember all the details of it, the research we saw suggested quite clearly that there was only a significant risk of autism in children who showed certain contraindications, and in those cases should not receive the vaccine. For children without those contraindications, the vaccine had not been shown to be linked to MMR.

While a bit off topic, it would be interesting to know what those contraindications are? Are we talking behavioral or family history etc?

[zan]

I honestly can't remember now - looking at the nhs site it states things like open TB and egg allergies (vaccine is\was made with egg albumen or something) as two of them, although I was sure there were more when we looked at it... Maybe they've been disproved since my lab!

The investigation into the MMR vaccine looks to be very interesting - apparently the GMC are expected to answer professional misconduct claims against Wakefield later this year.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I'm sorry but I think that statement is just as much "bad science" as the daily Mail article that Paul kicked this thread off with. No study has ever "disproved" a link between MMR and autism. Numerous studies have failed to find a link but that is emphatically NOT the same as disproving a link.

.

i agree but it is virtually impossible to prove a negative to 100% certainty.
It is proven that MMR alone doesnt cause autism , or it would cause it in every child injected, which it clearly doesnt. Therefore if it causes it in some children, it must be a multiple cause issue as zan says

likewise it is impossible to say whether any of the children who developed autism would have done so anyway even if they had not had the MMR, as it is definitely not the sole cause and there are autistic children who never had the MMR

at the end of the day it has to be a choice that only the parent can make, however if they choose not to have the MMR then they ought to have to have the measles and mumps jabs seperately for the good of society at large (rubella is only important in girls as the disease can cause birth defects if contracted during pregnancy)

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Many people have had health problems with mercury fillings,when fillings have been removed and replaced with other non mercury amazingly the health problems have after a short while dissapeared

so if you accept that Feldman and Marks are talking through their posterior orrifices about mercury in fillings being safe, why should anyone give credence to their other - equally ill researched - views

[Wild-Woman]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

I have a feeling that schools are so exam and tick box orientated
that they do not have the time (?skill) to encourage enquiring minds.

Nail hit squarely on the head David.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by RobSutton

I think there were indeed serious flaws in his methodology, lack of controls, small sample size and so on..

Professor Trisha Greenhalgh appraises Andrew Wakefield et al

and yes you can't disprove (or prove) it but larger, well designed, better controlled research projects have failed to find any data to support his conclusions.

Thanks for that Rob - it certainly throws a different light on the Wakefield study. It looks like the Sunday Times carried it but was it widely reported elsewhere? Did I just miss it? I remember hearing that Wakefield was being funded by lawyers attempting to prove a link between MMR and autism in order to win compensation for their clients, but my view was that this in itself did not invalidate his research. All research is funded by someone!

Dave P.

[Digit]

This is the sort of thing I mean Zan. Without getting into who's right and who's wrong this is no way to conduct serious scientific research...

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists - Telegraph

Roy.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by zan

The investigation into the MMR vaccine looks to be very interesting - apparently the GMC are expected to answer professional misconduct claims against Wakefield later this year.

Don't hold your breath - it has been ongoing, with lots of
suspensions and delays for about a couple of years now.

They are back in "court" at present, but it seems the mainstream
media is bored with the whole thing and not reporting much.
What few reports I have read in the last week have not
be mainstream.

[Hobjob]

re- the original Lancet Wakefiled study

IIRC there were twelve authors. All except one (guess who?)
have publicly retracted their opinions and give no credance
to the study at all.

The Lancet has publicly stated similar.

On a closed scientific forum where I also lurk, there is frequent
moaning about the lack of interest and lack of insight and
understanding of most of the media to scientific stories.

At a slight tangent, radio 4 this morning was quoting figures from an as
yes unpublished study from St John's, Durham, some amazing
statistics about the ignorance of the public for the major Bible stories.

75% own a Bible
But
9% do not know Whitsun is
85% do not know the significance of Advent calendars
57% do not know about Josph and his banishment

to Egypt - even one the interviewed had seen the musical!

Sadly the UK is well dummed down. Even if not professing Christiantiy
surely we should have greater understanding of our cultural heritage?

[Digit]

Don't start me on that we'll be here all night! Suffice to say I agree.

Roy.

[ollyk]

Originally Posted by Digit

This is the sort of thing I mean Zan. Without getting into who's right and who's wrong this is no way to conduct serious scientific research...

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists - Telegraph

Roy.

It is precisely for reasons like this and the disgrace that is Al Gore that I seriously struggle to accept that global warming (or is it climate change ) is man made.

[Digit]

It's perhaps relevant to point out olly that more genuine scientists signed the Manhattan Declaration than signed the first IPCC report as well.

Roy.

[Paul mabbott]

Bad news folks. After taking some medical advice from the Daily Mail, I've started reading their womens pages. Here's a good bit entitled "Being a vegetarian makes you proky .... " Being a veggie makes you porky: Why this nutritionist says meat-free Mondays could lead to a very big surprise... | Mail Online

Claims to be from a qualified nutritionist. Concludes that eating meat makes you slim whereas being a vegetarian makes you fat. Patent nonsense but the false logic is easy to overlook: note para 9 -
This was the recipe for the handles I didn't love as a teenager. When I wasn't stuffing my face with pasta and cheese, it was toast and butter, stodge that was guaranteed to pile on the pounds.

So what she's saying is that all vegetarians only eat cheese and other dairy products .... patently untrue, especially for vegans ....

So what she's saying is that if you give up (or reduce) eating meat then you also have to give up (or reduce) cheese intake .... but that wouldn't go down well with the farming industry, would it?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid,
it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
John Stuart Mill

[Paul mabbott]

One of the rguments used by those in denial is that the temperature and CO2 data are biased towards industrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere ..... but it's okay to deduce old temperature rates to the price of wheat!

It also ignores the fact that wheat prices had a lot more to do with economics and politics - read up on the Corn Laws.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid,
it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
John Stuart Mill

Originally Posted by Digit

It's actually one of the longest continuous records on weather Bullseye, and unlike some of the more suspect temps that have been recorded in the past, not really open to much in the way of errors.
Way back it was noticed that sun spot activity mirrored the price of wheat in England due to the harvests being affected.

Roy.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

.....................
At a slight tangent, radio 4 this morning was quoting figures from an as
yes unpublished study from St John's, Durham, some amazing
statistics about the ignorance of the public for the major Bible stories.

75% own a Bible
But
9% do not know Whitsun is
85% do not know the significance of Advent calendars
57% do not know about Josph and his banishment

to Egypt - even one the interviewed had seen the musical!

Sadly the UK is well dummed down. Even if not professing Christiantiy
surely we should have greater understanding of our cultural heritage?

I would have thought our cultural heritage derived mostly from Greece through the arabs and the Rennaissance; and/or from the Celts. Don't quite see the significance of the history/myths of a wandering middle-eastern tribe - even to Christians.

What musical?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid,
it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
John Stuart Mill

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by pressld2

......... No study has ever "disproved" a link between MMR and autism. Numerous studies have failed to find a link but that is emphatically NOT the same as disproving a link.
..........
Dave P.

Sorry, let's get back to this 'disproving' business.
It is impossible to disprove a negative - although the proposition may be so unlikely as to be ignored anyway.
However, most scientific analysis will start off by testing the null hypothesis. i.e. can we demonstrate/detect a difference between two sets of results/individuals/whatever which have been treated differently. If the two sets do not differ then the null hypothesis has not been disproved - not the same as saying that it has been proved but, in effect, showing that there is nothing to test/investigate further.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid,
it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
John Stuart Mill