Bad Science and its Consequences

Many have heard the claim that vaccines cause autism. Some choose to believe this claim

without researching the origin of this sentiment. People may publish bad science for a number

of reasons; the financial gain from doing so may influence bad scientists’ decisions and cause

them to skip steps or ignore ethical boundaries. Dr. AJ Wakefield represents one of these bad

scientists and has defended his questionable work for decades.


A very obvious sign of Wakefield’s bad science sticks out immediately; he used a sample

size of merely twelve children. WIth such a small sample size, one should automatically tread

cautiously in claiming a causal relationship. Additionally, Wakefield displayed the time from

when each child received the vaccine to the time symptoms showed seemingly in an effort to

prove his point; this idea exemplifies a temporal fallacy. Vaccines are typically given in early

childhood yet autism also tends to develop at that time. Thus it would especially not make sense

to say that the times in relation to one another prove a causal relationship between vaccines

and autism. Furthermore, Wakefield never disclosed his financial bias. Wakefield received

money from lawyers that were working cases for parents suing vaccine providers for supposedly

causing autism in their children. Wakefield thus had a massive incentive to publish work against

vaccines. Later investigations proved Wakefield violated ethical boundaries when aggressively

testing the autistic children. They also found him guilty of cherry picking and falsifying

information. The Lancet ultimately retracted the publication in 2010.

When taking stances on controversial topics, one should always do research independently

rather than basing their claims off of rumors or biased media. Scientists and politicians alike

might practice corruption. Plenty of ways exist to twist words and misinterpret data to one’s

benefit.

Posted by Calvin Keating (5).

Dr AJ Wakefield FRCS, SH Murch MB, A Anthony MB, J Linnell PhD, DM Casson MRCP, M

Malik MRCP, M Berelowitz FRCPsych, AP Dhillon MRCPath, MA Thomson FRCP, P Harvey

FRCP, A Valentine FRCR, SE Davies MRCPath, JA Walker-Smith FRCP. February 28, 1998.

RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive

developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 351(9103): 6-12.

T. S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Chittaranjan Andrade. Apr-Jun 2011. The MMR vaccine and autism:

Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Indian Journal of Psychiatry. 53(2): 95-96.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 25, 2023 at 9:21 AM

    Hi Calvin. When I think of bad science, I definitely think of this example first. The damage done by that article is deep and there are still people who belief vaccines cause autism because of this study even though Wakefield has come out and said that he manipulated the data to fit his political beliefs.
    Alexis Carson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 27, 2023 at 11:35 AM

      Hi Alexis. Me too, I wish that people would do a little bit of research before forming opinions on such topics. Some people are so quick to believe something that is rooted in rumors and is only a distortion of the truth. This article has indirectly harmed many children with ignorant parents such as my own cousin.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousOctober 27, 2023 at 11:35 AM

      - Calvin

      Delete
  2. Adrian AlcantaraOctober 27, 2023 at 9:09 AM

    Hi Calvin! After reading about your topic, I do have to say that bad science can be very damaging if not looked into correctly. Often people rather than doing the research themselves will just believe the face value of what was said. As you said about the bad science having a small sample size, an individual can't justify the cause because of this size. However, many will not read the article and take note of that but rather read the title and believe the title. Thus, leaving many individuals skeptical off things, such as vaccines, when they shouldn't be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 27, 2023 at 11:39 AM

      Hi Adrian. It sure can. Not everyone understands that a small sample size is a "red flag" when it comes to bad science. Studies that have not been reproduced and are based off a small sample size should typically be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, some scientists like Wakefield have serious financial incentives to publish a certain claim and will do anything to make their claim seem valid. - Calvin

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Strain-Induced Jamming in a Spirostomum Ambiguum Cell

Spirostomum ambiguum are single-celled organisms that reside on sediment beds of brackish water habitats. These worm-like organisms range in size from 1 to 4 mm and feast on surrounding bacteria. However, there is more to meet the eye regarding this tiny aquatic organism. In a fraction of the time it takes to blink, Spirotomum ambiguum can shrink to more than half its original length. This contraction generates a gravitational force equivalent (g-force - a measure of acceleration) that is 10,000 times greater than that experienced by any other contracting cell. The energy produced is large enough to destroy the internal structures of a cell. However, this single-cell organism manages to dissipate this energy. Manu Prakash and Ray Chang of Stanford University noticed after imaging the insides of Spirostomum ambiguum cells before and after they had undergone a contraction event that their internal structures vacuoles (fluid-filled sacs) appear to entangle in the folds of a membrane-like ...
Read more

Did Corona Virus Feel Much Longer than it Actually Was? It May Have Also Changed Your Personality

 Everyone knows of those big historical events in which each person knows exactly where they were and what they were doing when they got the news. The release of the first iPhone, the announcement of the first African American president, and the national legalization of same-sex marriage are just to name a few. Endless monumental events help shape our society and give us a sense of community. Each is revolutionary in its own ways and vary per person, but some happen to make a more direct impact on all of us. Unfortunately, repeated time and time again these events are typically negative due to a trauma stress response. Coronavirus beginning 2020 is and will always be a unifying factor for every person who can recall the events. Its unique, sudden, and unpredictable nature makes it prominent in our government, healthcare, and local communities. What I’ve come to the realization of is that Coronavirus also had a drastic effect on our life order and even our personalities. In an artic...
Read more

Slimy Skincare: The Effects of Snail Mucin on Skin

If you’ve been on the right side of TikTok for a decent amount of time, you’ve definitely noticed an uptick in the popularity of snail mucin in skincare. The skincare industry never fails in shifting the goalposts for women all over the world. There is always some new fad or brand that is the “must-have” for the week and then vanishes into obscurity. Even worse, some of these fads can end up negatively impacting your skin. I definitely don’t need to remind anyone of the tragedy that was the St. Ives scrub (holy microtears). Usually, trends in beauty and skincare are driven by brands rather than particular ingredients or additives, which makes the popularity of snail mucin even more notable. Are the beauty influencers finally onto something, or is this yet another damaging trend that no one will remember in a month? A study done in May 2022 using hairless mice as a proxy for human skin showed that snail mucin does in fact lessen the effects of aging. In this study, exposure to UV rays w...
Read more