aads

The Republican Party is on the verge of nominating an antivaccine loon named Donald Trump [Respectful Insolence]

I haven’t written anything about Donald Trump and vaccines and a while. When last I did write about him, I enumerated his long, sordid history of making ridiculously pseudoscientific antivaccine statements linking vaccines to autism dating back at least to 2007. That was when I first discovered him and referred to him as the latest celebrity antivaccinationist drinking the Kool Aid of vaccine pseudoscience. A few years later, I noted his risibly nonsensical claim that a “monster shot” causes autism. Truly, Donald Trump’s history of making idiotic antivaccine statements is long and sordid. Of course, Donald Trump’s history of making idiotic statements about a great many subjects is long and sordid, but antivaccine pseudoscience is what I know better than domestic or foreign policy.

Of course, I don’t recall having heard anything from Trump in a while on the vaccine-autism front, at least not since September last year. But his antivaccine lunacy is definitely part of his persona, so much so that when I started to type “Donald Trump vaccines autism” the first entry on the search was a Natural News link from 2012. In any case, I get the feeling that Trump’s antivaccine views were too crazy even for most of Trump’s supporters, hence his relative silence these last eight months. Sure, he can spout off about how he wants to build a wall on the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it and numerous other proposals even more ludicrous than that, but he’s apparently toned down the antivaccine nonsense. Now, with the Indiana primary today, Trump is on the verge of all but wrapping up the Republican nomination if he wins there today. That’s why I decided to revisit the topic today, particularly given that the issue has reared its ugly head again.

Still, if Trump were actually to become President, he could do great damage to public health. Sure, school vaccine mandates are a state issue, but the guidelines upon which they are based are developed by the CDC. Over the last couple of decades, there have been various antivaccine legislators who have brought CDC officials before Congressional committees to demand “answers” about the link between vaccines and autism. Just imagine how much trouble a President Trump could cause, with his power to appoint a Secretary of HHS. I was reminded of this again by a video in a story that popped up in my feed yesterday featuring Elizabeth Emken.

The reason this is relevant is that Emken used to be the Executive Director of Autism Speaks, an “autism advocacy” group that used to be very much into antivaccine pseudoscience. Indeed, after much foot dragging, it wasn’t until 2015 that Autism Speaks finally grudgingly admitted that there is no good evidence linking vaccines to autism after a large study was published showing no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism and a meta-analysis involving over a million children similarly failed to find a link. It’s not for nothing that Autism Speaks has been quite appropriately accused of speaking up too late on vaccines.

That tension, and the weasel words that characterized it among many autism advocacy groups, fairly drips from Emken’s response to a question about Donald Trump’s beliefs about vaccines, complete with an example of a quote by Donald Trump about having heard of children getting sick and becoming autistic after vaccination. Here’s the video:

And here’s what Emken said:

Donald Trump spokeswoman Elizabeth Emken, a former executive with the leading advocacy group Autism Speaks, was put in a difficult position Monday when asked about the frontrunner’s earlier statements linking vaccines and autism.

Asked on CNN about Trump suggesting a scientific link exists between childhood vaccines and autism during a fall 2015 presidential debate, Emken sidestepped a direct rebuke of Trump’s claims.

“The position of Autism Speaks has been for quite awhile that we need to find out what’s happening,” she replied. “We know there’s a genetic component and there’s an environmental trigger and until we get to the bottom of what’s happening, no one knows what causes autism. Anyone that tells you what does or what doesn’t cause autism is simply not basing that on facts.”

I see now why Emkin was chosen to be Trump’s spokeswoman. The above is basically one massive appeal to ignorance, the implication that, because we don’t know what causes autism that some environmental factor—cough, cough, vaccines—must be causing autism. Don’t believe me? Check out what she says next:

“We don’t know, we need to keep looking,” Emken continued, saying she hadn’t discussed the issue with the GOP frontrunner. “But the bottom line is, look, vaccines are the most successful health program in the history of the world, so I don’t believe that’s at all what he was saying.”

This is, of course, a bald-faced lie; that is, unless Emken is not . Let’s take a look at the sort of things Donald Trump has said about vaccines over the years just on Twitter. Truly, the burning stupid flowing from that one Twitter account is not unlike a flow of lava from Mount Vesuvius engulfing Pompeii. Here is but a sampling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You get the idea. That’s some hard core antivaccine quackery. Trump’s meaning is very, very clear, Emken’s attempts to deny it notwithstanding. But, hey, if that’s not enough for you, let’s review a bit more of what Trump has said on the topic over the years. I apologize to long time readers, who have probably seen many of these quotes before in various posts I’ve written over the years, but, now, with Trump on the verge of becoming the Republican nominee and Ted Cruz’s chances to stop him are fading, I feel the need to revisit these. Not that Cruz is any less scary than Trump, but he isn’t, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, antivaccine.

The first time I learned of Donald Trump’s antivaccine proclivities was way back in 2007. What was he saying back then? This:

“When I was growing up, autism wasn’t really a factor,” Trump said. “And now all of a sudden, it’s an epidemic. Everybody has their theory. My theory, and I study it because I have young children, my theory is the shots. We’ve giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children.”

He made the comments following a press conference at his Mar-A-Lago estate announcing a fundraising and lobbying push by Autism Speaks to get the brain disorder covered under private insurance policies.

And:

“When a little baby that weighs 20 pounds and 30 pounds gets pumped with 10 and 20 shots at one time, with one injection that’s a giant injection, I personally think that has something to do with it. Now there’s a group that agrees with that and there’s a group that doesn’t agree with that.”

Referring to his and his wife Melania’s 22-month-old son Baron, Trump continued: “What we’ve done with Baron, we’ve taken him on a very slow process. He gets one shot at a time then we wait a few months and give him another shot, the old-fashioned way. But today they pump the children with so much at a very young age. We do it on a very, very conservative level.”

So, yes, back in 2007, Trump was already parroting the antivaccine pseudoscience that at that time I had been deconstructing for seven years and blogging about for nearly three. It was a performance—and, let’s face it, everything Trump does in public is performance art, if you can call it that—that was brilliantly parodied at Autism News Beat as The art of the schlemiel. In any case, I’m hard pressed to come up with any time when a baby gets 10 or 20 shots at a time, and that’s even assuming that Trump was ignorantly conflating the number of diseases vaccinated against in combination vaccines with “shots.”

Four years later, Trump was still at it. On Fox and Friends, he repeated once again that he had a “theory” about vaccines, and that was:

Business mogul Donald Trump chose the fifth annual World Autism Awareness Day to reveal that he “strongly” believes that autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are linked to exposure to vaccines.

In a Monday interview on Fox News, the reality star explained that a series of casual observations had led him to the conclusion that “monster” vaccinations cause autism.

“I’ve gotten to be pretty familiar with the subject,” Trump said. “You know, I have a theory — and it’s a theory that some people believe in — and that’s the vaccinations. We never had anything like this. This is now an epidemic. It’s way, way up over the past 10 years. It’s way up over the past two years. And, you know, when you take a little baby that weighs like 12 pounds into a doctor’s office and they pump them with many, many simultaneous vaccinations — I’m all for vaccinations, but I think when you add all of these vaccinations together and then two months later the baby is so different then lots of different things have happened. I really — I’ve known cases.”

The video can still be viewed here. Tellingly, when he was challenged on this by Gretchen Carlson, who noted that “the studies have said that there is no link” and that there hadn’t been any mercury in vaccines for years, Trump would have none of it:

“It’s also very controversial to even say,” Trump acknowledged. “But I couldn’t care less. I’ve seen people where they have a perfectly healthy child, and they go for the vaccinations and a month later the child is no longer healthy.”

Don’t trust those pointy-headed expert scientists. They’ve only been spending their entire lives studying the issue! Trump knows better then they do! Why? He’s got anecdotes, man:

“It happened to somebody that worked for me recently,” he added. “I mean, they had this beautiful child, not a problem in the world, and all of the sudden they go in and they get this monster shot. You ever see the size of it? It’s like they’re pumping in — you know, it’s terrible, the amount. And they pump this in to this little body and then all of the sudden the child is different a month later. I strongly believe that’s it.”

All because of what Donald Trump calls a “monster shot.” I note that this appears to be the example that was presented to Emken. It couldn’t be more clear what Trump meant, either: He attributed his employee’s son’s autism to vaccines, which he called a “monster shot.” As I pointed out at the time, even if the child were truly “different” after vaccination a month later, that would not be “all of a sudden.” In any case, this is what those of us who pay attention to these things the “too many too soon” gambit. All spreading out vaccines accomplishes is to increase the period of time that a child is vulnerable to infectious diseases for no real benefit of reducing the chance of autism because there is no link between vaccines and autism.

If that’s not enough for you, in 2015, when interviewed by conservative talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt, the question of vaccines and autism came up. Here’s how the conversation went down:

HH: So you believe there’s a causal connection between vaccines and autism?

DT: Well, a lot of people do. I mean, there are many people that do. And I know at least two people, one of them who works in the building that I’m in right now, a beautiful woman, has a child. The child is 100% healthy, takes the child, who was I think around a year and a half or two years old to get the shot, gets this massive shot of fluid pumped into the baby’s body, and a few days later, catches a fever, and all of a sudden, is severely autistic. And many people, many people have had that experience, Hugh. And I will tell you, on Twitter and on Facebook, where you know, so many people, I feel, it’s sort of interesting, because I get so much response, people are praying for me that I at least say that. So I totally believe in the shot. I totally believe that you should be vaccinated. But let them spread it out over a little period of time. You can’t pump that, because have you ever seen the size of these inoculations? You can’t pump that much fluid into a little baby’s body. And I think it’s having an effect. And I know of at least two cases in my, but many people say the same thing happened to me where their child is totally healthy. They get pumped up with this huge pile of liquid, with many, many different vaccines, and their child turns out to be autistic after it. And all I’m saying is spread it out in smaller doses over a longer period of time.

HH: If a group of scientists came to you and said look, The Donald, that’s just, that’s not right, you’re giving out misinformation, would you change your mind if presented with facts on that?

DT: Well, I’ve seen babies that were totally healthy that weren’t healthy, and I’m not asking for anything. All I’m doing is saying spread it out over a period of time. I’m not saying don’t get inoculated, don’t get the shots, don’t get the vaccines. I’m saying spread it out over a period of time. It doesn’t hurt anybody other than probably the pharmaceutical companies, because they probably make more money putting it into one shot. Maybe it hurts the doctors. I don’t know. But I can say this. Everybody would get the vaccines. They just, they wouldn’t be pumping these massive amounts of liquid into a child.

Again, contrary to Emken’s twisting around the issue, Trump’s meaning couldn’t have been more plain. He believes vaccines cause autism. He doesn’t believe any of those elitist pointy-headed scientists who say otherwise, and nothing will make him change his mind. Nor does Trump sound as though he believes that vaccines are the “most successful health program in the history of the world,” as Emken put it.

I referred to the tension at the heart of Autism Speaks regarding vaccine-autism pseudoscience. The organization was founded by Bob and Suzanne Wright, who were always fence sitters on the question of whether he believed vaccines cause autism. His daughter Katie, however, was a true believer that vaccines cause autism, a belief that caused a great deal of friction with her parents and the organization. For years, the organization was riven with strife, as the Wrights tried to appease the vaccine/autism pseudoscience contingent, which provided much of the money and ultimately led to a schism in the group. As recently as last September, Bob Wright was using the same sort of weasel words that Emken used. It’s useful to note that the scientific advisor’s statement was:

Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism. We urge that all children be fully vaccinated.

To which Bob Wright added:

Over the last two decades extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccines and autism. Scientific research has not directly connected autism to vaccines. Vaccines are very important. Parents must make the decision whether to vaccinate their children. Efforts must be continually made to educate parents about vaccine safety. If parents decide not to vaccinate they must be aware of the consequences in their community and their local schools.

Note the weasel words: Scientific research has not “directly connected autism to vaccines” and “efforts must be continually made to educate parents about vaccine safety.” Not only that, but the science officer’s statement was expunged from the website. If you go to the Autism Speaks website, all you will find is Bob Wright’s statement.

As the primary season winds down, the Republican Party is on the verge of nominating an antiscience, antivaccine loon named Donald Trump. It looks as though he will have a spokeswoman who, through the use of weasel words like those of the co-founder of the organization she used to work for, will try use her skills to make Trump’s antivaccine nonsense sound more palatable. She will fail.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1TsNsJW

I haven’t written anything about Donald Trump and vaccines and a while. When last I did write about him, I enumerated his long, sordid history of making ridiculously pseudoscientific antivaccine statements linking vaccines to autism dating back at least to 2007. That was when I first discovered him and referred to him as the latest celebrity antivaccinationist drinking the Kool Aid of vaccine pseudoscience. A few years later, I noted his risibly nonsensical claim that a “monster shot” causes autism. Truly, Donald Trump’s history of making idiotic antivaccine statements is long and sordid. Of course, Donald Trump’s history of making idiotic statements about a great many subjects is long and sordid, but antivaccine pseudoscience is what I know better than domestic or foreign policy.

Of course, I don’t recall having heard anything from Trump in a while on the vaccine-autism front, at least not since September last year. But his antivaccine lunacy is definitely part of his persona, so much so that when I started to type “Donald Trump vaccines autism” the first entry on the search was a Natural News link from 2012. In any case, I get the feeling that Trump’s antivaccine views were too crazy even for most of Trump’s supporters, hence his relative silence these last eight months. Sure, he can spout off about how he wants to build a wall on the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it and numerous other proposals even more ludicrous than that, but he’s apparently toned down the antivaccine nonsense. Now, with the Indiana primary today, Trump is on the verge of all but wrapping up the Republican nomination if he wins there today. That’s why I decided to revisit the topic today, particularly given that the issue has reared its ugly head again.

Still, if Trump were actually to become President, he could do great damage to public health. Sure, school vaccine mandates are a state issue, but the guidelines upon which they are based are developed by the CDC. Over the last couple of decades, there have been various antivaccine legislators who have brought CDC officials before Congressional committees to demand “answers” about the link between vaccines and autism. Just imagine how much trouble a President Trump could cause, with his power to appoint a Secretary of HHS. I was reminded of this again by a video in a story that popped up in my feed yesterday featuring Elizabeth Emken.

The reason this is relevant is that Emken used to be the Executive Director of Autism Speaks, an “autism advocacy” group that used to be very much into antivaccine pseudoscience. Indeed, after much foot dragging, it wasn’t until 2015 that Autism Speaks finally grudgingly admitted that there is no good evidence linking vaccines to autism after a large study was published showing no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism and a meta-analysis involving over a million children similarly failed to find a link. It’s not for nothing that Autism Speaks has been quite appropriately accused of speaking up too late on vaccines.

That tension, and the weasel words that characterized it among many autism advocacy groups, fairly drips from Emken’s response to a question about Donald Trump’s beliefs about vaccines, complete with an example of a quote by Donald Trump about having heard of children getting sick and becoming autistic after vaccination. Here’s the video:

And here’s what Emken said:

Donald Trump spokeswoman Elizabeth Emken, a former executive with the leading advocacy group Autism Speaks, was put in a difficult position Monday when asked about the frontrunner’s earlier statements linking vaccines and autism.

Asked on CNN about Trump suggesting a scientific link exists between childhood vaccines and autism during a fall 2015 presidential debate, Emken sidestepped a direct rebuke of Trump’s claims.

“The position of Autism Speaks has been for quite awhile that we need to find out what’s happening,” she replied. “We know there’s a genetic component and there’s an environmental trigger and until we get to the bottom of what’s happening, no one knows what causes autism. Anyone that tells you what does or what doesn’t cause autism is simply not basing that on facts.”

I see now why Emkin was chosen to be Trump’s spokeswoman. The above is basically one massive appeal to ignorance, the implication that, because we don’t know what causes autism that some environmental factor—cough, cough, vaccines—must be causing autism. Don’t believe me? Check out what she says next:

“We don’t know, we need to keep looking,” Emken continued, saying she hadn’t discussed the issue with the GOP frontrunner. “But the bottom line is, look, vaccines are the most successful health program in the history of the world, so I don’t believe that’s at all what he was saying.”

This is, of course, a bald-faced lie; that is, unless Emken is not . Let’s take a look at the sort of things Donald Trump has said about vaccines over the years just on Twitter. Truly, the burning stupid flowing from that one Twitter account is not unlike a flow of lava from Mount Vesuvius engulfing Pompeii. Here is but a sampling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You get the idea. That’s some hard core antivaccine quackery. Trump’s meaning is very, very clear, Emken’s attempts to deny it notwithstanding. But, hey, if that’s not enough for you, let’s review a bit more of what Trump has said on the topic over the years. I apologize to long time readers, who have probably seen many of these quotes before in various posts I’ve written over the years, but, now, with Trump on the verge of becoming the Republican nominee and Ted Cruz’s chances to stop him are fading, I feel the need to revisit these. Not that Cruz is any less scary than Trump, but he isn’t, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, antivaccine.

The first time I learned of Donald Trump’s antivaccine proclivities was way back in 2007. What was he saying back then? This:

“When I was growing up, autism wasn’t really a factor,” Trump said. “And now all of a sudden, it’s an epidemic. Everybody has their theory. My theory, and I study it because I have young children, my theory is the shots. We’ve giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children.”

He made the comments following a press conference at his Mar-A-Lago estate announcing a fundraising and lobbying push by Autism Speaks to get the brain disorder covered under private insurance policies.

And:

“When a little baby that weighs 20 pounds and 30 pounds gets pumped with 10 and 20 shots at one time, with one injection that’s a giant injection, I personally think that has something to do with it. Now there’s a group that agrees with that and there’s a group that doesn’t agree with that.”

Referring to his and his wife Melania’s 22-month-old son Baron, Trump continued: “What we’ve done with Baron, we’ve taken him on a very slow process. He gets one shot at a time then we wait a few months and give him another shot, the old-fashioned way. But today they pump the children with so much at a very young age. We do it on a very, very conservative level.”

So, yes, back in 2007, Trump was already parroting the antivaccine pseudoscience that at that time I had been deconstructing for seven years and blogging about for nearly three. It was a performance—and, let’s face it, everything Trump does in public is performance art, if you can call it that—that was brilliantly parodied at Autism News Beat as The art of the schlemiel. In any case, I’m hard pressed to come up with any time when a baby gets 10 or 20 shots at a time, and that’s even assuming that Trump was ignorantly conflating the number of diseases vaccinated against in combination vaccines with “shots.”

Four years later, Trump was still at it. On Fox and Friends, he repeated once again that he had a “theory” about vaccines, and that was:

Business mogul Donald Trump chose the fifth annual World Autism Awareness Day to reveal that he “strongly” believes that autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are linked to exposure to vaccines.

In a Monday interview on Fox News, the reality star explained that a series of casual observations had led him to the conclusion that “monster” vaccinations cause autism.

“I’ve gotten to be pretty familiar with the subject,” Trump said. “You know, I have a theory — and it’s a theory that some people believe in — and that’s the vaccinations. We never had anything like this. This is now an epidemic. It’s way, way up over the past 10 years. It’s way up over the past two years. And, you know, when you take a little baby that weighs like 12 pounds into a doctor’s office and they pump them with many, many simultaneous vaccinations — I’m all for vaccinations, but I think when you add all of these vaccinations together and then two months later the baby is so different then lots of different things have happened. I really — I’ve known cases.”

The video can still be viewed here. Tellingly, when he was challenged on this by Gretchen Carlson, who noted that “the studies have said that there is no link” and that there hadn’t been any mercury in vaccines for years, Trump would have none of it:

“It’s also very controversial to even say,” Trump acknowledged. “But I couldn’t care less. I’ve seen people where they have a perfectly healthy child, and they go for the vaccinations and a month later the child is no longer healthy.”

Don’t trust those pointy-headed expert scientists. They’ve only been spending their entire lives studying the issue! Trump knows better then they do! Why? He’s got anecdotes, man:

“It happened to somebody that worked for me recently,” he added. “I mean, they had this beautiful child, not a problem in the world, and all of the sudden they go in and they get this monster shot. You ever see the size of it? It’s like they’re pumping in — you know, it’s terrible, the amount. And they pump this in to this little body and then all of the sudden the child is different a month later. I strongly believe that’s it.”

All because of what Donald Trump calls a “monster shot.” I note that this appears to be the example that was presented to Emken. It couldn’t be more clear what Trump meant, either: He attributed his employee’s son’s autism to vaccines, which he called a “monster shot.” As I pointed out at the time, even if the child were truly “different” after vaccination a month later, that would not be “all of a sudden.” In any case, this is what those of us who pay attention to these things the “too many too soon” gambit. All spreading out vaccines accomplishes is to increase the period of time that a child is vulnerable to infectious diseases for no real benefit of reducing the chance of autism because there is no link between vaccines and autism.

If that’s not enough for you, in 2015, when interviewed by conservative talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt, the question of vaccines and autism came up. Here’s how the conversation went down:

HH: So you believe there’s a causal connection between vaccines and autism?

DT: Well, a lot of people do. I mean, there are many people that do. And I know at least two people, one of them who works in the building that I’m in right now, a beautiful woman, has a child. The child is 100% healthy, takes the child, who was I think around a year and a half or two years old to get the shot, gets this massive shot of fluid pumped into the baby’s body, and a few days later, catches a fever, and all of a sudden, is severely autistic. And many people, many people have had that experience, Hugh. And I will tell you, on Twitter and on Facebook, where you know, so many people, I feel, it’s sort of interesting, because I get so much response, people are praying for me that I at least say that. So I totally believe in the shot. I totally believe that you should be vaccinated. But let them spread it out over a little period of time. You can’t pump that, because have you ever seen the size of these inoculations? You can’t pump that much fluid into a little baby’s body. And I think it’s having an effect. And I know of at least two cases in my, but many people say the same thing happened to me where their child is totally healthy. They get pumped up with this huge pile of liquid, with many, many different vaccines, and their child turns out to be autistic after it. And all I’m saying is spread it out in smaller doses over a longer period of time.

HH: If a group of scientists came to you and said look, The Donald, that’s just, that’s not right, you’re giving out misinformation, would you change your mind if presented with facts on that?

DT: Well, I’ve seen babies that were totally healthy that weren’t healthy, and I’m not asking for anything. All I’m doing is saying spread it out over a period of time. I’m not saying don’t get inoculated, don’t get the shots, don’t get the vaccines. I’m saying spread it out over a period of time. It doesn’t hurt anybody other than probably the pharmaceutical companies, because they probably make more money putting it into one shot. Maybe it hurts the doctors. I don’t know. But I can say this. Everybody would get the vaccines. They just, they wouldn’t be pumping these massive amounts of liquid into a child.

Again, contrary to Emken’s twisting around the issue, Trump’s meaning couldn’t have been more plain. He believes vaccines cause autism. He doesn’t believe any of those elitist pointy-headed scientists who say otherwise, and nothing will make him change his mind. Nor does Trump sound as though he believes that vaccines are the “most successful health program in the history of the world,” as Emken put it.

I referred to the tension at the heart of Autism Speaks regarding vaccine-autism pseudoscience. The organization was founded by Bob and Suzanne Wright, who were always fence sitters on the question of whether he believed vaccines cause autism. His daughter Katie, however, was a true believer that vaccines cause autism, a belief that caused a great deal of friction with her parents and the organization. For years, the organization was riven with strife, as the Wrights tried to appease the vaccine/autism pseudoscience contingent, which provided much of the money and ultimately led to a schism in the group. As recently as last September, Bob Wright was using the same sort of weasel words that Emken used. It’s useful to note that the scientific advisor’s statement was:

Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism. We urge that all children be fully vaccinated.

To which Bob Wright added:

Over the last two decades extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccines and autism. Scientific research has not directly connected autism to vaccines. Vaccines are very important. Parents must make the decision whether to vaccinate their children. Efforts must be continually made to educate parents about vaccine safety. If parents decide not to vaccinate they must be aware of the consequences in their community and their local schools.

Note the weasel words: Scientific research has not “directly connected autism to vaccines” and “efforts must be continually made to educate parents about vaccine safety.” Not only that, but the science officer’s statement was expunged from the website. If you go to the Autism Speaks website, all you will find is Bob Wright’s statement.

As the primary season winds down, the Republican Party is on the verge of nominating an antiscience, antivaccine loon named Donald Trump. It looks as though he will have a spokeswoman who, through the use of weasel words like those of the co-founder of the organization she used to work for, will try use her skills to make Trump’s antivaccine nonsense sound more palatable. She will fail.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1TsNsJW
Aucun commentaire:
Libellés :

Crackpots [EvolutionBlog]

Did you hear the one about how Charles Darwin wasn’t the creator of natural selection? Did you know that other people had had the idea before him?

Oh, you did know that? Because anyone who has ever spent five minutes learning about the history of evolutionary thought knows that? Well, tell that to Daniel Engber over at five thirty-eight. Apparently a big-time crackpot named Mike Sutton has made the astonishing discovery that Patrick Matthew, a Scottish farmer, anticipated Darwin in an appendix to an obscure book called Naval Timber and Arboriculture, published in 1831. Of course, the ever useful Wikipedia is on it here and here. As it happens, they also point out that the basic idea for natural selection goes back to the ancients.

So why is Engber presenting this as news?

In the last few years, Sutton has himself embarked on another journey to the depths, this one far more treacherous than the ones he’s made before. The stakes were low when he was hunting something trivial, the supermyth of Popeye’s spinach; now Sutton has been digging in more sacred ground: the legacy of the great scientific hero and champion of the skeptics, Charles Darwin. In 2014, after spending a year working 18-hour days, seven days a week, Sutton published his most extensive work to date, a 600-page broadside on a cherished story of discovery. He called it “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret.”

It takes a mighty credulous reporter to accept at face value the claim of 18-hour days, seven days a week. All the more so considering that Sutton has produced little that wasn’t already in Wikipedia.

But Engber is just getting warmed up:

Sutton’s allegations are explosive. He claims to have found irrefutable proof that neither Darwin nor Alfred Russell Wallace deserves the credit for the theory of natural selection, but rather that they stole the idea — consciously or not — from a wealthy Scotsman and forest-management expert named Patrick Matthew. “I think both Darwin and Wallace were at the very least sloppy,” he told me. Elsewhere he’s been somewhat less diplomatic: “In my opinion Charles Darwin committed the greatest known science fraud in history by plagiarizing Matthew’s” hypothesis, he told the Telegraph. “Let’s face the painful facts,” Sutton also wrote. “Darwin was a liar. Plain and simple.”

Plain and simple indeed. When Wallace sent Darwin his short outline for a theory of evolution by natural selection, the barest sketch of the opus that everyone knew Darwin had been working on for twenty years, did Darwin try to bury it? He easily could have, but he didn’t. Instead the basic ideas of the theory were presented at a prominent scientific society, in a paper jointly authored by Darwin and Wallace. Throughout the Origin, Darwin was scrupulous about giving credit to other scientists, at a time, recall, when you couldn’t just use Google to look for anticipations. But now we are to believe that Darwin drew the line at giving Matthew any credit. You know, so he could perpetrate the greatest known science fraud in history. Totally plausible.

And he was so keen to cover this up that when he was later shown Matthew’s work, he included an acknowledgment of it in all of the later editions of the Origin. Worst. Cover-Up. Ever. He also published this letter:

I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew’s views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is called for, I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect. Charles Darwin, Down, Bromley, Kent

Truly the words of a liar perpetrating a fraud.

Of course, outside of Sutton’s bloviating and Engber’s embarrassing credulity, no serious historian has ever given Darwin credit for the idea of natural selection, or for realizing that it could lead to changes in populations of organisms. Nor did Darwin invent the idea that modern organisms evolved gradually from ancient forebears. His contribution was to show, in a way that was vastly more cogent and comprehensive than any previous effort, how these ideas could account for an impressive array of biological facts. That is why Darwin is remembered so favorably today.

Again, everyone knows this.

So what, exactly, does Sutton think he has discovered? It apparently has to do with Darwin’s claim about what “any other naturalist” was aware of:

That statement, suggesting that Matthew’s theory was ignored–and hinting that its importance may not even have been quite understood by Matthew himself–has gone unchallenged, Sutton says. It has, in fact, become a supermyth, cited to explain that even big ideas amount to nothing when they aren’t framed by proper genius.

Sutton thinks that story has it wrong, that natural selection wasn’t an idea in need of a “great man” to propagate it. After all his months of research, Sutton says he found clear evidence that Matthew’s work did not go unread. No fewer than seven naturalists cited the book, including three in what Sutton calls Darwin’s “inner circle.” He also claims to have discovered particular turns of phrase — “Matthewisms” — that recur suspiciously in Darwin’s writing.

Strong evidence. Seven mentions in the twenty-eight years between Matthew’s work and the Origin. How could Darwin have missed it? They were practically posting billboards about natural selection.

If you’re still not certain, though, whether Sutton is a crackpot or just overenthusiastic, consider this:

When Sutton is faced with the implication that he’s taken his debunking too far — that he’s tipped from skepticism to crankery — he lashes out. “The findings are so enormous that people refuse to take them in,” he told me via email. “The enormity of what has, in actual fact, been newly discovered is too great for people to comprehend. Too big to face. Too great to care to come to terms with — so surely it can’t be true. Only, it’s not a dream. It is true.”

Okay, we’re done here. Nobel prize winners don’t describe their discoveries so melodramatically. This sort of talk is the exclusive domain of crackpots.

Engber has embarrassed himself and the five thirty-eight website by giving credence to this idiocy. No doubt he will follow-up with articles about cancer cures and JFK conspiracies.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1SYsjNu

Did you hear the one about how Charles Darwin wasn’t the creator of natural selection? Did you know that other people had had the idea before him?

Oh, you did know that? Because anyone who has ever spent five minutes learning about the history of evolutionary thought knows that? Well, tell that to Daniel Engber over at five thirty-eight. Apparently a big-time crackpot named Mike Sutton has made the astonishing discovery that Patrick Matthew, a Scottish farmer, anticipated Darwin in an appendix to an obscure book called Naval Timber and Arboriculture, published in 1831. Of course, the ever useful Wikipedia is on it here and here. As it happens, they also point out that the basic idea for natural selection goes back to the ancients.

So why is Engber presenting this as news?

In the last few years, Sutton has himself embarked on another journey to the depths, this one far more treacherous than the ones he’s made before. The stakes were low when he was hunting something trivial, the supermyth of Popeye’s spinach; now Sutton has been digging in more sacred ground: the legacy of the great scientific hero and champion of the skeptics, Charles Darwin. In 2014, after spending a year working 18-hour days, seven days a week, Sutton published his most extensive work to date, a 600-page broadside on a cherished story of discovery. He called it “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret.”

It takes a mighty credulous reporter to accept at face value the claim of 18-hour days, seven days a week. All the more so considering that Sutton has produced little that wasn’t already in Wikipedia.

But Engber is just getting warmed up:

Sutton’s allegations are explosive. He claims to have found irrefutable proof that neither Darwin nor Alfred Russell Wallace deserves the credit for the theory of natural selection, but rather that they stole the idea — consciously or not — from a wealthy Scotsman and forest-management expert named Patrick Matthew. “I think both Darwin and Wallace were at the very least sloppy,” he told me. Elsewhere he’s been somewhat less diplomatic: “In my opinion Charles Darwin committed the greatest known science fraud in history by plagiarizing Matthew’s” hypothesis, he told the Telegraph. “Let’s face the painful facts,” Sutton also wrote. “Darwin was a liar. Plain and simple.”

Plain and simple indeed. When Wallace sent Darwin his short outline for a theory of evolution by natural selection, the barest sketch of the opus that everyone knew Darwin had been working on for twenty years, did Darwin try to bury it? He easily could have, but he didn’t. Instead the basic ideas of the theory were presented at a prominent scientific society, in a paper jointly authored by Darwin and Wallace. Throughout the Origin, Darwin was scrupulous about giving credit to other scientists, at a time, recall, when you couldn’t just use Google to look for anticipations. But now we are to believe that Darwin drew the line at giving Matthew any credit. You know, so he could perpetrate the greatest known science fraud in history. Totally plausible.

And he was so keen to cover this up that when he was later shown Matthew’s work, he included an acknowledgment of it in all of the later editions of the Origin. Worst. Cover-Up. Ever. He also published this letter:

I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew’s views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is called for, I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect. Charles Darwin, Down, Bromley, Kent

Truly the words of a liar perpetrating a fraud.

Of course, outside of Sutton’s bloviating and Engber’s embarrassing credulity, no serious historian has ever given Darwin credit for the idea of natural selection, or for realizing that it could lead to changes in populations of organisms. Nor did Darwin invent the idea that modern organisms evolved gradually from ancient forebears. His contribution was to show, in a way that was vastly more cogent and comprehensive than any previous effort, how these ideas could account for an impressive array of biological facts. That is why Darwin is remembered so favorably today.

Again, everyone knows this.

So what, exactly, does Sutton think he has discovered? It apparently has to do with Darwin’s claim about what “any other naturalist” was aware of:

That statement, suggesting that Matthew’s theory was ignored–and hinting that its importance may not even have been quite understood by Matthew himself–has gone unchallenged, Sutton says. It has, in fact, become a supermyth, cited to explain that even big ideas amount to nothing when they aren’t framed by proper genius.

Sutton thinks that story has it wrong, that natural selection wasn’t an idea in need of a “great man” to propagate it. After all his months of research, Sutton says he found clear evidence that Matthew’s work did not go unread. No fewer than seven naturalists cited the book, including three in what Sutton calls Darwin’s “inner circle.” He also claims to have discovered particular turns of phrase — “Matthewisms” — that recur suspiciously in Darwin’s writing.

Strong evidence. Seven mentions in the twenty-eight years between Matthew’s work and the Origin. How could Darwin have missed it? They were practically posting billboards about natural selection.

If you’re still not certain, though, whether Sutton is a crackpot or just overenthusiastic, consider this:

When Sutton is faced with the implication that he’s taken his debunking too far — that he’s tipped from skepticism to crankery — he lashes out. “The findings are so enormous that people refuse to take them in,” he told me via email. “The enormity of what has, in actual fact, been newly discovered is too great for people to comprehend. Too big to face. Too great to care to come to terms with — so surely it can’t be true. Only, it’s not a dream. It is true.”

Okay, we’re done here. Nobel prize winners don’t describe their discoveries so melodramatically. This sort of talk is the exclusive domain of crackpots.

Engber has embarrassed himself and the five thirty-eight website by giving credence to this idiocy. No doubt he will follow-up with articles about cancer cures and JFK conspiracies.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1SYsjNu
Aucun commentaire:
Libellés :

Mary’s Monday Metazoan: Aliens among us [Pharyngula]

That is one photogenic jellyfish.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1WE79DT

That is one photogenic jellyfish.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1WE79DT
Aucun commentaire:
Libellés :

Peabody coal’s contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case [Stoat]

It’s in the graun, so it must be true. However, just for once I’m going to agree with them. So, quick summary: Minnesota has a social cost of carbon, ish, and a Commission to quantify and establish a range of environmental costs associated with each method of electricity generation; and requires utilities to use the costs when evaluating and selecting resource options” in some sense or another. They were sued to update the value they used, from a rather low one set in 1997, to the current federal government’s Social Cost of Carbon. That was always going to be pretty hard to defend against; they weren’t asking for some huge value plucked out of thin air by some wild-eyed eco-freak, but just to use the value set by the feds (there was other stuff too but I’ll ignore that). The full report is here.

Naturally, various companies objected, including down-on-its-luck Peabody. And so, a court case, and voluminous court papers.

Peabody argued that only half of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuel emissions. The remainder comes from natural processes.41 According to Peabody, the claim that all increases in atmospheric CO2 are from human causes is simply unfounded.42

41 and 42 are “Ex. 207 at 6 (Lindzen Direct)” and “Ex. 207 at 6 (Lindzen Direct); Ex. 213 at 29 (Lindzen Surrebuttal)”. That’s simply astonishing. You have to be really dumb – or really clever-clever and think you’re talking to dumb people – to say that. Barry Bickmore has a post about Dick Lindzen, Prager U., and the Art of Lying Well but this isn’t lying well, it is lying badly. All – indeed, more than all – of the recent increase in CO2 is human caused. Why start off with a statement that clearly establishes that you’re lying?

Peabody argued that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)49 simply assumed global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions is greater than warming caused by natural variability, and therefore attributes the warming observed since the 1970s to anthropogenic causes.50

50 is, yes you guessed, Lindzen again. And this claim is, again, easily refutable drivel. I think old L has spent too long in the denialist echo chamber being lauded for everything he says. He has lost touch with reality, and hasn’t had his arguments sharpened by contact with genuine opponents. There are shades of “Dr” Roy Spencer is sad and lonely and wrong.

According to Peabody, global atmospheric temperatures are measured by surface thermometers, weather balloons (radiosondes), and satellites.54 Peabody claimed all three methods of measuring atmospheric temperatures show no warming since 1998.55

55 is, ha ha got you, its Spencer. But again, while it plays well in the denialosphere, its not going to survive real examination. This gem is also Spencer:

Peabody placed significant weight on the failure of the IPCC’s climate models to explain the hiatus in warming after 1998 except by the introduction of ad hoc mechanisms, such as aerosols.60 Peabody contended the IPCC’s climate models have no utility if they cannot reliably predict temperature change from CO2 emissions.

I’ve seen denialists say that: you’re obliged to explain all temperature change on CO2, you’re not allowed to use aerosols. Their fan base laps it up but can they possibly expect anyone else to believe it?

Interestingly, By driving current global GDP with carbon emissions, Peabody calculated that “at present, each ton of carbon used produces about $6,700 of global GDP”. I don’t have a strong feeling for whether that is true or not. But suppose it is; then a carbon tax of 1% of the benefits to account for the costs seems entirely reasonable, on their numbers, so what are they complaining about?

There’s a note – para 49 – “The Commission and the Minnesota Court of Appeals recognize the IPCC as a source of expertise on climate change” which is an additional problem for the denialists. Courts and governments and so on are inevitably going to recognise the IPCC as such, and aren’t going to fall for the black-helicopters nonsense. There’s also – para 51 – “In 2007, the United States Supreme Court observed that “[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens <whatevs>… In making its observations regarding climate change, the United States Supreme Court favorably cited the IPCC”. Peabody are arguing directly counter to that. They can do so, of course, but in doing so credibly they would need to address the stuff they disagree with. Again, this is so redolent of the “there is no prior art (that I can be bothered to look up)” that renders so many denialist sites worthless.

And so we end up, inevitably, with

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody Energy has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, the warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial.

Then we move onto the IAMs, which I mostly skipped (limitations: para 143); fans of the long discussion on discount rates we had in the comments a post or so back will be delighted to know they used 2.5, 3 and 5%; with 3% as the central estimate; see para 120. The table in para 137 shows that this matters, a lot. Both sides argued discount rates back and forth – because they do matter – but in the end, meh, you’ve got to use something. There’s also some rather half-hearted arguing about ECS but again; a few comments from a few blokes aren’t going to dent IPCC.

Oh, joy, I nearly missed:

Peabody disagreed with the CEO’s claim that 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists concur that humans are causing climate change.681 Peabody contended that science is based on evidence, not agreement, and that consensus should not be given any weight. Peabody provided examples of scientists, including Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and several contemporary scientists, who made significant breakthroughs in science despite being at odds with a majority consensus.

Conclusions

Para 13: IAMs are appropriate in this case and

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that, based on unreported and underreported health and environmental impacts, along with the IWG’s acknowledgement that the FSCC is not based on the most current research, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the FSCC understates the full environmental cost of CO2.

On ECS, Peabody gets comprehensively stuffed:

…Peabody failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ECS value of 1 or 1.5 degrees centigrade is correct and that an ECS of more than 2 degrees centigrade is “extremely unlikely.”… the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the ECS doubling ranges as reported by the IPCC in the IPCC AR4 (2.0-4.5 °C) and the IPCC AR5 (1.5-4.5 °C) are more accurate ECS ranges than the range advanced by Peabody because the IPCC ranges are representative of a comprehensive, peer-reviewed body of scientific study based on multiple lines of evidence.

and in the end the judge

recommends that the Commission adopt the Federal Social Cost of Carbon as reasonable and the best available measure to determine the environmental cost of CO2, establishing a range of values including the 2.5 percent, 3.0 percent, and 5 percent discount rates…



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1TgNa8B

It’s in the graun, so it must be true. However, just for once I’m going to agree with them. So, quick summary: Minnesota has a social cost of carbon, ish, and a Commission to quantify and establish a range of environmental costs associated with each method of electricity generation; and requires utilities to use the costs when evaluating and selecting resource options” in some sense or another. They were sued to update the value they used, from a rather low one set in 1997, to the current federal government’s Social Cost of Carbon. That was always going to be pretty hard to defend against; they weren’t asking for some huge value plucked out of thin air by some wild-eyed eco-freak, but just to use the value set by the feds (there was other stuff too but I’ll ignore that). The full report is here.

Naturally, various companies objected, including down-on-its-luck Peabody. And so, a court case, and voluminous court papers.

Peabody argued that only half of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuel emissions. The remainder comes from natural processes.41 According to Peabody, the claim that all increases in atmospheric CO2 are from human causes is simply unfounded.42

41 and 42 are “Ex. 207 at 6 (Lindzen Direct)” and “Ex. 207 at 6 (Lindzen Direct); Ex. 213 at 29 (Lindzen Surrebuttal)”. That’s simply astonishing. You have to be really dumb – or really clever-clever and think you’re talking to dumb people – to say that. Barry Bickmore has a post about Dick Lindzen, Prager U., and the Art of Lying Well but this isn’t lying well, it is lying badly. All – indeed, more than all – of the recent increase in CO2 is human caused. Why start off with a statement that clearly establishes that you’re lying?

Peabody argued that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)49 simply assumed global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions is greater than warming caused by natural variability, and therefore attributes the warming observed since the 1970s to anthropogenic causes.50

50 is, yes you guessed, Lindzen again. And this claim is, again, easily refutable drivel. I think old L has spent too long in the denialist echo chamber being lauded for everything he says. He has lost touch with reality, and hasn’t had his arguments sharpened by contact with genuine opponents. There are shades of “Dr” Roy Spencer is sad and lonely and wrong.

According to Peabody, global atmospheric temperatures are measured by surface thermometers, weather balloons (radiosondes), and satellites.54 Peabody claimed all three methods of measuring atmospheric temperatures show no warming since 1998.55

55 is, ha ha got you, its Spencer. But again, while it plays well in the denialosphere, its not going to survive real examination. This gem is also Spencer:

Peabody placed significant weight on the failure of the IPCC’s climate models to explain the hiatus in warming after 1998 except by the introduction of ad hoc mechanisms, such as aerosols.60 Peabody contended the IPCC’s climate models have no utility if they cannot reliably predict temperature change from CO2 emissions.

I’ve seen denialists say that: you’re obliged to explain all temperature change on CO2, you’re not allowed to use aerosols. Their fan base laps it up but can they possibly expect anyone else to believe it?

Interestingly, By driving current global GDP with carbon emissions, Peabody calculated that “at present, each ton of carbon used produces about $6,700 of global GDP”. I don’t have a strong feeling for whether that is true or not. But suppose it is; then a carbon tax of 1% of the benefits to account for the costs seems entirely reasonable, on their numbers, so what are they complaining about?

There’s a note – para 49 – “The Commission and the Minnesota Court of Appeals recognize the IPCC as a source of expertise on climate change” which is an additional problem for the denialists. Courts and governments and so on are inevitably going to recognise the IPCC as such, and aren’t going to fall for the black-helicopters nonsense. There’s also – para 51 – “In 2007, the United States Supreme Court observed that “[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens <whatevs>… In making its observations regarding climate change, the United States Supreme Court favorably cited the IPCC”. Peabody are arguing directly counter to that. They can do so, of course, but in doing so credibly they would need to address the stuff they disagree with. Again, this is so redolent of the “there is no prior art (that I can be bothered to look up)” that renders so many denialist sites worthless.

And so we end up, inevitably, with

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody Energy has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, the warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial.

Then we move onto the IAMs, which I mostly skipped (limitations: para 143); fans of the long discussion on discount rates we had in the comments a post or so back will be delighted to know they used 2.5, 3 and 5%; with 3% as the central estimate; see para 120. The table in para 137 shows that this matters, a lot. Both sides argued discount rates back and forth – because they do matter – but in the end, meh, you’ve got to use something. There’s also some rather half-hearted arguing about ECS but again; a few comments from a few blokes aren’t going to dent IPCC.

Oh, joy, I nearly missed:

Peabody disagreed with the CEO’s claim that 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists concur that humans are causing climate change.681 Peabody contended that science is based on evidence, not agreement, and that consensus should not be given any weight. Peabody provided examples of scientists, including Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and several contemporary scientists, who made significant breakthroughs in science despite being at odds with a majority consensus.

Conclusions

Para 13: IAMs are appropriate in this case and

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that, based on unreported and underreported health and environmental impacts, along with the IWG’s acknowledgement that the FSCC is not based on the most current research, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the FSCC understates the full environmental cost of CO2.

On ECS, Peabody gets comprehensively stuffed:

…Peabody failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ECS value of 1 or 1.5 degrees centigrade is correct and that an ECS of more than 2 degrees centigrade is “extremely unlikely.”… the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the ECS doubling ranges as reported by the IPCC in the IPCC AR4 (2.0-4.5 °C) and the IPCC AR5 (1.5-4.5 °C) are more accurate ECS ranges than the range advanced by Peabody because the IPCC ranges are representative of a comprehensive, peer-reviewed body of scientific study based on multiple lines of evidence.

and in the end the judge

recommends that the Commission adopt the Federal Social Cost of Carbon as reasonable and the best available measure to determine the environmental cost of CO2, establishing a range of values including the 2.5 percent, 3.0 percent, and 5 percent discount rates…



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1TgNa8B
Aucun commentaire:
Libellés :

Public Service Recognition Week

PSRW_logo_600x268

By Judith Enck

This week is Public Service Recognition Week. It’s a time for us to celebrate and honor those who serve our nation in all levels of government. I want to take a moment to talk specifically about the people here in EPA’s regional office in New York – serving New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, USVI and eight tribal nations in New York. There is a common misconception that government workers are lazy bureaucrats. In my experience as Regional Administrator at the EPA, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Over the past seven years, I have had the privilege of working alongside some of the most committed individuals I have ever worked with, some of whom you have gotten to know through this blog and many of whom have dedicated their entire careers to protecting the environment and safeguarding public health. Thanks to the hard work of people here at EPA, Americans enjoy:

Cleaner cars – cleaner everything! Vehicles emit drastically less pollution than even only a decade ago. Also, trucks, buses, ships, locomotives and even construction equipment are all much cleaner today, making the air we breathe healthier.

Cleaner lakes, streams and oceans –thanks to EPA regulations restricting what can be discharged into our waters. Many of our urban rivers are badly polluted by unfettered industrial practices, but the EPA is working to clean those rivers up, including the Passaic River, Newtown Creek and the Gowanus Canal right here in the metro area.

Land being cleaned up and turned back to the community. Through a variety of programs, such as Superfund and brownfields, the EPA has worked to successfully turn areas once written off as too contaminated back into community assets.

Consumer products that are less harmful. Paints no longer contain lead and give off less fumes. Safer Choice Labels help consumers choose cleaning products with less toxic ingredients.

We all benefit from EPA’s work. People across America are living better, healthier lives because of the work we do.

This week, I hope you are able to reflect on the critical role public servants play in our daily lives. Maybe even thank a friend or family member for his or her service. The recognition is well-deserved.

About the author: Judith Enck is the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 2, which serves New York, New Jersey, Eight tribal nations, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. She is a native New Yorker who currently resides in Brooklyn.



from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/21qO0Gl

PSRW_logo_600x268

By Judith Enck

This week is Public Service Recognition Week. It’s a time for us to celebrate and honor those who serve our nation in all levels of government. I want to take a moment to talk specifically about the people here in EPA’s regional office in New York – serving New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, USVI and eight tribal nations in New York. There is a common misconception that government workers are lazy bureaucrats. In my experience as Regional Administrator at the EPA, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Over the past seven years, I have had the privilege of working alongside some of the most committed individuals I have ever worked with, some of whom you have gotten to know through this blog and many of whom have dedicated their entire careers to protecting the environment and safeguarding public health. Thanks to the hard work of people here at EPA, Americans enjoy:

Cleaner cars – cleaner everything! Vehicles emit drastically less pollution than even only a decade ago. Also, trucks, buses, ships, locomotives and even construction equipment are all much cleaner today, making the air we breathe healthier.

Cleaner lakes, streams and oceans –thanks to EPA regulations restricting what can be discharged into our waters. Many of our urban rivers are badly polluted by unfettered industrial practices, but the EPA is working to clean those rivers up, including the Passaic River, Newtown Creek and the Gowanus Canal right here in the metro area.

Land being cleaned up and turned back to the community. Through a variety of programs, such as Superfund and brownfields, the EPA has worked to successfully turn areas once written off as too contaminated back into community assets.

Consumer products that are less harmful. Paints no longer contain lead and give off less fumes. Safer Choice Labels help consumers choose cleaning products with less toxic ingredients.

We all benefit from EPA’s work. People across America are living better, healthier lives because of the work we do.

This week, I hope you are able to reflect on the critical role public servants play in our daily lives. Maybe even thank a friend or family member for his or her service. The recognition is well-deserved.

About the author: Judith Enck is the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 2, which serves New York, New Jersey, Eight tribal nations, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. She is a native New Yorker who currently resides in Brooklyn.



from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/21qO0Gl
Aucun commentaire:
Libellés :

Good news from CDC: Teen births decline, and disparities narrow [The Pump Handle]

A study in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report last week reported that the birth rate for US teens aged 15-19 declined by 41% nationwide from 2006 to 2014. Disparities in teen birth rates also narrowed, with the birth ratio for Hispanic teens to white teens dropping from 2.9 to 2.2, and for black teens declining from 2.3 to 2.0. Because teen childbearing comes with a greater risk of negative health and economic consequences for mothers and children, this is good news for public health. But the persistence of disparities — by geography as well as by race and ethnicity — is still of concern.

Lisa Romero and CDC colleagues used data from the National Vital Statistics System to examine teen birth rates at the national, state, and county levels. Nationally, the teen birth rate was 25.4 per 1,000 teens in 2013-2014.

The five states with the lowest teen birth rates were:

  • Massachusetts (11.3)
  • New Hampshire (11.8)
  • Connecticut (12.2)
  • New Jersey (14)
  • Vermont (14)

The five states with the highest rates were:

  • West Virginia (38.3)
  • Texas (39.4)
  • Mississippi (40.3)
  • New Mexico (40.5)
  • Oklahoma (40.7)
  • Arkansas (41.5)

Romero and her co-authors write about racial and ethnic disparities in the states:

The teen birth rate and racial/ethnic disparities for 2013–2014 ranged widely across states (Table). In some states, these disparities reflected very low rates of birth among white teens. For example, in New Jersey, the teen birth rate among whites (4.8) was well below the national rate for this group (18.0); whereas teen birth rates in this state among blacks (27.4) and Hispanics (31.3) were also lower than the national rates for these groups (blacks: 37.0; Hispanics: 39.8), they were approximately 6–7 fold higher than the rate for whites. In other states, disparities reflected birth rates for black and Hispanic teens that exceeded national rates for these groups. For example, in Nebraska, the birth rate for white teens (16.2) approximated the national rate, whereas rates for black and Hispanic teens (42.6 and 53.9, respectively) far exceeded the national rate for these groups. Finally, other states had smaller disparities, because teen birth rates were relatively high among all racial/ethnic groups. In Arkansas, for example, the teen birth rate was above the national rate for whites (37.7), blacks (54.6) and Hispanics (46.5).

At the county level, they found teen birth rates ranging from 3.1 to 119.0. Counties in the lowest quintile had a median rate of 14.6, while the median for counties in the highest quintile was 57.1. The highest-quintile counties were clustered in the south and southwest. The authors also report, “unemployment was higher, and education attainment and family income were lower in counties with higher teen birth rates.”

There are three main ways for teen birth rates to fall: Fewer teens can have intercourse; more teens can use contraception (or more-effective forms of contraception); and more teens who become pregnant can have abortions.

In an article about the CDC findings, the Washington Post’s Ariana Eunjung Cha considered some potential reasons for the decline in teen births. First, she notes, todays teen’s have better access to highly-effective forms of contraceptions, like long-acting injectables and implantable methods. Increasingly available broadband internet could help teens get information about such contraception, as well as relationship advice and abortion options, she suggests (I’m pretty sure this is the study she’s referencing). She also consulted experts about changes in teens’ sexual behavior. Cha writes:

[T]eens — despite their portrayal in popular TV and movies as uninhibited and acting only on hormones — are having less sex.

“There has been a change in social norms that has happened in the past 20 years, and the idea of not having sex or delaying sex is now something that can be okay,” said Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Veronica Gomez-Lobo, director of pediatric gynecology at Children’s National Medical Center, said the trend of abstinence has been mostly among younger teens rather than older ones. While there’s not good data on why this is happening, she thinks of it as a “contagion” factor: So many teens are waiting to have sex, she suggests, that the peer pressure goes opposite to the way that it might have in the past.

Cha also references a study (probably this one) that found teen births dropped six percent in the 18 months following the first broadcasts of MTV’s reality show “16 and Pregnant.”

Given that the US abortion rate fell by 13% from 2008 to 2011 and that states have passed a slew of abortion restrictions over the past five years, an increase in abortions is unlikely to account for the drop in teen births. A recent study that reported a drop in US intended pregnancies from 2008 – 2011 found a likely explanation to be increased use of more-effective contraception. I noted at the time that statewide efforts in California, Colorado, and Iowa had increased access to long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods. In those states, the 2013-2014 teen birth rates were 21.9, 22.4, and 21, respectively, compared to the US average rate of 25.4.

The recipe for further reducing the overall teen pregnancy rate as well as racial and ethnic disparities will likely involve a combination of changing social norms while increasing access to contraception and to educational and economic opportunities. I hope the encouraging trends documented in this CDC report will continue.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1W3Rtes

A study in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report last week reported that the birth rate for US teens aged 15-19 declined by 41% nationwide from 2006 to 2014. Disparities in teen birth rates also narrowed, with the birth ratio for Hispanic teens to white teens dropping from 2.9 to 2.2, and for black teens declining from 2.3 to 2.0. Because teen childbearing comes with a greater risk of negative health and economic consequences for mothers and children, this is good news for public health. But the persistence of disparities — by geography as well as by race and ethnicity — is still of concern.

Lisa Romero and CDC colleagues used data from the National Vital Statistics System to examine teen birth rates at the national, state, and county levels. Nationally, the teen birth rate was 25.4 per 1,000 teens in 2013-2014.

The five states with the lowest teen birth rates were:

  • Massachusetts (11.3)
  • New Hampshire (11.8)
  • Connecticut (12.2)
  • New Jersey (14)
  • Vermont (14)

The five states with the highest rates were:

  • West Virginia (38.3)
  • Texas (39.4)
  • Mississippi (40.3)
  • New Mexico (40.5)
  • Oklahoma (40.7)
  • Arkansas (41.5)

Romero and her co-authors write about racial and ethnic disparities in the states:

The teen birth rate and racial/ethnic disparities for 2013–2014 ranged widely across states (Table). In some states, these disparities reflected very low rates of birth among white teens. For example, in New Jersey, the teen birth rate among whites (4.8) was well below the national rate for this group (18.0); whereas teen birth rates in this state among blacks (27.4) and Hispanics (31.3) were also lower than the national rates for these groups (blacks: 37.0; Hispanics: 39.8), they were approximately 6–7 fold higher than the rate for whites. In other states, disparities reflected birth rates for black and Hispanic teens that exceeded national rates for these groups. For example, in Nebraska, the birth rate for white teens (16.2) approximated the national rate, whereas rates for black and Hispanic teens (42.6 and 53.9, respectively) far exceeded the national rate for these groups. Finally, other states had smaller disparities, because teen birth rates were relatively high among all racial/ethnic groups. In Arkansas, for example, the teen birth rate was above the national rate for whites (37.7), blacks (54.6) and Hispanics (46.5).

At the county level, they found teen birth rates ranging from 3.1 to 119.0. Counties in the lowest quintile had a median rate of 14.6, while the median for counties in the highest quintile was 57.1. The highest-quintile counties were clustered in the south and southwest. The authors also report, “unemployment was higher, and education attainment and family income were lower in counties with higher teen birth rates.”

There are three main ways for teen birth rates to fall: Fewer teens can have intercourse; more teens can use contraception (or more-effective forms of contraception); and more teens who become pregnant can have abortions.

In an article about the CDC findings, the Washington Post’s Ariana Eunjung Cha considered some potential reasons for the decline in teen births. First, she notes, todays teen’s have better access to highly-effective forms of contraceptions, like long-acting injectables and implantable methods. Increasingly available broadband internet could help teens get information about such contraception, as well as relationship advice and abortion options, she suggests (I’m pretty sure this is the study she’s referencing). She also consulted experts about changes in teens’ sexual behavior. Cha writes:

[T]eens — despite their portrayal in popular TV and movies as uninhibited and acting only on hormones — are having less sex.

“There has been a change in social norms that has happened in the past 20 years, and the idea of not having sex or delaying sex is now something that can be okay,” said Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Veronica Gomez-Lobo, director of pediatric gynecology at Children’s National Medical Center, said the trend of abstinence has been mostly among younger teens rather than older ones. While there’s not good data on why this is happening, she thinks of it as a “contagion” factor: So many teens are waiting to have sex, she suggests, that the peer pressure goes opposite to the way that it might have in the past.

Cha also references a study (probably this one) that found teen births dropped six percent in the 18 months following the first broadcasts of MTV’s reality show “16 and Pregnant.”

Given that the US abortion rate fell by 13% from 2008 to 2011 and that states have passed a slew of abortion restrictions over the past five years, an increase in abortions is unlikely to account for the drop in teen births. A recent study that reported a drop in US intended pregnancies from 2008 – 2011 found a likely explanation to be increased use of more-effective contraception. I noted at the time that statewide efforts in California, Colorado, and Iowa had increased access to long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods. In those states, the 2013-2014 teen birth rates were 21.9, 22.4, and 21, respectively, compared to the US average rate of 25.4.

The recipe for further reducing the overall teen pregnancy rate as well as racial and ethnic disparities will likely involve a combination of changing social norms while increasing access to contraception and to educational and economic opportunities. I hope the encouraging trends documented in this CDC report will continue.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1W3Rtes
Aucun commentaire:
Libellés :

Gut Feeling: ONR Research Examines Link Between Stomach Bacteria, PTSD

By Warren Duffie, Office of Naval Research

Could bacteria in your gut be used to cure or prevent neurological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety or even depression? Two researchers sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) think that’s a strong possibility.

Dr. John Bienenstock and Dr. Paul Forsythe-who work in The Brain-Body Institute at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada-are investigating intestinal bacteria and their effect on the human brain and mood.

Dr. John Bienenstock (left) and Dr. Paul Forsythe in their lab. The researchers are studying whether bacteria in the gut can be used to cure or prevent neurological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety or depression. (Photo courtesy of Dr. John Bienenstock and Dr. Paul Forsythe)

Dr. John Bienenstock (left) and Dr. Paul Forsythe in their lab. The researchers are studying whether bacteria in the gut can be used to cure or prevent neurological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety or depression. (Photo courtesy of Dr. John Bienenstock and Dr. Paul Forsythe)

“This is extremely important work for U.S. warfighters because it suggests that gut microbes play a strong role in the body’s response to stressful situations, as well as in who might be susceptible to conditions like PTSD,” said Dr. Linda Chrisey, a program officer in ONR’s Warfighter Performance Department, which sponsors the research.

The trillions of microbes in the intestinal tract, collectively known as the gut microbiome, profoundly impact human biology-digesting food, regulating the immune system and even transmitting signals to the brain that alter mood and behavior. ONR is supporting research that’s anticipated to increase warfighters’ mental and physical resilience in situations involving dietary changes, sleep loss or disrupted circadian rhythms from shifting time zones or living in submarines.

Through research on laboratory mice, Bienenstock and Forsythe have shown that gut bacteria seriously affect mood and demeanor. They also were able to control the moods of anxious mice by feeding them healthy microbes from fecal material collected from calm mice.

Bienenstock and Forsythe used a “social defeat” scenario in which smaller mice were exposed to larger, more aggressive ones for a couple of minutes daily for 10 consecutive days. The smaller mice showed signs of heightened anxiety and stress-nervous shaking, diminished appetite and less social interaction with other mice. The researchers then collected fecal samples from the stressed mice and compared them to those from calm mice.

“What we found was an imbalance in the gut microbiota of the stressed mice,” said Forsythe. “There was less diversity in the types of bacteria present. The gut and bowels are a very complex ecology. The less diversity, the greater disruption to the body.”

Bienenstock and Forsythe then fed the stressed mice the same probiotics (live bacteria) found in the calm mice and examined the new fecal samples. Through magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), a non-invasive analytical technique using powerful MRI technology, they also studied changes in brain chemistry.

“Not only did the behavior of the mice improve dramatically with the probiotic treatment,” said Bienenstock, “but it continued to get better for several weeks afterward. Also, the MRS technology enabled us to see certain chemical biomarkers in the brain when the mice were stressed and when they were taking the probiotics.”

Both researchers said stress biomarkers could potentially indicate if someone is suffering from PTSD or risks developing it, allowing for treatment or prevention with probiotics and antibiotics.

Later this year, Bienenstock and Forsythe will perform experiments involving fecal transplants from calm mice to stressed mice. They also hope to secure funding to conduct clinical trials to administer probiotics to human volunteers and use MRS to monitor brain reactions to different stress levels.

Gut microbiology is part of ONR’s program in warfighter performance. ONR also is looking at the use of synthetic biology to enhance the gut microbiome. Synthetic biology creates or re-engineers microbes or other organisms to perform specific tasks like improving health and physical performance. The field was identified as a top ONR priority because of its potential far-ranging impact on warfighter performance and fleet capabilities.

Warren Duffie is a contractor for ONR Corporate Strategic Communications.

 

 

 

 



from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/23juo6c

By Warren Duffie, Office of Naval Research

Could bacteria in your gut be used to cure or prevent neurological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety or even depression? Two researchers sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) think that’s a strong possibility.

Dr. John Bienenstock and Dr. Paul Forsythe-who work in The Brain-Body Institute at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada-are investigating intestinal bacteria and their effect on the human brain and mood.

Dr. John Bienenstock (left) and Dr. Paul Forsythe in their lab. The researchers are studying whether bacteria in the gut can be used to cure or prevent neurological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety or depression. (Photo courtesy of Dr. John Bienenstock and Dr. Paul Forsythe)

Dr. John Bienenstock (left) and Dr. Paul Forsythe in their lab. The researchers are studying whether bacteria in the gut can be used to cure or prevent neurological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety or depression. (Photo courtesy of Dr. John Bienenstock and Dr. Paul Forsythe)

“This is extremely important work for U.S. warfighters because it suggests that gut microbes play a strong role in the body’s response to stressful situations, as well as in who might be susceptible to conditions like PTSD,” said Dr. Linda Chrisey, a program officer in ONR’s Warfighter Performance Department, which sponsors the research.

The trillions of microbes in the intestinal tract, collectively known as the gut microbiome, profoundly impact human biology-digesting food, regulating the immune system and even transmitting signals to the brain that alter mood and behavior. ONR is supporting research that’s anticipated to increase warfighters’ mental and physical resilience in situations involving dietary changes, sleep loss or disrupted circadian rhythms from shifting time zones or living in submarines.

Through research on laboratory mice, Bienenstock and Forsythe have shown that gut bacteria seriously affect mood and demeanor. They also were able to control the moods of anxious mice by feeding them healthy microbes from fecal material collected from calm mice.

Bienenstock and Forsythe used a “social defeat” scenario in which smaller mice were exposed to larger, more aggressive ones for a couple of minutes daily for 10 consecutive days. The smaller mice showed signs of heightened anxiety and stress-nervous shaking, diminished appetite and less social interaction with other mice. The researchers then collected fecal samples from the stressed mice and compared them to those from calm mice.

“What we found was an imbalance in the gut microbiota of the stressed mice,” said Forsythe. “There was less diversity in the types of bacteria present. The gut and bowels are a very complex ecology. The less diversity, the greater disruption to the body.”

Bienenstock and Forsythe then fed the stressed mice the same probiotics (live bacteria) found in the calm mice and examined the new fecal samples. Through magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), a non-invasive analytical technique using powerful MRI technology, they also studied changes in brain chemistry.

“Not only did the behavior of the mice improve dramatically with the probiotic treatment,” said Bienenstock, “but it continued to get better for several weeks afterward. Also, the MRS technology enabled us to see certain chemical biomarkers in the brain when the mice were stressed and when they were taking the probiotics.”

Both researchers said stress biomarkers could potentially indicate if someone is suffering from PTSD or risks developing it, allowing for treatment or prevention with probiotics and antibiotics.

Later this year, Bienenstock and Forsythe will perform experiments involving fecal transplants from calm mice to stressed mice. They also hope to secure funding to conduct clinical trials to administer probiotics to human volunteers and use MRS to monitor brain reactions to different stress levels.

Gut microbiology is part of ONR’s program in warfighter performance. ONR also is looking at the use of synthetic biology to enhance the gut microbiome. Synthetic biology creates or re-engineers microbes or other organisms to perform specific tasks like improving health and physical performance. The field was identified as a top ONR priority because of its potential far-ranging impact on warfighter performance and fleet capabilities.

Warren Duffie is a contractor for ONR Corporate Strategic Communications.

 

 

 

 



from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/23juo6c
Aucun commentaire:
Libellés :
Inscription à : Commentaires (Atom)

adds 2