4 ms·

Is this supposedly amusing or are you just venting off because of something, with no intent of contributing to any form of civilized discussion?

by zxcdw 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago
It's not really interesting that a condition which is with you from birth might begin in the womb. The others I listed are also known to be... phrased conservatively... strongly influenced by something in the womb, but at least they all exhibit late-life onset and could conceivably begin at some later point.
- neolefty 13y ago
  The headline is really just a teaser in this case. The meat of the article is more about how autism begins, and how some of the critical developmental steps that lead to autism occur in the womb. The other conditions (prostate cancer, for example) are much more significantly influenced by events that take place well after birth.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Prostate cancer is one of the poster children for the theory "the death rate from cancer is increasing because people have stopped dying of other things before they inevitably get cancer". Far and away the most significant influence on whether you have prostate cancer is whether you have a prostate gland; this is determined in the womb. In the depressing words of my mom's medical school professor, having a prostate gland is sufficient to develop prostate cancer; the prevalence is 100% (of males). The question (assuming what you're really worried about is mortality) is not "do I have prostate cancer?" -- you do. The question is "how badly is my prostate cancer growing?"
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  Given the amount of coverage bullshit theories about autism and it's causes got a few years ago don't you think it's worth promoting valid research about it (particularly where it directly contradicts the bullshit)?
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Well, for one thing, it doesn't. Assuming the antivaxxers take this research to heart, which there is no particular reason to expect (how have they viewed other research?), watch for the message to become "save your grandchildren from autism by not vaccinating your children". On the general question of "if one bad idea gets press, should we devote a bunch of extra attention to refuting it?"... Daryl Bem managed to conduct some studies showing a "statistically significant" effect of ESP. He got those published in a respectable journal, which felt duty-bound to print them because Bem had followed all the formalities of the scientific method, and That Is The Process Of Science. Obviously, ESP is not real, and this attracted several replication efforts. When they duly failed to replicate, they couldn't get published. Are you arguing that after publishing Bem's paper, the journal should have wasted further space publishing the inevitable refutations? Their position was that a paper demonstrating that ESP is not real has no scientific value, and they're completely correct about that (we already know!). So they opted to publish papers that might have something more worthwhile to say. neolefty points out that the article's content has little to do with the title, and that's fair criticism of my complaint. But the title is so incredibly inane that it immediately sold me on the idea that reading the article would be nothing but a waste of time.
    - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
      I'd like to say I don't care what anti-vaxxers think but sadly I have to as their children don't deserve to be lumbered with their irresponsible idiocy and the overall impact on herd immunity means that they're causing significant problems even outside their families. There are two things here: 1) What's covered in the scientific literature 2) What's reported in the mainstream press In the former you're absolutely right, in the later I don't think so (and the original link is the the BBC, not the NEJM). Most people don't have the skills, time or subscriptions to go and view medical papers. When Wakefield got coverage for his bullshit for most people there was no "this is obviously wrong" because they had no evidence to suggest Wakefield was wrong. As a result his position became commonly and widely accepted. When that happens I think the papers should spend time covering the refutations and trying to inform the public when real research - even if dull or obvious research - shows something which will slowly help the public adjust their incorrect viewpoint. I'd love to think that the MMR/Autism thing has run it's course and we shouldn't have to do this any more (and hell, with even Jenny McCarthy backing down some we are getting there) but sadly I think we still have some way to go. And in that vein, long live the promotion of tedious (but factual) research.

Is this supposedly amusing or are you just venting off because of something, with no intent of contributing to any form of civilized discussion?

by zxcdw 13y ago

Is this supposedly amusing or are you just venting off because of something, with no intent of contributing to any form of civilized discussion?

thaumasiotes 13y ago

It's not really interesting that a condition which is with you from birth might begin in the womb. The others I listed are also known to be... phrased conservatively... strongly influenced by something in the womb, but at least they all exhibit late-life onset and could conceivably begin at some later point.

neolefty 13y ago
The headline is really just a teaser in this case. The meat of the article is more about how autism begins, and how some of the critical developmental steps that lead to autism occur in the womb. The other conditions (prostate cancer, for example) are much more significantly influenced by events that take place well after birth.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Prostate cancer is one of the poster children for the theory "the death rate from cancer is increasing because people have stopped dying of other things before they inevitably get cancer". Far and away the most significant influence on whether you have prostate cancer is whether you have a prostate gland; this is determined in the womb. In the depressing words of my mom's medical school professor, having a prostate gland is sufficient to develop prostate cancer; the prevalence is 100% (of males). The question (assuming what you're really worried about is mortality) is not "do I have prostate cancer?" -- you do. The question is "how badly is my prostate cancer growing?"
Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
Given the amount of coverage bullshit theories about autism and it's causes got a few years ago don't you think it's worth promoting valid research about it (particularly where it directly contradicts the bullshit)?
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Well, for one thing, it doesn't. Assuming the antivaxxers take this research to heart, which there is no particular reason to expect (how have they viewed other research?), watch for the message to become "save your grandchildren from autism by not vaccinating your children". On the general question of "if one bad idea gets press, should we devote a bunch of extra attention to refuting it?"... Daryl Bem managed to conduct some studies showing a "statistically significant" effect of ESP. He got those published in a respectable journal, which felt duty-bound to print them because Bem had followed all the formalities of the scientific method, and That Is The Process Of Science. Obviously, ESP is not real, and this attracted several replication efforts. When they duly failed to replicate, they couldn't get published. Are you arguing that after publishing Bem's paper, the journal should have wasted further space publishing the inevitable refutations? Their position was that a paper demonstrating that ESP is not real has no scientific value, and they're completely correct about that (we already know!). So they opted to publish papers that might have something more worthwhile to say. neolefty points out that the article's content has little to do with the title, and that's fair criticism of my complaint. But the title is so incredibly inane that it immediately sold me on the idea that reading the article would be nothing but a waste of time.
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    I'd like to say I don't care what anti-vaxxers think but sadly I have to as their children don't deserve to be lumbered with their irresponsible idiocy and the overall impact on herd immunity means that they're causing significant problems even outside their families. There are two things here: 1) What's covered in the scientific literature 2) What's reported in the mainstream press In the former you're absolutely right, in the later I don't think so (and the original link is the the BBC, not the NEJM). Most people don't have the skills, time or subscriptions to go and view medical papers. When Wakefield got coverage for his bullshit for most people there was no "this is obviously wrong" because they had no evidence to suggest Wakefield was wrong. As a result his position became commonly and widely accepted. When that happens I think the papers should spend time covering the refutations and trying to inform the public when real research - even if dull or obvious research - shows something which will slowly help the public adjust their incorrect viewpoint. I'd love to think that the MMR/Autism thing has run it's course and we shouldn't have to do this any more (and hell, with even Jenny McCarthy backing down some we are getting there) but sadly I think we still have some way to go. And in that vein, long live the promotion of tedious (but factual) research.