While listening to Science Friday recount some of the top science stories of 2010, I was reminded that The Lancet, arguably the most prestigious medical journal in the world, had retracted the 1998 paper linking autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The paper by Andrew Wakefield et al. was controversial because it augmented the anti-vaccination (for children) movement
Here is the NPR story from 2 February 2010.
Here is what The Lancet's retraction says:
Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al* are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.
The retraction struck Matthew Herper of Forbes as incomprehensible, and he offered an improved version:
We fully retract the 1998 paper by Wakefield et. al. This paper described 12 children with gastrointestinal disorders and regressive developmental disorder that occurred after they received the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.Contrary to a previous investigation, the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, makes it clear that elements of the paper are incorrect. In particular, the patients were not “consecutively referred,” raising the odds that the results were due to chance. It is also false that the investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committees. The paper is no longer in the published record.
I'll take the Herper version; it's more straightforward and honest. Twelve children?
But I'm guessing that 'true believers' will believe that it's all a whitewash, a sellout to Big Pharma. Perhaps someday there will be an irrefutable link between autism and the MMR vaccine; unfortunately, the Wakefield et al. paper was not that link. It was junk. Don't think so? Read this.
#####
Why all this stuff about the MMR vaccine and autism? Perhaps yesterday's post about junk climate science got me started.
Actually it was Todd Jarvis, over at Rainbow Water Coalition, who enlightened me about a recent fluoride book published by groundwater guru R. Allan Freeze and Jay H. Lehr. He posted about it months ago, but I just remembered it now.
Freeze should be known to every groundwater professional through his seminal textbook, Groundwater (co-authored with another GWG, John A. Cherry), arguably (none from me) the best introductory groundwater textbook ever written. It's dated now, but still a great resource after more than 30 years.
Freeze began his rise to scientific stardom by using what we used to call 'digital computer models' to unravel the subsurface flow systems of the Canadian Prairie Provinces. I used his PhD dissertation (published as a Canadian government report) as a textbook in graduate school and it is still one of my most valued possessions. He also revised the theory of runoff generation, along with colleagues like Tom Dunne. Ten years ago he wrote a wonderful little book, The Environmental Pendulum: A Quest for Truth About Toxic Chemicals Human Health, and Environmental Protection. I used this book for about five years in an environmental studies class. Everyone who is involved in enviromental work or just concerned about the environment should read it. Freeze wrote a well-reasoned, amazing little treatise.
Jay Lehr is no slouch, either. He's a hydrology PhD from UA, the nation's first. He is a friend and I have great respect for him although I parted ways with him over the concept of megawatersheds (you'll see some of Freeze's 1960s flow nets at this post). Lehr served as Executive Director of the National Water Well Association (now National Ground Water Association) and really put that organization on the map.
So what's their book? It's The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America's Longest Running Political Melodrama.
Here is the blurb from the book's WWW site:
A lively account of fluoridation and its discontents.
Since its first implementation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945, public drinking water fluoridation and its attendant conflicts, controversies, and conspiracy theories serve as an object lesson in American science, public health, and policymaking. In addition to the arguments on the issue still raging today, the tale of fluoridation and its discontents also resonates with such present concerns as genetically modified foods, global warming response, nuclear power, and environmental regulation.
Offering the best current thinking on the issue, The Fluoride Wars presents a witty and detailed social history of the fluoridation debate in America, illuminating the intersection of science and politics in our recent past. This reader-friendly assessment explores the pro- and anti-fluoridation movements, key players, and important events. Full of amusing and vivid anecdotes and examples, this accessible recounting includes:
A careful and non-condescending look at the hard science, popular science, pseudo-science, and junk science involved
A look at fluoride issues including dosage, cost, financial and funding interests, fluorosis, and problems of risk-cost-benefit analysis
The back-and-forth drama between pro- and anti-fluoridation factions, with all its claims, counterclaims, insults, acrimony, and lawsuits
Case studies of various cities and their experiences with municipal water fluoridation initiatives
Fluorophobia and popular conspiracy theories involving fluoride
The colorful characters in the debate including activists, scientists, magicians, and politicians
A richly and considerately told tale of American science and public life, The Fluoride Wars offers an engrossing history to both interested general readers and specialists in public health, dentistry, policymaking, and related fields.
No, I've not read it yet, but it's high my list.
Do I believe in fluoridation? All I know is that I grew up with a water supply that was not fluoridated until I was in my early teens. I have the proverbial 'mouthful of silver' and 'fond' memories of those heinous belt-driven drills. My former sister-in-law, ten years my junior, grew up entirely on fluoridated water and has nary a cavity. I know - crappy sample size (although The Lancet might take it).
Read more from the Water Matters blog.
#####
That's all I've got for 2010. Perhaps some food for thought. Stream-of-consciousness stuff, I know, but under my feverish conditions this is the best I can do.
Besides, in a few hours I become President of the American Water Resources Association so I need to conserve my strength.
And I just realized that 35 years ago on this day, I was officially awarded my PhD in hydrology from the University of Arizona. What a long, strange trip it's been. And it ain't over till it's over.
Happy New Year!
"Half the lies they tell about me aren't true." -- Yogi Berra
The Flouride Wars has one of the best descriptions of Junk Science ever written. From Chapter 11 *This pathological version of the scientific method has been christened junk science. It is "the mirror image of real science, with much of the same form, but none of the same substance". It features biased data, spurious inference, wishful thinking, and logical legerdemain. Junk science is often carried out in support of political goals. The inferences that are drawn from the scientific data are usually self-serving. Unexplained correlations of related parameters may be presented as if they were proven cause-and-effect relationships. Or it may be argued that whatever has not been proved false must be true. The junk scientist is good at "counting the hits and forgetting the misses". Those who put forward shady science in support of political goals have consciously or unconsciously given priority to their doctrinaire beliefs over their scientific responsibilities...they are lying for what they think is the truth*.
And it only gets better as one reads on!
Posted by: Rainbow Water Coalition | Saturday, 01 January 2011 at 10:06 AM