Autism: Science vs. Ignoramuses

According to the Ottawa Citizen, the H1N1 vaccine has "stirred the debate" over the link between autism and vaccines.

Really?

Let's examine this debate. On the one side we have Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones:

"The studies have been pretty clear and consistent that vaccination is not the cause of many of the things that have been claimed around the vaccine," he said.

And there's this from Health Canada:

Misconception: Vaccines are linked to chronic diseases such as autism, multiple sclerosis (MS), and Crohn's disease.
The Facts: These are false claims made by anti-vaccine books and Web sites. Recent research using the best scientific methods, and reviews of studies from around the world, provide strong evidence that ...

I could go on and on. The side telling you that vaccines are safe and one of the greatest tools of modern medicine is the side that does scientific research and that has your interests at heart. They're the educated, intelligent, careful people.

On the other side is Jenny McCarthy and her band of technical illiterates. Jenny is mad and has decided, in the face of all evidence, that vaccines made her son autistic. She and others like her have forced the scientific establishment to prove relentlessly something that was already beyond a reasonable doubt: vaccines have no relationship to autism.

But that's not how the Citizen paints it. There are "two sides" to this debate. And the Citizen is going to tell you both of them.

The theory that childhood vaccines are behind an upsurge of autism cases emerged in the 1990s and in recent years has gained high-profile advocates such as Hollywood star Jenny McCarthy

That's not a theory. It's completely unfair to use scientific language to make stupid, illiterate, many-times debunked claims sound scientific. A "theory" in science is an explanation for a body of facts. The anti-vaccination crowd has no facts. There's no correlation between vaccines and autism. There's nothing to explain. Their "theory" is an explanation for something that doesn't exist.

I could as easily have a "theory" on how to keep leprechauns from stealing your vegetables. Until someone finds leprechauns in their garden, it's not a theory.

The Citizen ought to be blisteringly excoriated for this pathetic attempt to stoke a controversy and for its endangerment of the general health of the public.

Recommend this Post

Curious Decision: Abusive Husband gets Alimony

You'd think that this would be an exception to the rule.

I'm all for consistent application of the law across genders. If a woman can cheat on her husband and get support payments while the divorce is pending, so should a man. But does that law really, as the judge suggests, extend to making death threats to your spouse and committing assault?

The assault is not in question. The man received a suspended sentence and was ordered not to come anywhere near his wife and children (the divorce is still pending). But the judge in this case ruled that his conduct wasn't relevant at this point.

Mind you, once they hit the actual divorce trial, his assault will come in to play - just as infidelity or other "misconduct" would.

But it still seems unjust and damn strange that the law compels someone to pay $6000 every month to the a guy who threatened to kill her. Note that he might not have actually laid a hand on her. If the writer is using the legal definition of "assault", it might mean that he only threatened her. As if that matters.

The judge didn't seem to like making the ruling, noting that it was a matter of principle and that the whole thing should get ironed out at the divorce trial. In the mean time, somewhat passive-aggressively, the judge increased the child support Mr. Takhar must pay to his wife by $1000/month.

Recommend this Post

Now I'm Defending Religious Expression

Of course I am.

You've got the right to express your religion in your self-employed, private workplace. I can't imagine it any other way.

Apparently this secular Jewish fellow can't, though, according to Montreal bylaws.

I'm not a big fan of religion. It reeks of despotism and mindless obedience. But if you're choosing to be mindlessly obedient, that's your thing. As long as you stop swinging your fists at my face and your mezuzah isn't a fire hazard, it's really none of my business how you waste your time.

He hangs family pictures and religious/cultural artifacts around his cab. A Christian will hang rosary beads around his mirror. A Hindu, Muslim and Sikh are welcome to do the same as long as they're following laws about keeping the road visible from the driver's seat. Followers of the IPU can hang punctured red socks.

I can't imagine that this "Montreal bylaw" which says cabbies can't have objects or inscriptions in their cabs that are "not required for the taxi to be in service." could possibly be constitutional.

If he were a public servant, employed by the government, I could see invoking a rule.

If he were posting religious passages demanding the death or mutilation of others, I could see invoking a rule.

But in his cab? His private cab? Tiny, religiously inspired texts calling down blessing of protection?

No. There's no need to push this guy around.

Recommend this Post

The NDP Need To Pick a Side, huh?

That's what Ignatieff told us.

It seems like a stupid thing to say, but it's not the first.

The retort is blatantly simple. The "sides" in this discussion are not "conservative politicians" and "liberal politicians". One does not choose "sides" between two sets of elites.

The side that the NDP has taken is that of the recently unemployed, the victims of the banking shenanigans that caused the economic mess in which we find ourselves. They took the side of some of the worse off.

Maybe it's not a side that entered in to Mr. Ignatieff's thoughts. Maybe he's a little too mired in politics to realize that he's supposed to be on the side of the people, not the side of a political party.

Mr. Layton's move was surely calculated. I'm sure polls and party financing entered in to it. To pretend otherwise is naive. These things are always calculated.

But in this case he did pick a side: the side of people. It may mean voting with the Liberal Party - occasionally. It may mean voting with the Conservative party - somewhat less frequently. But straying from one party to another doesn't mean he doesn't have a philosophical guideline, which seems to be Ignatieff's implication.

Nice try, Iggy. Better luck next time.

Recommend this Post

I Don't Remember Voting For Your God

There's a pretty strong contradiction there, isn't there, when you're listening to the Right Wing?

Mostly I'm talking about the conservative U.S., but you get it in Canada too.

On the one hand, we should be out there bringing democracy to the unenlightened. On the other hand, we're supposed to obey the religious edicts of their particular creed: no sex before marriage; no contraception; no abortion; crosses everywhere; evangelization. The list could go on.

If you read those posters at the anti-Obama rallies (and I'm talking about the crazy tea-baggers) you see a combination of people demanding their rights and people demanding that Christianity come to the forefront.

Obama is a Marxist, Muslim, Fascist thug! That's anti-democractic! He's taking our freedom! He's taken our rights! (not that we could name one of the rights he's taken) Now let us pray to Jesus and obey the bible-god thingie instead!

They don't actually want freedom. Religion and especially religious obedience are the antithesis of freedom.

I didn't vote for their god.

I don't even remember having an election.

He seems to be running the show though, and in an extremely undemocratic fashion.

The guy sounds like a Marxist, Communist, Fascist thug to me.

Recommend this Post

So Long, Mary

And to answer a few questions:

You just called him a man, so "zero".
Probably not even one. They get tired quick.
The cannonballs will always fly. Sad, but true.

The life expectancy of a mountain varies with glaciation, tectonic uplift and rainfall.
Some people live their whole lives in slavery.
People can ignore reality for a long time. We like to think they confront it on their deathbeds.

Once. I mean, really, the sky's right there.
Again, one ear should be enough.
Sadly, it takes far too many deaths before people grow sick of it.

Maybe we'll stick with Puff, the magic dragon.

Recommend this Post

The Old "Dysfunctional Parliament" Gambit

This time, it's John Ibbitson parroting the party line.

Mr. Ibbitson can't believe we're about to have our fifth election in six years. He also insinuates that we're some kind of banana republic.

Why would we have another election? "Employment Insurance reform? Come on.", he pleads. I presume Mr. Ibbitson has secure employment. Someone standing on the other side of that issue might have a different opinion.

Then he offers us quotes from various sources that blame the dysfunctionality of Parliament on all parties:

"We are in a continuous election campaign with no discussion of issues"

I wonder if that has anything to do with a Prime Minister too busy with name-calling (Socialist! Separatist!) to have a serious discussion.

Major concerns ... languish, as the parties use Parliament for an elaborate and futile game of political chicken.

Indeed. Let's blame all parties for the Conservative's disruptive "point of order", "showing up at the wrong time" and "walking out of meetings" strategies.

Now some statistics:

From 1969 to 1973, Parliament sat, on average, 163 days a year. From 2004 to 2008, it was down to 105.

I have a word for you: "Prorogue". As in, "The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament". How many days did we lose there? How many days did we lose because the Prime Minister broke his own election law and called an extra election?

But, of course, it's the fault of all parties, isn't it, Mr. Ibbitson?

"Parliament as an instrument is not being used properly either by the opposition or the government."

Yes, yes. Blame everyone for the intentional mangling and disabling of our government. Whatever you do, don't investigate what's actually happening on a day-to-day basis.

The nineties also witnessed the rise of the Bloc Quebecois and the threat of Quebec separation.

Now you're just being intentionally stupid. What planet are you from that you think the 90s were unique in the spectre of separation? In fact, that decade probably saw the end of separation when Parizeau gave his famous tirade about immigrants ruining his version of Quebec's destiny.

There follows some nonsense about the federal political parties becoming "regional". They're not. Even where one party appears to take a whole province, you'll find that, in many ridings, the other parties aren't far behind. If the conservative bastion of Alberta distributed its 28 ridings proportionally, it would have come out something like [Con:18, NDP:4, Lib:3, Green:3].

Ibbitson ends his column with the following pronouncement:

Party leaders must look at each other as legitimate representatives of sectional interests whose needs deserve to be accommodated. That is no easy concession in any Parliament, and especially difficult to imagine in this one.

It seems that every political party does this, Mr. Ibbitson, except the Conservatives. Paul Martin reached a compromise with the Conservatives to maintain his government. When the Conservatives tried to pull the plug, he created a new consensus with the NDP (Egad! The Socialists! Lock up your children!) When the Conservatives came in, they tried to take all public financing away - retroactively - from the other parties. They vilified their opponents with name-calling. They stormed out of committees and disrupted them with loud-mouth tactics.

We already have three parties in Parliament that understand the need to build consensus in a grown up manner.

And we have one group of pouting children. Call it like it is. Enough of this false notion that everyone shares the blame for the Conservatives' petulance.

Recommend this Post