No, Half of All Children Won’t Be Autistic By 2025, Despite What Your Facebook Friends May Tell You

“As for the headline claim that half of all children will be autistic by 2025, this claim blithely ignores the broad consensus that the increasing prevalence of autism is largely due to increasing rates of diagnosis and – as a new study has recently demonstrated changes in how autism is diagnosed. The baseless assumption that rates of autism diagnosis will continue into the stratosphere is dumbfounding.”

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/no-half-of-all-children-wont-be-autistic-by-2025-whatever-facebook-tells-you

The Ethics of Vaccination

There was a recent outbreak of measles in the United States which raised some interesting questions. Before we get to those questions, an introduction to measles. We don’t often think of measles as a dangerous disease but it’s one of the most contagious human diseases. To compare measles to other diseases in the news, a person with ebola can be expected to transmit the disease to 1-2 other people while the disease is in its infectious period, according to immunologists. A person with measles can be expected to transmit the disease to 12-18 other people. The most recent ebola outbreak has killed between 8,000 and 9,000 people but prior to this outbreak, only 738 people had died of the disease since it was first discovered in 1976.  Worldwide measles kills 145,000 people. 

Much of the current outbreak has been blamed on parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. Either because of religious objections or because of fears of the safety of the vaccines or other reasons. Some people simply question the need for vaccines at all. Immunologists hope that 100% of people receive vaccines but hope for a minimum level of 92% to achieve “herd immunity” to prevent outbreaks of diseases for which there are vaccines. Immunologists argue that people choosing not to vaccinate their children makes outbreaks of these diseases more likely. Because diseases like measles are so infectious, the diseases not only affect those who have not been vaccinated but also a certain percentage of children who haven’t.

This situation creates an interesting set of ethical questions.

  • What takes precedent in a situation like this: a person’s freedom to make medical choices for themselves and their children or the health and well being of a larger population?
  • Is it unethical for you to forgo vaccination if the potential cost of your choice is paid by someone else?
  • Is it ethical to force someone to make health choices against their will if medical experts deem those choices necessary?
  • How do we determine medical truth? What if a doctor did research that contradicted the rest of the medical establishment? Whose truth do we go by?

Below are some links to some of these issues.

Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles

Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes Worst Measles Epidemic In 20 Years

Why I won’t let unvaccinated people around my kids

The “Ethics” of Vaccination in Canada

Why Even Vaccinated People Can Catch Measles

Amid California measles outbreak, some doctors refuse to see children who haven’t been vaccinated

Studies Outside the U.S. Show Unvaccinated Children Healthier than Vaccinated Children 

Antivaccine hero Andrew Wakefield: Scientific fraud?

“Over the next decade, aided and abetted by useful idiots in the media, by British newspapers and other media that sensationalized the story, and the antivaccine movement, which hailed Wakefield as a hero, Wakefield managed to drive MMR vaccination rates in the U.K. below the level of herd immunity, from 93% to 75% (and as low as 50% in some parts of London). As a result Wakefield has been frequently sarcastically “thanked” for his leadership role in bringing the measles back to the U.K. to the point where, fourteen years after measles had been declared under control in the U.K., it was in 2008 declared endemic again.”

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-hero-andrew-wakefield-scientific-fraud/

Op-ed piece on swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon

What determines how much we fear something? Is it based on the actual risks posed? Or do our emotions lead us to fear the wrong things and weigh risks differently than we should?

Interesting piece comparing the relative risks of swimming pools and guns and how much we fear each.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

Book: How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer

“The first book to use the unexpected discoveries of neuroscience to help us make the best decisions

Since Plato, philosophers have described the decision-making process as either rational or emotional: we carefully deliberate, or we “blink” and go with our gut. But as scientists break open the mind’s black box with the latest tools of neuroscience, they’re discovering that this is not how the mind works. Our best decisions are a finely tuned blend of both feeling and reason—and the precise mix depends on the situation. When buying a house, for example, it’s best to let our unconscious mull over the many variables. But when we’re picking a stock, intuition often leads us astray. The trick is to determine when to use the different parts of the brain, and to do this, we need to think harder (and smarter) about how we think.” -Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0547247990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422388709&sr=8-1&keywords=how+we+decide&pebp=1422388711933&peasin=547247990