Publisher’s note: This post responds to an article of February 13 in The Atlantic“”Scientific literature cannot save us now», Written by the co -founders of the Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky retraction watch.
The controversial question of what – and more importantly who – believes, in terms of medical science, is at a critical moment. Surveillance organizations such as Watch retraction offer excellent service to science and the public, by exhibiting junk food scientists and their products, helping to disinfect the field with their sunlight. I congratulate Mr. Marcus and Dr. Oransky for their supported efforts in this meta-discipline.
However, the police of scientific literature is a delicate company. In particular, care must be taken to apply the same standards that are required from others to your own work. Pleasant, because many of their points are, the article by Marcus and Oransky discrediting the study of Mawson and Jacob (which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cited during his confirmation audiences) does not renue even the editorial standards basic scientists. This failure permeates their article with the same yellow hue that they denounce in the journalism of others.
Using a combination of circumstantial evidence and ad hominem Characterizations, Marcus and Oransky inform that the study, which claims to show a link between current childhood vaccinations and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), is scientifically defective and therefore not to be reliable. However, they do not provide any substantial criticism of the study itself. Indeed, it is not clear to their article if Marcus and Oransky have even read the study they seek to discredit.
On the contrary, their argument takes place as follows: the first author of the study is no longer an academic. The journal that published it was not indexed by an organization with scientific credibility. Several members of the editorial committee seem shady. The newspaper cannot even be embarrassed to properly spell the name of an editor. And, by the way, the hypothesis that Mawson and Jacob Investigation have already been “completely demystified” and are therefore useless to question.
Really? Now now, no researcher studies if vaccines are associated, not just autism, but the Specter of NDDs (as Mawson and Jacob) do? What Marcus and Oransky vaccines refer specifically? All vaccines? Or only the MMR? As they must know, it is almost impossible to prove scientifically that a hypothetical association does not exist, not to mention all vaccines and a list of disorders. Would they then extend this inference to each new vaccine that enters the market? What if someone’s conclusions are not aligned with what is already “known”? Should they be thrown? Buried?
It is not clear what relevance the status of use of Mawson has for the validity of its study and its co-author. Many scientists work in private research institutes or for societies, outside the academic world. The fact that two members of the editorial committee, according to the complaint, have a contaminated scientific reputation, is circumstantial. The lower scientific stature of Science, public health policy and law This may seem overwhelming, if it is not the fact that, as the work of Oransky and Oransky has shown, the publication in a venerated newspaper is not a guarantee of reproducibility of a study, or even veracity. Conversely, the publication in low -level journals can be the terminal spell not only of poor quality research, but also unpopular ideas. The first deserves no defense; The latter does it.
Worse, Marcus and Oransky Sandbag their own article with unfounded and doubtful affirmations, meant to advance their argument, but ultimately leaving it to the razor of Hitchens (“What can be asserted without evidence can also be rejected without proof ”). How could they know that “many more papers should be retracted than retracted”? All publications with errors discovered after hoc should not generate a retraction. Scientific journals generally publish errata. In addition, what reasons can they plausively claim that “most” of the articles published “do not serve any goal”? I lime that they do not have an exclusive overview of what purpose that a given article serves, in particular by considering posterity. Short -term quotes are not the same as objectives.
On my reading of Mawson and Jacob paperIt seems that it is a simple analysis of 47,155 Florida Medicaid files from 1999 to 2011. Nothing immediately screams “undesirable”. The authors use joint methods for other cases-to-test studies based on complaints and control the confusing effects of age, sex and congenital anomalies in their analysis. Their article describes a relatively balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the study.
Since the study was rejected without examination of other journals, it is not clear what was the basis of rejection, but this editorial action is common and not necessarily an indication of the quality of the study. The publication bias, which refers to the way in which the results of a study affect its publication status, could easily be a factor influencing previous editorial decisions. In all cases, the files are accessible to the public and the methods seem duly described, sufficient to make the study reproducible, if someone wanted to analyze it independently.
My previous research on vaccine safety, infectious diseases and neurological disorders, the treatment of vaccination preventable cancers and the quality of the medical scientific literature did not make any champion of the theory of vaccination-autism. Regarding disclosure, I have consultation and research consultation agreements with pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson and Merck, vaccine manufacturers. I love vaccines, but I will defend scientists who want to study their security and point out what they find, where they are able to find a receptive outlet, whatever their results respect other studies.
We must all defend studies against sloppy attempts to discredit them. Because in the current tumult of distrust of experts, it has never been as crucial as Marcus and Oransky and the influential media which provide them with a platform, retain their high scientist. Smooth status and insinuations do not give the right to bypass a rigorous discourse when it comes to criticizing science. The weak arguments from strong votes also make our land a bad service. The affirmations of “settled science” are lazy and turn easily when they are pushed to a suspicious audience. They also betray a humanist disconnection, what I suspect is at the origin of this distrust.
Each month, I see patients who refuse to consent to the most famous cancer treatment, despite my recommendation, for various personal reasons. Often these reasons are irrational. Many are rooted in misunderstandings gracious of Junk Science. My work is not to castigate patients for their irrationality. It is first of all to establish their care objectives. In this area, I can transmit my interpretation of the current state of relevant medical science. Then it’s them. Among my most important ethical obligations, described in the Geneva Declaration, is to respect the autonomy of patients, even if it comes into conflict with what I think is in their best interest. Police of junk food can slow down, but will not eliminate irrational beliefs. Policies that will not threaten individual autonomy, such as making vaccines forced or compulsory. This simply feeds distrust.
Regarding vaccines and autism, depending on the work of DESTEFANO et al.,, Jain et al.And othersI conclude that the balance of scientific evidence to date does not support the hypothetical association. This can be stated without having to slander studies that have cut the grain. However, such bites are insufficiently sensational and do not lend themselves to competitive sound dicks in the consumer media – which is the point here. Scientific discourse and consumer journalism operate according to different standards. The conventional forum to raise concerns concerning an article is in the pages of the journal, as a letter to the publisher, generally alongside a refutation from the author. From The Atlantic Chose to devote its pages to scientific discourse, I hope it will provide a space for rigorous dissent.
Loren K. Mell, MD, is a doctor-scientist and clinical judge at the University of California San Diego, specializing in head and neck cancer. He previously studied vaccine safety at the Center for Health Studies in Seattle and his current areas of research include the treatment of preventible malignant tumors and the quality of scientific literature.
Like a retraction watch? You can do a Tax deductible contribution to support our workFollow us on x Or Blueskylike us on FacebookFollow us On LinkedinAdd us to your RSS playeror subscribe to our Daily digest. If you find a retraction that is Not in our databaseyou can Let us know here. For comments or comments, send us an email to (Protected by e-mail).
Treatment…
Success! You are on the list.
Oops! There was an error and we could not treat your subscription. Please recharge the page and try again.