It's almost been a year since his paper has been retracted. I'm kinda glad and disappointed that we're still talking about this issue.
He was a fraud. He published a fraudulent paper. It was retracted and we're still feeling the effects of his fraudulence. (Look at pertussis for USA between years 2009 and 2010)
I'm glad it's still getting attention, because people need to know that vaccines do not cause autism!
I"m disappointed because it's been a LONG time since this started. It has caused a number of issues since it slipped through.
What is going on with the peer-review process?
It's a bit like this arsenic based life thing.
Things are getting out before they've been accurately checked. There's something wrong with the process if it's taking so long to be "reviewed and approved" but the "information" is still out for the general public to see. People made some very bad decisions based on the Wakefield incident.
Rebecca Watson made some interesting comments about this in the beginning-ish portion of this Skeptics Guide.
(I had too, this is me with Rebecca Watson and some other weird-o...)
(I had too, this is me with Rebecca Watson and some other weird-o...)She was saying that now it's more the blog-o-sphere thats doing the fact checking and hand calling on bad science.
That's good in a way, but how can you tell who's a good blogger and a bad blogger. People go in search of blogs that reinforce their current beliefs and opinions. So, it seems that people are only going to get the data they want when they can search for it themselves.
It doesn't seem very objective.
On the other hand, it's good to get a lot of differing voices if you're presenting to a skeptical audience. Then they can discern for themselves.
Ugh, I feel it's time for a big overhaul in the peer-review process. When things like Butt-reflexology, fraudulent vaccine claims, and untested lifeforms keep on creeping in we've got problems.
It's no wonder the common man doesn't trust science.
Here's a Point of Inquiry that talks about why I think this is such a vast problem. Why Facts Fail.
After a while, once someone hears the initial data, it doesn't matter how much true data you can present them with. After they've formed their opinion, they're sticking with it, no matter how ridiculous it seems.
So, we really need to be sure we're getting the facts right. People just making stuff up so they'll get attention (AHEM, arsenic-based life) is not helpful. It's not a search for truth about our environment. It's not science.
*Steps off soapbox*
No comments:
Post a Comment