I blog in a variety of places with a variety of different audiences, but I am struck by the uniformity of the arguments of vaccine rejectionists. It’s not surprising, though, when you consider that they are not reaching their conclusions independently, but rather regurgitating seemingly “impressive” arguments they have read on vaccine rejection websites.
The latest such “argument” is that the safety and efficacy of vaccines have never been proven because they have not been subjected to a controlled randomized double blind study against a placebo. This “argument” is designed to impress those with a minimal knowledge of statistics. In other words, it is designed to impress those who know enough statistics to realize that anecdotes are not a substitute for scientific studies and are familiar with the concept that a controlled randomized double blind study against a placebo is the “gold standard” in some areas of drug research.
Unfortunately, they don’t know enough to realize that controlled randomized double blind studies are unethical in certain circumstances, including the testing of vaccines. So what is presented on vaccine rejection websites as a startling and inexplicable refusal of scientists to test vaccines is actually the inevitable result of complying with ethical rules for scientific investigations.
There are many situations in which controlled randomized double blind studies are unethical. Consider infant carseats:
Do carseats minimize the risk of injury and death of infants?
There never been a controlled randomized double blind study of carseats. Why not? Because it is unethical to randomize some infants to be unbelted in cars simply so we can check how many will be injured and die.
Does that mean we don’t know if carseats reduce the risk of injury and death? Of course not. There are a myriad of statistical investigations that allow us to determine whether carseats reduce injury and death, including large scale population studies, retrospective cohort studies and many others.
So the fact that there are no controlled randomized double blind studies of vaccines is a red herring. It works only on those who don’t understand science and statistics. On them, of course, it works very well.
Vaccine rejectionists, like many Americans, simply don’t understand statistics. This is a serious problem because Americans are exposed to a tremendous amount of statistical information and are required to make many decisions based that information.
An article in the journal Public Understanding of Science explains:
We live in a statistics-rich society: statistics permeates many aspects of life—from media, health, and work to citizenship. In the media, we can observe a growing emphasis on statistical results. This is particularly the case in health and medical reporting which tend to be the most compelling scientific issues for citizens … The understanding of these statistical components is crucial to help citizens participate in public debate and arrive at political decisions.
Statistical misunderstandings are very common and lead to cynicism about science and medicine.
Statistics requires the ability to consider things from a probabilistic perspective, and to employ quantitative technical and abstract concepts such as significance, margin of errors, and representativeness. Since these concepts are difficult to understand, statistical misunderstandings can often be observed in the everyday but also in the media and research results. It is important to clear up these misunderstandings, as they lead to the misuse of study results, and the development of a distrustful or cynical attitude toward statistics.
Vaccine rejectionists, you’ve been tricked … again. How many times do you have to be tricked before you realize that you are being victimized by your lack of knowledge of science and statistics?
N.B. I’ve closed the comments for this thread because it is in danger of crashing the site. Feel free to continue the discussion at The extraordinary conceitedness of being an anti-vaxxer.
