An example of how people earn the title “denialist”

16 Dec

Denialist. One who denies. It is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot on the internet. You don’t agree with me? Well, you must be a denialist. The term has risen in prominence lately with Michael Specter’s recent book, “Denialism, How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives” One of his prime examples is the anti-vaccine movement, so this book has been discussed on a number of autism blogs (including this one).

Denial–here are definitions from dictionary.com

1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent’s charges.
2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.
3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.
4. the refusal to satisfy a claim, request, desire, etc., or the refusal of a person making it.
5. refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal: the traitor’s denial of his country; Peter’s denial of Christ.
6. Law. refusal to acknowledge the validity of a claim, suit, or the like; a plea that denies allegations of fact in an adversary’s plea: Although she sued for libel, he entered a general denial.
7. sacrifice of one’s own wants or needs; self-denial.
8. Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

Many people “deny” that vaccines work. Many people “deny” that the diseases vaccines prevent are dangerous. People who do so are, in my book, denialists.

Case in point, a recent blog post by Kim Stagliano of the Age of Autism blog: An Autism Mom Goes Back to Christmas 1962. In it, she presents a doll from 1962. A doll with a changeable face, and one face shows the baby doll with measles. The message of the blog post is clear: measles wasn’t so bad. Ms. Stagliano writes:

Yes, in 1962, measles were a common childhood illness. And little girls played with dollies that had the measles, and made them all better. So did doctors for children who got the measles.

Well, yes. Most of the time children got better.

Let’s check what people wrote about measles in the early 1960’s, shall we? From Time Magazine, 1961 (with emphasis added by me).

When famed Harvard Nobel Laureate John Franklin Enders announced at a Manhattan meeting three years ago that he had isolated measles virus, his fellow virologists stood up and cheered. It would not be long, they hoped, before a vaccine could be developed to wipe out a disease that sends one child in 4,000 to institutions for the feebleminded. But the first live virus vaccine developed by Enders left much to be desired; four of five children got severe fevers, roughly half developed a rash. Last week, after much toil by Enders and others, a group of Pennsylvania physicians and virologists announced that they had successfully tested a measles vaccination technique. Children are first inoculated with Enders vaccine, which gives nearly 100% protection. Then, almost immediately, they are injected in the same arm with gamma globulin, which holds undesirable side effects, such as fever and rash, to a minimum. The Public Health Service still must approve the new measles technique, establish manufacturing standards. If all goes well, a vaccine will be on the market next year, just as measles heads toward its next cyclical peak.

Yes, virologists cheered, 1 in 4,000 children were sent to institutions.

Life Magazine, in 1963, discussed the new vaccines for Measles.

Though often joked about, this commonplace disease kills about 400 Americans each year–twice the number that polio now kills. Several thousand cases each year develop encephalitis, which can damage the brain.

The Age of Autism, where Ms. Stagliano blogs, was quite upset by Mr. Specter and his book for singling out anti-vaccine groups as denialists. My suggestion: if you don’t want to be labeled denialist, don’t be a denialist.

64 Responses to “An example of how people earn the title “denialist””

  1. NightStorm December 19, 2009 at 18:23 #

    The prevailing thought is that autistics are good at computers/numbers etc.
    Which is another stereotype.

    You sound like an uneducated housewife, getting her information from tabloids.

  2. Tom December 19, 2009 at 22:54 #

    Farmwifetwo: Lot’s of questions. And not one iota of genetic proof anywhere

    Response: http://gene.sfari.org/

    Please stop spreading ignorance.

  3. David N. Brown December 19, 2009 at 23:16 #

    Jake
    “you have to plagiarize someone else instead of examining the issue directly”
    Sounds like Olmsted’s use of my work in the latest anti-Offit piece. Could you by any chance ask him to post the correction I sent half a dozen times?

  4. farmwifetwo December 21, 2009 at 14:42 #

    “With diabetes, you can get a blood test,” said Dr. Susan Levy of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics subcommittee on autism. “As of yet, there’s no consistent biologic marker we can use to make the diagnosis of autism.”

    http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/10/05/autism-us-children.html

    They’ve had studies where there is a few percentage points in similarity but even your “aspie web” today had the usual spiel about how it’s b/c of more Dr’s diagnosing autism under the IV which my family Dr told us you can dx anyone with anything, using that manual… it’s that vague.

    So… there’s no genetic proof… except btwn twins.

  5. Dedj December 21, 2009 at 20:17 #

    I would question how your Dr got the idea that the DSM is ‘vague’.

    You have to have a persistant or episodic pattern of clinically significant impairments in several related areas to qualify for a diagnosis.

    I strongly doubt you could diagnose ‘anyone’ with ‘anything’, not if you were using standardised assessment tools and/or qualatitive criteria anyway.

    I suggest he’s fallen into the age old anti-psych trap of ‘this persons a bit like this, therefore they meet this criteria’.

    The answer to that is, no, just having a trait isn’t enough to be diagnosed. It has to be significant enough to interrupt daily functioning.

    Does occasionally mispelling things make you dyslexic? Not by a mile.

    Does occasional bradykinesia give you a movement disorder? No, not unless it’s repetitive and persistant.

    I’d suggest you go and read the DSM (it’s available online) rather than blindly trusting your Dr.

Leave a reply to farmwifetwo Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.