A sad and dangerous reality is that the MAHA side has unfettered access to the eyes and ears of anyone with a television while the voices for science only have access to people who are willing to dig for and consider the evidence.
Yes exactly, I have to say on reflection I think Jess needs to reconsider the false equivalences she seems intent on embracing. I guess Lysenko and his supporters, and I knew a few, as well as the real geneticists he destroyed all wanted 'bigger corn' in the USSR too. I really don't see what the point of this post was supposed to be. Almost a platitude.
In fact I think communicators and public facing scientists need to reflect a bit on the 'sackcloth and ashes' and 'both sidesism', we haven't done so bad actually regarding a lot of things.
In fact the vaccines were an astonishing success and that is now totally buried by jibber jabber and propaganda. Why that is being done is another matter, but that is the case.
(I see you have a similar take to mine regarding this post).
It is amazing to see scientists lashing themselves (don't friggin' do that, you helped save millions of lives during the pandemic!) and looking for ways to improve (no criticism there, it is always good to look to improve even after you've already saved millions!) while the pandemic grifters and misinformation merchants are busy re-writing the history of their failed pandemic predictions and doubling down on the misinformation they spread. They still pretend that the GBD would have worked!!!
Yes, scientists and health care workers worked tirelessly around the clock during the early pandemic years saving millions of lives but still had to make the time to correct the misinformation and disinformation being spread by grifting antivax arseholes who profited handsomely from their deadly disinformation while their victims were dying by the hundreds of thousands.
To see some of these turds now being rewarded for their bastardry with peak government jobs must be particularly galling for these pandemic heroes.
I feel for them all for all they have suffered and all they have achieved against incredible odds.
No I’m not demonizing anyone. I’m just saying that the communication playing field is not level. There is valuable information that is not easily accessible to a large part of the population.
Ah OK. Well congrats, now you can better understand how the communication field was not level for the other side, and how that felt for them, for the entire history of the issue up until a few months ago. Pretty frustrating isn't it?
What I’m seeing in practice at the bedside seems to be a fundamental shift in how we view knowledge and how we can know things. Many families now don’t care about data and are much more invested in what someone’s experience is, especially someone they know and trust. So if a neighbor says their child was diagnosed with autism after vaccines, then they conclude a causal relationship and no amount of data or stats can change that opinion. It’s just a totally different language and as you note the scientific community needs to understand that throwing studies and data at people won’t stick. We need more medical and scientific professionals to talk earnestly about their experiences. I usually talk about the children I’ve cared for with vaccine preventative diseases and how they suffered. But it’s very frustrating and the leaders of these misinformation fountains on social media are so difficult to compete with because of the volume and prevalence.
You've already written off simple observations as misinformation without acknowledging that there may be confounding variables that have never been considered or tested. I believe this is called bias. I would point you to my paper. You can argue with the editor over the rigorous applied and the peer review process. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2025.102197. Next I will tackle autoimmunity. This is in silico evidence only. I was fired for pursuing it and my experiments were sabotaged before I could publish experimental data. Sorry, truth hurts. Follow me on LinkedIn "TidbiTs of Transplant Rejection". Maybe it's time for a paradigm shift?
I am both a concerned parent and an epidemiologist. In both roles, autism is front and center 24/7/365.
There is a very serious obvious problem on both sides re: autism. Can one side be the adult in the room and make things better? Yes, absolutely!
What problem? Scientists (epidemiologists), doctors and science journalists almost universally pretend that the massive rate of increase in autism is not real. Why? There is no valid evidence supporting that denial. Seriously, if anyone knows of any, please point it out. I've probably studied it.
Why do they deny this obvious reality? The best explanation is that they've adopted the framing of the vaccine-blamers, also referred to as anti-vaxxers. Many articles give the tell: Autism rates are not increasing so vaccines aren't causing an increase.
Vaccine-blamers see the scientific community's denial of the obvious increase as hiding something. They falsely claim that what they're hiding is a widespread ill effect of vaccines.
Scientists are empowering vaccine-blamers by continuing to deny the reality of autism.
They could easily fix that by simply admitting the reality.
They might feel it's too late to do that now - they've been denying autism reality for so long, it would look bad to pull back the curtain now. But that's the only way to regain trust.
Diagnoses of autism has increased but autism has not.
(There may possibly be a marginal increase in incidence, the cause of which has not been determined, but likely due of environmental factors but definitely not vaccinations)
Some of the reasons are as follows:
- diagnostic substitution.
- widening of the diagnostic criteria.
- greater awareness among both doctors and parents.
And I call a load of bollocks a load of bloody bollocks.
Okay?
"You’re both partially right. There’s been an increase, and also an increase in tendency to recognize and diagnose what previously was not"
Did you miss this bit in my response to this bollocks merchant: "There may possibly be a marginal increase in incidence, the cause of which has not been determined, but likely due of environmental factors but definitely not vaccinations"
Also, I am not impressed by your "both siderism" claptrap.
It is just a cheap easy way out.
The commenter was trying to spread deadly misinformation.
I corrected the deadly disinformation he was trying to spread.
There is no equivalence here.
"Stop that."
Stop that tone trolling, tone troll.
It is not appreciated when I am smacking down a deadly misinformation peddler.
You're in the Comments section of an article about the both sides aspect to the issue 😂 If you want to continue to divide, better to do it elsewhere, in this context it's boring AF as well as unconstructive.
Acknowledging the both sides aspect is constructive because the other side will be more likely to listen to us.
I am all in favor of fighting enemies; but most of the people who disagree with us are not our enemies, and are worth being constructive with. That's the message of the article.
Both sides have been responsible for deadly misinformation also.
You can smack down the misinformation without smacking down the peddler. Try it, it makes you feel better 😇
Huh? Diagnosis rates going up doesn’t indicate an increase by itself. The DSM changed and widened the definition. It’s not a mystery. All that information IS readily available. There’s the same exact amount of autism. Now people are getting diagnosis instead of being undiagnosed. Hence an increase in diagnosis but no actual increase in autism. Good news though, in the direction we’re going where we don’t acknowledge it, diagnosis rates will go down. I’m excited to hear how this is wrong though.
Thank you, Matt. It's literally true that the diagnosis rate (incidence of diagnosis) doesn't necessarily reflect the incidence of autism. It's a challenge, but certainly possible, to discern between (a) rising diagnoses independent of case incidence and (b) rising case incidence. I made that the topic of my epidemiology MS thesis and I published a rigorous solution here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260738
Is there any evidence that the several DSM revisions since 1980 *caused* the increase in diagnoses? Doubtful. Correlation is not causation. Attempts to show that revisions explain the increase generally rely on counting diagnoses before and after publication of a DSM revision and assuming that the revision caused the increase. That could be a spurious correlation, as it's just looking at time itself. For example, republicans won control of the US congress in 1994, the same year that DSM-IV was published. Did that election cause an increase in autism diagnoses? Of course not. The face value meaning of more diagnoses after publication of a revision is that there were more cases. Showing otherwise requires valid evidence.
There have been a few studies that properly considered differences between successive diagnostic criteria, comparing different criteria with the same subjects. For the most part, changes since 1980 have had very little effect on who is considered to have autism, apart from the addition of Asperger in DSM-IV and merging Asperger with other pervasive developmental disorders in DSM-5. The CDC compared DSM-IV with DSM-5 and found that DSM-5 is more restrictive - narrower - than DSM-IV. And, even if publication of new criteria greatly increased the proportion of the population considered to have autism it could not cause an ongoing increase in birth year prevalence.
I see very clear evidence that a widened autism diagnosis, coupled with general awareness has caused a large increase in diagnosis. This is truly the only area worth studying. Arguing over an alleged increase in autism itself is not worthwhile until we can answer the basic question that it is autism itself and not diagnosis that is rising. So I find your basic assertion flawed that science or medicine needs to say autism is rising. I applaud the need for further study, but today’s reality would make finding funding far more difficult to secure. I would also think that trying to find both genetic and environmental factors is also worth studying in a good faith way, opposed to bad faith efforts like RFK.
One of the problems here is that autism is quite a heterogeneous condition. One will see the 'causes' of it, as a lot of the discussion puts it, varying from Fragile X Syndrome, which might be treated separately anyway, to Congenital Rubella Syndrome. In some cases retrospectively as it were.
The diagnosis has pragmatic elements too. They really has been no increase as other commentators point out to you.
Thank you, Jess, for reading and liking this comment of mine. I am utterly serious.
To those who seem to think I'm just wrong: Where's the evidence?
Some appear not to have carefully read what I wrote.
It is literally my professional speciality to study and understand the trends in the rate of occurrence of autism. I have been studying it academically for 9 years now.
There are lots of stories that claim the increase is not real by relying on opinions and hearsay: "experts say." Some cite sources that don't provide evidence. Or sources that contradict the claim. Very few have any evidence. Of those few that do, I have not found any that stand up to technical scrutiny. I can explain all of that clearly for a general audience. I have written some, and I will explain much more.
It's not easy, but all sides need to keep communicating and finding common ground or at least understanding. This is similar to what happened when Polio was rampant... yes I'm that old and had the sugar cube vaccine first and then the shots later. The movement for polio and then other childhood vaccines was countered by the "natural way. " I wish I remembered how we moved on, but I suspect something else grabbed out attention. Please keep communicating...each of us will have to make the best decisions for ourselves and also think about how we protect ourselves. Thank you for providing information that helps me make a decision for myself (as I think about others too. )
Yeah but...times have changed. We now have social media influencers reaching large audiences and gaining fame and fortune spreading deliberate misinformation because it sells.
Thank you! This is one of the most refreshingly inspirational articles I've read in a long time. The reminder of the importance of goals is wonderful. Goals are central. So are values, which are just another type of goal. It's so powerful to be reminded that, both sides have the same "bigger picture" goal of healthy kids and thriving communities. Unfortunately, "being right" is also a very common human value and, for some, the evidence seems to indicate it's a higher priority than the health and wellbeing of our populations.
Well-written and intentioned. As a "budding" scientist with 45 years' experience, & being in both camps, I see main two obstacles to progress.
#1 highest priority- I have found mistakes in historical scientific studies which have not been addressed & that influence rhe conclusion of whether vaccines can cause diseases. Based on the work I did in the transplant community, there is no doubt they can be a primary variable that causes organ transplant rejection (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2025.102197). As such, due to the HLA associations with disease and transplant rejection, I have also discovered compelling evidence that autoantibodies (the hallmark of autoimmunity) can also be influenced by vaccines. Certainly more work needs to be done in this area, but who is going to fund it? The scientific community who is busy arguing that evidence for vaccine safety overwhelms any misinformation by non-scientists? Let me clue you in. I was fired for pursuing this work.
#2- MAHA and anti-vaxers may not have evidence because they do not understand the scientific method, hence they cherry-pick. But they ARE smart enough to recognize patterns, so both communities have one thing in common- pattern recognition.
What needs to be done is to drop one's guard and to listen attentively, question thoroughly, be transparent and diligently search for answers that both support and/or contradict each side of the argument until the absolute truth (evidence) becomes too evident to fight over. Both sides can focus their fight against the systemic establishment that keeps progress from being made, providing they work together. United we stand, divided we fall. Isn't it time we help each other up and identify the real enemy?
40 years? Not so, not a year as a scientist, so that is a bad start for you: not that I can follow your turgid prose easily. "Pattern recognition"! if there is one thing that a scientist learns not to trust their own intuitions or the public's on it is that. Were you fired from some post? I can well believe it.
What historical mistakes? The Cutter Incident, live vaccine polio outbreaks? There have been a few and all addressed or understood. In the case of live polio it is 'needs must' at present. Especially since the current anti vaxx push is making things worse in terms of resources to replace the current live ones in parts of the World.
Several other problems have been highlighted and addressed over the years and none known have been neglected once discovered, yours is a standard narrative though for casting doubt on vaccines.
I struggled to make much sense from the link too, though I didn't spend much time on it. It started to look like word salad with technical terms frankly, though, as I say, I didn't spend a lot of time on it.
Basically anything in a vaccine will also be in the pathogen in a far more dangerous and severe form. That is a rule of thumb and one that one can glean from "pattern recognition"; it is roughly how and why they work. It was kind of Nature to arrange itself so they were possible, in stark contrast to nearly every other medical or drug intervention which nearly all have 'side effects' or dosage problems or onerous constraints.
The other astonishing pattern I recognize is high, though not perfect protection from severe disease that all current vaccines show.
I won't continue to reply here on this excellent and very useful blog and clutter it up frankly.
Since you you couldn't make it through the paper, I won't bother to send you the references that point out the mistakes. Word salad? Tell the reviewers and editor of Transplant Immunology that. Maybe they'll retract my paper.
Let me guess, rhe responder is not a scientist? Nor did this is dividual take time to read the paper. Like so many others,it's convenient to just continue to spew trash onto other's credibility. No wonder there is no meeting of the minds. It takes an open mind willing to read the science and do the investigating. You can live in your opposing idealism until it falls apart, and make noise as a distraction to keep others away who might be curious. Twisted. Look me up on LinkedIn- Steven Heron. I do a series to explain in layman's terms the science and the mistakes. It's called TidbiTs of Transplant Rejection. I have scientists following me. My paper underwent rigorous review. You might label it otherwise, but you'd have to contend with those who know the science to disprove me. And no, I was fired after having my experiments sabotaged and my career opportunities destroyed to snuff out my research because I didn't follow the narrative. But what do you care? You can keep living in the same comfort of your mis- and dis- information. While others suffer needlessly and still other get rich off their suffering. Anyone can communicate openly with me, and do so via messaging. Something tells me I won't be hearing any more about this as it requires some intellect..
"I was fired after having my experiments sabotaged and my career opportunities destroyed to snuff out my research because I didn't follow the narrative."'
Hilarious, son. Everyone else is just "following the narrative". Where have we heard that before? That's right - quacks, cranks, and charlatans! And this poor little "victim" who couldn't succeed among his science literate peers and ended up talking to the general public that is generally unskilled in science, logic, and critical thinking. That's where these losers go.
You may be right Billy Joe. The only problem I see is whether you're dead wrong. I have no other recourse at this point in my career. I cannot appeal to science or laymen. I can only put the information I learned out there in hopes that the right someone has enough curiosity to question it. It's benn published in both spheres, science and for public knowledge. That takes critical thinking skills. You get a kick out of trashing people who you know nothing about, right? Feel good? I hope you enjoyed it. You're another great example of narcissism on steroids that keeps the conflict in motion. What you don't know may be what hurts you eventually. But you can enjoy the ride as long as it lasts. I don't claim to know it all. I claim to know what I saw over 10 years that no else will be privy to. No anti-vaxer and no vaccine advocate. Data I cannot legally recapitulate without being sued or going to jail. Sweet dreams.
"The only problem I see is whether you're dead wrong. '
But I see you had no meaningful response to my corrections of the misinformation you just spread to an unsuspecting public that will be harmed by it.
"You get a kick out of trashing people"
No, son, I'm pushing back against misinformation merchants like you harming public health. I wish that were not necessary and that we could all spend our time improving public health. Unfortunately, we have to waste our valuable time pushing back against people like you (to use your own word against you) "trashing" public health.
"You're another great example of narcissism "
Wait, you are a psychiatrist now? Worse, a psychiatrist diagnosing someone over the internet as a result of a single exchange. I think perhaps you are proving my point about why you were fired.
" I don't claim to know it all."
Nobody knows it all, but you are getting even the basics wrong. There is no excuse for that. Misinformation kills.
"Data I cannot legally recapitulate without being sued or going to jail."
Yeah, I know, a true legend - in your own mind!
In the meantime, stop spreading deadly misinformation and I will leave you alone. Continue and I'll continue to smack you down. I have zero respect for people who spread deadly misinformation to an unsuspecting public who are left to suffer the consequences.
Go to my LinkedIn profile. You can read all the misinformation you want and trash it all over the web. The series I do, TidbiTs of Transplant Rejection. Maybe write the editor of Transplant Immunology and have them retract my paper. Good luck. You'll need your best brain in gear to support your quips. The 71 references will all need to trashed first. I'm not done. Just getting started.
You are posting in the commentary section of "Unbiased Science". Show some respect for "Unbiased Science" by responding here. Using this commentary section to obtain free publicity for yourself in an attempt to increase your own traffic should be seen as an abuse and treated accordingly.
To be direct with you, you have amplified what seems to me a passing thought into a hypothesis and gotten stuck on it. It is the road to crankery.
Reconsider. It is true that virus can and do 'manipulate' as you put it, immunity. Most parasites have something like that in their 'tool kit'.
However it is also true that the reason transplant organs get rejected by immune systems as foreign bodies is that they ARE foreign bodies.
In fact some, as yet unexplored virion sneaky subterfuges might even be a tool useful to counter that problem. It is a shame that virus research is being slowed, stopped and vilified for no good reason by the Trump admin..
Otherwise what BillyJoe says... I shouldn't encourage further replies from you, but just this once.
If bullying is what you think you saw, cry on snowflake. But, between your tears, please give a thought to the people you have harmed by spreading the sort of disinformation that I exposed above.
There are people who spend their lives trying to improve public health who now have to take time out of their busy schedule to correct the misinformation propagated of people like you.
We are living thru the Dunning-Kruger administration. When opinion trumps facts just because it sounds more like to our own bigoted taste. we are doomed. Both sides are not equal. One is for reality, the other just peddles to peoples fantasies in order to make a profit on the backs of the gullible.
The maha people do not mean well. They are science denialists that cling around conspiracy theories that peddle to their bigoted views. That's all ok if one keeps unfounded beliefs and delusions to themselves. Their problem is that they want to make those delusions into public policy. It has an uncanny resemblance with religious extremists that want to teach bible at prayer at schools. That's not meaning well, that's trying to shove personal, and in this case, misguided views, into society as a whole.
I suggest you read the article again, because you aren’t getting the point of it. Some of the MAHA people (by which I mean everyone who buys into it, not just the government people administering it) don’t mean well, but most do.
Nice article Jess. However I have to say I don't think 'both sides' want the same thing, not really, not once you dig down a bit. They might pay lip service but I have learnt to look past that.
So much of MAHA can be read and interpreted in other ways. Mostly as signals and cues aimed at its relatively small but very vocal base and the narratives aimed at 'owning the libs' and creating FUD about Government or the parts of it meant to help the population at large. Sometimes that is achieved by simply who you put in a post or position of course; Kennedy being the prime example. For what it is worth I am sure he believes what he says, those that appointed him and okeyed him don't in my view, or to put it better the truth or falsity of what they say and advocate is secondary to them or even irrelevant.
Anyway by definition and quite overtly MAGA and MAHA by inference, don't forget, only wants healthy AMERICAN kids at best. It is quite marked and you might well note it. That is arguably more general than I would like in America though.
Sorry, Philadelphiensis, I don't agree that Kennedy believes what he says. He believes part of what he says but it is mostly just misrepresentation and deliberate lies. His biggest lie is that he is not anti-vaccine.
Well said. We each need to fight the divisiveness not each other. It starts with toning down the rhetoric and acknowledging that everyone has a piece of the truth and most people mean well.
And if we want to judge, we need to be willing to judge our own side as well as the other. Our only loyalty must be to objectivity and fact.
One other factor that wasn’t mentioned I think is important. People are diagnosing themselves as on the spectrum or “neurodiverse“. That can contribute to the impression of an increase in formal diagnoses.
I don't think the sentiments expressed here will get us anywhere.
You are NEVER going to convince deliberate liars like RFK junior (watch "Doctor Mike" video titled "He's lying to you" for a good rundown of this disgusting human being). And RFK junior is not alone. There are many social media influencers who gain fame and fortune by being contrarian, controversial, and sensationalistic, and who do not hesitate to deliberately misrepresent what a scientist or scientific paper says. During the pandemic 19 of the top 20 earners on Substack were anti-vaccine. Bullshit sells!
This is a goddamn war, and to think otherwise is to lose that war. Kennedy needs to be taken down, not appealed to and, least of all, to be appeased. He is a blatant liar, and has been for 20 years, and he will never be any different.
It is clear to me that this was exacerbated by the pandemic politics. Unfortunately the messaging could have been much better by the science community as well. We have taken a few steps back and have quite the hurdles ahead of us.
Unlike your adversaries who are rewriting the history of their failed predictions, doubling down on their misrepresentations and misinformation, and laughing all the way to the bank.
I appreciate that you acknowledged your bias in this post because you create a false dichotomy in this post and engage in some of the same oversimplification you are accusing anyone who is critical of conflicts of interest in our scientific and health care systems. I'd say I'm somewhere squarely in the middle of the two camps and that's where most highly educated people I know with nuanced thinking and life experience also sit. There's a lot to be skeptical of on both sides. https://senseaboutscience.org/
You're right, if only I could employ your demonstrable skill for specificity and measured line of questioning that shows respectful and thoughtful engagement, "could you be more vague perhaps?" Bravo. Not to mention the courage you exhibit in using your full real name. I admit defeat.
Might as well if you won't answer the questions. ;) Not that there may not have been merit to some of your stance in your original comment, yet it also has a bit of an accusatory vibe. Hence the questions. But feel free to ignore that because I don't have a first and last name as my random internet profile name. All good.
Why do you think being "squarely in the middle" is where to be?
Why do you think you are in the "squarely in the middle"?
Because you criticise "both sides"?
"I'd say I'm somewhere squarely in the middle of the two camps and that's where most highly educated people I know with nuanced thinking and life experience also sit."
Highly educated and nuanced and with life experience. Okay...
A sad and dangerous reality is that the MAHA side has unfettered access to the eyes and ears of anyone with a television while the voices for science only have access to people who are willing to dig for and consider the evidence.
Yes exactly, I have to say on reflection I think Jess needs to reconsider the false equivalences she seems intent on embracing. I guess Lysenko and his supporters, and I knew a few, as well as the real geneticists he destroyed all wanted 'bigger corn' in the USSR too. I really don't see what the point of this post was supposed to be. Almost a platitude.
In fact I think communicators and public facing scientists need to reflect a bit on the 'sackcloth and ashes' and 'both sidesism', we haven't done so bad actually regarding a lot of things.
In fact the vaccines were an astonishing success and that is now totally buried by jibber jabber and propaganda. Why that is being done is another matter, but that is the case.
Howdy Philadelphiensis, my friend :)
(I see you have a similar take to mine regarding this post).
It is amazing to see scientists lashing themselves (don't friggin' do that, you helped save millions of lives during the pandemic!) and looking for ways to improve (no criticism there, it is always good to look to improve even after you've already saved millions!) while the pandemic grifters and misinformation merchants are busy re-writing the history of their failed pandemic predictions and doubling down on the misinformation they spread. They still pretend that the GBD would have worked!!!
This is a goddamn war.
100% and I know both of us consider Jess one of the best communicators out here. And it is 'exhausting' as she puts it to say the least!
"exhausting"
Yes, scientists and health care workers worked tirelessly around the clock during the early pandemic years saving millions of lives but still had to make the time to correct the misinformation and disinformation being spread by grifting antivax arseholes who profited handsomely from their deadly disinformation while their victims were dying by the hundreds of thousands.
To see some of these turds now being rewarded for their bastardry with peak government jobs must be particularly galling for these pandemic heroes.
I feel for them all for all they have suffered and all they have achieved against incredible odds.
Terrific job at missing the entire point of the article.
Your comment would actually be helpful if you added some context to the criticism.
Enlighten me please. I hate being ignorant.
You're demonizing the other side, using extreme and catastrophizing rhetoric. Which is what the article is calling out.
If we can't talk about the people we disagree with like human beings, our behavior is part of the problem.
No I’m not demonizing anyone. I’m just saying that the communication playing field is not level. There is valuable information that is not easily accessible to a large part of the population.
Ah OK. Well congrats, now you can better understand how the communication field was not level for the other side, and how that felt for them, for the entire history of the issue up until a few months ago. Pretty frustrating isn't it?
What I’m seeing in practice at the bedside seems to be a fundamental shift in how we view knowledge and how we can know things. Many families now don’t care about data and are much more invested in what someone’s experience is, especially someone they know and trust. So if a neighbor says their child was diagnosed with autism after vaccines, then they conclude a causal relationship and no amount of data or stats can change that opinion. It’s just a totally different language and as you note the scientific community needs to understand that throwing studies and data at people won’t stick. We need more medical and scientific professionals to talk earnestly about their experiences. I usually talk about the children I’ve cared for with vaccine preventative diseases and how they suffered. But it’s very frustrating and the leaders of these misinformation fountains on social media are so difficult to compete with because of the volume and prevalence.
You've already written off simple observations as misinformation without acknowledging that there may be confounding variables that have never been considered or tested. I believe this is called bias. I would point you to my paper. You can argue with the editor over the rigorous applied and the peer review process. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2025.102197. Next I will tackle autoimmunity. This is in silico evidence only. I was fired for pursuing it and my experiments were sabotaged before I could publish experimental data. Sorry, truth hurts. Follow me on LinkedIn "TidbiTs of Transplant Rejection". Maybe it's time for a paradigm shift?
"I would point you to my paper... Next I will tackle autoimmunity...Follow me on LinkedIn"
Please stop using (abusing?) the commentary section for the sole purpose of self-promotion.
I am surprised the moderator even allows this.
"I was fired for pursuing it and my experiments were sabotaged before I could publish experimental data."
You are not a victim, son, give us a break!
You are engaging in exactly what the article is calling out. Stop it with the ad hominem and character assassination.
"You are engaging in exactly what the article is calling out."
I know what I am doing, and I disagree that we will bring about any change by treating arseholes with respect.
"Stop it with the ad hominem"
Stop it with treating arseholes with the respect they crave and do not deserve.
🤔
https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/
Wait, it's even in your handle:
Hazel-rah
Respectful Arse Hole |:
Very good article, Jess, thank you.
I am both a concerned parent and an epidemiologist. In both roles, autism is front and center 24/7/365.
There is a very serious obvious problem on both sides re: autism. Can one side be the adult in the room and make things better? Yes, absolutely!
What problem? Scientists (epidemiologists), doctors and science journalists almost universally pretend that the massive rate of increase in autism is not real. Why? There is no valid evidence supporting that denial. Seriously, if anyone knows of any, please point it out. I've probably studied it.
Why do they deny this obvious reality? The best explanation is that they've adopted the framing of the vaccine-blamers, also referred to as anti-vaxxers. Many articles give the tell: Autism rates are not increasing so vaccines aren't causing an increase.
Vaccine-blamers see the scientific community's denial of the obvious increase as hiding something. They falsely claim that what they're hiding is a widespread ill effect of vaccines.
Scientists are empowering vaccine-blamers by continuing to deny the reality of autism.
They could easily fix that by simply admitting the reality.
They might feel it's too late to do that now - they've been denying autism reality for so long, it would look bad to pull back the curtain now. But that's the only way to regain trust.
What a load of bollocks!
Diagnoses of autism has increased but autism has not.
(There may possibly be a marginal increase in incidence, the cause of which has not been determined, but likely due of environmental factors but definitely not vaccinations)
Some of the reasons are as follows:
- diagnostic substitution.
- widening of the diagnostic criteria.
- greater awareness among both doctors and parents.
- far larger number of testing facilities.
- elimination of the stigma of the diagnosis.
- financial subsidies for children with autism.
You’re both partially right. There’s been an increase, and also an increase in tendency to recognize and diagnose what previously was not.
You’re also both engaging in the very thing the article is calling out - attacking the other side rather than merely disagreeing with them.
Stop that.
I call a spade a spade.
And I call a load of bollocks a load of bloody bollocks.
Okay?
"You’re both partially right. There’s been an increase, and also an increase in tendency to recognize and diagnose what previously was not"
Did you miss this bit in my response to this bollocks merchant: "There may possibly be a marginal increase in incidence, the cause of which has not been determined, but likely due of environmental factors but definitely not vaccinations"
Also, I am not impressed by your "both siderism" claptrap.
It is just a cheap easy way out.
The commenter was trying to spread deadly misinformation.
I corrected the deadly disinformation he was trying to spread.
There is no equivalence here.
"Stop that."
Stop that tone trolling, tone troll.
It is not appreciated when I am smacking down a deadly misinformation peddler.
I didn't miss it. I agree.
You're in the Comments section of an article about the both sides aspect to the issue 😂 If you want to continue to divide, better to do it elsewhere, in this context it's boring AF as well as unconstructive.
Acknowledging the both sides aspect is constructive because the other side will be more likely to listen to us.
I am all in favor of fighting enemies; but most of the people who disagree with us are not our enemies, and are worth being constructive with. That's the message of the article.
Both sides have been responsible for deadly misinformation also.
You can smack down the misinformation without smacking down the peddler. Try it, it makes you feel better 😇
We have been doing the bothsides bullshit for decades and losing.
If you want to keep losing against the grifting pseudoscientific fraudsters, keep doing what doesn't work.
I'm with scientists and science educators who are sticking the fv<king baton up their arses.
Being divisive IS “losing”.
You are basically letting Trump drag you down to his level.
Again - let’s save our spears for the people who actually deserve them, rather than hurling them at everyone who disagrees with us.
Huh? Diagnosis rates going up doesn’t indicate an increase by itself. The DSM changed and widened the definition. It’s not a mystery. All that information IS readily available. There’s the same exact amount of autism. Now people are getting diagnosis instead of being undiagnosed. Hence an increase in diagnosis but no actual increase in autism. Good news though, in the direction we’re going where we don’t acknowledge it, diagnosis rates will go down. I’m excited to hear how this is wrong though.
Thank you, Matt. It's literally true that the diagnosis rate (incidence of diagnosis) doesn't necessarily reflect the incidence of autism. It's a challenge, but certainly possible, to discern between (a) rising diagnoses independent of case incidence and (b) rising case incidence. I made that the topic of my epidemiology MS thesis and I published a rigorous solution here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260738
Is there any evidence that the several DSM revisions since 1980 *caused* the increase in diagnoses? Doubtful. Correlation is not causation. Attempts to show that revisions explain the increase generally rely on counting diagnoses before and after publication of a DSM revision and assuming that the revision caused the increase. That could be a spurious correlation, as it's just looking at time itself. For example, republicans won control of the US congress in 1994, the same year that DSM-IV was published. Did that election cause an increase in autism diagnoses? Of course not. The face value meaning of more diagnoses after publication of a revision is that there were more cases. Showing otherwise requires valid evidence.
There have been a few studies that properly considered differences between successive diagnostic criteria, comparing different criteria with the same subjects. For the most part, changes since 1980 have had very little effect on who is considered to have autism, apart from the addition of Asperger in DSM-IV and merging Asperger with other pervasive developmental disorders in DSM-5. The CDC compared DSM-IV with DSM-5 and found that DSM-5 is more restrictive - narrower - than DSM-IV. And, even if publication of new criteria greatly increased the proportion of the population considered to have autism it could not cause an ongoing increase in birth year prevalence.
This article agrees with my understanding. https://bbc.com/future/article/20250509-why-autism-diagnoses-are-on-the-rise
I see very clear evidence that a widened autism diagnosis, coupled with general awareness has caused a large increase in diagnosis. This is truly the only area worth studying. Arguing over an alleged increase in autism itself is not worthwhile until we can answer the basic question that it is autism itself and not diagnosis that is rising. So I find your basic assertion flawed that science or medicine needs to say autism is rising. I applaud the need for further study, but today’s reality would make finding funding far more difficult to secure. I would also think that trying to find both genetic and environmental factors is also worth studying in a good faith way, opposed to bad faith efforts like RFK.
One of the problems here is that autism is quite a heterogeneous condition. One will see the 'causes' of it, as a lot of the discussion puts it, varying from Fragile X Syndrome, which might be treated separately anyway, to Congenital Rubella Syndrome. In some cases retrospectively as it were.
The diagnosis has pragmatic elements too. They really has been no increase as other commentators point out to you.
Thank you, Jess, for reading and liking this comment of mine. I am utterly serious.
To those who seem to think I'm just wrong: Where's the evidence?
Some appear not to have carefully read what I wrote.
It is literally my professional speciality to study and understand the trends in the rate of occurrence of autism. I have been studying it academically for 9 years now.
There are lots of stories that claim the increase is not real by relying on opinions and hearsay: "experts say." Some cite sources that don't provide evidence. Or sources that contradict the claim. Very few have any evidence. Of those few that do, I have not found any that stand up to technical scrutiny. I can explain all of that clearly for a general audience. I have written some, and I will explain much more.
For details see my work here: https://substack.com/@autismloveandscience
It's not easy, but all sides need to keep communicating and finding common ground or at least understanding. This is similar to what happened when Polio was rampant... yes I'm that old and had the sugar cube vaccine first and then the shots later. The movement for polio and then other childhood vaccines was countered by the "natural way. " I wish I remembered how we moved on, but I suspect something else grabbed out attention. Please keep communicating...each of us will have to make the best decisions for ourselves and also think about how we protect ourselves. Thank you for providing information that helps me make a decision for myself (as I think about others too. )
Yeah but...times have changed. We now have social media influencers reaching large audiences and gaining fame and fortune spreading deliberate misinformation because it sells.
Thank you! This is one of the most refreshingly inspirational articles I've read in a long time. The reminder of the importance of goals is wonderful. Goals are central. So are values, which are just another type of goal. It's so powerful to be reminded that, both sides have the same "bigger picture" goal of healthy kids and thriving communities. Unfortunately, "being right" is also a very common human value and, for some, the evidence seems to indicate it's a higher priority than the health and wellbeing of our populations.
Well-written and intentioned. As a "budding" scientist with 45 years' experience, & being in both camps, I see main two obstacles to progress.
#1 highest priority- I have found mistakes in historical scientific studies which have not been addressed & that influence rhe conclusion of whether vaccines can cause diseases. Based on the work I did in the transplant community, there is no doubt they can be a primary variable that causes organ transplant rejection (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2025.102197). As such, due to the HLA associations with disease and transplant rejection, I have also discovered compelling evidence that autoantibodies (the hallmark of autoimmunity) can also be influenced by vaccines. Certainly more work needs to be done in this area, but who is going to fund it? The scientific community who is busy arguing that evidence for vaccine safety overwhelms any misinformation by non-scientists? Let me clue you in. I was fired for pursuing this work.
#2- MAHA and anti-vaxers may not have evidence because they do not understand the scientific method, hence they cherry-pick. But they ARE smart enough to recognize patterns, so both communities have one thing in common- pattern recognition.
What needs to be done is to drop one's guard and to listen attentively, question thoroughly, be transparent and diligently search for answers that both support and/or contradict each side of the argument until the absolute truth (evidence) becomes too evident to fight over. Both sides can focus their fight against the systemic establishment that keeps progress from being made, providing they work together. United we stand, divided we fall. Isn't it time we help each other up and identify the real enemy?
40 years? Not so, not a year as a scientist, so that is a bad start for you: not that I can follow your turgid prose easily. "Pattern recognition"! if there is one thing that a scientist learns not to trust their own intuitions or the public's on it is that. Were you fired from some post? I can well believe it.
What historical mistakes? The Cutter Incident, live vaccine polio outbreaks? There have been a few and all addressed or understood. In the case of live polio it is 'needs must' at present. Especially since the current anti vaxx push is making things worse in terms of resources to replace the current live ones in parts of the World.
Several other problems have been highlighted and addressed over the years and none known have been neglected once discovered, yours is a standard narrative though for casting doubt on vaccines.
I struggled to make much sense from the link too, though I didn't spend much time on it. It started to look like word salad with technical terms frankly, though, as I say, I didn't spend a lot of time on it.
Basically anything in a vaccine will also be in the pathogen in a far more dangerous and severe form. That is a rule of thumb and one that one can glean from "pattern recognition"; it is roughly how and why they work. It was kind of Nature to arrange itself so they were possible, in stark contrast to nearly every other medical or drug intervention which nearly all have 'side effects' or dosage problems or onerous constraints.
The other astonishing pattern I recognize is high, though not perfect protection from severe disease that all current vaccines show.
I won't continue to reply here on this excellent and very useful blog and clutter it up frankly.
Since you you couldn't make it through the paper, I won't bother to send you the references that point out the mistakes. Word salad? Tell the reviewers and editor of Transplant Immunology that. Maybe they'll retract my paper.
Let me guess, rhe responder is not a scientist? Nor did this is dividual take time to read the paper. Like so many others,it's convenient to just continue to spew trash onto other's credibility. No wonder there is no meeting of the minds. It takes an open mind willing to read the science and do the investigating. You can live in your opposing idealism until it falls apart, and make noise as a distraction to keep others away who might be curious. Twisted. Look me up on LinkedIn- Steven Heron. I do a series to explain in layman's terms the science and the mistakes. It's called TidbiTs of Transplant Rejection. I have scientists following me. My paper underwent rigorous review. You might label it otherwise, but you'd have to contend with those who know the science to disprove me. And no, I was fired after having my experiments sabotaged and my career opportunities destroyed to snuff out my research because I didn't follow the narrative. But what do you care? You can keep living in the same comfort of your mis- and dis- information. While others suffer needlessly and still other get rich off their suffering. Anyone can communicate openly with me, and do so via messaging. Something tells me I won't be hearing any more about this as it requires some intellect..
"Look me up on LinkedIn- Steven Heron."
A true legend in his own mind! :)
"I was fired after having my experiments sabotaged and my career opportunities destroyed to snuff out my research because I didn't follow the narrative."'
Hilarious, son. Everyone else is just "following the narrative". Where have we heard that before? That's right - quacks, cranks, and charlatans! And this poor little "victim" who couldn't succeed among his science literate peers and ended up talking to the general public that is generally unskilled in science, logic, and critical thinking. That's where these losers go.
Nothing to see here.
Correction of the bollocks:
- there is no evidence that vaccinations cause transplanted organ rejection.
- in fact, up-to-date vaccinations are a requirement for organ donation.
- vaccinations do cause autoimmune reactions but there is no evidence that they cause autoimmune disease.
- pattern recognition can only be used to generate hypotheses most of which turn out to be false when evaluated scientifically.
- the "both sideism" is misplaced - one side is evidence-based, the other side is not.
I also suspect that this self-proclaimed "victim" was actually fired for incompetence considering the bollocks he posted above.
You may be right Billy Joe. The only problem I see is whether you're dead wrong. I have no other recourse at this point in my career. I cannot appeal to science or laymen. I can only put the information I learned out there in hopes that the right someone has enough curiosity to question it. It's benn published in both spheres, science and for public knowledge. That takes critical thinking skills. You get a kick out of trashing people who you know nothing about, right? Feel good? I hope you enjoyed it. You're another great example of narcissism on steroids that keeps the conflict in motion. What you don't know may be what hurts you eventually. But you can enjoy the ride as long as it lasts. I don't claim to know it all. I claim to know what I saw over 10 years that no else will be privy to. No anti-vaxer and no vaccine advocate. Data I cannot legally recapitulate without being sued or going to jail. Sweet dreams.
"The only problem I see is whether you're dead wrong. '
But I see you had no meaningful response to my corrections of the misinformation you just spread to an unsuspecting public that will be harmed by it.
"You get a kick out of trashing people"
No, son, I'm pushing back against misinformation merchants like you harming public health. I wish that were not necessary and that we could all spend our time improving public health. Unfortunately, we have to waste our valuable time pushing back against people like you (to use your own word against you) "trashing" public health.
"You're another great example of narcissism "
Wait, you are a psychiatrist now? Worse, a psychiatrist diagnosing someone over the internet as a result of a single exchange. I think perhaps you are proving my point about why you were fired.
" I don't claim to know it all."
Nobody knows it all, but you are getting even the basics wrong. There is no excuse for that. Misinformation kills.
"Data I cannot legally recapitulate without being sued or going to jail."
Yeah, I know, a true legend - in your own mind!
In the meantime, stop spreading deadly misinformation and I will leave you alone. Continue and I'll continue to smack you down. I have zero respect for people who spread deadly misinformation to an unsuspecting public who are left to suffer the consequences.
Go to my LinkedIn profile. You can read all the misinformation you want and trash it all over the web. The series I do, TidbiTs of Transplant Rejection. Maybe write the editor of Transplant Immunology and have them retract my paper. Good luck. You'll need your best brain in gear to support your quips. The 71 references will all need to trashed first. I'm not done. Just getting started.
"Go to my LinkedIn profile."
You are posting in the commentary section of "Unbiased Science". Show some respect for "Unbiased Science" by responding here. Using this commentary section to obtain free publicity for yourself in an attempt to increase your own traffic should be seen as an abuse and treated accordingly.
To be direct with you, you have amplified what seems to me a passing thought into a hypothesis and gotten stuck on it. It is the road to crankery.
Reconsider. It is true that virus can and do 'manipulate' as you put it, immunity. Most parasites have something like that in their 'tool kit'.
However it is also true that the reason transplant organs get rejected by immune systems as foreign bodies is that they ARE foreign bodies.
In fact some, as yet unexplored virion sneaky subterfuges might even be a tool useful to counter that problem. It is a shame that virus research is being slowed, stopped and vilified for no good reason by the Trump admin..
Otherwise what BillyJoe says... I shouldn't encourage further replies from you, but just this once.
O, and I don't fear bullies anymore. Been there, done that. Smack on.
If bullying is what you think you saw, cry on snowflake. But, between your tears, please give a thought to the people you have harmed by spreading the sort of disinformation that I exposed above.
There are people who spend their lives trying to improve public health who now have to take time out of their busy schedule to correct the misinformation propagated of people like you.
You should hang you head in shame.
We are living thru the Dunning-Kruger administration. When opinion trumps facts just because it sounds more like to our own bigoted taste. we are doomed. Both sides are not equal. One is for reality, the other just peddles to peoples fantasies in order to make a profit on the backs of the gullible.
Both sides may not be equal, but both sides have people on them that mean well, and both deserve to be treated like human beings, not demonized.
That's the point of the article that you appear determined to ignore. Which isn't helpful.
The maha people do not mean well. They are science denialists that cling around conspiracy theories that peddle to their bigoted views. That's all ok if one keeps unfounded beliefs and delusions to themselves. Their problem is that they want to make those delusions into public policy. It has an uncanny resemblance with religious extremists that want to teach bible at prayer at schools. That's not meaning well, that's trying to shove personal, and in this case, misguided views, into society as a whole.
I suggest you read the article again, because you aren’t getting the point of it. Some of the MAHA people (by which I mean everyone who buys into it, not just the government people administering it) don’t mean well, but most do.
Yes, the designation "MAHA reality" was misplaced. There is only one reality and it is not MAHA.
Nice article Jess. However I have to say I don't think 'both sides' want the same thing, not really, not once you dig down a bit. They might pay lip service but I have learnt to look past that.
So much of MAHA can be read and interpreted in other ways. Mostly as signals and cues aimed at its relatively small but very vocal base and the narratives aimed at 'owning the libs' and creating FUD about Government or the parts of it meant to help the population at large. Sometimes that is achieved by simply who you put in a post or position of course; Kennedy being the prime example. For what it is worth I am sure he believes what he says, those that appointed him and okeyed him don't in my view, or to put it better the truth or falsity of what they say and advocate is secondary to them or even irrelevant.
Anyway by definition and quite overtly MAGA and MAHA by inference, don't forget, only wants healthy AMERICAN kids at best. It is quite marked and you might well note it. That is arguably more general than I would like in America though.
Sorry, Philadelphiensis, I don't agree that Kennedy believes what he says. He believes part of what he says but it is mostly just misrepresentation and deliberate lies. His biggest lie is that he is not anti-vaccine.
Point accecpted
Brava! Brava!
Well said. We each need to fight the divisiveness not each other. It starts with toning down the rhetoric and acknowledging that everyone has a piece of the truth and most people mean well.
And if we want to judge, we need to be willing to judge our own side as well as the other. Our only loyalty must be to objectivity and fact.
One other factor that wasn’t mentioned I think is important. People are diagnosing themselves as on the spectrum or “neurodiverse“. That can contribute to the impression of an increase in formal diagnoses.
The TDS is strong here. Best of wishes and good health.
I don't think the sentiments expressed here will get us anywhere.
You are NEVER going to convince deliberate liars like RFK junior (watch "Doctor Mike" video titled "He's lying to you" for a good rundown of this disgusting human being). And RFK junior is not alone. There are many social media influencers who gain fame and fortune by being contrarian, controversial, and sensationalistic, and who do not hesitate to deliberately misrepresent what a scientist or scientific paper says. During the pandemic 19 of the top 20 earners on Substack were anti-vaccine. Bullshit sells!
This is a goddamn war, and to think otherwise is to lose that war. Kennedy needs to be taken down, not appealed to and, least of all, to be appeased. He is a blatant liar, and has been for 20 years, and he will never be any different.
The article wasn't about RFK but everyone on both sides of the issue.
You're illustrating the author's point about people demonizing everyone who disagrees with them making the problem worse.
Thank you.
Where we go from here is that people start dying, right? There is no short term solution that I can see, but I sure see a long term one.
It is clear to me that this was exacerbated by the pandemic politics. Unfortunately the messaging could have been much better by the science community as well. We have taken a few steps back and have quite the hurdles ahead of us.
Unlike your adversaries who are rewriting the history of their failed predictions, doubling down on their misrepresentations and misinformation, and laughing all the way to the bank.
I appreciate that you acknowledged your bias in this post because you create a false dichotomy in this post and engage in some of the same oversimplification you are accusing anyone who is critical of conflicts of interest in our scientific and health care systems. I'd say I'm somewhere squarely in the middle of the two camps and that's where most highly educated people I know with nuanced thinking and life experience also sit. There's a lot to be skeptical of on both sides. https://senseaboutscience.org/
what is the alleged false dichotomy? Could you be more vague perhaps? And why a link? hmmmm
You're right, if only I could employ your demonstrable skill for specificity and measured line of questioning that shows respectful and thoughtful engagement, "could you be more vague perhaps?" Bravo. Not to mention the courage you exhibit in using your full real name. I admit defeat.
Might as well if you won't answer the questions. ;) Not that there may not have been merit to some of your stance in your original comment, yet it also has a bit of an accusatory vibe. Hence the questions. But feel free to ignore that because I don't have a first and last name as my random internet profile name. All good.
"Bravo. Not to mention the courage you exhibit in using your full real name"
Oh, wow, not you, hey, Ravneet Grewal, "highly educated" and "nuanced" and "with life experience"! How could anyone disagree?
Why do you think being "squarely in the middle" is where to be?
Why do you think you are in the "squarely in the middle"?
Because you criticise "both sides"?
"I'd say I'm somewhere squarely in the middle of the two camps and that's where most highly educated people I know with nuanced thinking and life experience also sit."
Highly educated and nuanced and with life experience. Okay...