If you’re spending more than a nanosecond reading idiotic memes from the anti-vaccine religion, I’m sure you’d see the old the package insert says that FDA doesn’t require testing vaccines to determine whether they cause cancer or not. It still makes me laugh how much authority the anti-vaxxers give to package inserts, but that’s another story for another day.
Oh wait, it is another story that I told. You know, the old argument by vaccine package insert fallacy. It’s a fun one, it’s helpful in dismissing the bogus claims that the anti-vaxxers make using package inserts.
Like all zombie memes from the vaccine deniers, this one keeps disappearing then returning every few months. And now with the current measles epidemic in the US and other areas, it’s arisen from the graveyard of debunked vaccine myths to haunt the internet.
Ten years after the introduction of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in the USA in 2006, HPV prevalence has dropped significantly in a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This is very encouraging research that further strengthens the evidence behind the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.
One of the tropes pushed by the anti-vaccine religion is that we don’t know if the vaccine actually will prevent an HPV infection after 10 years. Well, now we know.
I originally wrote this article in 2014 to discuss whether correlation implies causation. Not that I expect everyone to read and remember this one article, but it’s frustrating when I see a conversation where people who deny science and accept science both misuse correlation and how it relates to causation. So, I decided to update this article and republish it as a reminder that the relationship of correlation to causation isn’t as easy as a simple trope or meme.
One of the foundations of biomedical science is whether correlation implies causation. Anti-vaccine activists often conflate or misunderstand the two, rejecting or accepting correlation as it fits its narrative. The “correlation implies causation” story is often abused, misused and confused by many writers.
One thing we do know about correlation is that if you can’t establish correlation, despite numerous attempts, it is nearly impossible to claim causation. Also, if you do observe correlation, it also doesn’t imply causation.
But there are methods, grounded in powerful science, to establish causation from observations of correlation. So sometimes correlation does not imply causation. But sometimes correlation implies causation.
If you hang around discussions about vaccines, you will see the oft-repeated claim that doctors once claimed that “smoking is safe.” The anti-vaccine religion (or terrorists) use this trope as a strawman argument in an attempt to discredit physicians, scientists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who claim that vaccines are safe and effective.
A new study has been published that claims that the herbicide glyphosate is linked to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph tissue. Of course, once a study like this hits the interwebs, everyone becomes panicked that glyphosate causes cancer.
I want to take a look at this paper because I am generally distrustful of any claims that “XYZ causes cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Darla Shine, a former Fox News producer, and wife of the White House deputy chief of staff of communications, of course, posted a dangerous and ignorant tweet that implied that measles prevents cancer.
Diet fads seem to test the limits of science since forever. I’m an ancient feathered dinosaur, and I’ve seen it all from the popcorn diet to the South Beach diet to the paleo diet to the ketogenic diet.
I’m sure that the ancient Romans had some diet fad diet that the aristocracy followed to keep themselves healthy – oh wait, the Roman upper class followed the Mediterranean diet, which may be one diet fad that stood the test of time and science.
Outside of the aforementioned Mediterranean diet, which includes whole grains, olive oil, seafood, legumes, and nuts, most of these diets lack robust scientific evidence supporting their usefulness in weight loss or maintaining some unbiased standard of health. But they certainly make a lot of money for those promoting them. It was a US$66 billion market in the USA alone in 2017. Wait, maybe I should invent the Raptor Diet?
One of the current fads is the ketogenic diet, which is all the rage among those looking to lose weight, improve their health, and, I’m sure, prevent cancer. Before someone thinks it really prevents cancer, it does not. In fact, it may increase the risk of cancer. But that’s another story for another day.
If you’ve been cruising Facebook, Twitter, or Google+ lately, you’d have seen some breathless headlines claiming that Israeli scientists have discovered a miracle cure for cancer. And it will be ready in one year.
What a load of rubbish, balderdash, codswallop, claptrap, and nonsense.
I’d end the article right there because nothing more really needs to be written. But you come here for the snark, but stay for the science. Or come here for the science, and stay for the snark. Either way, I need to spend a few minutes of your time, and a couple of thousand words, to put this pile of equine excrement into a waste pit.
Anyone who follows the cantankerous feathered dinosaur knows that we tend to focus on vaccines, where the anti-vaccine religion focuses on tropes, pseudoscience, misinformation, and outright lies. Cancer myths seem to steal from the anti-vaccine playbook by pushing similar tropes, pseudoscience, misinformation, and lies.
I keep responding to these cancer myths all across the internet, so I thought that it might be useful to list out my favorite ones. No, it would take 50,000 words to debunk all of these cancer myths. For example, the Burzynski Clinic quackery is best handled by a real cancer specialist, David Gorski, MD, who has written well over 100 articles critiquing the Burzynski pseudoscience. So I’m going to stick with my personal favorites.