Banner
    What Do Barack Obama, John McCain And Tom Cruise Have In Common? Scientific Illiteracy
    By Hank Campbell | December 27th 2008 01:26 PM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Go ahead and admit it, you would have been stumped if the answer wasn't in the title, right?   There isn't much a Democrat President-elect, an old white Republican war veteran and an insane actor could all have in common, but they do, according to the group Sense About Science which seeks to promote scientific accuracy.

    It's scientific illiteracy.

    Their Celebrities and Science Review 2008 pulls out the choicest bits of non-supported science data and holds them up for all to ridicule.  So let's go to it:

    Barack Obama:
    We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate," said President-elect Obama. "Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it," he said.
    It is?  If, by inconclusive you mean 'we don't know so I will blame something I read about one time' then I guess it is.

    Don't get all excited, Republicans.   Your guy John McCain did the same thing:
     "It's indisputable that [autism] is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it," he said. "There's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in the vaccines."
    Oprah Winfrey got tagged for promoting a sugarless diet ("mind meals") that claims will 'detoxify' your body.  

    Actress Julianne Moore has endorsed "highly trained medical leeches" which make you bleed. 

    Who knew blood was a toxin?  Celebrities, that's who!

    These are just a few.   You can read the entire Celebrities And Science Review 2008 here.

    Comments

    Hatice Cullingford
    Should I have said: Who makes its own form of aspirin??

    P.S. If everybody were to read this site ...
    Hatice Cullingford | 12/27/08 | 16:32 PM
    But to their credit you have to admit that science is not very intuitive.

    kerrjac (not verified) | 01/01/09 | 11:43 AM
    Hank
    I am okay with that.   Good logic and detective work says if something like autism has skyrocketed, you look for reasons.  

    Science is oddly schizophrenic on vaccines, as well, so I can understand the confusion - everyone believes that Big Pharm is just out to make money yet if a company loses a $5 billion lawsuit and then starts marketing a vaccine that hardly works to teenage girls, a whole subset of science will attack everyone who is skeptical (skepticism only being allowed for a few things) that the vaccines are not just a way to make money.

    But if the data changes and politicians and celebrities stick to their old beliefs anyway, like the mercury in vaccines being gone and autism still being high, it is zealotry, which is anti-science.   

    I pick on Obama because a lot of younger scientists who only came up during Bush thought he, and all Republicans, were more anti-science than anyone else ever.   Which isn't the case.    I predicted that Obama would be no different for science than Bush (or McCain) in the big ways, because I am older and have seen it before, and he hasn't done anything to prove me wrong so far.
    —
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Hank Campbell | 01/01/09 | 11:56 AM