JUNK SCIENCE - The Anti-Vax Movement

The Anti-Vax Movement is putting OTHER people at risk, including entire communities.  These people are just science deniers which are willing to put their own children and other children at risk.

"Amid measles outbreak, NYC health officials strive to promote vaccination, dispel myths" PBS NewsHour 4/10/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. is battling one of the largest outbreaks of measles in decades, with 465 cases confirmed nationwide and 78 new cases in the last week alone.  New York City alone has 285 confirmed cases since last fall.  Dr. Oxiris Barbot, commissioner of its Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, talks to Judy Woodruff about efforts to work with the community to promote vaccination and dispel myth.

VIDEO OF THE DAY - Bashing 'Junk Studies'

The humorous view of  'Junk Studies'

This is way too funny!



SERIOUS NOTE:  "Studies" are NOT the same as hard science.  Hard science is a discipline that consists of:

1. Noting something in the world that may need a further look
2. Forming a Hypothesis (and UNTESTED idea)
3. Forming a test or tests for your Hypothesis
4. Running the test many, many times with repeatable positive results
5. If the results of the many tests is positive, you publish a Theory (a TESTED Hypothesis)
6. Other scientists read your Theory and can repeat the test with similar results
7. Other scientists may come up with another test of Theory, and get positive results
8. After a very long time, the Theory becomes accepted scientific fact (even though the title may still contain the word "Theory")

"Studies" are only statistical analysis of data.

REPORTING - Bogus Study, Good Investigative Reporting or Not?

IMHO:  Very good sting operation investigative report.

"Meet the Reporter Behind That Bogus Chocolate Study" by Nicole Collins Bronzan, ProPublica 6/8/2015

Johannes Bohannon, Ph.D., made headlines earlier this year with a "study" showing that chocolate helps people lose weight.  Then, last month, John Bohannon, Ph.D., made even bigger headlines when he revealed that Johannes and his Institute of Diet and Health were merely constructs of a sting operation to show how bad science enters the mainstream.

Today, he joins ProPublica Reporter Charles Ornstein to talk about his “study” and the journalists who fell for it.

Highlights include discussion of:

• How he put the study together and got coverage for it. (1:00)

• The ethical concerns some have voiced about Bohannon’s establishment of a fake name and institute:  “I think those concerns are adorable,” Bohannon says.  “I think when, you know, investigative journalists spend a lot of time doing something important and reveal something really bad, people want to take part in the conversation.” (3:18)

• P-hacking, or manipulating one’s study to make it seem statistically significant.  “It makes you think you’ve got a cool result,” Bohannon says, “but if you were to repeat the experiment, I guarantee you would not get the same significant results. (3:47)

• The criticism of journalists who disagree with Bohannon’s methods, including investigative reporter Seth Mnookin.  Bohannon says many people are upset because the study was called “clinical.”  “It almost seems as if some different rules apply because the word clinical appeared in the story,” he says.  “And they’re also just really embarrassed.” (7:54)

• His testing of open access journals in academic publishing, to see which were actually using peer review, as they claimed. (8:46)

Hear their conversation on iTunes, SoundCloud, and Stitcher; and read Bohannon’s story, “I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss.  Here's How,” on io9.