Reality and Fallacies
With the possible distribution of a vaccine to ward off the COVID-19 coronavirus on the horizon, the prospect of ending the pandemic is tinged with a bit of worry. I am thrilled that we might soon be able to return to something at least resembling normal as it relates to personal interactions; however, the abundance of people who believe that vaccines are in themselves harmful makes me worry about their future, as well as the future of our world and other possible pandemics.
Since the study performed by former doctor Andrew Wakefield and his team that linked the MMR vaccine with the onset of autism, measles rates around the world have gone up significantly. You will notice I called Andrew Wakefield “former doctor.” That is because his study was so purposely flawed that the United Kingdom, where he had his medical license, stripped him of his license in 2010. The man is a pariah in the medical community. Even his second attempt at proving his flawed theory was filled with problems that rendered the study as dishonest as the first one. (A link to an article about this can be found below.) Why Wakefield wanted so desperately to prove what isn’t true is inscrutable at best, other than he wanted fame and fortune. What he found instead was infamy and ridicule by those who understand just how flawed his study was.
Unfortunately, he received adulation from those who are the most susceptible to the logical fallacy known as Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for “After this, therefore because of this.” An explanation of the basics of the fallacy can be explained as attributing an outcome to a prior event, even though the prior event had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. This fallacy in logic can lead to some outrageous conclusions.
For example, a study of crime rates in New York City in the 1980’s showed that crime rates were in a direct positive correlation to the sale of ice cream by ice cream vendors. This means that as ice cream sales by vendors went up, so did the crime rate in New York. Using the false logic of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, one can conclude that ice cream sales led to crime. I would hope that everyone can see that is definitely false. It would be ridiculous to assume its truth. Ice cream sales do not cause crime beyond the act of one child taking another child’s ice cream.
But if the statistics of the study are true, and they are, why was there an obvious positive correlation between the two events? The answer, of course, is simple, and you may have realized it already. Ice cream vendors sell much more ice cream during the summer. In fact, I would guess that ice cream sales by ice cream vendors is almost non-existent in the fall and winter months, especially in NYC, where winters can be brutal. The spike in crime rates can be easily attributed to the weather. Warm weather means more people are out and about and not huddled in their homes. More people out and about means more people on the streets committing crimes. The truth is simple when you consider everything about the results.
The studies done by the almost criminally negligent Andrew Wakefield is just as ridiculous as the acceptance that ice cream sales lead to crime. There were major fallacies in his study beyond the Post hoc, ergo propter hoc conclusions. These fallacies are so obvious that he had to know he was committing them, but he apparently set out to prove his hypothesis rather than determine its validity. Finding nothing in a study might allow science to discard an idea, but it doesn’t achieve fame and fortune.
I use the term “criminally negligent” because children are getting sick and even dying from not being vaccinated. To me, this makes Wakefield a conspirator in the suffering and killing of children. He falsified a study that has led to this tragedy. The gullible in our society grasp his lies with wild abandon because that is easier than thinking. A search for a culprit that causes autism, which is a genetic predisposition, not the result of anything that happens following birth, has led people to believe something akin to selling ice cream causes crime.
This fallacious thinking leads me to fear that many people will refuse a viable vaccine for COVID-19 because of their fear it will cause autism or something similar. Frankly, I trust the medical experts who have nothing to gain from a vaccine’s development, and assuming the vaccines being developed prove to be moderately safe, then I will happily get the shot when it becomes available. I will do this because a) I don’t want to die a horrible death from this disease (which is NOT like the flu), and b) I want to return to something resembling normalcy in my interactions with friends and family without worrying about myself or those I encounter. I typically see my brothers once a year, but I had to forego that this year. I want to see them again, and I’m sure you want a return to a more or less normal life as well.
If you do, then get the freaking vaccine when it becomes available. You and the rest of us will be happier for your decision to put the needs of others beyond your ill-informed biases.
For those interested, here is a link to a provable, fact-based article about the Wakefield study:
Thank you for reading. Please stay safe!