Do you have some information about him being anti-science that justifies that comment?

His statement is either evidence of extreme ignorance or he's anti science. He does what he does with religion he panders. There is no credible scientific evidence that vaccines CAUSE autism. He should know that. People will take his statement that the science is still out to justify not vaccinating their children and there will be deaths as a result of it. Are you defending his statement? If not, why not condemn it, can you say nothing negative about your candidate.

He says he is suspicions that vaccines are causing autism and it should be studied further.

The article you site says this.

The Pinocchio Test

The alleged link between thimerosal and autism has spawned numerous investigations, including a sensational Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that claimed that the government was engaged in a medical cover-up. The scientific debate will always continue, but the body of evidence uncovered so far suggests no proven link. Both McCain and Obama are wrong to suggest that the scientific verdict is still hanging in the balance.

A statement that seems to include a conclusion based on flawed logic.

no proven link =/= "wrong to suggest that the scientific verdict is still hanging in the balance"

Additionally, his statement is only about a connection and not a cause and effect.

Certainly exposure to certain chemicals during development could be a factor.

Also, he is making the statement in front of a mother of an autistic child. I don't encourage pandering, but when an emotionally charged mother is in the room, I don't quote my candidates policy verbatim.

Regardless, more research into the causes of autism is a good thing. Not like he is suggesting we should all just pray about it.

Norm, last I checked, Obama was an attorney... not a doctor.

Saying that something should be researched is pro-science last I checked. And seeing as even main steam TV programs (See Eli Stone as recently as a few weeks ago) have lent weight to the mercury preservatives in vaccines causing autism, perhaps you should look at the bigger picture instead of this nitpicking. Sometimes it's not a matter of the facts, but letting people know that, yes you are aware of their concerns and willing to address them. Come on Norm, you're smarter then this...

I don't understand all this animosity here lately, I really don't. You want a candidate untainted by the system, then you condemn them for not having experience... it's a load of crap.

I like Obama, because for the first time in a long time, we have a candidate that says "Hey, you're part of solving these problems" instead of scapegoating whoever is conveinent (read, not present) and I'll continue to support him, because frankly, every other candidate has stooped to the same low level of politics. I'm really not digging the whole scorched earth program Hillary has been on lately.

You know what prepares you for a 3 am phone call that an attack just happened... nothing.

Apparently now, on poll day, she's decided that threatening Iran is a good idea... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7344381.stm

and you want to complain about deaths caused by lack of vaccinations?

You really think another war is what this country needs?

I for one am ready for a new last name in the White House.

Well, that certainly answers that question. I have to hand it to you, that was some pretty nifty parsing.

Not a good answer by Obama. But to say that he's "anti science" is going too far. Also, HIllary says pretty much the same thing.

Note that in the article, it says:

Both Obama and Clinton have pledged to increase funding for autism research and possible links with vacines.

Following that link, we find this:

Question to Obama and Clinton:

Do you think vaccines should be investigated as a possible cause of autism?

Obama's answer:

I believe that the next president must restore confidence and open communication with the American people. This includes environmental policies and government funded research. An Obama administration will go where the science and the facts lead us, whether it is about climate change or toxic heavy metals in our environment.

Clinton's answer:

I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines. I have long been a supporter of increased research to determine the links between environmental factors and diseases, and I believe we should increase the NIH's ability to engage in this type of research. My administration will be committed to improving research to support fact-based solutions, and I will ensure that the NIH has the staff and funding to fully explore all possible causes of autism.

Uh oh. Apparently Richard dawkins is now a Theist ("On a scale from 1 to 7, i'm a 6") because he won't say it's impossible for god to exist.

Hans Blix now thinks there were WMD's in Iraq because he couldn't say it's impossible that Saddam had nukes.

BTW, does "this person inluded" mean Obama, or the person asking the question, this isn't entirely clear.

And, if you want to parse...

Obama never says anything about Thermosil or mercury, he says vaccines. The article you link only mentions the 5 major studies that say that thermosil is not linked to autism. I've not seen any information that Vaccines themselves don't do damage. Links anyone?

I have to hand it to you, that was some pretty nifty parsing.

Gee thanks, you too.

If he'd said the science on global warming was inconclusive would it bother anyone?

The argument that Barack Obama is "anti science" was also parsing, don't you think?

Not a good answer by Obama. But to say that he's "anti science" is going too far. Also, HIllary says pretty much the same thing.

Joann: Although I haven't been responding to all your comments these days--I've been busy with end of the semester deadlines--I've been reading, and I want to thank you, yet again, for putting in the research to clarify an issue, and making discussion more informed.

In my view, 'environmental factors' is deliberately vague; it is also a token talk-point predicated on the denial of the absurd right-wing idea that most diseases and health conditions are linked to "behavior" or "life-style", which aside from smoking, STD's, and to an extent, obesity, is plainly not the case. Call this 'moralizing health', which directly implies that everyone is entirely responsible for their own state of health, and indirectly, that because they are entirely responsible, it is not the duty of the government to provide insurance, and it is legitimate for private insurance to discriminate on the basis of so-called 'pre-existing conditions.'

I'm am none to sanguine about either candidate's response on the autism business--even if it won't affect policy, I take it that Norm's justified misgiving is, at least in part, that such answers encourages a certain cultural outlook, one which either distorts scientific evidence--its results--or casts its conclusions as doubtful--its status as informative. It is plausible that autism is linked with a variety of causes, including genetic factors and shifting diagnostic guidelines. That said, there are suggestive links between many cancer and respiratory related conditions and environmental pollutants. A commitment to open communication about what the science actually says is reassuring.

I am confident that, because Obama surrounds himself with the best experts he can find, he is ultimately unlikely to come out on the wrong side of the autism non-issue.

When Clinton a few weeks ago got some well deserved Pinocchio's, Keith Olbermann made a big deal about it. I'm betting he says nothing about this issue and takers?

Agreed anti-science was parsing and it appears that he was pointing at someone else. That said, saying the science right now is inconclusive, since he obviously has not educated himself on the topic is not acceptable. It has the potential to influence people not to use vaccines and that is not a good thing for a presidential candidate to be doing. I'll be interested to see how he answers follow up questions if the press bothers to ask them. To the extent Clinton panders on the issue shame on her. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Hmm. First of all, Norm you're absolutely right that when it boils down to it, discouraging the public from vaccinating their children--against proven diseases with potentially serious epidemiological consequences should a large number of children not possess immunity in the coming generation--on the basis of a potential and unproven link such as this one is a very bad idea. It is also a dangerous slippery if it encourages flouting of more and more proven, beneficial preventative medical treatments on the shaky grounds of a suspected and unsupported link with some rare disease.

That being said, however, putting this controversy in the context of a need for more research into the causes of autism could hopefully end up being a positive effect out of all this. The fact is that still very little is known about the etiology of autism and, with apparent numbers of affected children on a dramatic rise, it should be an object of concern for medical research.

Arg, curse the lack of an edit button! That should read "It is also a dangerous slippery slope..."

It's doubtful Obama has really looked into the issue so he's probably just repeating what hacks like Robert Kennedy rant about. Kennedy, on his show Ring of Fire, refused to put a medical doctor on the show to discuss the subject but preferred to put a journalist who is promoting a book about vaccines causing autism.

The left wing has its science deniers but thankfully the numbers are small compared to the reich wing.

The Magnolia Electric Co. | April 22, 2008 2:01 PM wrote:

And, if you want to parse...

Obama never says anything about Thermosil or mercury, he says vaccines. The article you link only mentions the 5 major studies that say that thermosil is not linked to autism. I've not seen any information that Vaccines themselves don't do damage. Links anyone?

From a review by the Institute of Medicine:

The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine [which has never contained thimerosal] and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.

(Boldface and editorial remark mine.)

If he'd said the science on global warming was inconclusive would it bother anyone?

Hells yes, but I bet there is likely less research on this topic. As of 10 years ago it was still listed as a potential cause in my college classes.

That said, saying the science right now is inconclusive, since he obviously has not educated himself on the topic is not acceptable. It has the potential to influence people not to use vaccines and that is not a good thing for a presidential candidate to be doing.

Agreed, but this is a response in a Q&A, not a policy statement or a speech. But another important difference between this and global warming is that research is meant to delay action in global warming, here research delays stopping use of vaccines. I agree with you that Obama should be much more careful.

Do Vaccines Cause Autism? Answer from a scientist. (Youtube)

@Erick

Thanks for the youtube link

Norm, I agree with you 100% that both candidates have blown it with respect to being properly informed as to the (lack of) any link between vaccines and autism - for just the reasons you have given.

As to whether the "increase" in autism is really just due changes to the diagnostic criteria - well, this is something I think a little more leeway can be granted to the candidates' errors. Frankly, this is a story I had not much kept up with, so when graduate students in my research group and I were talking about this the other day, my question was immediately "Is this just a result of changing diagnostic criteria?". But I'm a trained and practicing scientist - not in a biological science, but still I don't hold the unrealistic expectation that politicians won't go astray now and then. Even if they have accepted some of the pillars of the 'mercury militia's fantasies', I am fairly confident that either Obama or Clinton will appoint some knowledgeable science advisors and act appropriately if they are elected. I am not so confident about McCain (though more so than ANY of the other Republican morons he beat for the nomination.)

Basically, on the scale of where we would like presidents to be as far as scientific savvy and sophistication is concerned, Obama and Clinton fall short. But with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter (maybe Bill Clinton?), they probably are ahead of any other president we have had - and miles ahead of John McCain (who didn't know whether condoms are useful in preventing the spread of STDs.)

After two Bushes and a Reagan, either Obama or Clinton will be a huge breath of fresh air insofar as their attitudes about science are concerned.

I find it interesting that whenever this debate crops up, two groups of people who can't possible know whether Thimerasol causes autism go after each other like cats & dogs. Why is this such a hot-button issue? Either there's a link or there isn't; let's just find out. But we can't. Why? Because the medical industry (not the medical profession, mind you) has a vested interest in obscuring the details of their operations, just like the auto industry & the timber industry, etc. Just as it's difficult to unquestioningly trust any safety data presented by, say, Ford, it's equally difficult to trust Eli Lilly's assurances regarding Thimerosol absent some reliable third party investigations.

That said, saying the science right now is inconclusive, since he obviously has not educated himself on the topic is not acceptable

I agree. Obama is either not being straight forward, or he is misinformed. The same goes for Hillary Clinton.

If not, why not condemn it, can you say nothing negative about your candidate.

This is not a direct response, but on that same line of thought, poll after poll has demonstrated that more Barack Obama supporters would vote for Hillary Clinton than vice versa. So it is actually more Hillary Clinton supporters with the my-candidate-or-John McCain attitude than it is the reasonable Obama supporters. ;)

just a quick question for Norm

I'm an atheist... you're an atheist

I'm a progressive... you're a progressive

I'm a liberal... you're a liberal

While I can look back on the Clinton years, and fondly remember how great a president he really was, I don't see his wife (who really brings out the animosity on the other side of the aisle) being able to accomplish what I think needs to be done.

And while Obama may be a junior statesmen, I know he's spent his life defending the Civil rights of others. I don't see that he's changed too much in his few years in Washington.

So why the attack posture with those who don't support Hillary?

Honestly, when Edwards dropped out of the race, our best chance of real change was lost, so honestly, Obama is my second choice...

No parsing here. It's your site, you run it the way you want to, but I'd just really like to know, what is it that makes you support Hillary over Obama? Is it her husband?

This sounds like an argument to make Hillary the nominee since more democrats would vote for her.

...sigh....

tmonsta, check out the Tues. morning links for the "Realisticrat" article Norm posted. I think that'll get you your answer on his general candidate support.

As for which candidate will get whoever's votes if one wins the primary over the other, 1. I don't trust any polls this election cycle, and 2. most Democrats will vote Democrat in the end 3. Obama's brought over many independents to his camp and Clinton is polarizing and will draw out the conservatives against her, and 4. I would still vote for HRC if she were the nominee, but she's not top on on my list.

Both of them took a wrong turn on this vaccine issue (it seems that the fundies have managed to push this anti-vaccination deal well in their distaste for evolution), but at least both Democratic candidates would both support scientific research in that and other areas. Hell, I'd wager they'd both even believe the results the scientists gave them!

Obama's approach to the military is the preferable one for me. I do feel Clinton has played the fear card, somewhat to her advantage, and this sickens me. I've had enough of that card from Bush and Co., and I want it vaporized. Sigh...realistically, the next president will have an up hill battle (so speak) with events in the middle east. I won't hold my breath until all the troops come home, cause I wanna breathe for a few more years yet.

and yet ironically, I find that article riddled with pretty poor reasons

By the approximation of the Realisticrat, they think that Hilary isn't gonna get pulverized by the same republican machine, as they dredge up Whitewater, and Impeachment, and Lewinski-gate? The pardons, the "failure of Bill to do more to stop 9/11". You really think these things aren't going to get blasted down Hilary's throat. (though she had no more to do with them then the stupidity of Rev. Wright has anything to do with Obama)

Add to that the fact that Hilary is exactly the polarizing kind of candidate that republicans WANT to run against (seeing as they have a middle of the road Republican Candidate who doesn't fire up the conservative base, they need someone who will get the folks who want to vote AGAINST someone)

as for the "evidence" against Obama... well, last I checked Barrack Hussien Obama had no more to do with picking his name then I did. Which is to say, I still won't forgive my parents for sticking me with Edward as my middle name. Rev. Wright-gate, if people are so stupid that they won't vote for a candidate because something someone else said (we've covered this already). A drug past..., you mean he was honest about inhaling, instead of being ridiculed about it not inhaling for 8 years. You mean he actually admitted he was as human as most of us... Yeah, these are real deal breakers.

I'd love to see this so called "Realisticrat" explain all that away...

If these are the reasons that people want to tell themselves they won't vote for Obama then I suppose we'll have to wait for the arrival of the Kwisatz Haderach to arrive and hope he's a Democrat.

While I appreciate you pointing out the article, I'd just like to hear it from Norm in his own words, with his own reasons, as opposed to paraphrased from another writers perspective...

Here's to hoping that Edwards will sneak into a locked up convention vote, and walk out with the nomination...

Holy shit, now we are going to let a candidate´s opinion on autism define the election process? Where does Obama stand on midget rights? Rodeo clown worker´s compensation?

I´ll file this one under non-issues. Alphabetically it comes in before "Flag pins."

Teach the controversy! Some people think that if condition X is caused by Y the link between Y and X can be detected by scientific means. And others have faith. Time for a cry of 'teach the controversy'.

'Belief in scientific method is theoretical, not scientifically justified, and if a bunch of crackpots believe there's a link between vaccinations and autism that's good enough for me.'

I should maybe just add, if pre-natal testosterone levels are a major contributory factor for autism (as seems pretty likely at this stage) it would actually make sense that rates of autism might be increasing independent of changes in diagnostic practices. This is because pre-natal testosterone levels are linked to stress and, as we keep being told, life is 'becoming more stressful', more women are in work and so on. If lifestyle factors play a role (and they do if pre-natal testosterone is a factor) it's not mad that numbers of autistic children being born could increase or decrease - it just has nothing to do with mercury.

@Inwit: Thanks. Thermosil has come up here quite a bit, but I had not seen anything about vaccines in general. Maybe you should send that link to the Obama campaign.

This sounds like an argument to make Hillary the nominee since more democrats would vote for her

Actually, that's wrong. More Democrats prefer Obama

It's just that more conservative Democrats, the gun-toting, older, less-educated blue dog Democrats, that is Hillary supporters, prefer McCain over Obama. The more loyal liberal Democrats, that is the Obama supporters, prefer Hillary over McCain, although they prefer Obama.

As Democratic voters in Pennsylvania cast their presidential ballots today, the latest nationwide Gallup Poll Daily tracking results show Barack Obama with a 10 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, polling as concerns the general election shows that neither candidate is stronger than the other. But Obama is stronger with liberal candidates. Hillary is stronger with more hawkish conservative candidates. So if Hillary wins the election, she would win with a mandate to bomb Iran.

Neither Democrat can claim stronger positioning against John McCain at this point. Among registered voters nationwide, McCain and Obama are even at 45%, while McCain outpolls Clinton by a single point, 46% to 45%

{April 21, 2008 Gallup tracking poll:](http://www.gallup.com/poll/106678/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Regains-Lead-Over-Clinton-49-42.aspx)

Support for Barack Obama's nomination bid has rebounded among national Democratic voters, who now favor him over Hillary Clinton by a seven percentage point margin, 49% to 42%.

The majority of Democrats would not vote for John McCain. The only Democrats who would vote for John McCain are bitter conservative Hillary supporters.

The only Democrats

Sorry, I exaggerated. There are also some stupid Obama supporters who say they would vote for John McCain, but fewer Obama supporters say this than Hillary supporters, and for this reason I have more respect for the majority of Obama supporters than I do for the majority of Hillary supporters.

However, I believe that, in the end, some of the voters who say this are just all emotional right now because of this bitter primary.

At least I hope that's the case.

The Realisticrats the same bozos who nominated:

John Kerry Al Gore Mike Dukakis Walter Mondale George McGovern

Sorry I did not mean to split my post.

On topic, I do not believe the candidates should have a science debate because its outside their core competency.

I don't want them debating topics they do not understand.

Listen up!

Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast. Episode #137: March 5th.

Skip to 34:19.

On topic, I do not believe the candidates should have a science debate because its outside their core competency.

That depends on what you consider 'core competency'. The influence of scientific research is profound--on the environment, energy, health, education, technology, and much else. That is a political reality which we prefer to ignore in this country behind silly, pseudo-debates about whether evolution is true.

I would personally would like a robust debate on stem-cell research, global warming, public health policy, net-neutrality, and much else.

The point of such a debate would not be to prove which candidate is more 'scientific'; it would be to elicit their views on core areas of public policy where scientific research either does or ought to have some role in executive decision making. Neither candidate needs to have a cure for cancer--how to direct funds and which health issues will take priority, and why, is a public policy, not simply a scientific issue.

Back when Lemos was saying that being a "realistocrat" was selling out, you remained silent Norm. Have you changed your mind, or did you disagree with Charles Lemos when he said this?

The Realisticrats the same bozos who nominated: .... George McGovern

The realistacrats actually opposed George McGovern. Took the nomination fight to the convention. He was anti-war and therefore they thought he was too weak to govern, despite being a decorated veteran.

I don't know. I tend to stand on principle, but have a bit of pragmatist in me too

I also attempt to balance these two competing concepts concepts.