Conspiracy Theorists and Other Enemies of Science

Journalist Will Storr recently wrote a book called The Heretics: Adventures With The Enemies Of Science which explores why so many conspiracy theorists seem to have trouble accepting facts... even when those facts are right in front of them.

This is an interesting subject and one which I've explored myself - which is why I'm certain this book would be an interesting read (the book was just published this week and I haven't had a chance to read it yet). Chris Parsons over at Yahoo! News wrote an article about the book entitled "Exploring the minds of Holocaust deniers and UFO-spotters who deny common sense".

Parsons' article begins:

"Will Storr is a man who deals in facts. As a journalist of more than 10 years, undeniable evidence and rational data are his bread and butter.

There are groups of people, however, who deny the irrefutable; who see cold, hard facts as mistruths or simply inconvenient.

Whether they are Holocaust deniers, creationists, or those who believe in UFOs - there are plenty out there whose view of the world defies centuries of scientific evidence. 

So why are there intelligent, seemingly rational people like this, who are capable of such unreasonable logic?"

Although I do agree with much of what Parsons wrote in his piece I would take issue with his statement that speaks of "intelligent, seemingly rational people", because the truth of the matter is conspiracy theorists are the farthest thing from rational. I might even debate whether most of these people are intelligent, although perhaps my personal bias is due to the lack of intelligence presented by the typical antivaccinationist. Rationality however... well there isn't much room for debate on that point. Not only do antivaxxers trample upon basic common sense, but they do so with impunity almost as if they have no desire to engage in any sort of discussion which may require it.

Either way, Storr's book might help shed some light on the thought processes that so many conspiracy theorists seem to share even when faced with evidence that counters their opinions. Unfortunately, Storr didn't include antivaxxers within his book that I've seen, but the same lack of logic and unreasonable nature most certainly applies to all conspiracy theorists regardless of form.

Whether it is someone who denies the moon landings, a Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist, a 9/11 "truther", an antivaxxer, or simply someone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent they all seem to share several things in common - a blatant disregard for logic, a stubborn refusal to accept facts when presented to them, and an complete and total inability to admit when they are wrong.

I wonder what it might take to get an antivaxxer to review Storr's book? If you are interested, you can pick up a hardcover copy from Amazon, or if you are patient you can probably wait for the paperback or (hopefully) even the ebook version.

Scopie's Law / Danth's Law

Scopie’s Law States:

“In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the room.”

Anyone who has ever dealt with Lowell Hubbs (or any vaccine conspiracy theorist for that matter) knows they can't resist the temptation to link to whale.to as if it is a reputable source of scientific information. I equate this to someone who would cite the website The Onion as a legitimate source of news... which sadly has actually happened.

I must admit I have covered the whole whale.to / Scopie's Law issue in the past, but it bears repeating since Mr. Hubbs is still referencing the website on a regular basis.  Keep in mind this is the same website that believes the Harry Potter movies are full of subliminal messages promoting sex, as well as promoting the idea that there is a proven link between vaccines and autism (there is not, and to date there is not one single peer-reviewed study published in any reputable medical journal which has been able to prove such a link exists).

Did I mention they also believe in government mind control and that they can cure Alzheimer's Disease via chelation therapy? 

Have I also mentioned the most offensive information is their belief that the Holocaust never happened?  Yes... these are the people that Lowell Hubbs and his fellow antivaxers actually treat as trusted sources.  Amazing... yet disgusting. 

Moving right along...

Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law) States:

“If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.”

So why do I mention Danth's Law you ask?  Well... it seems rather fitting considering the following quotes were recently submitted from Lowell Hubbs:

"YOU LOSE......AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Like I said, you lose every time"

"Like I said you are a loser and you always will be a loser in these matters."

"That makes YOU a loser, quite clearly."

"You are a very sick and in denial loser Costner, and you always were."

"THAT makes YOU a complete loser the likes of that has rarely been seen before, if ever."

"You lose, alias no identity Costner, again and again and again!"

"You lose, again. Any honest person can see that."

Methinks thou dost protest too much indeed. Aside from the fact he doesn't appear to have any originality in his words and he is a bit of a broken record, the saddest part is that Hubbs submitted the bulk of these all within a few days of one another. Apparently he believes if he tells himself something long enough he might actually start to believe it.

Hey... at least someone is convinced.

Mind you none of this has anything to do with the effectiveness of vaccines, but it does show you the sad and pathetic tactics a vaccine conspiracy theorist will go to in order to feel as if they are actually "winning" an argument.  I've witnessed these same tactics from countless antivaxers on numerous website and forums, and it seems the most common character trait all of these people share is their inability to be intellectually honest coupled with a severe misunderstanding of what debate actually is.

Whether it be an inherent reliance upon logical fallacies, a blatant disregard for what is considered fact vs. opinion, a desire to exclude accepted science when it differs from their viewpoints, or a habit of actually rewriting history to suit their own wishes, these antivaxers rarely are able to engage in a civil scientific discussion based upon facts. It just doesn't seem to happen, and logic must be tossed aside like last year's phone book if you wish to entertain the idea of a discussion with one of these people.

Perhaps it doesn't really matter. Antivaxers will always be convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong. They will likely continue to ignore science and they will continue to move the goal posts time and time again. One day they will tell you the MMR vaccine causes autism, but when that theory is proven incorrect they will claim thimerosal causes autism. When thimerosal is removed they will claim the aluminum causes autism, when it is show to not be the case they will claim it is some other ingredient.

When they can't nail down a specific ingredient they will move on to the more generic reference of toxins. When you ask them to specific a particular component they are forced to backtrack and claim it is the number of vaccines. When you point out that autism rates don't fluctuate between those children who are up to date on all the recommended vaccines versus those who are only partially vaccinated they claim it is a combination of any and all vaccines.

When you cite information showing once selection bias is removed, there is no compelling evidence to suggest unvaccinated populations are diagnosed with autism at a lower rate they claim we need more studies and larger studies and more specific studies... all the while continuing to parrot the same tired arguments that vaccines cause autism or some other random neurological disorder even though they have zero scientific evidence to support their views.

This is why the scientific community won't waste time "debating" vaccine conspiracy theorists, because the truth is you cannot debate someone who refuses to abide by the laws of common sense.  If someone refuses to accept fact as fact, and refuses to acknowledge accepted science then there is no valid reason to engage them in a civilized debate, because the debate would like be neither civilized nor a debate. 

The reality is that entertaining a vaccine conspiracy theorist via an honest debate is a futile effort, because vaccine conspiracy theorists attempt to argue based upon misbelief and misunderstanding.  They enter a discussion with firm beliefs that they will admit cannot be swayed by any amount of scientific evidence, and when backed into a corner and pressed with information, they simply change their position and attempt to switch the subject.  If all else fails, they simply state there is some conspiracy at play which explains why they cannot support their opinions with facts or science.

We've seen this many times with Mr. Hubbs.  He jumps from conspiracy to conspiracy with no connection between them, and when asked direct questions his only response seems to be a generic statement that there is "to [sic] much to lose" along with five, 10, or 20 unrelated urls to various conspiracy websites.  As such, it seems the one thing Hubbs seems to be actually good at is declaring himself to be the "winner" in any debate he attempts to enter, even though (as is the case with most of his beliefs) he seems to be the only one that holds that particular viewpoint.

The bottom line is, if someone is convinced the sky is red... you will never convince them that it is blue.  In the case of a vaccine conspiracy theorist they would likely try to redefine the term "red" rather than admit they might have been wrong, and this is why so the antivaxer community will most likely never be taken seriously.

The Burzynski Clinic Responds... Sort Of

Based upon my previous blog post about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, Lowell Hubbs thought it was his duty to ensure the Burzynski Clinic knew about it.  Thus, like the good little CAM foot soldier that he is, he took it upon himself to send an email to Burzynski (and sent me a copy just for kicks). It reads as follows:

To: corporate@burzynskiclinic.com  
From: editor@vacfacts.info (Lowell Hubbs)


Subject: Information on a blog trashing and slandering Burzynski Clinic, as Quackery.


This blog is as well [sic] has been an ongoing and endless and slanderous personal attack on me. Quack of the Day: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski http://lowellhubbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/quack-of-day-dr-stanislaw-burzynski.html This is my counter blog: […] I have followed Dr Burzynski’s work for quite some time, and I am obviously a strong supporter of his work and treatment, in the ways that I can. This blog I above referenced to [sic] has a clear pattern of slandering and bashed [sic] any alternative information and/or truth promoting doctor on the planet. This is my site: Dr. Burzynski […]

Obviously I removed the references to Mr. Hubbs own blogs/websites because I'm not about to steer traffic his direction and I have an unwritten rule about only linking to scientifically credible websites (with exceptions given for comedic and shock value).  However the remainder of the email is posted as written... broken English and all (the URL referenced in Mr. Hubbs' email has since changed so it no longer functions).

Let me translate Mr. Hubbs' comment into what it really means. Basically it says “Oh this big mean person is picking on me and I don’t like it, so I’m going to tell the Burzynski Clinic about it in the hopes that if I massage their ego enough and tell them how great they are, they will think I’m special and go after him to shut down his blog once and for all”.

Mr. Hubbs also decided to add to his email when he forwarded a copy of it to me - that text is as follows:

"And as far as your again twisted and slanderous claims as to how Burzynski handed the blogging and other unwarranted attacks on his practice; when you actually read what is there, it is not even close to what you claim it is at all. He handled those situations professionally and in the legal manner they should be. If informing a person to cease and desist their slanderous behavior in print, is classified as threat in your mind, so be it. Wow." ~Lowell Hubbs

Sadly for Mr. Hubbs, his childish antics won’t work.

First of all Mr. Hubbs doesn't appear to understand the difference between slander and libel (even though it has been explained to him numerous times), and since this blog is in written form what he is really looking for is the term libel. Since Hubbs can’t seem to distinguish between the two, perhaps it would be best if he would consider using the more generic term of defamation.

Either way, my statements about Burzynski are far from libelous. First of all I doubt anything on this blog is honestly defamatory to Burzynski’s reputation since his reputation has already taken a significant hit, and either way the truth can't be defamatory. When I refer to the facts about his legal troubles, the facts that his associates have went after random bloggers, or the facts about how he has been working with antineoplastons for more than 30 years and yet he has been unable to publish any reputable peer-reviewed studies validating their usage… those are not libelous statements as they are true.

I am also not incorrect that Burzynski has been performing never-ending clinical studies or how he has yet to perform any phase III randomized, controlled trials of antineoplastons as a treatment for cancer. These are not opinions – these are facts. So what exactly does Hubbs consider to be defamatory in nature when I’m either stating facts, or I’m stating an opinion? Have I stated anything I don’t believe to be true? No. Have I presented information as fact with reckless disregard on whether the information is true or not? Clearly not as I have even sourced the majority of my statements.

If Hubbs is going to toss out the claim of slander (libel), he might want to take a few minutes out of his hectic day to educate himself. I would suggest he start with Underwager v Salter 22 F.3d 730 and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254.  What he would find is in order to claim defamation, the public figure (in this case Burzynski) would need to prove actual malice (aka "ill will").  This means they would need to prove that I did not believe the statements I wrote (which is impossible since I believe them), or they would need to prove that I published these statements without any concern whether they were true or not (I care, which is why I didn't even bother to mention numerous accusations about Burzynski that I was unable to verify or that I felt did not have sufficient supporting evidence to ensure they were factual).

I don't wish to get into a conversation about US tort law, but the bottom line is Hubbs has no idea what he is talking about, and I'm quite certain that Burzynski's PR team is well aware of US law surrounding libel which is why Burzynski staffers chased after bloggers in the UK rather than the US.  However, even that wasn’t sufficient and you will note out of the individuals whom I listed in the original blog as having been chased after by Burzynski’s staff they all still have their blogs up and running.

Hubbs seems to think Burzynski's team handled those situations professionally when in fact they ended up sending out an apology for Mr. Stephens’ behavior and they were backpedaling faster than watching the Tour de France in reverse. They even ended their relationship with Stephens (according to their own press release) and they apologized for the incidents.

Apparently Hubbs didn’t bother to actually read all of the emails sent from Mr. Stephens to Rhys Morgan where Mr. Stephens actually threatened to contact Mr. Morgan’s school and where he even went so far as to send him a Google satellite image of his house in some type of veiled threat. Hubbs obviously also appears to have overlooked the other few dozen emails Mr. Stephens sent on behalf of Burzynski, or even the responses left by Mr. Stephens (aka "MAS") over at Yahoo Answers where he attempted to post personal information about people he disagreed with, where he made veiled threats against others, and where he even stooped to calling people "ugly" and "senile".  Mind you his tactics didn't work and his responses were incredibly childish, but it just goes to show how low these people will stoop in order to silence their critics.

Thus if Hubbs honestly believes threatening 17-year olds via email equates to acting “professionally”, or chasing people around on Yahoo Answers is appropriate, then so be it. Apparently we will have to agree to disagree on that one, however I find it incredibly telling that Burzynski had to issue an apology for the very actions Hubbs claims were professional.

Perhaps it would be best if Hubbs took the time to actually read the material I cite before commenting. This just doesn’t seem to be working out for him, but then again... nothing ever does.  So what was the response to Hubbs' email to the Burzynski Clinic?  Read on:

From: Azad Rastegar
To: Lowell Hubbs


Good evening, Thank you for your e-mail. We did see the “Quack of the Day” blog. It’s sad and unfortunate that some individuals can be so cruel, evil, and closed minded in their behavior even with the facts clearly in front of them. We will focus on doing what is right and that is treating our patients and giving them the attention they need. Thank you again for your support.


Best regards,
------------------------------------------------------
Azad Rastegar
Director of Business Development
Director of Admissions Department
Company Spokesperson
Burzynski Clinic
9432 Katy Freeway, Suite 150
Houston, TX 77055
AR@BurzynskiClinic.com

I find it interesting that the Burzynski Clinic seems to have already reviewed my blog even before Hubbs had sent them a message, which must mean I'm doing something right to get noticed.  Well OK they probably just have a Google Alert set up for key search terms like "Burzynski" and "Quack"... but it makes me feel special either way.

I also find the humor in how they describe my blog as "cruel" and "evil" yet they are unable to cite any specific statements which are untrue.  Newflash for Azad... the truth can sometimes be cruel, but you have your employer to blame for that. 

Either way you can see they really don't seem to care about my blog, just as they likely don't care about the few dozen other blogs that have been written about Burzynski.  Perhaps that lack of concern stems from the fact that they know the content of these blogs is actually true.  Or perhaps the lack of concern is because they know the more they try to silence their critics, the more critics will appear (a variation of the Streisand effect).  Although either of these reasons could be legitimate, I'm guessing it likely has to do with them not wanting to focus upon random bloggers while they are preparing for Dr. Burzynski's appearance in front of the Texas Medical Board, which is scheduled for April of this year.
 
Needless to say, I fully expect to be writing more about Dr. Burzynski in the future - especially after a decision has been rendered after the April hearing.  Until then, Mr. Hubbs will need to continue to proclaim how Burzynski is the brave maverick doctor who is worthy of respect and who should never be challenged. 

Let's see how that works out for him.

The Difference Between a Skeptic and a Denialist

When discussing controversial subject matter or facts which the average person cannot visually verify themselves, we often encounter a strong sense of skepticism from those who may not be as familiar with the subject matter.  This is why you have people who aren't quite sure if climate change is real and others who have doubts that there are other galaxies in the universe no matter how much science might be provided.

To some degree, a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing, because it forces people to challenge their own beliefs.  In truth, most scientists and researches are skeptical by nature, and most would never accept anything at face value unless it has been proven, replicated, verified, and proven again.

A skeptic doesn't just develop a hypothesis and assume it is factual.  Rather the skeptic examines a problem, then determines the hypothesis.  They will then perform research to determine if this hypothesis is supported and if so... they will verify the original hypothesis.  If it turns out their research does not support the hypothesis, they will then need to re-examine the data to come up with a different result.  This is what makes science so exciting for real scientists... because they will often admit that the most amazing discoveries come when they least expect it.  Some discoveries are considered nothing more than accidents, and others are found to be the inverse of what was anticipated.

A skeptic doesn't formulate the answer and then find data to support the answer.  Instead, they perform the data and then formulate the answer based upon the findings.  In short a skeptic follows the facts where they lead no matter where that may be.  They don't establish the result before doing the research, and they keep an open mind.

This is a key aspect that identifies the difference between being a skeptic versus being a denialist, because a denialist does the inverse.  A denialist formulates the answer they want to hear, and then they collect information to support that answer while disregarding the information that conflicts with it.  Essentially a denialist determines what their viewpoint is, and then they back into this position by specifically calling out data that aligns with their answer which is often referred to as "confirmation bias".  Confirmation Bias not only involves hand-picking information to support a viewpoint, but also involves interpreting that data in a biased manner.

Thus when you have someone like Andrew Wakefield who (for some reason) gets the idea that the MMR vaccine causes Autism, he doesn't perform legitimate research to prove his hypothesis, but rather he steers his research towards what he believes is the inevitable outcome.  In Wakefield's case, that resulted in manipulation of data, falsification of patient records, numerous ethical violations as well as conflicts of interest etc, etc, but the point is prior to Wakefield being entirely discredited he was doing a bang-up job of convincing others that his hypothesis was supportable all due to his personal bias and lack of scientific integrity.

The same is true with people like Lowell Hubbs.  Mr. Hubbs believes that vaccines cause autism, and instead of being skeptical of vaccines and studying them or researching them to come up with an unbiased viewpoint, Mr. Hubbs instead takes the line of the denialist and simply ignores the mountains upon mountains of evidence which time and time again show there is no such link between vaccines and autism.  He will even go so far as to invent wild conspiracy theories to explain why all of the published studies are never able to find a link while making excuses for the lack of evidence to actually support his viewpoint.

What Mr. Hubbs accepts as truth is only the data he is able to find which supports his version of reality, and because there are no peer-reviewed studies linking vaccines and autism, and because there is no accepted science proving vaccines are harmful, Mr. Hubbs then has to resort to non-scientific sources such as personal blogs, articles hosted from biased websites, personal opinion, non peer-reviewed articles and the ever-present misunderstanding of the basic premise that correlation does not equal causation.

In effect, Mr. Hubbs relies upon illusory correlation as he tends to identify relationships within the data that do not really exist.  He will misinterpret data and display a severe misunderstanding of the data he tends to cite.  Aside from lacking the scientific knowledge to properly understand the complexities of the subject matter, Mr. Hubbs displays an extreme level of personal bias against mainstream medicine, vaccines, "big pharma", and anyone or anything associated with any of the above while displaying an equal amount of personal bias towards anyone or anything which finds fault with mainstream medicine or vaccines. 

In fact, Mr. Hubbs displays a complete disregard for the scientific process, and he has displayed a level of bias which is rarely seen outside of discussions involving climate change, Creationism, or President Obama's birth certificate.  If Mr. Hubbs was truly honest with himself, he would recognize his bias and acknowledge his lack of credibility on the subject matter.  He would also acknowledge he tends to only seek out those who consider themselves firmly entrenched in the "alternative medicine" camp and/or those who have a personal (but scientifically unsupportable) position that vaccines cause autism.

Granted to anyone who knows Mr. Hubbs knows he likely will never shift his viewpoints from those of a denialist to those of an independent thinker, nor will he ever be able to objectively study the information that exists on the subject.  In fact, Mr. Hubbs has taken the denialist role to the extreme and has become nothing more than a common conspiracy theorist who personally believes that doctors, researchers, and scientists are all involved in some massive cover-up to prevent legitimate cancer cures from being released to the public while somehow keeping the lid on all of the data which could somehow prove a link between vaccines and autism.

Whether it be accusations that a three letter agency (FDA, CDC, WHO, AMA etc) is in control of all of the world's scientific data, accusations that 9/11 was an inside job involving the US government and bombs inside the buildings, or claims that people are out to kill him due to the "knowledge" he holds, Mr. Hubbs commonly resorts to such claims of a conspiracy when he recognizes a lack of evidence to support his claims.  He then assumes because his statements are not taken seriously that it somehow suggests they are "truth" which tells us nothing other than the fact that Mr. Hubbs lacks the understanding of the concepts of falsifiability and burden of proof.

Skepticism itself is a good thing and is necessary within the scientific process.  Denialism adds nothing to the equation and merely serves to create a distraction, and full-blown conspiracy theorists such as Mr. Hubbs are the proverbial trainwreck in the center of Logic town.  Yes they might be a mess... but they tend to be rather fun to watch as long as you know you aren't the one who has to clean it up.