Age of Autism Critique
I chose the Age of Autism website as an example of "bad science." This website in specific is worth debunking because it propagates the controversial belief that vaccines cause autism, among other misinformation. In reality, there is no known link between vaccines and autism. This website also related to the Body by Darwin book I was reading. Moreover, providing accurate data on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) helps diagnose children with ASD as early as possible and contributes to the study of its causes. For reference, here's the link to the Age of Autism website:
The first glaring piece of evidence that indicated that Age of Autism was a "bad science" website was the website's header (see the screenshot below). Notice anything peculiar? The tab labeled "Science" stood out to me as an attempt to justify that the articles listed on that page were all purely scientific. I initially wondered: was there truly no better title? Then, I realized: this "science" tab serves its purpose as clickbait for site visitors. It gives the reader a false sense of credibility before they even open an article and start reading it. Second, there is no autism "epidemic," as indicated in the site subtitle. The term "epidemic" primarily refers to the widespread occurrence of infectious diseases. Autism is not increasing in epidemic proportions (see this article by Gernsbacher et al. (2005) or this article by James Coplan, MD), and making such a fear-mongering claim can have damaging effects. Calling it an "epidemic" is seeking to blame something or someone, and this claim is not founded upon scientific evidence.
Let's click the "Science" tab and examine the page that opens up...
The first few articles that pop up under the "Science" tab were examining the current COVID-19 pandemic. Scrolling through, I came across another article related to the controversial claims that vaccines cause ASD, though this article addresses a different disease.
Here, the author, Teresa Conrick, claims that vaccines cause Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia, which aligns with her claim that vaccines cause ASD. However, scientific research has shown that vaccines are safe and that vaccines do not cause ASD. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this article is how believable it is. Without a scientific background and prior knowledge of scientific research, it would be difficult to identify the "bad science" present in this article. What does stand out, though?
​
First, this article is based on a single case, which challenges the generalizability of this study. The case also seems to have been chosen to support her conclusion instead of being used to draw conclusions and examine possible future avenues of study. Moreover, the statement that "vaccines have been associated with triggering this condition" is not accompanied by any supporting evidence and therefore, the article provides limited insight as to how this conclusion was reached. I would also like to point out that an association is not a causation. Further, the article uses scientific vocabulary that gives it a false sense of credibility, which may potentially sway individuals who are less well-versed in scientific research.
​
However, in critiquing this article, I have also recognized some merit in it. For instance, Ms. Conrick states that it is important to report any unusual symptoms that may appear after getting vaccinated. I agree with her on this. Abnormal symptoms should always be reported because they indicate that something may be wrong, and if you report them, others can address your symptoms and help you. Nevertheless, the validity of this statement by Ms. Conrick does not discount the "bad science" present in the article.
In Age of Autism, Teresa Conrick examines whether the microbiome could be the epicenter of autism in another article: https://www.ageofautism.com/2014/05/the-microbiome-could-it-be-the-epicenter-of-autism.html Note: I was initially drawn to this article because I had just read about the Hygiene Hypothesis in Jeremy Taylor's Body by Darwin (Check out my summary and analysis here!)
Teresa Conrick begins by introducing the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the investigations conducted by her conspiracy theorist peers. She then lists the observations of Dr. Leo Kanner, a psychiatrist, and identifies them as symptoms of ASD. Something that stood out to me was the third bullet point: "Following smallpox vaccination at 12 months, he had an attack of diarrhea and fever." Ms. Conrick does not clarify why she perceives ties between a smallpox vaccination and ASD, but she does make sure to casually throw this bullet point into the mix as a legitimate symptom of ASD. She then goes on to claim that not enough healthy microbiota and too many outside pathogens form the epicenter of infections that affect the brain. Ms. Conrick uses excerpts from prior studies to claim that both the environment and vaccines affect the microbiome. Finally, she confirms that autism is an effect of man-made changes to our microbiome. To assess these claims, read more about the hygiene hypothesis in Body by Darwin and my analysis of his book in relation to this article here.
​
Ms. Conrick even invokes pathos by including a personal account from Ann, an individual on the autism spectrum. Ann writes: "It seems like because of my autism I am sick more often than others! This is very frustrating! It’s maddening! I am beginning to believe there is a connection between stomach issues and autism!" Ms. Conrick jumps on the bandwagon, prompting the reader to consider the perspective of an autistic individual by responding with "How brilliant yet heartbreaking is that?" to conclude the article.
​
Something that surprised me about Ms. Conrick's article was her inclusion of hyperlinks. I clicked on them, suspecting misinformation to appear on my screen. For the most part, this did not happen. Some of her links led to other pages on the Age of Autism website. Citing your own website does not provide credibility. However, most of her links were reliable and led me to sites such as Merriam-Webster and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Her hyperlinks serve as a reminder of how crucial it is to carefully evaluate each website and the information it presents. At first glance, Teresa's article may appear to contain valid and true statements, which would make her argument sound. A deeper inquiry into her stylistic choices, such as only including excerpts that support her own argument, excluding counter-evidence, and reliance on subjective writing, however, reveals an attempt to convince rather than an attempt to inform.
The "Widespread but Nonetheless Wackadoodle Hygiene Hypothesis," as referenced by Dan Olmsted in https://www.ageofautism.com/2014/01/weekly-wrap-.html
The article begins with "It's a useful coincidence that autism and autoimmunity start with the same three letters." Though this is a good hook to captivate the reader's attention, Mr. Olmsted seems to suggest that this is further evidence for the ties between autoimmunity and autism. He appears to scream: "The clues are in the name!" To counter that argument, I would like to point out that my name is Olivia. Olives start with the same four letters. That's one extra letter than the "useful coincidence" Mr. Olmsted identifies, but wait... I'm not related to olives. His statement is illogical.
​
Mr. Olmsted observes a variety of autoimmune disorders popping up, and he argues for the need to recognize that "too many people are sick in disturbing new ways." This strikes the reader as a situation worthy of his or her attention. The article's author then delves deeper into this problem and pinpoints our healthcare system as the root of the problem. In a confident tone that has the potential to sway individuals who are less practiced with recognizing bias, he refers to healthcare as "toxic medical interventions." Mr. Olmsted concludes that the excessive vaccinations, mercury exposure, and other environmental triggers that result from faults in our healthcare system are causing autism.
​
This article examines many cases of immunocompromised individual to conclude that autism and autoimmune disorders were triggered by the commercialization of organic mercury in vaccines. However, remember, "bad science" may present overwhelming amounts of data and its conclusions may seem to be based on well-grounded scientific research. However, a further examination suggests that the cases and information used in this article are organized to suit Mr. Olmsted's agenda: to prove that mercury is "a truly toxic substance."
Besides this cherry-picked evidence, to further his point, he mentions an article by Bernard et al., which unearthed "the similarities between mercury poisoning and autism" and "evidence" from the first cases of ASD. Mr. Olmsted makes sure to mention that this is a "peer-reviewed journal article." At first glance, this appears to add credibility to his argument, especially from the perspective of someone who is not well-versed in scientific research. However, I did some digging. I would like to foremost mention my frustration at how poorly cited this article was. Mr. Olmsted does not even mention its year of publication, and the referenced article only popped up in my search after I used "autism" and "mercury" as additional key words. For reference, this is the article: Bernard, S., Enayati, A., Redwood, L., Roger, H., & Binstock, T. (2001). Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning. Medical Hypotheses, 56(4), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1054/mehy.2000.1281.
​
Having read the article by Bernard and his colleagues (2001), here is a statement that stood out to me: "Nearly all US children are immunized, yet only a small proportion develop autism." Also, though the article states that there are "extensive parallels between autism and HgP," which is mercury poisoning, and that "the likelihood of a causal relationship is great," it advocates for further investigations and suggests the possibility of giving mercury poisoning treatments to autistic individuals due to the parallels in their symptoms. Bernard and his colleagues address future avenues for research and possible treatments as they attempts to build upon their findings. On the other hand, Mr. Olmsted uses this study's findings to support a point tangential to his original thesis: mercury is causing autism. In doing so, he blames our healthcare system, advancing his own agenda. I would like to point out that contrary to Mr. Olmsted's claims, thimerosal is a mercury-based vaccine ingredient that has extensively been studied. According to nine different CDC studies since 2003, it does not cause ASD.
​
Ultimately, in a confident and convincing tone, this article targets specific chemical compounds as the "culprits" behind both autism and autoimmunity. In doing so, it fans flames of fear and distrust in the hope that readers also conclude that "toxic medical interventions" are causing ASD and challenge current scientific explanations.
Examining the website's motivations:
The following is an excerpt from "A Letter from the Editor" of the Age of Autism website (https://www.ageofautism.com/a-welcome-from-dan-olmste.html):
​
"We are published to give voice to those who believe autism is an environmentally induced illness, that it is treatable, and that children can recover. For the most part, the major media in the United States aren't interested in that point of view, they won't investigate the causes and possible biomedical treatments of autism independently, and they don't listen to the most important people – the parents, many of whom have witnessed autistic regression and medical illness after vaccinations. We do all those things, and more.
​
We believe that autism is the defining disorder of our age, man-made and therefore preventable, and that it points to the truth about other problems that beset us, from ADD to asthma to Alzheimer's. We address those issues as well, along with exposing the special interests, bureaucratic inertia, and medical malfeasance that perpetuate denial and suffering."
​
In examining this letter, it is evident that the website's motivations are primarily two-fold: 1 - to expose the misinformation spread about ASD in the United States, and 2 - to justify the reality of ASD as something that is man-made, preventable, and treatable. Essentially, this "bad science" website is trying to debunk the claim that vaccines do not cause autism. In doing so, their website is trying to show that the truth is being hidden from the general population due to conflicting and ill-intentioned interests of the bureaucracy.
​
The language used to make these claims is convincing, especially for those who do not have a strong scientific background. I have therefore identified the audience for this "bad science" website primarily as people who do not have a strong science background. However, I believe that the audience also includes people who were previously skeptical of the government or healthcare system in addition to family members of individuals with ASD who, through this website, have found comfort in blaming someone or something. It appears as if this website is effective in reaching its audience. When scrolling down to the bottom of each page, it becomes apparent that many posts are filled with supportive comments from the website's readers. I have not come across any disagreement. Either those who disagree with this "bad science" website choose not to comment, or their comments are deleted by the website's admin.
​
Further, word choice matters, and it is important to note that the language is manipulated to be convincing. Phrases such as "aren't interested," "won't investigate," and "don't listen" are absolutes that place blame on the United States and its healthcare system. Such phrases do not acknowledge the holistic reality of our healthcare system nor do they make any effort to address any counterarguments. A phrase such as "for the most part" also does little in addressing any counterarguments because it casts aside anything that does not fit into the "most part" category as insignificant. This would not be the case if other cases that did not fit this category were mentioned, but this does not occur. Though I recognize that this is just a short overview of their mission, it is concerning that no concrete examples are used in either the blaming of the United States or highlighting why the Age of Autism website's work is beneficial.