Recently, I just finished writing an article on the topic of vaccines on Guardian Liberty Voice, an online media outlet based out of Las Vegas, Nevada. I know many people are tired of the controversy over vaccinating children, and most are even settled on expert opinion regarding the MMR vaccine and any possibility of its link to the sensitive topic of autism.
Well, my article, Vaccination Week and the Ever-Changing U.S. brings up the types of statistics often used, and the possibility of how experts can miss something so simple. For example, being an Urban Studies Sociologist who understands probability and correlation, I insist experts should not make general statements regarding case studies. To start, many of these studies, which are often used for peer-reviewed journals by universities and government agencies, use only a few hundred to a few thousand subjects that are then multiplied to speak for the general public. Not only that, the length of time per study is often short, often only taking place up to six months. For matters concerning babies, studies may be conducted sporadically for two to three years in an uncontrolled environment.
Part of my argument addressed in my article, though, relies on information taken from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and their recommendations and procedures. Is it possible that agencies such as the CDC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are allowing federally-funded scientists to dictate what U.S. citizens can consume, without question? Take for instance, the food pyramid. For years, these U.S. government agencies told their citizens the ideal diet for the average American consisted of a triangular type of serving sizes of various foods - mainly being mostly grains, then fruit, vegetables, and dairy, then meats, and then sugary substances. The U.S. Department of Education allowed schools to teach this to all students, and then looked the other way when the average school lunch consisted of pizza, hot dogs, french fries, and ketchup. The USDA even went so far as to consider ketchup a serving of vegetables, despite it having a substantial amount of sugar.
Now, in this day and age of technology, increasing opportunity, and online information, many citizens are taking the initiative to gather information themselves to decide what is best for them and their family. However, due to social media websites, everyone is voicing an opinion, and propaganda is being spread abundantly. People have to question what are reliable sources; although, most people still rely on government agencies to determine what is best for them, as well as prestigious universities and successful media networks, such as CNN, FOX, and ABC, for example. And why not? These institutions often have the most capital, or sustained resources!
As often happens between social classes, many of these institutions may miss something not often seen in their piece of the puzzle. To start, samples taken for case studies, though intended to be non-discriminatory, often only represent a particular area. Results are then calculated to determine a mean, range, and particular correlation, if any exist. However, these results are then multiplied to produce a probability, or likeliness of a result for the overall, national population.
Yes, it is a smart procedure, but often fails to address the uniqueness of certain individuals. In fact, it was not too long ago that these institutions finally reached out to inner-city residents in order to include more unique results. Even though, small amounts of subjects are still used to generalize for the entire population of the ever-growing U.S.
Although studies appear to take place among more various universities and local government agencies, and even broader medical institutions, it appears these biased generalizations still convince citizens of findings pertaining to health, nutrition, and even issues related to the environment. Most people are familiar with these results as that of Scientific-based research, but the truth is, it is all institutionalized results. When one breaks down such information, one will notice how environmental factors are often dismissed because such research is hard to conduct in uncontrolled areas. This represents a continual bias because real life takes place among cities, vehicles, nature and other types of surroundings, and not only in hospitals, laboratories, and classrooms.
To conclude, results of any science experiment or case study derived from one particular institution in one particular area which uses limited samples should not be used to generalize results for a national population, let alone a global one. Instead, regional results of an entire nation should be used to accumulate nation-wide data, which should then be used to calculate and obtain national results. Also, since most people experience stimuli both inside and outside themselves, so should Science. There are numerous factors which could contribute to disease, genetics, and overall human and environmental progress. For agencies, such as the CDC and FDA to limit their findings to particular case studies conducted in controlled environments, would produce results which do not accurately represent a national population; thereby leaving the probability of a margin of error to be unprecedented. And, this is the very reason why most people in the U.S. advocate their right to make their own health, safety and nutritional decisions, as was stated in my article mentioned above.
Thank you for tuning in and thinking as an individual!
