Latest news with #LynnePeeples
Gulf Today
19-05-2025
- Health
- Gulf Today
On autism and vaccines there are lies and statistics
Lynne Peeples, Tribune News Service During an interview in late April with Dr. Phil, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reiterated his appeal to parents on vaccine safety: 'We live in a democracy, and part of the responsibility of being a parent is to do your own research.' The US health secretary has also announced his own investigation, pledging to find an answer to the autism 'epidemic' by September. It's an ambitious goal. It's also a realistic one but only if he already has an answer in mind. To tell the story you want with statistics, you don't have to lie or fabricate data — though that happens, too. More often, statistics are manipulated, figures massaged and results skewed through subtler means. Sometimes, it's sloppiness or unconscious bias at work. Other times, the distortion is deliberate. Whether the numbers attempt to tell a story about the economy, immigration, education or public health, we should empower ourselves to recognise the deception. Vaccine data are far from immune to statistical trickery and its consequences. Not only might individuals skip a vaccine and get unnecessarily sick, but the viral spread of misinformation can poke holes in the herd immunity needed to protect a population. One new, untampered statistic tells a chilling story: A meager 10% drop from today's already dangerously low measles vaccination rates could spark an estimated 13-fold increase in annual cases. Statistics wield incredible power. I developed a deep respect for them during my first career as a biostatistician. Today, as a journalist, I see numbers leveraged for good and for bad. I've seen them help the public and policymakers interpret complex data, detect patterns and make better decisions — evidenced in my reporting on data dashboards during the COVID-19 pandemic. I've also seen data withheld and statistics doctored for less-than-noble aims by chemical companies, the gun industry, police departments, the US military, climate change deniers and vaccine skeptics, to name a few. If left unaware of the deceit, the public can't hold these groups accountable. And if citizens base their votes and other decisions — like whether to vaccinate their child — on distorted or false information, our democracy and our health lose again. Fortunately, inoculation against misinformation is available. As Kennedy and his collaborators dig into vaccine and autism data, as measles cases mount, and as you 'do your own research' or simply digest your news and social feeds, here are five red flags to watch for. Chance: The infamous paper that launched the vaccine-autism controversy was based on just 12 children. Its author claimed that eight showed signs of developmental regression after receiving the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. The study was later retracted for scientific misconduct. But even without fraud, the sample size should raise alarm. Chance alone could explain such a small cluster of cases. Contrast that with rigorous studies — like one in Denmark with more than 650,000 participants — that consistently find no relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. We should be just as wary when studies test a grab bag of possible outcomes. Suppose researchers ask whether a vaccine causes heart disease, diabetes, any of a dozen types of cancer or any of five neurodevelopmental disorders. Even if the vaccine is in reality not affecting any of those 20 outcomes, when researchers try to study so many things all at once, statistical noise can mean one may erroneously appear 'significant' just by chance. A more rigorous and targeted study would be far less likely to give that false positive. Count quality: Big numbers can impress. But quality counts. In 2021, the Delphi-Facebook survey estimated near real-time COVID-19 vaccine uptake using weekly responses from around 250,000 people. On paper, the large sample size conveyed statistical confidence. But in practice, the data missed the mark. The sample was biased and unrepresentative of the overall population. By late May, the study had overestimated vaccine uptake by a wide margin — 70% compared with the true rate of 53%. That inflated figure may have lulled the public and policymakers into a false sense of security. Beware, too, of the misuse of raw data. Figures from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System appear in many papers and posts asserting vaccine harms. But this system was set up only as an early warning system. Anyone can submit a report on a suspected reaction. If a hint of a pattern emerges, then researchers will investigate to determine if the signal represents an actual risk. As its own website warns, the initial reports may be 'incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.' People may be apt to connect an event that occurs shortly after vaccination with the shot itself, for example, especially if they personally fear the safety of vaccines. To demonstrate the system's fallibility, a doctor filed a report saying he turned into the Incredible Hulk after receiving a flu vaccine. The entry was initially accepted into the database. Cherry-picking: One study circulating in the anti-vax community was led by David Geier, the same figure tapped by Kennedy to head his federal autism and vaccine investigation. The study found a connection between autism and vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal. But it hinges on a critical flaw: Cases of autism and the comparison group came from different time periods. Because vaccination rates changed dramatically over time, the design introduced a spurious association. Among myriad ways to manufacture a desired conclusion is the strategic choice of time frame, analysis method or how the data are presented. By plotting only convenient variables or truncating inconvenient values, for example, you can tell the story of your choosing. One COVID-era graph appeared to show that vaccines did not prevent deaths. The trick? It compared vaccine uptake with cumulative deaths— a number that can only rise over time, and so of course would broadly move in the same direction as the uptake rate of a desperately needed new vaccine that the public is clamoring for. Another sleight of hand to play down the size of a problem: Acknowledge a not-so-unusual number of outbreaks while ignoring how large or how deadly those outbreaks were, just as Kennedy did in February with measles. Correlation vs. causation: A widely shared study recently referenced by Kennedy reports a link between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders among 9-year-olds in Florida. This one, too, is riddled with problems — namely, its failure to account for other factors that could explain the results. Children whose parents more regularly use the health care system, for example, are more likely to get both vaccinated and diagnosed. Healthcare engagement confounds the relationship. So, we can't say the vaccine caused neurodevelopmental disorders any more than we could say that increased consumption of margarine resulted in a higher divorce rate in Maine. These are cases of correlation, not causation. Something similar and even more interesting cropped up when people compared death rates by COVID-19 vaccination status. At first glance, an unexpected pattern emerged: The vaccinated were dying at about twice the rate of the unvaccinated. The catch here? The analysis didn't account for age. Older people were more likely both to die and to get vaccinated. Once researchers broke the data down into age groups, a more accurate — and reverse — picture emerged: The unvaccinated were dying at higher rates. Context and conflicts Talk of an uptick in autism diagnoses often skips crucial context: expanded awareness, broader diagnostic criteria and financial incentives for diagnosis. There could well be a surge in the number of cases without any surge in the true incidence of the disorder. Also, discussions motivated by a desire to explain autism or to oppose vaccines tend to omit the robust studies that have debunked any link between vaccines and autism — because those would be unhelpful to the agendas. Vaccine opponents may further ignore the glaring conflicts of interest behind many of the studies still pushing that autism narrative. Geier had a study retracted, in part, for not disclosing his involvement in vaccine-related litigation.
Vox
01-03-2025
- Health
- Vox
What happens to our bodies without light?
In a Cold War-era bunker-turned-Airbnb situated 50 feet below ground in Arkansas, journalist Lynne Peeples conducted an experiment to better understand her internal clock. She'd always struggled with sleep — growing up in Seattle, the long, dark winters contributed to the effects of seasonal affective disorder (or SAD). From an early age, she says, she understood her circadian rhythms — the body's measure of time that drives everything from the sleep-wake cycle to appetite — were generally disrupted. For 10 days, she cordoned herself off from all of the signals the body uses to tell time. She deprived herself of light, from both the sun and electricity, clocks, most screens and other people. (Peeples did have some light: She set all the LED lights in the Airbnb to a dim red light, which wouldn't impact her circadian rhythms.) She strapped herself up to devices that tracked her temperature, glucose levels, sleep, and heart rate and tried to live as normally as possible. To pass the time, she juggled, played the harmonica, and read on a Kindle. She documented her experience on a typewriter. About halfway through, her internal clocks had completely flipped. Her stomach was 'distant and grumbly,' her chest heavy, and she had a general weak and woozy feeling. Unbeknownst to her, when everyone above ground was sleeping, she was wide awake. Later, while combing through her biometric data with scientists, she discovered her rhythms had fallen out of sync with one another. 'I could feel it,' Peeples says. 'I was feeling all the symptoms of sleepiness throughout the day, hot and cold at odd times, a little bit of depression. I'm not thinking clearly. My gut was a disaster. All those things happened about the same time.' Peeples recounts the experience in her book The Inner Clock: Living In Sync With Our Circadian Rhythms , in which she digs into the science of circadian rhythms and explains how understanding our body's ebbs and flows can help us feel better when we're awake and asleep. Here, Peeples shares what she's learned and how you can better calibrate your own circadian rhythms. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Were there any surprising takeaways from your experiment in the bunker? These inner clocks we have in our bodies are not precision timekeepers. That's why we need these regular recalibration opportunities with the light-dark cycle of our planet. But they are pretty good clocks. The first couple days, I was living pretty close to a 24-hour day without having any idea what the actual time was. I would occasionally make a guess at the time for fun, and a day-and-a-half in, I was only off by 11 minutes. So why is light so important to our internal clocks? We evolved outdoors. The sun, during the day, shines a full spectrum of light, and it's centered around the blue wavelengths. We evolved these cells in the back of our eyes, these photoreceptors, that perceive that blue light and send signals to our master clock in our brain that says, I see this strong blue light. It must be daytime. That's how we evolved to tell day from night. In today's society, a lot of us in the modern world, we're hidden from both bright days and dark nights. In today's society, a lot of us in the modern world, we're hidden from both bright days and dark nights. We're losing that contrast that we evolved with. Not only do we have this relatively dim light during the day, but we also have basically that same light indoors at night too, when we're sitting under light. It's really about that contrast that our clocks evolved to use to differentiate day and night. Should we be trying to get more of that contrast? So, making it dim in our houses when the sun goes down and trying to get bright light during the daytime? I would say yes. This is what I'm trying to do. Especially in the morning, if you can get outside for 15, 20 minutes of actual daylight, that really helps recalibrate your clocks and keep them synced to the 24-hour day. During the day, get outside for little bits, even if it's cloudy out, and inside, try to be close to a window. Then at night, dim the lights. Try to use warmer hues of light. The oranger, the redder the better. In my apartment now at night, I turn off all overhead lights. I'm only using table lamps and electric candles that I have around my apartment. As you get into later evening, if you're going to bed, try to cut out absolutely every light. If you have to get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, do not slip on the bathroom lights. A warm night light or carrying a candle is the best plan. I often hear the advice of getting light in the morning. Can SAD lamps effectively mimic that light? If you have the option to get outside, that is still the best because you can get out for a walk and that's good for you. But if you don't have that option and it's the dead of winter anywhere at a high latitude and there's not even the sun up in the morning, then SAD lamps definitely have their place. On the flip side, how concerned should we be about blue light from our electronics? To some degree, certain things can be overblown. The overhead lights in your apartment are probably having a bigger impact on you, especially compared to a TV. Because at that distance, that blue light coming from the TV is probably minimal if you're not right up against it. If you have an iPhone, if you dim it, it's not probably producing that much harmful light. The consensus among scientists is that blue light can have an impact on our sleep, on our rhythms. The extent of that impact is still up for debate. It can't hurt to try to limit that, but to a point. You don't want to cut out all your pleasure in your life. If you're watching something that's calming, that helps turn down your brain a little bit to help you sleep at night, the benefits may outweigh the risks. Are there 'ideal' times of day to be doing certain tasks based on our circadian rhythms, like exercise in the afternoon, or thinking hard in the morning? There are certain times a day, depending on your personal chronotype or how your circadian rhythms run, when you are going to be at your best for thinking, for solving a problem, for running faster, for lifting more weight, for being creative. On average, the science suggests that late morning hours are usually the best as far as your alertness. For me, I do fall into that category. Since I've learned that, I do try to use those hours to tackle my more challenging mental tasks. Then as far as physical performance, on average, most of us are at our best in the late afternoon or early evening. That's when most world records are broken for swimming, for example. It is personal, so you have to get a sense of your own rhythms to be able to time these activities. On average, the science suggests that late morning hours are usually the best as far as your alertness. How can we figure out when we might be better suited to certain tasks, short of locking ourselves in a bunker? The best thing to do is when you're on vacation, let your body tick as it will. Go to bed when you're tired, get up without an alarm, when your body naturally wakes up. Then just pay attention. When am I feeling most on ? When is that dip in the day? A lot of us have that afternoon dip and that's part of the circadian rhythm, but that might fall at a different time for different people. When do you have a spring in your step and feel like running? Try to see if you have some wiggle room to allow yourself to to follow your body's schedule as closely as you can. What practical takeaways would you give people as far as how to make sure that their systems are running efficiently? There are three key things. The first I talked about was contrast: trying to get those bright days, those dark nights. The second thing is what I call constrict. That has to do with eating, as well as caffeine and alcohol. Try to consolidate the hours during the day that you eat and concentrate your calories earlier in the day. Late morning, early afternoon, for most of us, is when our bodies are most able to handle incoming calories. It's the opposite of what modern society does. We tend to have our biggest meal in the evening. Try to get calories earlier, and try to cut off calories two, three hours before bed, ideally. With alcohol, if you're having a drink, have it more at happy hour than post-dinner. Finally, consistency — trying to go to bed and get up at the same time every day. There's been more research that's come out saying the consistency of the times you go to bed and get up in the morning, seven days a week, can be more important than how long you sleep. See More: Advice Even Better Health Life Sleep
Vox
25-02-2025
- Health
- Vox
What a science journalist learned when she lived underground for 10 days
In a Cold War-era bunker-turned-Airbnb situated 50 feet below ground in Arkansas, journalist Lynne Peeples conducted an experiment to better understand her internal clock. She'd always struggled with sleep — growing up in Seattle, the long, dark winters contributed to the effects of seasonal affective disorder (or SAD). From an early age, she says, she understood her circadian rhythms — the body's measure of time that drives everything from the sleep-wake cycle to appetite — were generally disrupted. For 10 days, she cordoned herself off from all of the signals the body uses to tell time. She deprived herself of light, from both the sun and electricity, clocks, most screens and other people. (Peeples did have some light: She set all the LED lights in the Airbnb to a dim red light, which wouldn't impact her circadian rhythms.) She strapped herself up to devices that tracked her temperature, glucose levels, sleep, and heart rate and tried to live as normally as possible. To pass the time, she juggled, played the harmonica, and read on a Kindle. She documented her experience on a typewriter. About halfway through, her internal clocks had completely flipped. Her stomach was 'distant and grumbly,' her chest heavy, and she had a general weak and woozy feeling. Unbeknownst to her, when everyone above ground was sleeping, she was wide awake. Later, while combing through her biometric data with scientists, she discovered her rhythms had fallen out of sync with one another. 'I could feel it,' Peeples says. 'I was feeling all the symptoms of sleepiness throughout the day, hot and cold at odd times, a little bit of depression. I'm not thinking clearly. My gut was a disaster. All those things happened about the same time.' Peeples recounts the experience in her book The Inner Clock: Living In Sync With Our Circadian Rhythms , in which she digs into the science of circadian rhythms and explains how understanding our body's ebbs and flows can help us feel better when we're awake and asleep. Here, Peeples shares what she's learned and how you can better calibrate your own circadian rhythms. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Were there any surprising takeaways from your experiment in the bunker? These inner clocks we have in our bodies are not precision timekeepers. That's why we need these regular recalibration opportunities with the light-dark cycle of our planet. But they are pretty good clocks. The first couple days, I was living pretty close to a 24-hour day without having any idea what the actual time was. I would occasionally make a guess at the time for fun, and a day-and-a-half in, I was only off by 11 minutes. So why is light so important to our internal clocks? We evolved outdoors. The sun, during the day, shines a full spectrum of light, and it's centered around the blue wavelengths. We evolved these cells in the back of our eyes, these photoreceptors, that perceive that blue light and send signals to our master clock in our brain that says, I see this strong blue light. It must be daytime. That's how we evolved to tell day from night. In today's society, a lot of us in the modern world, we're hidden from both bright days and dark nights. In today's society, a lot of us in the modern world, we're hidden from both bright days and dark nights. We're losing that contrast that we evolved with. Not only do we have this relatively dim light during the day, but we also have basically that same light indoors at night too, when we're sitting under light. It's really about that contrast that our clocks evolved to use to differentiate day and night. Should we be trying to get more of that contrast? So, making it dim in our houses when the sun goes down and trying to get bright light during the daytime? I would say yes. This is what I'm trying to do. Especially in the morning, if you can get outside for 15, 20 minutes of actual daylight, that really helps recalibrate your clocks and keep them synced to the 24-hour day. During the day, get outside for little bits, even if it's cloudy out, and inside, try to be close to a window. Then at night, dim the lights. Try to use warmer hues of light. The oranger, the redder the better. In my apartment now at night, I turn off all overhead lights. I'm only using table lamps and electric candles that I have around my apartment. As you get into later evening, if you're going to bed, try to cut out absolutely every light. If you have to get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, do not slip on the bathroom lights. A warm night light or carrying a candle is the best plan. I often hear the advice of getting light in the morning. Can SAD lamps effectively mimic that light? If you have the option to get outside, that is still the best because you can get out for a walk and that's good for you. But if you don't have that option and it's the dead of winter anywhere at a high latitude and there's not even the sun up in the morning, then SAD lamps definitely have their place. On the flip side, how concerned should we be about blue light from our electronics? To some degree, certain things can be overblown. The overhead lights in your apartment are probably having a bigger impact on you, especially compared to a TV. Because at that distance, that blue light coming from the TV is probably minimal if you're not right up against it. If you have an iPhone, if you dim it, it's not probably producing that much harmful light. The consensus among scientists is that blue light can have an impact on our sleep, on our rhythms. The extent of that impact is still up for debate. It can't hurt to try to limit that, but to a point. You don't want to cut out all your pleasure in your life. If you're watching something that's calming, that helps turn down your brain a little bit to help you sleep at night, the benefits may outweigh the risks. Are there 'ideal' times of day to be doing certain tasks based on our circadian rhythms, like exercise in the afternoon, or thinking hard in the morning? There are certain times a day, depending on your personal chronotype or how your circadian rhythms run, when you are going to be at your best for thinking, for solving a problem, for running faster, for lifting more weight, for being creative. On average, the science suggests that late morning hours are usually the best as far as your alertness. For me, I do fall into that category. Since I've learned that, I do try to use those hours to tackle my more challenging mental tasks. Then as far as physical performance, on average, most of us are at our best in the late afternoon or early evening. That's when most world records are broken for swimming, for example. It is personal, so you have to get a sense of your own rhythms to be able to time these activities. On average, the science suggests that late morning hours are usually the best as far as your alertness. How can we figure out when we might be better suited to certain tasks, short of locking ourselves in a bunker? The best thing to do is when you're on vacation, let your body tick as it will. Go to bed when you're tired, get up without an alarm, when your body naturally wakes up. Then just pay attention. When am I feeling most on ? When is that dip in the day? A lot of us have that afternoon dip and that's part of the circadian rhythm, but that might fall at a different time for different people. When do you have a spring in your step and feel like running? Try to see if you have some wiggle room to allow yourself to to follow your body's schedule as closely as you can. What practical takeaways would you give people as far as how to make sure that their systems are running efficiently? There are three key things. The first I talked about was contrast: trying to get those bright days, those dark nights. The second thing is what I call constrict. That has to do with eating, as well as caffeine and alcohol. Try to consolidate the hours during the day that you eat and concentrate your calories earlier in the day. Late morning, early afternoon, for most of us, is when our bodies are most able to handle incoming calories. It's the opposite of what modern society does. We tend to have our biggest meal in the evening. Try to get calories earlier, and try to cut off calories two, three hours before bed, ideally. With alcohol, if you're having a drink, have it more at happy hour than post-dinner. Finally, consistency — trying to go to bed and get up at the same time every day. There's been more research that's come out saying the consistency of the times you go to bed and get up in the morning, seven days a week, can be more important than how long you sleep. See More: Advice Even Better Health Life Sleep
