In an era where science promises miracles like advanced medicines and instant knowledge, it’s easy to place unwavering trust in experts and data. Yet, as one recent incident illustrates, even rigorous processes can falter when assumptions go unchallenged, leading to decisions that affect millions—particularly the most vulnerable.
Consider the story of a new monoclonal antibody treatment for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants, developed by a major pharmaceutical company and reviewed by a key advisory committee to the CDC, the ACIP. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is a group within the CDC that provides recommendations on the use of vaccines in the United States, including vaccination schedules and guidelines for both children and adults.
In June, the committee gathered to evaluate its safety and efficacy. Data presented seemed reassuring, showing no alarming patterns in seizure risks among babies in split age groups: those 0 to 37 days old and those 38 days to under 8 months. The treatment was positioned as a vital shield against a common childhood illness.
Steamrollered
One committee member, however, paused. Drawing on preliminary safety signals and personal intuition, he expressed hesitation, noting he wouldn’t feel fully comfortable administering it to his own child. Despite his concerns and those of another member, the committee approved the drug, paving the way for its widespread use.
Months later, independent scrutiny revealed a troubling oversight. When the same data was combined rather than divided, it showed infants were nearly four times more likely to experience seizures shortly after injection—a statistically significant finding unlikely to be mere chance. Further, the study’s design limited the “risk window” to just the first week post-injection, dismissing any events in the following two weeks as unrelated. This methodological choice effectively masked potential dangers, allowing the product to gain endorsement despite the red flags.
The outcome?
Millions of babies may now receive a treatment hailed as protective, but one that carries undisclosed risks, all under the banner of settled science. This episode highlights how data can be parsed in ways that obscure truths, how institutional processes might prioritize speed over skepticism, and how public trust in science can be eroded when intuition is dismissed.
The lesson here is clear: While science has transformed our world for the better, it’s wise to question claims that contradict common sense, especially when lives are at stake. Blind faith in expertise, without room for doubt or deeper inquiry, can lead to regrettable consequences. Always consider the full picture—pooled data, study designs, and independent reviews—before accepting assurances at face value.
This cautionary tale is drawn from the article “Blinded by the Science” by the inestimable Jeffrey Tucker. Here: https://lists.theepochtimes.com/archive/MFr5YZ8o0/5kdG8QBtO/dwGFNVNxY8j8