On statistics: yes, it's true that people can misread or misinterpret statistics (the famous 'it's safer to drive without your shoes on' paradox). But still, speaking as someone who routinely uses statistics for various tasks, there is a reason why statistics is used in almost all sciences: when used correctly, and when interpreted correctly, it is a powerful tool for analysing data, seeing patterns, and getting closer to the truth. (I personally think people should study a little more about statistics -- e.g. enough to understand that 'correlation does not imply causation' -- so as not to be misled by those who manipulate statistics -- the same who will, after all, manipulate any other kind of information, scientific result, etc. --). Statistics, if well used and well understood, is actually quite good.

The (very interesting) article Juliebird provided did not seem to me biased, because it was based on experimental results with references to the sources that report on these experiments and other studies, it made logical deductions based on these results, and refrained from making any claims that were not deduced from these results. It was published in a peer-reviewed, highly respected journal (the official journal of the American Academy of Pedriatics). Barring big conspiracy theories, it is hard to see how this paper could have much of a bias for a certain end of the spectrum.

As Juliebird also observed, it is difficult -- perhaps even illogical -- to be a good expert in immunology and drug research without some relationship with drug makers. This doesn't make them 'biased': their arguments were still based on experimental results, and reviewed by their peers, before publication, and their conclusions still follow logically from the data and from the other studies. Do you think, for example, that a few doctors with interests in the tobacco industry could get a paper published in a good journal claiming that smoking is actually good for babies and young children? Unless they have extremely good data and arguments to back it up, the problems and biases in their research would be pointed out by the reviewers, and the article would be rejected.

You see, the way science works is such that several people read and criticize work before it gets published. And after it is published, people with good reasons for disagreeing also get to publish in the same journals, or in equally prestigious ones, presenting their reasons (data, experiments, arguments, etc.) against the original work. The scientific community -- which is very large and has individuals with all kinds of personalities, commitments, etc. -- does seem remarkably homogenous about this topic; one would have to presuppose a widespread conspiracy -- involving a 'mafia' of health specialists of various fields, hospitals, doctors, universities, etc. -- to create such a broad consensus about, for example, the role of vaccination in the decrease and disappearance of various diseases.

Usually, the anti-vac sites, their research, data and conclusions simply don't compare well. They are much fewer, poorly done, unpublished, and widely criticized by the scientific community. In the end, it looks much more likely that the anti-vac people are the ones making unwarranted assumptions and coming to wrong conclusions.

Wypijewski's article actually seems quite OK -- politicians can always be a source of 'sexual attraction' if they are close to power (just ask good ol' Bill), and it would be surprising if Obama didn't. Even McCain probably has some effect, despite Wypijewski's opinion. I wasn't put out by the leading sentence; I wouldn't even say it was even in bad taste, only provocative (though I'd probably remove the word 'little'). So I agree: TCF has apparently overreacted at a sentence taken out of context.