Denialism Blog

Month: April 2008

  • The message and the messenger

    ResearchBlogging.orgI’m not sure what to make of this. An article in the latest Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reports some potentially good news for type II diabetics. Type II diabetes has been extensively studied (detailed post to follow), and one area of difficulty has been reducing the incidence of macrovascular disease (heart attack and stroke, primarily). Treating blood pressure and cholesterol aggressively in diabetics helps, but controlling blood sugars closely doesn’t seem to help with these particular sequelae of diabetes.

    Further complicating the picture was some data released last year about rosigitizone (Avandia), an oral diabetic drug. This showed possible increased cardiac mortality with the use of this medication, although the numbers weren’t too convincing.

    So, the new article reports on pioglitizone (Actos), a close relative of Avandia. The data seem to indicate that, versus another type of oral diabetes medication, Actos reduced incidence of death, heart attack, and stroke.

    Hmmm. Dr. Steve Nissen, who has always been out front in denouncing potentially dangerous drugs was a lead author on this study. He was also very noisy about the harm of Avandia.

    It just seems like an odd coincidence that he should be out front decrying the (possible) harm of one drug, and then be the lead author of a study supporting the use of its main competitor. Nissen has an excellent reputation, so nefarious motives are probably out. But it does show that who says something can be almost as important as what is said.

    Nissen, S.E., Nicholls, S.J., Wolski, K., Nesto, R., Kupfer, S., Perez, A., Jure, H., De Larochelliere, R., Staniloae, C.S., Mavromatis, K., Saw, J., Hu, B., Lincoff, A.M., Tuzcu, E.M. (2008). Comparison of Pioglitazone vs Glimepiride on Progression of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The PERISCOPE Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(13), 1561-1573. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.13.1561

  • Tangled Bank #102

    It’s now up at Further Thoughts…go and read!

  • Why denialists ultimately fail

    Scientologists apparently have the answers to mental illness. HIV denialists swear that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. But very few people are actually buying it—enough to cause trouble, surely, but the Tom Cruises and Peter Deusbergs of the world aren’t winning any Nobel Prizes. Why not?

    Because they offer nothing. HIV researchers and clinicians have emptied out the AIDS wards, but the denialists have done nothing. Psychiatrists (and yes, their medications) have helped people lead normal lives. Scientologists have done, well, nothing but sue critics.

    The difference between the scientific approach to medicine and the denialist approach is that one offers solutions, while the other does the intellectual equivalent of leaving a flaming bag of poo on the front porch.

    Remember this—denialists offer no solutions, only conflict.

  • A history of denialism – Part III – Global Warming Denialism

    Part III of our discussion of the history of denialist movements is on one that should tie things together and one I hope some of my fellow sciencebloggers will realize speaks to the necessity of challenging denialists on every front.

    My work in this instance is made extremely easy as Naomi Oreskes has done it all for me. Please watch her discussion on the history of global warming denialism, it takes a bit of time, but it is dead on and is one of the best discussions of the methods and strategy of denialism (not to mention free-market fundamentalism) I have seen to date.

    For those of you who follow this site and recent postings you will see some consistent themes:

    1) Well-funded think tanks are capable of derailing a scientific consensus, in this case the consensus on global warming which has existed for nearly 3 decades.
    2) The goal of denialists is not to propose an alternative theory that is explanatory and useful, but to create controversy and doubt where it does not exist.
    3) These attempts are highly effective despite a complete absence of controversy in the scientific literature. Attacks in the lay press are more than sufficient to create a false debate using an appeal for parity or balanced presentation of ideas.
    4) The same strategies used by the tobacco companies to deny the link between cancer and tobacco smoke, and in fact, some of the exact same actors are present in both cases.

    These efforts must not be ignored. The methods of denialists must be exposed and attacked, and the sources of denialism must be discredited.

    Part II – tobacco
    Part I – the ancients

  • A challenge for Scientologists

    Based on earlier posts, it’s pretty clear that I feel that Scientology is a dangerous and bizarre cult. The responses to the post included some apologetics for the CoS and their stance on psychiatry.

    As is typical in these situations, the commenters simply refused to answer any substantive questions and fell back on such arguments as “prove that Scientology believes X”, when of course all we have to work with are leaked documents, as the “church” is quite secretive.

    So here is my challenge:

    Scientologists—please debunk my false beliefs about your religion. Since you abhor psychiatry, please explain the theories behind your treatment of mental illness.

    I’ll wait….

  • JPANDS and HIV denialsim

    This entry needed migrating from the old blog. Thank you for your indulgence. –PalMD


    BPSDB    JPANDS, the mouthpiece of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, is a well-known organ or quackery, so it seemed like a good idea to see what they’ve been up to lately. It’s not good. The most recent issue publishes a screed on HIV denial that is so blindingly stupid, I developed a cluster headache on reading it. Now that I’ve recovered, let’s risk a closer look. (more…)

  • Foie gras for all!

    According to a new study released today by the journal Euromed (Volume 1:3, April 1, 2008, pp 13-26), the so-called “French paradox” can be applied to other populations successfully. In an eight year, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, Americans from two major urban areas were fed either their usual diet, or a typical French diet, including, but not limited to, wine with all meals (except breakfast, if breakfast occurred before 8 am), foie gras at least three times weakly, butter-based sauces, and crusty bread. In another arm, an urban French population was given a “typical American” diet, including, but not limited to, at least one meal of fast food daily, four servings of soda-pop, and other specialty foods, such as Philly cheese steaks, Chicago hot dogs, and Detroit coney islands.

    According to Dr. Etienne D’Estang, who headed up the French arm of the study, “Perhaps ‘les sanglots longs des violons de l’automne blessent mon coeur,’ but butter doesn’t.”

    The investigators concluded:

    While our results are by no means conclusive, it appears that a typical French diet, which includes red wine, foie gras, and butter, can improve the health of populations unaccustomed to such habits. Our study did not reveal the reason behind this effect, in which Americans who were on the diet gained an average of 21% increase in longevity, but it appears to be a certain je ne sais quoi. On l’autre main, the French population exposed to typical American merde lost an average of 50% longevity.

    Ms Patricia Watanabe, for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), decried the results:

    The current study in no way should encourage Americans to engage in the cruel production of foie gras. If it means sacrificing a few years of life, well, that’s the price we pay for not torturing our animal brothers and sisters.

    Meanwhile, it’s too early to make any definitive conclusions. First would American’s be willing to eat like the French? What effects might this have on other aspects of American life.

    Charlie Woltanski, of the American Sausage Makers Local #125 in Chicago said, “I don’t care how good for you that crap is, if it isn’t a good frank or brat made on the south side, forget it.”