Denialism Blog

Author: MarkH

  • Terrorism denialism

    I was reading two articles on disparate subjects and found them oddly linked in my mind. The first former terrorist Bill Ayers’ explanation of why he didn’t respond when Obama was smeared by association and the second P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker writing for the WaPo about the escalation in recent years of animal rights terrorism.

    What struck me about both these articles is the interesting divide between how terrorists justify their behaviors and diminish their objectives of striking fear into their opponents, and the reality of what the subjects of such acts perceive. Conn and Parker are quite right to use the label “terrorist”, as even though the ALF has been unsuccessful in actually killing someone so far, they’ve come close, demonstrated carelessness for human life, and ultimately are using acts of violence to intimidate others into changing their behavior.

    Now frequently AR terrorism been downplayed in discussions on this blog as property damage, or mere economic assaults on research science. As an example of this mentality, listen to Ayers downplay the Weather Undergrounds violent activity:
    (more…)

  • Mathew Nisbet, Beneath Contempt

    Well, Nisbet has replied to Mike, Orac and me (not to mention PAL). However his reply leaves something wanting, like, intellectual honesty.

    Nowhere in any of these reasoned replies is there “name-calling”. What we are arguing is for the preservation of accurate labeling of arguments that fail to meet standards of honesty. There are arguments that are crap, and arguments that are useful and indicate the author is interested in exchange of ideas, fostering discussion, the truth etc. We believe it is useful not to just label these arguments but to teach people how to distinguish between legitimate debate and illegitimate debate.

    I am beginning to understand that Matt Nisbet is unable to engage us on such a level because I fear he is simply incompetent to do so or incompetent to recognize our attempts to engage him in meaningful debate. There is no attempt at honestly addressing our points, at persuasion, or any semblance of a discussion I could respect and participate in. Just a straw man, and a pathetic one at that. And when one attempts to address his arguments on his own site, he doesn’t publish critical comments (or no more than one in three).

    I’m done. Whether there is anything to “framing science” or if it’s just a con that lets Matt Nisbet publish opinion pieces as “research” I don’t care anymore. He’s not an opponent worth debating.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  • Cranks cry persecution, Nisbet listens

    Ever since we began writing here about denialism we’ve emphasized a few critical points about dealing with anti-science. For one, denialists aren’t interested in legitimate debate – they are not honest brokers and the tactics they use exist to artificially extend discussion of settled scientific issues. Second, one of the most time-honored traditions of cranks is claiming persecution in response to rejection of their nonsense. Take for a recent example Coby’s exposure of the “environmentalists want to jail global warming denialists” myth. You don’t need to do anything to make a crank cry persecution, if they have to they’ll just make up some persecutory event or tale.

    So, I don’t have a lot of tears to shed for global warming denialists who insist they are being falsely compared to holocaust deniers. In that they use the same tactics as holocaust deniers to create the false appearance of debate, they are the same, true, but the comparison largely ends there. Unlike holocaust deniers their ideological motivations are different. And, of course, any reasonable person realizes that holocaust denial has not made the use of the term “denial” itself an assertion of antisemitism. If a doctor confronts an alcoholic about their denial of their alcoholism, they’re not suggesting they hate Jewish people too. When a psychiatrist tells their patient they’re in denial, that’s hardly comparing them to the Nazis. When we say a public figure has issued a denial of some scandal, we’re not suggesting they advocate a new holocaust. And finally, when we suggest any number of other people are denying reality, whether it be holocaust denial, evolution denial, HIV/AIDS denial, etc., the point is clear that we are referring to their methods more than their motives which are necessarily varied. It should also be clear that holocaust denial has not ruined the word deny or denial or denier for any number of other applications – this is just another example of denialists claiming persecution after being called on their BS.

    Nisbet disagrees, and he sides with Timothy Ball of all people who is very upset that he’s being called a “denier” in this PRI segment. Cry me a river. Bizarrely Nisbet suggests that in this radio segment he is so persuasive that we will never use the word “denier” again. I disagree, and it sounds like the reporter, Jason Margolis, disagrees as well:

    The relevant section follows (forgive transcription errors):
    (more…)

  • The stupidest internal NIH memo ever – or why I can't wait for the new administration

    One of the great things about science is that it is open, international, and celebrates the free exchange of ideas. However, during the last 8 years we’ve seen some odd things at the National Institutes of Health – the premier governmental scientific institution in the world. The paranoia of the current administration has filtered down and contaminated day to day operations of what is essentially an academic health sciences campus.

    For example, for some bizarre reason they decided to erect a 10 foot high iron fence around the entire campus:
    i-52526dcc20f19ca4bf1fcda1370592de-NIH fence.jpg
    And at the entrances every car is searched, every day. And why? What makes the NIH campus different from any other medical campus in the country? We all work with the same radioactive isotopes, etc. They have a higher level infectious disease research lab which if you were really worried about could be fenced in rather than fencing in the entire 300 acre campus. What is the reason for this excess of security?

    I happen to think there is no good reason and that the NIH security is run by paranoid idiots. The best evidence I have of this is a recent memo I’ve obtained that was sent to Health and Human Services employees about foreign visitors from the Deputy Secretary. Here is the relevant section:

    i-7946a972cb4ab6b390962193dc8cb05c-NIH memo.jpg

    Really? Now if an NIH investigator wants to bring a foreign speaker in to give a talk, not only can they not plug in their thumbdrives in the lecture hall computer to upload their powerpoint for fear of espionage, but they have to be followed into the bathroom too? Could you imagine? You invite some bigwig foreign scientist – like say any of this year’s Nobel Laureates in medicine – and when they have to make a pit stop you’d be forced to follow them in the bathroom for fear they’ll steal our lucky charms.

    I hope in the next administration the first thing they do is tear down that stupid fence and treat the NIH like any other academic medical campus, and find whoever wrote this stupid memo and fire them. This type of paranoid security obsessiveness is uneccessary and counterproductive to the free exchange of ideas science needs in order to be open, international and collaborative.

  • Stop the RFK Jr. appointment NOW

    I would beg everyone who reads the scienceblogs and cares about science to contact the transition team in the Obama administration as Orac has requested.

    It should be clear by now to readers of this blog that pseudoscience is not a problem of just the right. The left wing areas of pseudoscience are just as cranky, just as wrong-headed about science, just as likely to use the tactics of denialism to advance a non-scientific agenda. We have been dealing with the denialism of the right more because they’ve been in control. Now is the time to nip the denialism of the left in the bud so it doesn’t take root in this new administration.

    RFK Jr. is a crank (Orac for more), and one of the problems with cranks is Crank Magnetism. When people have one type of pseudoscientific belief it tends not to be isolated. Instead it reflects a general incompetence in understanding science, evaluating the quality of evidence, and what constitutes good science. RFK Jr.’s crankery will not be limited to vaccines and autism. He will undoubtably become the poster boy for all sorts of left wing crankery – be it environmental extremism, toxin/radiation paranoia (we’ll never get public wifi), or his already well known anti-vax crankery.

    My letter to the transition team is below the fold. Please join me in trying to prevent this terrible error on the part of the Obama campaign.

    (more…)

  • Choosing a medical specialty

    It’s that time of year, 4th year medical students (like me – kind of) are choosing their future careers and starting to interview all over the country in their residency programs of choice. I’ve been notably quiet – subsumed in work, study and applications – but I am catching up on writing about the clerkships I’ve done in the meantime (Pediatrics, Psych, OB/Gyn and Family Medicine). But since I’m applying for residency now (MD/PhDs have an abbreviated 4th year) I figured now would be a good time to tell people about what this is like, and in the coming months what cities I’m going to be in from time to time.

    Choosing a medical specialty is a big decision. I’ve necessarily made up my mind, am very confident I’ve made the right choice and encourage you to take bets on my choice – it will be fun to see what people think. But the decision making process is famously difficult and many different strategies have been devised to help the indecisive (not me). Perhaps most famous is this chart first published in the BMJ by then-resident Boris Veysman:
    i-edbcd560d6996b5e5b969f2deb9aeb99-Medicalspecialty.gif

    If you’re very patient you can answer 130 redundant questions at this site offered by UVA to help you make up your mind, or read one of the books on the subject.

    Then there is the famous Goo index, which I think may be quite useful. Basically, chose your specialty based on which types of bodily fluid you can stand being in contact with every day for the rest of your life. If you have a low tolerance for any goo, psychiatry or neurology might be up your alley. If you can take any fluid being sprayed at you at high velocity, surgery may be an excellent specialty for you.

    Then there is the general opinion among the goo-heavy specialties that you should avoid the goo you dislike the most. For instance, if snot is bothersome, avoid pulmonary specialties and pediatrics. If it’s urine, maybe you shouldn’t go into urology (or if you don’t want to stare at genitalia all day). If you don’t mind blood but don’t like any of the stinky stuff, maybe neurosurgery is the right match. It’s all about balancing your goo exposure.

    If you don’t want to get divorced during residency, maybe read this paper. The surprising result? Psychiatry is the worst at a 50% cumulative divorce rate followed by surgery at 33%, and most other medical specialties between 22-30%. I guess psychiatrists drive their spouses nuts when they bring their work home.

    There is the Myers-Briggs guide to specialties which is only useful if you’re the type of person that likes astrology or other advice based on vague, general descriptions of people coached in psuedoscientific drivel. There is a lot of study of personality traits specific to different specialties, a review of the subject concludes that for the most part medical students tend to be too homogeneous for the blunt-instrument personality tests to distinguish something so specific as an ideal career choice and there is more variation of personalities within a given field than between fields.

    So, using these highly-scientific and time-tested methodologies, which kind of medicine would you like to practice? Which do you think I chose?

  • Pediatrics

    I’ve been busy, as you might imagine, with work, study, and applying for medical residency. However, I thought it was about time to get people up to date with some of the clerkships I’ve finished in the meantime before letting you guys in on some of the decision-making processes involved in choosing a residency.

    So, time to talk about pediatrics. Pediatrics, despite a reputation for warmth and fuzziness, is a challenging field. Kids aren’t just little adults, and the treatment and diseases of infants are different than those of toddlers, which are different from pre-adolescents, which are different from the problems of teenagers and young adults. It’s an intense mixture of preventative medicine, diagnostics, and a lot of the intangible skills involved in getting the necessary information out of uncooperative patients and distressed parents. One also has to remember that a pediatrician has to spot the rare very sick kid in a field of sniffles, coughs, and possibly malingering youngsters who just want out of school. It’s a helluva a field of medicine, and if anything it has made me more passionate about educating against anti-vaxxers and quacks. For one pediatrics is critically dependent on prevention – which the anti-vax movement seeks to undermine with potentially dangerous consequences. For another, many of the diseases of childhood when they do occur are serious – but imminently treatable if recognized. The idea of a quack tinkering in this field without proper respect for the enormous amount of medicine involved, and potential for harm, is terrifying.

    So let’s talk about a set of pediatric cases and just to piss off the gun nuts, why it’s a good thing that pediatricians screen for guns in homes.

    Let’s emphasize the differences between medicine in different age groups. Because it’s pediatrics the past medical history is easy – they have none. Here are two cases, details altered, but both real patients I saw almost at the exact same time.

    Patient #1: A 2.5-year-old male presents to the ED because her mom is concerned he is “puffy”. She sought care in a PCP’s office 6 days ago who initially treated him for a potential allergic reaction with Benadryl and advised her to return if he did not get better. The child has had no illnesses except for a cold 2 weeks ago, has met developmental milestones and is fully immunized. Mom has lost confidence in her PCP and now presents to UVA, very worried. On physical exam the child appears to be alert, awake, in no acute distress, with completely normal physical exam except for puffiness – non-pitting edema in the extremities and face.

    Should we be concerned? What tests would you order in this patient?

    Patient #2: A 14.5 year old male presents to the ED with a camp counselor with complaint of fainting during band practice (it’s summer and it’s hot). For the last week he has felt unwell, but has been continuing to go to practice and participating in activities. He has had no other illnesses, is fully vaccinated and has a normal physical exam. He has no other complaints except his eyes are “puffy”.

    Should we be concerned? What tests would you order in this patient?
    (more…)

  • Don't Let Him Defecate!

    This will be Orac’s new favorite show, perhaps the best reality show ever made.

    Meet Shirley Ghostman. The UK’s premier psychic who is mounting a search for the UK’s next psychic superstar.

    Watch his students cry as he channels Lady Di!

    Watch as he brings forth a evil serial killer in the presence of his students:

    Shirley even takes on the skeptics!

    This guy is a genius, I just about plotzed, and the narration by Patrick Stewart is awesome. I also love it in terms of what denialism blog has always talked about. The problem with the people who believe this stuff is that they simply have no gauge of reality, no ability to judge what evidence makes sense or not. Shirley beats them over the head with this fact for hours at a time and they just can’t figure it out. True, it’s sad, but damn is it funny.

  • Sometimes there is justice for alties

    Yes, there is. This time for maker of an “all natural” penis enhancer Steve Warshak (and some family members as well) who was sentenced for 25 years!

    Steve Warshak, 42, founder of Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, also was ordered to pay $93,000 in fines. He was convicted in February on 93 counts of conspiracy, fraud and money laundering.

    Federal prosecutors accused the company of bilking customers out of $100 million through a series of deceptive ads, manipulated credit card transactions and refusal to accept returns or cancel orders.

    U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel ordered the company, along with other defendants, to forfeit more than $500 million. He said it was impossible to calculate exactly how much money was lost by customers, so he accepted a figure based on how much Warshak and the company took in.

    Berkeley distributes various products alleged to boost energy, manage weight, reduce memory loss and aid sleep. The company’s main product, Enzyte, which promises sexual enhancement, has ads featuring “Smiling Bob,” a happy man with an exaggerated smile.

    “This is a case about greed,” Spiegel said as he reviewed the case. “Steven Warshak preyed on perceived sexual inadequacies of customers.”

    With any luck I’ll never have to see another one of those goddamn ads again. But really, 500 million? It’s sad to think of how many people are (1) feel so inadequate they would feel the need to buy the product (2) be so foolish as to think that magic penis pills work, (3) think the ad featuring “Enzyte Bob” was anything but an outrageous scam. It is sad to see the power wishful thinking has over basic rationality, and sadder still that there is scum like Warshak who will exploit such feelings to steal money from people.

    Thanks Ed

  • The latest scummy tactic of altie med – blaming medicine for celebrity deaths.

    A fellow medical student once asked me why I thought people become hostile to science-based medicine. Certainly our own failures contribute. When we have no treatments for a disease, or if the treatments themselves may also incur significant morbidity, it is understandable that patients will become disillusioned with what doctors have to offer.

    However there is another cause for this hostility towards medicine, and it isn’t the occasional crank scibling with an axe to grind against MDs. It’s the constant anti-science propaganda being spouted out by the hawkers of alternative medicine.

    Orac and others have despaired over the infiltration of woo into mainstream medicine under a banner of tolerance and the noble goal of avoiding confrontation with patients over deeply-held beliefs. However this has proved more and more a tactical error as we’ve seen that CAM and altie medicine do not seek detente but is at war with legitimate medicine and science itself. Besides the fact that there is no good reason to water down medical school with unproven nonsense and the latest placebo fad being sold by crooks, alternative medicine should not be taught because doing so is not just a failing to meet the barbarians at the gate, but is actively inviting them in to destroy everything we’ve worked for.

    As examples of the despicable attacks on medicine from altie-med practitioners, I say we start with that aggregator of woo-practitioners Natural News. A site started by HIV/AIDS denialist Mike Adams, he features writing from various alties ranging from reiki therapists to naturopaths to chiropractors. What unifies them is their contempt for science-based medicine. Take for instance their attack on science based medicine for the death of former White House Spokesperson Tony Snow and more recently Bernie Mac .

    Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died in July 2008 at the age of 53, following a series of chemotherapy treatments for colon cancer. In 2005, Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Two years later (2007), Snow underwent surgery to remove a growth in his abdominal area, near the site of the original cancer. “This is a very treatable condition,” said Dr. Allyson Ocean, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Weill Cornell Medical College. “Many patients, because of the therapies we have, are able to work and live full lives with quality while they’re being treated. Anyone who looks at this as a death sentence is wrong.” But of course we now know, Dr. Ocean was dead wrong.

    The media headlines proclaimed Snow died from colon cancer, although they knew he didn’t have a colon anymore. Apparently, the malignant cancer had “returned” (from where?) and “spread” to the liver and elsewhere in his body. In actual fact, the colon surgery severely restricted his normal eliminative functions, thereby overburdening the liver and tissue fluids with toxic waste. The previous series of chemo-treatments inflamed and irreversibly damaged a large number of cells in his body, and also impaired his immune system — a perfect recipe for growing new cancers. Now unable to heal the causes of the original cancer (in addition to the newly created ones), Snow’s body developed new cancers in the liver and other parts of the body.

    This is a rather stunning piece of scientific illiteracy in it’s own right, without being disgusting for the ghoulish use of this man’s death to attack those who were doing the best to keep him alive. We see of course toxin-woo (if anything there are fewer toxins in your body without your colon because the chyme is diverted earlier out into a colostomy), and a complete inability to understand the process of metastasis. The author makes the stunningly ignorant assertion that all the cancers that spread throughout his body were somehow unique and caused by the chemo, when we can use simple histopathology to determine the source of such cancers and we know that such a spread represents metastatic spread from a single source – the colon. Further we know that if cancer has already spread before surgical resection it may not be detectable and appear even after removal of the diseased organ, even if they did indeed resect Snow’s entire colon as opposed to performing a hemicolectomy. All this passage does is expose the promoters of this anti-doctor spite for their complete ignorance of even basic biology.

    The author goes on to accuse doctors using chemo of committing a criminal offense:

    Before committing themselves to being poisoned, cancer patients need to question their doctors and ask them to produce the research or evidence that shrinking a tumor actually translates to any increase in survival. If they tell you that chemotherapy is your best chance of surviving, you will know they are lying or are simply misinformed. As Abel’s research clearly demonstrated, there is no such evidence anywhere to be found in the medical literature. Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution.

    A pretty stunning statement no? Does anyone want to see some real data on what chemotherapy can do?

    (more…)