Denialism Blog

Author: MarkH

  • Obesity Crankery – A growing problem

    Recently, it seems there has been a backlash against medicine and the current knowledge of the relationship between diet, weight and overall health. I don’t actually believe this is directly the fault of scientists or doctors, who react to the trashy mainstream reporting of science with little more than the occasional raised eyebrow. However, many people in response to all these silly health pronouncements, which seemingly come from on high but really are from press coverage of often minor reports in the medical literature, have lost their trust in what science has to offer as a solution to what Michael Pollan refers to as “the Omnivore’s Dilemma”. That is, what should we be eating?

    The result of this confusion is a mixture of distrust, cynicism, and receptivity to crankery and lies about diet. After all, if science ostensibly can’t keep their message straight, who knows what to believe?

    The fact is, science knows many things about the relationship between diet, obesity, and health with great confidence and it hasn’t changed nearly so much as the popular press would have you believe. The failure to state clear messages about nutrition is a reflection on the haphazard way in which nutritional health is reported, the often confusing nature of epidemiologic science, and the various parties that are interested in cashing in the confusion by promoting their own nonsensical ideas about diet.

    Take, for example, Sandy Szwarc. Sandy doesn’t believe obesity or any food choices are actually bad for you. To help spread this nonsense she dismisses valid sources of information like WebMD (which has quite good information) based on the rather silly conspiracy that they have designed their entire website and health enterprise around misleading people into using their products – especially weight-loss products. Because, you know, it’s impossible for a corporation to offer free health advice as a public service without conspiring to grab you buy the ankles and shake the money from your pockets. But it doesn’t end there. We see rest of the standard denialist tactics of course!

    Case in point, in a recent article she makes the astonishing assertion that her mortal enemy – bariatric or gastric-bypass surgeons – have admitted that obesity makes you healthier!

    Today brought another unbelievable example of ad-hoc reasoning, as well as a remarkable admission that the war on obesity is without scientific merit. It appeared in a paper published in the journal for the American Society for Bariatric Surgery (now calling itself the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery), which is edited by the Society’s president, Dr. Harvey Sugerman, M.D. FACS.

    The article, “Do current body mass index criteria for obesity surgery reflect cardiovascular risk?” was “work presented at the 2005 American Society for Bariatric Surgery Meeting in poster form.” The authors, led by Edward H. Livingston M.D. at the University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, reported that the conventional risk factors for cardiovascular disease “decreased with increasing degrees of obesity.”

    Yes, you read that correctly, decreased.

    “Therefore,” the authors argued …

    “the criteria for obesity surgery should be changed to lower BMIs than are currently used.”

    Now, boys and girls, what is the very first thing you do when a suspected denialist feeds you some nonsense in quotes? Check the source! Always, always, always, check the source. Let’s expand those six words that Sandy lifted out of the abstract and see what else the authors had to say:

    (more…)

  • Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

    I’m flattered that Pandagon liked our post on a terrible ad campaign for diamonds.

    But if Amanda thought that was bad, she should see some of the latest “reason” coming from our libertarian friends at Cato. David Boaz writes a post for Cato entitled “All Those Who’d Like to Live in Rwanda, Vietnam, or Cuba, Raise Your Hands” in response to a Parade article complaining about the lack of female representatives in Congress:

    Parade magazine frets:

    In the current U.S. Congress, women account for only 16.3% of the members: 16 of 100 in the Senate and 71 of 435 in the House of Representatives. Eighty-four nations have a greater percentage of female legislators than the U.S., including our neighbors Mexico and Canada, as well as Rwanda, Vietnam and Cuba.

    It’s not exactly clear that legislatures with more women produce better government. So why, then, as Parade notes, does the United States demand that emerging democracies have gender quotas that we would never accept in our own politics?

    After the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the United States made sure that when those two countries held elections, 25% of the seats in their legislatures would be reserved for women.

    So what do we think people? Stupid? Sexist? Both?

    No one in their right mind would read the quoted paragraph from Parade and make the idiotic leap that they were suggesting those governments are better. In fact, it’s a sign of how pathetic it is that our government lacks women that these governments we consider repressive still manage to surpass us in female representation. It’s a little bit like being behind Alabama in adult literacy. Gender quotas, further, are necessary to prevent countries that have deep problems with female equality from oppressing 50% of their population.

    Why is Boaz playing stupid with us? He knows full well the purpose and reasoning in both cases. Is there no better argument sexists can use for the promotion of the status quo than the “duh” card?
    i-718334aad1cbe6244e3c870624c6a80d-8s.jpg

    It is pathetic we don’t have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women’s suffrage, we still don’t have anything approaching equal representation in government. We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women’s health, and not men’s we’ve got a problem. When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we’ve got a huge problem. When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we’ve got a ridiculous problem. Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

    Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don’t have to dumb it down even more.

  • A question for Mathematicians – What is (monogamy)100

    So asks the copyranter over this latest example of human stupidity:

    i-953473e0ce0597981fe8907060f97950-HOF.jpg

    What’s even funnier than the absurd notion that a “Hearts on Fire” diamond will buy you monogamy (or that diamond purchases aren’t so frequently given in penitence for the sins of infidelity) is that really all it says is your man is a sucker.

    Not everyone agrees that the cut is special. If you wander New York’s diamond district on 47th Street and ask about Hearts on Fire, you’ll hear that it’s just another ideal-cut diamond, differentiated only by its marketing.

    Charles Rosario, a senior vice-president at Lazare Kaplan, another company that makes an ideal-cut branded diamond, says that even a cubic zirconia can display a hearts-and-arrows pattern, and that the pattern is not a “scientific criterion for brilliance.” Some of the disparagement, though, stems from annoyance that Rothman was the one to capitalize on the marketing potential of the hearts-and-arrows pattern.

    Basically, this diamond costs you about 30% more, but there is no actual value added by the branding. In other words, it’s just a scam. You can get any diamond cut in this pattern, but they put a slogan on it, and therefore can charge you more. I find it astounding how easy it is to part a fool and their money, and that slogans like (monogamy)100 work. What does that even mean?

    Like the Copyranter asks “If my future wife bangs the entire roster of the Manchester United football squad a week after I give her a HOF diamond, do I get 100 times my money back?”

    I don’t know. Maybe he should. Is it an explicit guarantee? If not, then you’re just (stupid)100 for spending 30% more on a slogan.

  • Cectic, keeping the fight against dogmatic parentism alive

    I’m in DC this week working for Dr. Mom and getting my physical exam skills back up to snuff, so I’ll be a little quiet. In the meantime, Cectic is keeping the dream alive:

    I love these guys.

  • Surely we can get KBR under RICO

    Reading about the latest atrocity by KBR that is the cover up of a rape of a US citizen by its contractors (apparently one of many), I ask the lawyers a question. Surely there is enough on KBR (formerly known as the evil wing of Halliburton – now independent) now to get a RICO indictment on them, correct?

    I realize they do this all overseas where they apparently enjoy complete immunity from anything ranging from fraud to cannibalism. But I have difficulty believing that they manage to keep 100% of their criminal misbehavior overseas. I mean, every time we hear some bad news about Halliburton, it isn’t actually Halliburton. It’s always these crooks at KBR. I would ask where are the Democrats on this, but what seems more apt is where are the Republicans? They’re supposed to be the law and order party. Where’s the law and order? This poor woman gets raped, and then after reporting it imprisoned in a shipping crate by KBR. Probably the only reason she didn’t end up in a shallow grave in the desert is she got a cell phone call in to her father who then contacted their congressman and the state department.

    And what is with this arbitration nonsense? At a certain point, such as after gang rape, your contract with your company is no longer valid and you get to sue them in federal court for civil rights abuse.

  • Mike Adams is so stupid it hurts

    Yes, I know, I’m stating the obvious again. But I just couldn’t resist when I saw this. In his never-ending quest to attack all science that doesn’t affirm his belief that vitamin D and fruit smoothies will cure all disease, he’s gone after the new new induced pluripotent stem cell findings. As far as I know, he’s the only one to criticize the new technology as a whole, and his reasoning?

    Really I can’t believe he’s this stupid. Reasoning, is the wrong word for this.

    Let’s ask instead, what is his demented, completely ignorant, insipid, moronic justification?

    While less controversial, the stem cells produced by the new technique appear to be carcinogenic. When Yamanaka’s team implanted the cells into mouse embryos, those embryos developed as expected — with the DNA of the original stem cell, not of the embryo. But mice cloned in this fashion eventually developed neck tumors.

    “It seems that everyone in the mainstream media is so excited about this new stem cell technique that they forgot to notice the fact that it leads to the growth of cancer tumors,” said consumer health advocate Mike Adams.

    That’s right, they cause “cancer tumors”. I’m not sure what I find the most stupid about Adams’ analysis. Is it that he acts like he’s discovered something that everyone, including our blog, has acknowledged is a current problem with the technology? Is it the idiotic assumption that we are already thinking about injecting these cells willy-nilly into embryos? Is it his knee-jerk tendency to attack any legitimate medical advance? Or is it his description of the problem as “cancer tumors”?

    Ah well, what can you expect from a guy who publishes germ theory denial on his website. If you want a laugh read the explanation of how raising your blood pH (generally considered a really bad idea – luckily your body won’t let you alter its pH easily) is the solution to all disease.

    I can’t really bring myself to do more than just point and laugh at this denialism. I’m too busy studying real medicine.

  • So That's What Anesthesiologists Do

    I have to spend a few days doing anesthesiology during my surgery rotation, luckily one of the other med students forwarded this helpful video.

    I had no idea it was so complicated.

    I also like the drug song:

  • Here's my impression of Barry Arrington

    I don’t have the time to be anything but a jerk today so I’m going to imitate Barry Arrington of Uncommon Descent, who tried to place the blame for the most recent shootings at a church on atheist writers.

    You see, yesterday, there was an attack on the New York subway. In one of those events generally embarrassing (and oddly redeeming) for humanity, a man was attacked for replying “Happy Hanukkah” when someone wished him “Merry Christmas”. Oddly, the fight was broken up when a Muslim guy rescued the Jewish guy from the Christian guy.

    Now, if I was a giant screaming asshole like Barry A, I’d say something like, “People like Bill O’Reilly who make up the imaginary ‘war on Christmas’ or Ann Coulter and her remarks about Christians being ‘perfected Jews’ should consider themselves responsible for this event. If they didn’t promote their pro-Christmas, pro-Christian agenda, no one would feel the need to attack Jewish people for wishing them a Happy Hanukkah.”

    After all, crazy assholes aren’t responsible for their behavior. It’s the people who write books! They were just following orders (still looking for those “kill Christians” orders in The God Delusion). Just like the Matrix made the DC sniper kid shoot all those people – it was the movie’s fault, not the kid’s. And this bus stop shooting over a girl, if right wingers weren’t constantly pushing a heterosexual agenda, maybe we wouldn’t see people killing over heterosexual sex.

    You see? It’s easy to be a giant asshole. All you have to do is take your ideology, ghoulishly apply it to recent tragedies so as to scapegoat whoever you dislike, and then act surprised when people think you’re a monster. How’d I do?

  • It Is Time For A Presidential Debate On Science – Part II

    Reiterating our previous call for this debate, I’d like to point out two articles that have come out in the past day, that may address some of the negative commentary here.

    The first is Chris Mooney and Lawrence Krauss at LA Times.

    The second, by Sheril Kirshenbaum and Matthew Chapman at HuffPo. Note, I consider the Huffington Post a den of denialist iniquity, supporting the lies of Chopra, Kirby and various other conspiracy mongers. But I will consider this an act of saint-like walking amongst the sinners to spread the good word of science. Further, she does a pretty good job addressing some of the early complaints about the plan.

    Generally, I can sum up my commenters complaints that this is not a feasible idea based on the fact it wouldn’t benefit most of the presidential candidates, or that debates themselves are not valuable as they are just press conference, or more simply, what kinds of questions would we ask? Is it just going to be an exam? Finally Chris at completely misses the point and has a mixture of complaints ranging from “science should not mix with politics” and that we already know where the candidates stand.

    Sheril and Matthew point out:

    One of these is the suggestion that the candidates simply are not equipped to talk about science. We disagree. The candidates do not need a degree in economics in order to talk about the economy, nor do they require one in science in order to discuss science.

    We are not proposing a pop quiz or an argument, but rather, we are suggesting an illuminating debate. The electorate should have the opportunity to hear the candidates discuss their policy positions on our many scientific and technological challenges, what their ethical positions are in relation to them, and what their aspirations are.

    But this does not finish the job. Here’s my arguments for why you critics should stop being such a buzz kill.

    Science and politics are already intertwined, ignoring the problem will not make it go away or prevent it from getting worse.

    It would not necessarily be bad for the hyper-religious candidates, because their constituency may actually be thrilled to see them reject science for denialist nonsense like ID or AGW denialism. It will give them the opportunity to stand up for their popular pseudoscience if they like. Although they more be more cautious depending on who makes up the panel. It might be quite interesting.

    As far as the publicity stunt/fake debate criticisms that is inevitable with any debate but that doesn’t mean the debates aren’t helpful. For one thing, this emphasizes that science has become important enough to have a public discussion, no matter how orchestrated it might end up being. Second, even though we supposedly know where the candidates stand, making them say out loud what they believe, ideally to a panel of Nobelists asking questions, may diminish their lack of embarrassment in announcing their love of anti-science ideas. Forcing candidates to evaluate science and be publicly challenged by experts may make them refine and improve their positions. Rather than throwing the occasional bone to an interest group, they may have to develop a coherent set of ideas.

    Finally, it makes the minority of Americans that think science is incredibly important a defined constituency that must be courted. We may be a minority, but we’re likely one of the largest minorities – those that accept science as fact. To be treated as a bloc increases our power.

  • It Is Time For A Presidential Debate On Science

    We must adapt to the fact that over the last few decades it has become critical that our politicians and policymakers understand science and implement policy that is consistent with scientific facts. And it is past time that we made science enough of a priority to merit a presidential debate on science. The need is clear, these days policymakers must be able to respond in an informed fashion to new technologies, new scientific findings, and potential disasters (such as climate change). Despite the need for a scientifically-literate political leadership, we have a president who says the jury is still out on evolution, who promotes failed abstinence-only sex education programs, and refuses to make any substantive changes to address global warming.

    We must do a better job vetting our politicians for scientific literacy and competence.

    Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum at the Intersection have been working on a solution to this problem. They’ve gathered a coalition of luminaries to support a presidential debate on science in 2008. The mission statement reads:

    Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy.

    i-f8e723107767d055cef640a80154c5f6-Sciencedebate2008.jpg

    I agree wholeheartedly, the citizens of the United States deserve to know whether or not their political leaders are scientifically-informed, or actively hostile to science. Science has become too important to just be an afterthought in political elections, we must put it front-and-center. This is a brilliant idea and I’m thankful for Chris and Sheril’s leadership in putting this together.

    I know what question I’d ask at such a debate. Which candidates would encourage congress and provide funding to bring back the OTA. After all, having a scientifically-literate leader is nice, but laying the foundation for long-term scientific policymaking is better.

    You can support the scientific debate too. Let’s make this a reality.