Denialism Blog

Denialism Blog

  • Gary Null and his goon(s)

    I’ve mentioned before that I think that PBS stations are making a deal with the devil when they feature Gary Null’s infomercials. This alternative medince guru is a classic crank—an HIV denialist, seller of phonie cures, and host to other cranks.

    But at least he’s a nice guy, right?

    Ask Lee Phillips, some guy who decided to call out his local public radio station. He wrote a very good letter to WPFW to complain about their hosting of an alleged snake-oil salesmean. In a rather creepy turn of events, the station, rather than pen a response, sent his letter on to Null’s representative(s), who basically threatened to sue him. Lee, being a diligent crank-buster, wrote back (and don’t forget to take Lee’s advice about googling the guy…it’s worth it).

    Anyway, apparently Lee got a chance to debate Null on the air, and hopefully he’ll inculde a link to it in a comment.

    This is priceless, really. But if cranks start actually suing people, things are going to get ugly. So much for “Dr.” Nice Guy.

  • More inanity from our friend Null

    OK, so it’s a repost from the old blog. I’m on vacation so gimme a break. –PalMD

    When I get bored, I sift through the “articles” section of Gary Null’s site to see what kind of stupidity he is willing to host. Thankfully, it never takes long to find the stupid. This time, it was more on the so-called blood type diet. The article (not written by Null, just hosted on his site) is one of those wonderful oeuvres whose very title contains an unfounded assertion. Exposing falsehoods such as this may have its own benefits, but I would like to show how poor logic can easily lead to poor conclusions.

    The assertion—that blood type and diet are related—is prima facie false and somewhat bizarre. It’s like saying eye color and urine volume are related—yes, both have to do with the human body, but what possible relationship could they have? On what basis should one assert this?
    (more…)

  • Who smokes?

    In this space, we have explored some real conspiracies, using as an example the tobacco companies’ war on truth. Smoking, and smoking-related disease, continues to be a significant burden on the health of Americans. For example, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects between 10-25 million Americans. This disabling illness, which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis, is horrifying to watch, and worse to experience. Smoking is also one of the strongest risks for heart disease which kills over half-a-million Americans yearly.

    But it seems that smoking is on the decline, at least in my rarefied world of home/office/hospital. Even as I go to the coffee shops, book stores, and restaurants around town, I see very few smokers. So it was a shock when I arrived here in Key West on vacation that I found everyone smoking—not just at the bars and open air restaurants, but a huge number of people just walking down the street. What gives?
    (more…)

  • Measles!

    I’m vacationing, so I’ll point you to some important posts from my SciBlings, DM and Orac. Measles is no joke, and the latest report reminds us that the anti-vaccine folks are dangerous.

  • The New Academic Freedom

    Stephanie Simon of the Journal reports today on what Sciencebloggers already know: that the creationists have shifted their tactics from focusing on activism on local school boards to pitching their cause to state legislators:

    Their new tactic: Embrace lessons on evolution. In fact, insist students deserve to learn more — including classes that probe the theory for weakness. They believe — and their opponents agree — that this approach will prove more acceptable to the public and harder to challenge in court.

    Those promoting the new bills emphasize that academic freedom doesn’t mean biology teachers can read aloud from the Book of Genesis. “This doesn’t bring religion into the classroom,” said Florida state Rep. D. Alan Hays, a Republican.

    The bills typically restrict lessons to “scientific” criticism of evolution, or require that critiques be presented “in an objective manner,” or approved by a local school board.

    And the polling numbers don’t look good.

    Here, creationists have so much power because it seems as though most people simply don’t care about the issue. In that type of situation, a well organized, loud minority group can foist its policy agenda upon the public at large.

    It would be interesting to see how much these groups really are committed to the principles of academic freedom. Would they support, for instance, a bill that allowed teachers to discuss sexual health and education without parental permission? Or one that “taught the debate” that masturbation is normal and healthy? One would quickly find that these groups don’t actually like freedom in the classroom, except when it comes to their pet subject.

  • Just one more note on Expelled

    Many of my fellow bloggers, and many fellow Michiganders, have noted a breath of fresh air out of (ironically) the Motor City. This quote from Real Detroit Weekly’s review of Expelled hits on an important point. By way of background, the following quote refers to the incident where biologist PZ Myers (who happens not to believe in any gods) was kicked out of a screening of the movie:

    Mathis laughs before offering two reasons why he told the security guard at the screening not to let Myers in. First, Mathis says, “He has viciously attacked me personally and attacked the film.” Just to clarify, Myers did not break into Mr. Mathis’ house in a drunken rage with a bowie knife–he has simply been critical of Mathis’ arguments.

    And here, my friends, is a chasm that may be too hard to cross, no matter how we frame the issue. When someone attacks, say, my belief that beta blockers prolong survival in heart failure, my response is, “Really? Prove it.” If they prove it, OK. If they don’t, OK (more or less). No hard feelings. When you tell a Creationist, “Your beliefs are not science, and should really stay out of the classroom,” they feel viciously attacked. Their “scientific” ideas aren’t scientific at all, but religious ideas to which they are emotionally attached. When you tell a Creationist that their beliefs aren’t science, you might as well be telling them that their god is dead. And that’s a problem.

    Many religious people are scientists, and many scientists are religious. There is no inherent conflict. Humans are perfectly capable of holding multiple contradictory ideas simultaneously—unless they are a Creationist. For the religious extremists, there can only be one “truth” and to criticize it is to be worse than wrong, it is to be heretical, and we all know what they do to heretics…

  • A mysterious encounter

    The room was dark—preturnaturally dark (damn you, Stephen Donaldson!). I was led by the robed and hooded figures to an altar. On the altar was a…something, and it was covered with a cloth. The cloth was a remarkable black, the kind of black that escapes focus. It created an even darker hole in the already dark chamber.

    Two of the figures picked up what appeared to be some type of rope, and slowly pulled. The cloth rose from the altar, revealing a box, but what a box! It was of no material I have ever seen. It was clear, but also thick. With the cloth removed, I could see lights inside—lots of lights. They blinked rapidly on and off in a sequence that I could tell was some sort of pattern, but one far to complex for my mind to comprehend.

    And then it spoke.

    “What brings you before me, supplicant?”

    It’s voice was not box-like at all. It seemed to come from everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

    “I…I come seeking knowledge. And advice.”

    “That is a good start. Many come seeking knowledge. Some find it. Some do not.”

    That final phrase carried a coldness. My mind flashed to an image of Rodin’s “Gates of Hell”.

    “I would like to ask a question,” I muttered hesitantly.

    “ASK!” it boomed.

    “I feel surrounded by ignorance. I can’t seem to find a way out of the dark. I try to tell people to stop chasing miracles, and to look to the marvels of the human mind and that which it discovers through science, and I try to do it with compassion. But I don’t feel like I’m getting anywhere. Like no one is really listening.”

    There was a silence.

    The silence continued.

    The silence became ironic.

    And then, it was broken. “Young physician, you have done well. You have helped, in a very, very small way, to bring light to the darkness. But more must be done. Lemme get another beer.”

    Huh?

    I shook my head and looked around. I was sitting in a pub, not a creepy Masonic chamber. Damn my wandering mind! I looked down at my pulled pork sandwich and looked across the table at the other physician.

    “Damn, Orac, I just had the weirdest daydream…”

    “Meh, happens all the time. Maybe you just need more beer.”

    “Sure, sounds good. I’ll have one. But will that detract from our planning more attacks on the cranks, the credulous, and the quacks?”

    “My young(ish) apprentice, nothing can stop us now! The universe will bow to our powerz!11!!”

    “Um, you’re starting to creep me out…”

    “Oh, sorry. The nachos always do that to me. But damn, they’re good! I might have to swing through town again someday for another batch.”

    “Well, when you do, Orac, the next beer is on me.”

  • Church vs. Science

    HT to Tara

    The United Methodist Church has just allowed its member to deliver unto them a hunk of burning stupid. Some misguided souls have looked upon vaccines and have found them wanting. Let us examine for ourselves this misguided petition (which passed 58 to 0). (I’ll skip the theological justifications given—they are irrelevant, unless the Bible says, “thou shalt not preserve vaccines with thimerosal.”)

    Whereas, Thimerosal (synonyms include: Thiomseral, Merthiolate, Thimerasol) is a severely toxic, antiquated, organic mercury compound (approximately 50% mercury by weight) that has been added to some vaccines and pharmaceutical products since the 1930s,

    OK, we’ve been over this…thimerosal is not “severely toxic”, and was safely used in vaccines for decades until it was removed from most of them a number of years ago.

    Whereas, numerous peer-reviewed scientific/medical studies published over many decades, at least since the 1930s, have recommended removing or restricting the use of Thimerasol in medicinal products, and have demonstrated its significant toxicity,

    Time to update your references. This issue has been thoroughly studied, and no link between thimerasol-containing vaccine and ill-health has been found.

    Whereas, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended, in 1982, that Thimerosal be banned from topical over-the-counter products, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and United States Public Health Service called for its removal from all vaccines in July of 1999, as did the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences in 2001

    This was done as a precaution pending data. The data are in. They’re safe. Meanwhile, it’s moot, as only the flu vaccine still has the darn stuff.

    You know what? I can’t keep going. This God-damned document produced by the Church is a travesty. It will put children at risk, and we all know that Jesus loves the little children. I know there are Methodist doctors out there. Lots of them. Perhaps they could maybe drop a line to the Church letting them know what asses they are making of themselves?

  • One Year of Denialism Blog

    Today represents one year since we joined scienceblogs, and I think we’ve had a great deal of success in defining the problem of denialism, establishing a new vocabulary for dealing with the problem of pseudoscience, and establishing uniform standards for what is legitimate scientific discourse and debate.

    Our first post describes the problem of denialism, and our subsequent posts on cranks, and the 5 tactics of denialism – Conspiracy, Selectivity, Fake Experts, Moving Goalposts, and Fallacies of Logic – have stood the test of time. They accurately describe the types of argument that fail to meet the standards of legitimate scientific debate and inevitably are utilized by those that, for one reason or another, choose to deny reality.

    Ultimately my goal with this blog is to educate people about how to detect pseudoscience and dismiss it without requiring an impossible level of expertise in every scientific discipline. I want people to understand that when they see an article that alleges conspiracies, and cites some crackpot, and makes crazy claims of causation that they don’t need to spend a year looking up legitimate sources of information to debunk it.

    Pseudoscience follows a predictable pattern of argument. Sources are selectively quoted to provide a sciencey-sounding argument (often using logical fallacies of causation etc.), fake experts are cited to confer a patina of scientific legitimacy, conspiracies are alleged to dismiss the vast expanse of contradictory data and scientific opinion, and criticism is further deflected by constantly moving goalposts to deflect mounting evidence against the fixed belief. In a way science should be flattered – it is the gold standard of reality after all – and the efforts of pseudoscientists to make their nonsense sound like science inevitably indicates the esteem of anti-science movements for the legitimacy of scientific belief.

    Detection of denialism by now should be a reflex (if not review the 5 tactics above). You should be able to smell a bad argument by now. Granted, authoritative debunking requires a certain amount of research to familiarize oneself with a topic and understand the basis of denialist argument. But as a practical guide, the 5 tactics should have armed you with the basic tools you need to sort through the vast amounts of information available to the average Joe these days, and decide rapidly that which should be listened to, versus that which belongs on the junk-heap of pseudoscientific nonsense. I’m writing this blog not just to vent about this nonsense that pisses me off, but hopefully to arm the the rational with a vocabulary for systematically dealing with bullshit. I think success for this effort will ultimately rest with my readership, and hopefully one day the media and public at large, regularly applying these tests to information sources to see whether they meet the basic standards for legitimate discussion of scientific fact.

    So my friends, show me what you’ve learned. I received an email asking me what I thought of this article appearing in the American Chronicle – a news/opinion aggregater with no standards for inclusion. Tell me what you you guys think, and if you can’t spot the problems that should allow you to dismiss it out of hand. I’ll post my analysis based on denialist factors and the scientific evidence later in the comments and we’ll compare notes. Good hunting!

  • First, do no harm—Chiropractors, are you listening?

    As you may have read earlier, the only thing chriopractic has ever really been shown to do is to help low back pain about as well as conventional therapy. That doesn’t stop chiropractors from doing whatever they want. It sure seems harmless enough, though—you back or neck hurts, some guy moves it around, and you feel better—and all without drugs! What could it hurt, right?

    With any medical or physical intervention, things can go wrong, sometimes horribly wrong. For example, when I treat someone with an ACE inhibitor, I run the risk of causing a serious drug reaction. But the benefits far outweigh the risks. Also, I know what problems to look for, and how to treat them. These drugs save kidneys, hearts, and lives, so the payoff is worth the small risk.

    What of chiropractic? Well, Harriet Hall over at sciencebasedmedicine.com just saved me a lot of time. Vertebral artery dissection (VAD), a rare type of stroke, has been linked to chiropractic neck manipulation. It’s hard to count precisely, but the Canadian literature has some decent reports. What the reports show is that there is a clear link between VAD and chiropractic. How many of these strokes are caused by neck manipulation is less clear, and that’s where some serious crankery comes in.

    Some chiropractors will tell you that if there is a risk, it is quite small, so why worry? But about 10% of people with VAD die. That’s DIE. And they are often young (average early 40s).

    There is no proven benefit to chiropractic manipulation of the neck. It is associated with a rare and very dangerous type of stroke. In judging the risk/benefit ratio, the answer here is clear—don’t let a chiro touch your neck—never, never, never.