…and this is a 
This excellent article in the Chicago Tribune documents the abuses of science by quacks. Legitimate researchers identify certain properties of autism — markers for inflammation in the brain, for instance, or correlations with testosterone — and write up papers that even go out of their way to explain how their observations are interesting, but do not necessarily lead to therapies, and what do you think the medical frauds do? They use them to justify useless or dangerous treatments like injections of testosterone inhibitors or anti-inflammatory agents or loading up patients with intravenous immunoglobulin…treatments that have not been tested in any way, have not gone through clinical trials, and which are justified by tenuous connections to legitimate research, which sometimes contraindicates what the quacks are doing.
So when Pardo and his colleagues published their paper in the Annals of Neurology in 2005, they added an online primer that clearly explained their findings in layman's terms and sternly warned doctors not to use them to develop treatments.
"We were concerned that the study would raise a lot of controversy and be misused," Pardo said. "We were right."
Over and over, doctors in the autism recovery movement have used the paper to justify experimental treatments aimed at reducing neuroinflammation.
It just goes on and on. Legitimate scientists find a weak connection to something, describe it with solid caveats, and these evil exploiters of the pain of others jump on it to advocate radical and dangerous treatments that ignore all the problems.
Pardo's study is just one example. In May, the Tribune reported on another questionable use of research. A geneticist and his son who promoted treating children who have autism with a testosterone inhibitor had based their protocol, in part, on the work of Simon Baron-Cohen, a psychopathologist at England's University of Cambridge who has explored the role of the hormone in autism.
Yet Baron-Cohen told the Tribune that the idea of using the drug this way "fills me with horror."
Pardo said that since his paper came out he has received many questions about unproven autism treatments. He is particularly haunted by inquiries regarding powerful immunosuppressant drugs usually used on organ transplant patients, calling the idea "completely wrong."
Said the researcher: "People are abusing science for the treatment of autism."
The article also names names: Dan Rossignol, Jeff Bradstreet, James Neubrander, and Patricia Kane are people who abuse the scientific literature to promote expensive and dangerous snake oil (I was also amused to see that Kane has her degree from Columbia Pacific University, the same sloppy institution that gave Jerry Bergman a Ph.D.—and the article is not kind in its characterization of CPU).
It's good to see some strong skeptical coverage of medical science in a newspaper. This is exactly what good journalism ought to be doing — digging in and exposing the lies.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: glacierman | November 24, 2009 10:22 AM
Kind of reminds me of...climate scientists and the likes of you, PZ!
Shucksters and con artists who are paid by taxpayer dollars to perpetuate hopes and dreams and are not willing to do the "science" of looking at the evidence and making the conclusions according to the data.
Instead, you have preconceived ideas, hopes and wishful thinking that you run all over the earth looking for the evidence which will pad your theories and your pockets.
You will be exposed just like those at the Climate Research University who have faked the global warming scam. Just more tax dollars and wasted brain cells.
Debate Vox and get on with your life!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 10:25 AM
Wouldn't be the Geiers would it?
Nah couldn't be, those guys are so responsible and respectable.
/sarcasm
Posted by: Borat | November 24, 2009 10:27 AM
Baron-Cohen? Something tells me the researcher is in on this as some hilarious hoax. Can't wait till the movie comes out
Posted by: freelunch | November 24, 2009 10:32 AM
Exploiting those who feel most hopeless and have serious problems that cannot be helped is a long tradition of frauds and confidence men. The fact that some have an M.D. and claim the title of doctor brings shame on the medical profession which does not do a very good job policing its own. Sadly, there is nothing new about any of that.
Maybe it's time to take self-regulation away from every profession, though I fear that we would have a hard time recruiting enough good scientists willing to be part of a medical regulatory regime that works. Of course, chiropractors and other woo-masters would scream to high heaven about having to defend that their malpractice to scientists.
Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 10:33 AM
The answer is obvious: ban science.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 10:34 AM
Actually, this article is one of a series of articles the Trib is running on this subject. Click on the related articles on the left under the picture.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 24, 2009 10:35 AM
The entire reason that government is allowed to regulate medicine was to cut back on egregious medicine shows and quacks like these. Why aren't the regulators responsible for this stuff shutting these people down? At the very least, why are real doctors countenancing this kind of altie crap? It amplifies the "big pharma" trope and the "doctors don't know anything" meme and threatens the existence of modern medicine.
Posted by: freelunch | November 24, 2009 10:35 AM
Borat -
Yes, Simon and Sasha are cousins. I think they are able to tell their work apart.
Posted by: Craig | November 24, 2009 10:38 AM
If I remember rightly, Simon and Sacha Baron-Cohen are (possibly distant?) cousins.
OT: I can't beleive even with the clear explanation for the layman, research still gets misrepresented and misused. Ignorance seems to be an accepted defence in quackery, but surely this is evidence of knowing deception?
Posted by: freelunch | November 24, 2009 10:46 AM
The area of treatment for autism is rife with fraudsters. Andrew Wakefield was not alone in exploiting the distress that parents feel when their child begins to show signs of autism. Are some of these doctors deluding themselves? Maybe. I don't care. The reason that modern medicine mostly works is that it, unlike homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy and other methods of treatment, mostly tied itself to science. Every time we see Wakefield, et al. making things up and treating people for no good reason, they not only hurt the people they claim to be treating, but they also undermine the reputation of modern medicine and give the fraudulent alternatives another opportunity to harm. Wakefield's victims are many more than he would ever admit to.
Posted by: Menyambal | November 24, 2009 10:48 AM
Glacierman, you have things pretty much backwards there, and certainly have the wrong place. But rather than try logic on you, let me link you to some Keith Knight humor on both evolution and climate change. So there.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 24, 2009 10:49 AM
Sadly, autism- still poorly understood, poorly treatable, and extremely distressing for the parents of kids so afflicted- is an ideal happy hunting ground for quacks and woomeisters of all kinds. Dante should have had an extra circle of hell just for quacks who take advantage of people in such a vulnerable position. It's really despicable.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 10:53 AM
Glacierman, yet an other howling VD sycophant. Please read this fun exchange from a couple of days ago. And then inform your fearless leader that the best way to defeat PZ is to have better information in legitimate publications.
It also helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
Posted by: the pro from dover | November 24, 2009 11:00 AM
Before the turn of the 20th century, William Osler (certainly Americas most significant physician between Benjamin Rush and Sanjay Gupta) recognized the phenomenon that ordinary American citizens regardless of their education, profession, or income were absolutely lacking in skepticism regarding truth claims regarding their health whereas in other aspects of their lives they were cautious about investing money in exaggerated claims. In fact the more outrageous the claim the more it was believed. Patent medicine promoters would invent diseases and produce cures and the next day a different one would show up and the same thing would happen. He felt that one could objectively find out which diseases were diagnosable and which treatments were effective using the scientific method and he called this "internal medicine" and founded the department at Johns Hopkins. His famous quip was "the difference between men and animals is men need to take medicine". Nothing has changed in the last 100 years or so since; and in the last 30 or so years with the explosion of non-demarcated illnesses (of which autistic spectrum disorders is just one) and the capacity of the media to fan the flames of medical fear we're gonna see a lot more of this stuff.
Posted by: freelunch | November 24, 2009 11:03 AM
Glacierman,
Don't you think that someone who represents himself as the Voice of God (even if he cannot spell) would get science right once in a while?
Posted by: freelunch | November 24, 2009 11:12 AM
Orac has a much longer rant about this indefensible behavior by fake autism treatment purveyors. It's worth reading, of course.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 24, 2009 11:16 AM
Simon Baron-Cohen is "for real" and is a legitimate scientist. He is indeed a cousin of Sacha Baron-Cohen.
/Booyakasha
Posted by: Judy L. | November 24, 2009 11:18 AM
First off, autism is not an illness. My niece and nephew both have autism and neither of them is ill. And because it's not a disease, and it's not currently a condition that can be biomedically characterized or tested for, there currently are no drug therapies or surgeries that can treat it. But it is neurological disorder that is manageable through early detection, intensive therapy, and relentless affection. And it's fucking crimimal that quacks offering faux-cures are robbing the parents of autistic children when their money could be going into proven therapies and education for their kids. But I understand the motiviation, especially when access to autism therapies and support for families is abysmal, and when many doctors refuse to diagnose early for fear of traumatizing parents.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 11:19 AM
Glacierman, we have time and time again told VD if he wishes to debate anyone, or science in general, the proper forum is the peer reviewed scientific literature. VD has shown himself to be a craven coward by not doing so. Instead, he keeps trying for irrelevant fora where rhetoric, instead of evidence, wins. I wonder why...
Posted by: PatrickKanne | November 24, 2009 11:31 AM
I have a son who is diagnosed autistic. I have NO patience for fucktarts taking advantage from my pains. I will tear them apart with my bare hands if I find them out. And that's a promise, not a threat.
We had someone blabbing his face off at a party about how he was convinced something or other unproven tantric delusional shite would do wonders for my son. So my sis calls my attention to him. He was halfway through his story when he looked me in the face, turned a pale shade of really white and started stuttering. I told him to be VERY careful about how he was going to proceed his story.
He was wise, gave up and decided to go home. Too bad my sis prevented me from following the pussy outside.
Again, I have NO patience for these people. None. And neither should you.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
November 24, 2009 11:33 AM
... soooo... can we assume from this this 'Day' character hasn't got the help he needs yet?
Pity. Like I said before, guys: better mental healthcare funding is clearly desperately needed, here.
Dunno what to offer as an interim measure while someone's lining up therapy, tho'... Mebbe he can just go play with his 'flaming sword' for a bit, sooth 'imself?
I mean, he does seem to be the sort gets some comfort from fantasy. And I expect it's harmless enough, 'long as he doesn't start actually believing in it...
(Rereads last sentence... Thinks about it...)
(/'Kay... So actually, that's probably really bad advice, in this case, after all...)
Posted by: non neuro-typical | November 24, 2009 12:08 PM
I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome (which is on the autism spectrum) in my late teens- which I count as a blessing because my parents didn't think to inflict anything like this on me when I was younger (I'm now in my mid-20's). That being said, it amazes me in retrospect the kind of woo that my parents succumbed to when dealing with my "behavioural problems" (given that they were the ones who taught and encouraged me to think critically- and generally because they're both very intelligent and well-educated). When I was about ten I went to a chiropracter who worked on my skull and back to improve my behaviour (if I recall correctly it was something about removing pressure from my brain), and to a naturopath for similar reasons (I can't remember the specifics of that, just that the concoctions were foul). My mother also tried to convince me to give up gluten, but by that stage I was 18 and said no (I gave up wheat for about 6 months to mollify her, which she says helped me, but I don't remember it making any difference).
The things that did help- I have made enormous progress since then (I'm afraid I'm quite ignorant about autism, so I don't know if this applies) were cognitive behavioural therapy, finding my niche, and lots of support. (Just before I was diagnosed I was told I wouldn't finish school and would never come to anything. Needless to say, that's not true now)
(I apologise in advance if I post this more than once- I've never commented here before)
Posted by: nitramnaed | November 24, 2009 12:09 PM
Comments section of the Tribune article now accuse the Chicago Tribune of being under the control of "Big Pharma". These "anti-vaxers" need to get a new screed.
Posted by: sailor1031 | November 24, 2009 12:24 PM
ColumbiaPacific University sounded vaguely familiar from 30 years ago so I looked it up. Here is the WIKI info.....
"Columbia Pacific University (CPU) was an unaccredited nontraditional distance learning school in California.[1] It was founded in 1978 by Richard Crews[2] a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, and Lester Carr, a former president of Lewis University,[3] and operated with state approval.
CPU was closed by California court order in 2000.[4] The court also ruled that CPU had granted degrees legally between 1978 and mid-1997.[4]
Lester Carr subsequently reorganized the school in Montana, Wyoming, and the Republic of Malawi as Columbia Commonwealth University. It has since shut down in Wyoming. CPU alumni acquired all rights to the CPU name and registered a "Columbia Pacific University" non-profit organization in Delaware.[5] The CPU Press continues its publication program."[6]
Are we supposed to take its graduates seriously?
Posted by: Gerald M. Jones | November 24, 2009 12:24 PM
A mother has given her autistic son marijuana brownies to promote his appetite. He is 10 I think and weighs 45 pounds. No one else was doing anything for him apparently. He would not eat.
His mother has said that it worked. He is now eating and is much easier to handle.
People immediately started complaining about her unconventional and self-adminstered therapy. I say bull. I know from experience marijuana causes the munchies. If it works, who gives a damn if it's legal or accepted?
From the anecdotal evidence and what scientific evidence there is, a lot more research needs to be done on cannibus to brings its benefits into the medical regimen. People are dying because of the politics surrounding marijuana.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 12:35 PM
Thank you, non neuro-typical. Sad to say, I never even stopped to think about what it is like for the children who are being treated by these means. It does not sound like it was pleasant.
I know this is just anecdotal but would you say that the treatments that your parents put you through got in the way of what actually helped you?
Posted by: arensb
|
November 24, 2009 12:54 PM
If I understand this correctly, the researchers are saying "If there's mold in your bathroom, that can indicate a leaky pipe", and the woo crowd says, "Ah, so if I clean up the mold, that'll plug the leak!"
Posted by: non neuro-typical | November 24, 2009 1:13 PM
(in response to Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM, comment 26)
I'm not sure whether they stood in the way, as I stopped going to the chiropracter and naturopath before I started counselling (unrelated to the Asperger's- I was diagnosed with severe depression at the age of 12. I stopped going because they were both quite far away from where I lived and I was missing too much school to see them). Giving up wheat was alongside counselling/ CBT- and was more of a hassle than anything (I remember having severe headaches for days each time my skull was manipulated. I was assured it was good for me). Incidentally, one of my parents has always held (even though I've been seeing psychologists and Asperger's specialists for over ten years now) that the mental health profession are all a bunch of quacks, and only let me go (before I was of age) because it made my other parent happy- and tells me that it doesn't work/ is all a waste of money.
Probably the things that were hardest on me before and around my diagnosis was the expectation that my behaviour would improve through this treatment (my behaviour only improved when I learned how to read social signs and interact with people better- it's a series of coping mechanisms, not a cure), and one of my parents' denial that I really have Asperger's (I was just poorly behaved, apparently, and would snap out of it sooner or later). Some of my family members (not specifically my parents) thought this was a punishment from god (most of them are what I would consider liberal Christians- I used to be), and one of my relatives thought I needed an exorcism (that never happened: my parents wouldn't allow it, and didn't even tell me about it until quite recently). This hindered me tangentially, I suppose, in that it exacerbated my depression (particularly through guilt and pressure to perform), which in turn made it harder and more stressful for me to deal with the world around me. I suppose my parents just wanted me to "get better", but when nothing worked they pushed their anxiety back onto me (and to some extent, still do)
Posted by: Peter G.
|
November 24, 2009 1:47 PM
Q: What's the difference between a medium and a communications facilitator?
A: Mediums don't get regular paychecks.
Posted by: Opisthokont
|
November 24, 2009 1:47 PM
I think the problem here is in some ways the public perception of science. I have a theory that people (including medical doctors) generally think of science as an answer-generating enterprise, that every research project has as its primary goal the solution to some clearly-defined problem. An extension to this (by no means a necessary one, but probably just as widespread) is that biomedical research has as its goal some practical output, like curing a disease, improving crop yield, and so on. I suspect that it never occurs to many that people might be researching autism (for example) because they are fascinated by the condition, and by what it can tell us about how our brains work. Such a mindset is unready to consider that any autism research would not have as its immediate goal some treatment for autism. (This is not to say that autism researchers are immune to sympathy for their subjects, of course; they are able to compartmentalise them into "people with an unfortunate condition" and "exciting opportunities to see how the brain works". The compartmentalisation in no way guarantees exclusivity of either attitude.)
The truth is that science is not by nature an answer-generating engine, but a question-investigating one. Answers do come, but only as a side effect. This is not to say that the process of science is wasteful, either; rather, it means that (ideally) scientists are less invested in being right and more invested in being interested. The answers that result are all the more reliable as a result. Unfortunately, not enough people understand this (and that includes scientific funding agencies, alas), and science gets put into a box that it just doesn't fit. So, to the extent that my model is correct, it's almost inevitable that research gets misappropriated like this, although one's assumptions for best intentions are certainly at the very least strained when the researchers in question pepper their work with disclaimers!
Posted by: Ted | November 24, 2009 1:50 PM
It reminds me of what these guys tried to get away with.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-executive-summary-of-cru.html
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 2:17 PM
Thank you, non neuro-typical. Sounds like you were stuck in a feed back loop for a long time. As bad as it sounds, it could have been worse. As least your parents did not go through with the exorcism. But it does sound like you have relatives who were blaming you for your condition. (I think calling you "god's punishment" is placing the blame on you.)
It would also seem that getting coping mechanisms should be a higher priority than chasing after unproven cures. I would assume things are better for you now that you can make your own choices.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | November 24, 2009 2:27 PM
In the approximately 12 years I worked with people with autism, the pendulum swung about 6 times; from an emphasis on applied behavior analysis, to "gentle teaching" and its variants, and back. From a behavior analyst's standpoint the swinging was extremely frustrating. We constantly had to re-justify the use of empirical evidence and testing behavioral hypothesis to determine effective treatment/support/straining plans over all the touchy-feely crap that came along. We went through a long period of vitamins and minerals, and an agonizing stretch of facilitated communication neither of which turned out to be worth a damn to the kids or their parents.
No, what worked was environmental manipulation, intensive training, functional analysis of "problem behaviors." All treatment regimes were based on the data that we collected which demonstrated the relative efficacy of the treatment. If the data didn't show progress the plan was scrapped. We were constantly looking at new ways of making our student's lives better and more productive. Practical empiricism at its best. It was labor intensive, expensive and difficult though, so people were always looking for a way to fix a kid cheaply and easily. There is no such thing as an easy fix for a kid with autism, especially if he gets a late diagnosis and has had years to learn bad habits.
So the FC people and the other quackery peddlers could always find a willing parent or administrator to listen long enough to dump some money into the woo woo rat-hole. Sometimes it would be enough to chop a behavior analyst from the payroll, and the remaining BA's would have to chum up with some feckless dunderhead who would spend two hours a week waving their dowsing rods and wiggling their facilimagiggy at the students and claiming some sort of soft "he seems to like it!" victory.
Feh. No, I'm not bitter. I'm just glad I don't have to fight those fights anymore. Empiricism versus gut feelings - facts versus woo - the same sort of horseshit these new hucksters are peddling.
Posted by: Ormyskeptic | November 24, 2009 2:49 PM
I've only read the 1st and last posts. No1 - what an idiot! That's all I have to say about Glacierman. No33 is excellent! Para 3 just about covers what I myself would feel. I'll be using 'facilimagiggy' an awful lot at our local skeptic society meetings/blogs/posts. Thanks very much!
Posted by: Mike Daniels | November 24, 2009 3:05 PM
#23 - Good point about the marijuana use.
Now, what's needed is a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of THC use in violent autistic children, to see if it's a one-off (or two-off, from an article I read on the subject mentioning another mother doing the same with marijuana tea) or if it can be applied generally.
Same with these anti-inflammation/hormone regulation ideas. Why not test them out and see the results? The original researcher's intent should not decide what is an appropriate use for the research . . . testing and results should.
We use plenty of drugs for things other than their original intent. Why should experimenting with new ideas cause "horror", as long as the experimenting is done in a scientific manner?
(Before someone jumps down my throat, I'm not suggesting that people promoting untested therapies for personal gain are "experimenting in a scientific manner".)
Posted by: David Estlund | November 24, 2009 3:12 PM
Funny, I just POED another thread. Is glacierman a Poe?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 3:26 PM
No, he's a sycophant of a mentally ill blogger who's been trying to debate PZ for ages. But, this unnamed blogger avoids the peer reviewed literature, where PZ will debate him, like the plague.Posted by: glacierman | November 24, 2009 4:19 PM
Funny how nobody knows who I am but cast a number of disparaging assertions in my general direction.
Firstly, peer review is a somewhat dubious "scientific" calculation of whether something is true or not. It is not based in logic but in opinion.
My example of the global warming fetishists is a perfect example. If any one of you who were so willing to offer your opinion about me would spend a few minutes digging in to this scam, you would find that the scientist involved in the research and studies had bullied, intimidated and eliminated all those who were of opposing opinion. They withheld the data from other scientist or blocked their access to the findings which does nothing but signals huge red flags to those who are interested with learning about the truth.
The peer review was done by scientists who were vetted according to their agreement "with" global warming. The peer review process which published the findings were nothing more than collective circle jerks, while they were getting paid to circle jerk. That is the bone I have with these peer review papers. Let dissenters and opposing points of views be allowed to scrutinize "all" the data, let the truth be known.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | November 24, 2009 4:28 PM
Bloody fucking hell, another thread hijacked by another utter asshole. Go fuck yourself, glacierdouche.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 24, 2009 4:49 PM
Oops. I hope I'm not feeding the troll, but isn't he on the wrong blog? Why is he trying to debate PZ on climatology? That's not PZ's field. The whole thing seems sort of silly.
Posted by: nitramnaed | November 24, 2009 5:11 PM
@non neuro-typical. Thanks for your comments. It's always great to hear from adults that are on the spectrum. My NT (aspergers)10 year old daughter struggles every day. We keep her in social skills training and OT and with patience she's coming along a little every day.
No "Woo" treatments in this family.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 24, 2009 5:11 PM
Glacierman and Vox Day are desperate clowns looking for validation. They won't be getting it from me.
Posted by: non neuro-typical | November 24, 2009 6:20 PM
(to Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM, comment 32)
Actually, reading back on what I wrote, it sounds a lot worse than how I remember it. It surprises me that my parents did the things they did, but I just took it all on board at the time. I didn't know anything different. The diagnosis was always the missing piece (my parents tell me that they knew I was "different" all along- indeed I can remember strangers telling me the same thing- but they could never put their finger on it). My parents always had the very best intentions, they just didn't know what to do (I can definitely sympathise with that).
I think coping mechanisms (and support) are what it's all about. I wouldn't even necessarily want a "cure" if I could have one. There are advantages to Asperger's as well (I see the world differently to "neurotypicals"- people not on the autism spectrum), and, warts and all, it's part of who I am. It is definitely better now making my own choices, but I definitely still need a lot more help than your average 20-something. (I try to convince myself that everyone has weaknesses and needs help with something)
(to nitramnaed, comment 41)
That's wonderful to hear. The one thing I wish I'd had is training from a younger age (and knowing "what was wrong with me", as I would have put it at her age, would have saved me a lot of anguish). My one message would be that things definitely get better. At her age boys at school were throwing rocks at me, and in high school I was literally told I'd never amount to anything. University has been the best thing I ever could have hoped for. At school (I don't know how typical my experiences are) I was a "freak" (boys would throw rocks at me and even some of the teachers bullied me), at university I'm a little eccentric but not too far out of the ordinary. There's also excellent support for people on the autism spectrum where I am, and almost every academic I've come across has been really supportive off their own bat, whether they know about the Asperger's or not.
Incidentally- I tell you this because my more supportive parent has spoken to others with Aspie children much younger than me, and they say it's helped to hear what people with Asperger's can do (rather than to toot my own horn)- I've gone from being literally told I was too stupid to finish school to studying my third degree. To do that I not only moved out of home, but out of the country (I'm more than 10000 miles away from home): and I'm coping much better than anyone (including me) could have predicted. Asperger's, as I'm sure you already know, isn't a disability per se- it's a difference and a challenge, certainly, but one that can be managed quite well. (And as I was saying before, it has advantages- for example, looking at things from a different perspective can allow me insight that others may not have, which is great in an academic setting, and my tendency to fixate means that I'm quite passionate about what I want to do and I'm more willing to stick it out than my peers)
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
November 24, 2009 6:36 PM
Sweet squid of Madrid... The Chicago Tribune article has certainly picked up the crackpots. Virtually every comment is by some drooling imbecile whining about scientists and pharmaceutical companies.
This one probably wins the prize:
Work out the causes of illnesses? Damn it! Why didn't we think of that? It's all so obvious now. We were wasting our time with all this meticulous study of anatomy and physiology and genetics and biochemistry and neurology and neuropathology, and yet all we had to do was look for the cause!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 24, 2009 7:04 PM
Off-topic rant: I hate the English spelling system. Above we are looking at a native speaker who had to learn the word cannabis by heart like a fucking Chinese character (and unsurprisingly failed), because he pronounces all unstressed vowels the same, and at the same time the spelling completely and successfully hides from me (not a native speaker) how artificial my pronunciation sometimes is.
<headdesk>
Science Itself Biased Against Climate "Skeptics"
We laugh. You lose.
Peer review isn't based on either logic or opinion. It's science, so it's based on the scientific method and evidence. Something tells me you have never tried to submit a manuscript to a journal.
If you would spend a few days on the Internet trying to understand the science of climatology, you'd actually learn something. Start at http://realclimate.org and stay there for 10 hours or 20.
Putting "all" into quotation marks like this means you actually mean it's not "all". This tells me you haven't read much in your life in general, not just about climatology.
But back to your point: you have no idea how much data there is. You have never even imagined the existence of most of it.
Indeed.
Posted by: Nick Gardner | November 24, 2009 7:17 PM
Amen. This is the same crap we are dealing with in almost all areas of debate in the American public at the moment. Thinking versus feeling.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 7:23 PM
It's the best quality check out there. Avoiding it on purpose says you aren't being scientific in your approach, and you know it. Which is why VD avoids it like the plague. He plays fast and loose with the facts.Care to back that up with peer reviewed citations? Or more bullshit from the liars and bullshitters?Prove it. Put up the conclusive information, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science. Unsubstantiated claim are always made by those with agendas, and are unscientific. Like VD, and you Glacierman.Posted by: glacierman | November 24, 2009 8:39 PM
David, have you read any of the hack info? Why don't you spend say...10 or maybe 20 hours of your time learning about the documents and data that was manipulated and then peer reviewed to confirm that what was written was correct.
If all they have is the falsified information in the report and don't didn't do their own research into what was published and then endorse it, that is what I would constitute as a collective circle jerk. And by your apparent attitude, you have been drinking the koolaid that they have spewed out for the masses to drink. Try some critical thinking!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 8:42 PM
Still no evidence from Glacierman. But then, one can't expect a VD sycophant to be scientific. They just complain about being discriminated against, without presenting the necessary proof.
Posted by: glacierman | November 24, 2009 8:49 PM
Here's a link for you to look at:
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d22-The-Hockey-Stick-was-never-accurateand-CRU-knew-it
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 24, 2009 8:52 PM
Yes, and think of the bottomless well of funding for global warming research. I mean, how can oil companies compete with that?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 9:01 PM
Glacierman, we've been through that with AGW deniers before. Either cite the peer reviewed literature, or shut the fuck up, as you have nothing scientific to offer. Science is required to refute science. And that science is not found outside of the peer reviewed literature. So your imaginary evidence is nothing to look at.
Posted by: glacierman | November 24, 2009 9:25 PM
Nerd, if the peer reviewed literature is falsified then you are reading nothing. You seem too thick to get this.
The peer reviewed literature is based on shit, so unless we have some new info or non-biased info then it is nothing but circle jerk time again. You seem to like that sort of thing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 11:11 PM
Two words. Prove it. Put up the irrefutable evidence, or shut the fuck up. And that evidence must come from the peer reviewed literature itself. Welcome to real science, where claims must be verified with the proper evidence. You don't know science. I do. You have nothing but lies. I have checked over and verified papers. So, who am I to believe? Known liars and bullshitter like you, VD, and AGW deniers, or fellow scientists who are honest in their profession work. Because if they aren't, they lose the trust of their fellow scientists.And tell VD, if he wants a debate, the peer reviewed literature is open to him, but he must follow the rules of science in order to publish.
Posted by: glacierman | November 24, 2009 11:57 PM
There you go circle jerking again.
There are those who are far smarter and far more in the know than you and I who are calling bullshit on this AGW/CC which is sucking the tax dollars from countries which need to help their citizens with real problems like shelter and food.
Are you telling me that you are an expert in this field or are you just a scientist. If you were to have any credibility as to what and who you are, give me an example of what you do. All you have done is tried to intimidate me.
I am not a scientist, but I rely on those who are to gather my information from, read it, process what I am able and regurgitate.
Just because you say you are a scientist doesn't faze me in the least. I can learn from you, but just like those pseudo-scientist who have screwed with the data to extract trillions of dollars from the citizens on this planet, you will lose all my respect and you will have to earn it back...if you are able.
You stand on the side of a "believer" of your own choosing. I don't, therefore the onus in on you to bring my to the point of understanding and in a way in which I am able to comprehend.
If not, you are on their team and your credibility has been shot to hell in a hand basket. You need to convince me with calling me down if you are able.
I await your reply!
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 25, 2009 5:58 AM
...are working for oil companies. In marketing, no less. Pity they can't pay the same rates for R&D, but that's the modern economy for ya.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 25, 2009 6:05 AM
LOL
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 25, 2009 6:39 AM
I am not a scientist, but I rely on those who are to gather my information from, read it, process what I am able and regurgitate. - glacierman
You're a liar. The overwhelming majority of relevant scientific experts are saying that AGW is real, and an urgent problem.
But then of course, you're an associate of Pox Day, so my saying "you're a liar" was redundant.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 25, 2009 8:13 AM
I doubt that. I'm a PhD scientist. I know what is going on, and have been keeping an eye on this for 20+ years. Yes, and I am far smarter than you, and I'm not a liar, like you, VD, and AGW deniers. I don't need to establish my credentials with you. I'm not going to your blog and trying to get you change your mind there. You are here trying to intimidate us with your aggression, inane claims, and bald faced lying. You need to show your credentials, and if you aren't a scientist, to shut the fuck up. We don't treat professional liars nicely on this blog. If you aren't a scientist, you will gain no traction here. We already know you are a liar and bullshitter. If you wish to change our minds, you have to do so with evidence. So far, you have only presented invalid data. Which is worthless, and shows your real political objection to the scientific data. First of all, these are smart people, who after years of training are investigating a fuzzy area. They have tweaked out the data, and they honestly published the work with peer review. And the data is remarkably consistent that global climate warming is occurring. Compare this to people like you have a political agenda that must deny facts. Who should I believe? Those with the agenda, known liars and bullshitters like yourself, VD, and AGW deniers, or those degreed scientists honestly presenting their data honestly using scientific methods. This one is a no brainer, and you, the liar, loses every time. Whoopy shit. As if science and real scientists care about what ignoramouses like you think. You are the shit stain in this discussion. You need to earn our respect. You are doing a bad job of it. What a load of garbage. You are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. I need to explain nothing to you, as the peer reviewed literature say AGW is ongoing. If you have another theory, you have to support you allegations, and that evidence is not being present. Almost like you don't have any. You are the one who must show me that you are right. So far, only lies. Another attempt to change the burden of proof from you to us. That isn't working. It is upon you to convince us. But that requires evidence, and we require the peer reviewed scientific literature in order to assure the quality of the data and conclusions.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 25, 2009 8:24 AM
Yes, regurgitation is something you are good at.
Problem is
shit in, shit out
Posted by: glacierman | November 25, 2009 11:01 AM
"Rev. BigDumbChimp : Problem is shit in, shit out"
Hey, you must work at the CRU, you do recognize the patterns.
Were those your files?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 25, 2009 11:06 AM
Still shit in, shit out glacierman. Still no evidence, just attitude, which will get you nowhere. Time to fade into the bandwidth.
Posted by: glacierman | November 25, 2009 11:10 AM
So Nerd, I have a very simple question.
What if, in working on a project such as AGW/C and the data is manipulated and there is no one else permitted to review the work and then it is peer reviewed by only those who are working on the project. Does that data then become something that you rely on or do you do the file-13 on it?
This is exactly what has happened! The data is crap!
You have been drinking the kool-aid, haven't you!!?? No wonder you are so upset. All those hours and time spent studying..SHIT!
Like I said, have a look at what is being exposed to nothing but a huge lie. The data is manipulated and therefore is only worthy of lining the crapper.
Sucks to have wasted so much time hoping and believing!!!
Posted by: glacierman | November 25, 2009 11:16 AM
Nerd, love to exchange the niceties with you some more, but I have to go do some real work.
What evidence is it you are looking for and can I help you with, by the way? You should check out the data that is being scrutinized by other scientists, whom you so lovingly value, as they are the ones who are bringing this scam to light.
Please spend some time reading, then I will respond later today. Ciao!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 25, 2009 11:17 AM
Unsubstantiated claim. Meaningless without evidence. Put up the evidence or shut the fuck up. Only liars and bullshitters like you and VD keep talking if they can't put up or shut up.Who the fuck are you to say anything intelligent on the subject? You have present no credentials or no evidence. Just inane and insane claims, which are worthless in themselves.It only sucks for you. Without showing peer reviewed evidence, your chances of changing our minds here is the same as you stopping your lying on the subject. You need to stop lying to yourself, then you can stop lying to us.Posted by: Robert | November 25, 2009 10:59 PM
Nerd Redhead said:
The peer reviewed journal is nothing if its editors have been bought.
Solution to problems like "ClimateGate":
Open Source.
No more centralized public funding of scientific research.
Here is a quote from "Ray" from Professional Heretic:
Oh by the way Nerd Redhead, even peer reviewed papers won't change anyone's mind here at Pharyngula if that paper is politically incorrect.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 12:15 AM
Unsubstantiated allegation. And they could sue you for slander. Possibly libel, if this is considered a print version. You have nothing. And I don't believe you any more than glacierman. You have an agenda. I only have what is good science, wherever the evidence leads. And an anonymous quote is totally irrelevant. I didn't even bother reading something a person without honor and integrity is unwilling to put their name to.The lies of you liars never stop coming. You will only change our minds with good evidence, not blather and attitude. Which is all you presented. Try again if you want to convince me, but this time bring the peer reviewed evidence. Or, shut the fuck up if you are honest and have integrity. Otherwise, you are nothing but a scam artist/conman/liar/bullshitter.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 26, 2009 12:22 AM
Was that an I know you are but what am I?
Posted by: Robert | November 26, 2009 2:16 AM
Nerd Redhead said:
I have a feeling that it won't be me who will be wearing orange, but those at CRU and others like it will probably be.
Everybody has an agenda, especially government bureaucracies and their MSM/University allies (otherwise known as the "PC Cathedral"). Giant corporations with their own agendas are included too. Interesting that you didn't try to attack any of my specific points or Ray's. "Honor and Integrity", bah, we're dealing with the human animal, not angels.
This was a reply to my statement, "Oh by the way Nerd Redhead, even peer reviewed papers won't change anyone's mind here at Pharyngula if that paper is politically incorrect."
Does this ring any bell Nerd Redhead?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1717?rbfvrToken=5593151c101d85e0cd4680031992441a92391b6c
If this doesn't ring any bell Redhead, you either have a short attention span and shouldn't be involved in science debates at all or you're "nothing but a scam artist/conman/liar/bullshitter."
Posted by: Robert | November 26, 2009 3:17 AM
Redhead said:
Archbishops and Cardinals don't have to be anonymous but heretics and blasphemers must be.
Is it me, or is PZ Myers avoiding making a major post on the CRU climategate scandal? Maybe he has, I could be wrong. But if he is avoiding this, then he is certainly much smarter than Nerd Redhead.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 8:57 AM
Boy, are you a paranoid fool. There is no heretics and blasphemers in science. There are those who push the envelope, but like all honest people in the world, they use their own names, and they publish their data in the peer reviewed literature. And they work by the rules of science, and their work may someday win Nobel prizes. So, science has no problem with honest disagreements.Science does have problems with dishonest people and manufactured disagreements. The AGW denier camp tend to cherry pick data, ignore data, use weather data in place of climate data, and other falsehoods of similar nature to back their paranoia that they might be required to take action to cut back on emissions. All this requires that they deliberately lie, and the one thing science hates above all is someone deliberately lying to their peers. Which is why I demand peer reviewed data. It follows the same type of quality system that we use at work to ensure that the experiments were done honestly, and the reports to the clients show the actual data, and that the data is appropriately interpreted using scientific methods.
So claiming a conspiracy is nothing but paranoia, and unscientific behavior.
PZ has had several threads on AGW. We have also been infested with AGW deniers. They never, like you, present any data, and just make repeated inane claims. Eventually they are told to put up or shut up, and since they can't cite the peer reviewed literature, they can't shut up, and they present nothing but attitude toward the regulars, they get plonked into the dungeon. Funny how that is.There is no climategate except in the minds of dogmatic political idjits, like liberturds, who don't want to deal with the climate changing.
Posted by: glacierman | November 26, 2009 9:46 AM
Good day Redhead,
Back on the trail, but not long, more work!
So, still ranting about peer review. Peer review is your sacred cow and it is what you believe and stand firm with.
Here is more evidence and yet another piece you need to look at about the falsification of data and the using of it to manipulate and suck the money out of the populace.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/climategate_making_new_zealand_warmer
You do need to recant calling me a liar. If I am then you need to produce the evidence that I am, or retract. That is if you are a person of integrity!
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 26, 2009 9:51 AM
The peer reviewed journal is nothing if its editors have been bought.
Any evidence of this? Thought not.
No more centralized public funding of scientific research. - Robert
Right. Put it all in the hands of private commercial interests. That'll ensure complete objectivity.
"One of the reasons that I didn’t become a scientist (although I have the training for it) is that I
think the peer review system stinkscouldn't get any papers accepted because they were shit.Fixed for "Ray".
Repeatability. If nobody can replicate your results, then it’s not science. This means each “paper” released has an associated online version control system that contains all versions of the paper itself, all supporting processed data, all supporting raw data, and all supporting code.
There's some merit in that idea, but it's not what is meant by scientific repeatability. If it was, then no science would ever have been repeatable up to now, would it?
Any “paper” should explicitly include a falsifiable theory, even if it is merely a cite to an existing paper.
This may be a clue as to why "Ray" never became a scientist: he hasn't a ghost of an idea of how science is actually done. Recall that Popper was never a scientist. A paper may report a new phenomenon, refine a technique, suggest a classification scheme, report a synthesis, describe a model...
Finally, no group of individuals should ever be able to prevent the publishing of a “paper”.
And of course, they can't. If your paper is rejected, you can take it to another journal. In the case of climate change denialists, they can always go to Energy and Environment, which will publish any old crap as long as it fits with the denialist agenda.
One good refutation is all you need.
Garbage. Most science just isn't like that. In the case of climate science, much of the genuine scientific controversy is about how much different forcings contribute to the observed change: it's not a matter of all-or-nothing. A lot more is about how to weight various proxies when reconstructing past climates. Again, its not all-or-nothing. Then there are the cases when models and data disagree. You don't actually know immediately which is wrong (of course, both may be). When the satellite data disagreed with the models, the denialists were certain the data was right; it wasn't. The reason denialists propound this "one refutation" bilge is simple: there's always going to be some point of controversy they can seize on and pretend it outweighs the consilience of evidence of many different kinds that shows without significant doubt that ACC is real, and an urgent problem. Creationists act in exactly the aame way with regard to evolution.
While a very few of the emails from CRU suggest possible misconduct, none of the emails even hint at the kind of vast conspiracy that would be required to justify denialist paranoia. The one indubitable crime in this matter is the hacking of the CRU system.
By the way, Robert: have you published every email you ever sent for the world to see? Thought not.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 9:54 AM
Yep, peer review is a quality control item. You have shown no evidence otherwise, only made unsubstantiated claims. Which doesn't help your cause one iota, and merely makes you look stoopid. And your attitude is not making me think you have anything cogent to offer. Lose the 'tude.A news item in now way equals peer review, and you know it. You have nothing but political dogma and idiocy. If you want to convince me, and this blog, you need to present the required level of evidence, or just to shut fuck up. Again, those who are honest and have integrity will put up if they have the information, or will shut up if they don't. Only those who are conmen/liars/bullshitters keep talking. And you keep talking.
I will not recant until you show conclusive evidence from the peer reviewed literature that you are right. Until then, you remain a liar and bullshitter, and political dogmatist. If you have no real evidence, go away.Posted by: Knockgoats | November 26, 2009 10:07 AM
Repeatability. If nobody can replicate your results, then it’s not science. This means each “paper” released has an associated online version control system that contains all versions of the paper itself, all supporting processed data, all supporting raw data, and all supporting code.
I should have noted another point here. Without very robust and flexible automated metadata-handling software, which doesn't yet exist (I'm a consultant on a research project working on such software, although not in the climate science area), this would slow down the science enormously. Of course, that's exactly what the denialists want. Their requests for data and code are mostly just aimed at wasting scientists' time - when it's released, nothing significant comes of it, often it's not used at all, and the denialists just move on to the next demand. Similarly with their combing of papers for minor errors and inconsistencies (which all real scientists know most papers will have). It is frustration with this kind of harassment that may have led some of the CRU scientists to do things they should not have done.
Posted by: glacierman | November 26, 2009 10:45 AM
Have you read any of the data that has been released on the "climategate" fraud?
I have given you the data, it is in the charts. Explain it or go away. If you cannot you have lost my attention, go back to your hole and do more research.
All public funding should be cut off from the "highter learnin" institutes and they should have to fund their own research. Pay to play, just like the rest of us workers.
Peer review only works if non-maipulated data is replicable, as Knockgoats said, but when there no way for the common man to be able to assimilate what is being studied, then what is the use? It turns into papers which are written and read by other researcher in their own field.
How many papers have you been involved in, how much money was spent doing the research, that have never seen the light of day? Money just flushed!
Be honest and shine some light on your world!
The
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 10:52 AM
That isn't how science works. You are wrong until you prove yourself right with the evidence, preferably from the peer reviewed literature, which you haven't done. So you are still a lying and bullshitting failure to convince.This is totally and utterly irrelevant. The literature is written for other scientists, and those with the backgrounds to really understand what is being talked about. Still nothing cogent from you.Again, more irrelevancies. (I have published and it is available in the peer reviewed literature.) You must be a liberturd from that comment. And liberturds are known to be morally bankrupt people with little concern for their fellow man. And they also spend a lot of time trying to justify their inane politics to the rest of us, who aren't interested in them. They are also dogmatic AGW deniers. You aren't very convincing with that 'tude.Posted by: Opisthokont
|
November 27, 2009 10:38 AM
Having been involved on both sides of peer review, I have seen nothing that would make me think that the process does not work. It is certainly possible, and perhaps even likely, that a paper that runs against the current consensus will be treated more harshly than one that supports it, but in many ways that is a good thing: it requires anyone with a contrary point to prove it. Papers do get published that go against the grain, all the time, because their authors have solid data and come to reasonable conclusions.
Reviewers do not just reject manuscripts at their whim; they must provide reasons, and back them up, if their review is not to be rejected itself. And reviews can be responded to: authors of a rejected paper have every right to defend their work, and can overrule a negative review, if their work is solid enough. Meanwhile, editors have a vested interest in having high-impact papers in their journals; so if one editor rejects a non-mainstream paper for non-scientific reasons, another editor will be more than happy to look at it, if for no other reason than that those papers can have extremely high impact if they are any good.
At this point people like glacierman start talking conspiracy theory, and that just gets silly. The conspiracy in this case breaks down if even one editor thinks the work in question merits publication, and as already stated, the benefits to that editor's journal would be substantial. There are always competing journals, always opportunities to get solid work published. Thus there is always interest in consensus-challenging ideas, provided that they make sense and take all data into account.
Peer review is not perfect, because scientists are human. But the process does work. The alternative is anarchy, which is not a very useful environment in which to do anything progressive.
Posted by: Observer | December 2, 2009 2:19 PM
Here is what Dr. Bill Rogers, Director of the
Behavioral Medicine, Southwest Behavior Research Institute, says concerning Columbia Pacific University. Posted on the Discussion Forum of Wikipedia on CPU, 24, July, 2009:
"most lay folks are always about 20 years behind relating to cutting edge higher education. This unawareness allowed, for many year, At-A-Distance universities to be made fun of by certain groups of people who didn't really know what they were talking about. Now, it seems enough years have passed, and enough investigations have taken place that it just doesn't make much difference what anyone wants to say negative about the so-called 'correspondence' schools.
The latest conclusion information released by both the federal government research on higher education and all private investigation groups that took up the challenge strongly indicate what most in the field have known for decades: students who obtain their bachelor, graduate and/or doctor level education by no classroom at-a-distance learning, obtain a more quality education in every major, meaningful area. They learn faster, retain longer, spend less money and less time and are better qualified for the 'real' world.
Bill Rogers, Ph.D. Director, Behavioral Medicine Southwest Behavior Research Institute