Senate

Republican Fast Food Pusher Andrew The Putz Puzder Not In Labor

gregladen — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:01:02 +0000

Republican Fast Food Pusher Andrew The Putz Puzder Not In Labor

As the Republican led US Senate has voted to confirm (or deny) the party leader's cabinet picks, they've done a poor job, approving, for example, people who have acted in direct opposition to the areas of government they are expected to serve, or in some cases, being abjectly incompetent. The Republicans in the Senate were not vetting the nominees. Some of the Democrats were, but even there, we saw failures of conscious.

The Senators need to be reminded that the critical choices made by the Trump administration tend to be poor ones. Look, for example, at the first NSA choice. General Flynn was caught engaged in acts that were at least unethical and annoying, if not downright illegal and, worst case scenario, treasonous. Why would we expect the Trump administration to had better choices to the Senate for their approval?

"This would have been really bad." Former fictional Secretary of Lbor, Leo McGarry.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans in Congress have no clue what "advice and consent" means or what the Constitution says, or history says, about this.

The total number of Senators voting for each of Republican President Trump's nominees is less than usual, with many, sometimes most, Democrats voting against the various and often very unqualified nominees. The Democrats who did vote for these individuals will be held to account over coming years, especially those who voted for Tillerson, and others who may ultimately be linked to currently developing scandals.

But now we have an interesting development. One of the most awful choices ever put forth for a high cabinet post ever, in any government by any president -- equal to in level of insult and injury to the Betsy DeVos nomination which Congress narrowly approved -- was Andrew Puzder as labor secretary.

The public outcry about putting this particular fox in charge of that particular hen house should not have exceeded the outcry against Tillerson or the others, but the general public and, certainly, Trump's Republican Congress, appear not to understand too much about what happens in government and why it is important. But an attack by Oprah, armed with withering truth, seems to have mattered. Outrage over Puzder's misconduct in business and personal life, some of which could be an embarrassment even to the Trump administration and to Republicans generally, was too much.

Moments ago, Puzder made a move we wish so heartily that Republican Donald Trump's father had done years ago: he withdrew just in the nick of time.

________________________________

By the way, have you read Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few by former actual good Secretary of Labor Robert Reich?

America was once celebrated for and defined by its large and prosperous middle class. Now, this middle class is shrinking, a new oligarchy is rising, and the country faces its greatest wealth disparity in eighty years. Why is the economic system that made America strong suddenly failing us, and how can it be fixed?

Leading political economist and bestselling author Robert B. Reich presents a paradigm-shifting, clear-eyed examination of a political and economic status quo that no longer serves the people, exposing one of the most pernicious obstructions to progress today: the enduring myth of the “free market” when, behind the curtain, it is the powerful alliances between Washington and Wall Street that control the invisible hand. Laying to rest the specious dichotomy between a free market and “big government,” Reich shows that the truly critical choice ahead is between a market organized for broad-based prosperity and one designed to deliver ever more gains to the top. Visionary and acute, Saving Capitalism illuminates the path toward restoring America’s fundamental promise of opportunity and advancement.

gregladen Wed, 02/15/2017 - 10:01

Tags

President Donald Trump

Pudzer

Republicans

Senate

Trump

"But an attack by Oprah, armed with withering truth..."

That's a rare, but welcome, move for her.

It is surprising to find that it is possible for a person to be so lacking in ethics and integrity that Trump and his people realize they are better off without him than with him. (It isn't surprising that, given someone that bad exists, it is Puzder.)

Puzder is out because he hired an illegal immigrant. OMB director might survive that, but not for Labor(Linda Sanchez), Attorney General(Zoe Baird), or DHS(under W).

"Puzder is out because he hired an illegal immigrant. "

Hardly a major issue - republicans love to complain about "those people" while hiring them. He did have problems paying here, not paying taxes, and being misleading about it.

He was also advertised as someone who had a history of fighting for workers, but in reality eliminated jobs at CKE and put his primary focus on overseas expansion (not necessarily bad, but not the same as working for jobs here, as advertised).

There have been wage and hour violations at over 60% of the restaurants operated by his company. There are still numerous lawsuits over employees being cheated of overtime, denied breaks that are mandated by law, and requiring workers to stay in the building after they clock out of their shift so that can do more work - off the clock.

He has claimed that he is not responsible for the types of violations at the restaurants of franchisees and action was taken when violations were discovered - but no evidence of those actions has been discovered in the lawsuits.

In addition to his personal hypocrisy over undocumented workers, a 2014 audit of Carl Jr and Hardee's restaurants in the southwest and midwest found one in three of their employees were undocumented - 1200 in total were fired.

He has said his company's restaurant chain, Hardees, hires the "worst of the worst" -- "it's kind of the bottom of the pool". (From Bloomberg: his first memo to Hardee's managers said "No more people behind the counter unless they have all their teeth.")

Yeah, this isn't just about him being a dishonest hypocrite in his personal behavior - he is especially scummy as a person. That's probably his appeal to the modern right: as I said earlier, the amazing thing is that the scum we have in the White House found him so toxic they decided they couldn't use him.

Massachusetts takes a big step towards licensing naturopathic quackery

oracknows — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 01:07:18 +0000

Massachusetts takes a big step towards licensing naturopathic quackery

Living and practicing surgery in Michigan, it’s not surprising that I am very concerned about a bill being considered in the Michigan House of Representatives. The bill, HB 4531, would license naturopaths as health care providers. In fact, it would give them a very broad scope of practice, defined by a newly created board of naturopathic medicine. Basically, HB 4531 would give naturopaths a scope of practice almost as broad as that of primary care providers, like internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians. The only difference, if HB 4531 passes, would be that naturopaths would not be able to prescribe controlled substances. Given how utterly riddled with pure quackery naturopathy is as a “profession,” HB 4531 has spurred me to write a lot more about naturopaths, in particular the quackery they practice and routinely talk about.

As alarming as seeing HB 4531 pass the House Committee on Health Policy here in Michigan was, our state isn’t the one in most danger of seeing naturopaths licensed to ply their quackery. After all, it’s quite possible that it won’t get past the House. The last time naturopaths got a bill introduced into the Michigan legislature in 2013, it didn’t go anywhere. However, naturopaths are nothing if not relentless, and they have supplement manufacturers supporting their lobbying effort. No matter how many times naturopathic licensing bills are defeated, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians keeps coming back year after year. Advocates of science-based medicine have to succeed blocking such bills every time; the AANP and its allies only need to succeed once because, as Steve Novella notes (and I paraphrase), naturopaths are like the Terminator: Utterly relentless, and they absolutely positively will not stop until they have naturopathic licensing bills in all 50 states.

The situation in Massachusetts is more dire in that last week the Massachusetts Senate passed S.2335. As Jann Bellamy notes, this will be, by her count, the eleventh legislative session in which a naturopathic practice bill has been introduced. Alarmingly, she also notes that a bill actually passed one year, “thanks to some questionable legislative shenanigans at the end of session,” but, fortunately, it was vetoed by the governor. (That should give you an idea of how utterly relentless these quacks are.) S.2335 has moved on to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Reading the text of S.2335, I’m struck at how similar it is to Michigan’s bill. It allows naturopaths to do basically what they claim they should be able to do, function as, in essence, primary care providers, even though, as I’ve described time and time again how woefully undertrained they are to function as anything close to the role of family practitioners. If you don’t believe me, just ask an ex-naturopath, who has explained how inadequate naturopathy training is.

As I did with naturopaths in Michigan, I thought I’d look around to see what sorts of quackery naturopaths in Massachusetts are offering. So I did a very simple thing and just Googled “naturopathy Massachusetts.” Then I perused the websites of some of the results. It’s not that I expected to find anything different than what I found for Michigan, but you never know. I also recognized a couple of names from my Sh*t Naturopaths Say series, for instance, Shiva Barton of Winchester Natural Health Associates.

Not surprisingly, Barton offers acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine (pretty much all naturopaths do). He also offers The One Quackery To Rule Them All, Homeopathy (pretty much all naturopaths do, because, as I like to say, you can’t have naturopathy without homeopathy):

Homeopathic medicines (also known as homeopathic remedies) are made differently than other natural remedies. They are made by creating a very diluted solution of a plant, mineral, animal, chemical or food substance. The remedies come in many dilutions and unlike conventional drugs, it is thought that the more dilute the solution the more powerful the effect. Scientists are not certain how homeopathy works. Some think that it works similar to a vaccine: give a small amount of a substance to help promote cure. In any event, it has been shown to be a valuable tool.

Homeopathy has a wide range of uses. It can be very effective in treating acute conditions, such as colds, flu, bronchitis, urinary tract infections, food poisoning, etc. It also shows tremendous value in treating chronic conditions and mood disorders, phobias, etc.

Naturopathic Doctors are the only doctors who are trained in the use of homeopathy in their medical education. Let us help you use this therapy to help you feel your best.

Thank you, Mr. Barton for confirming what I’ve been saying all along. I just love it when physicians, real honest-to-goodness MDs who have been seduced by “integrative medicine” strenuously deny that they would ever have anything to do with homeopathy and even admit it’s pure quackery at the same time they are collaborating with and referring patients to naturopaths, nearly all of whom use homeopathy. Be that as it may Mr. Barton is a Very Important Naturopath, having been the past president of the Massachusetts Society of Naturopathic Doctors and the Massachusetts Acupuncture Society. He’s also a big wig in the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP).

I continued my perusal and tried to see what else I could find. There is, for example, Peter Swanz, whose website is vitalforcenaturopathy.com. You know, if I were a naturopath trying to convince legislators that naturopathy is not quackery and is science-based, I would try to refrain from reminding people of the prescientific vitalism at the core of naturopathy with a name like “Vital Force.” Not surprisingly, Swanz uses homeopathy and something I’ve never heard of before called Scenar Therapy. Yes, as hard as it is to believe, there are still some forms of pseudoscientific medicine that I haven’t heard of.) Swanz describes it thusly:

The SCENAR device uses active biofeedback, constantly changing its own electrical impulses to more accurately respond to the body’s own neurological impulses. The EMF impulses from the SCENAR device are a dynamic energy directed to help guide the body in its own healing process – the release of neuro peptides and regulatory peptides; and the release of endorphins. This is a totally unique and revolutionary means for supporting our body’s own healing ability, and is only available through SCENAR therapy.

That’s some serious woo to be attributed to nothing more than a weak electrical current run through the skin. It’s basically a scam, not unlike a Scientology e-meter or Hulda Clark’s Zapper.

Then there’s Ian Bier at Human Nature Natural Health. Bier, not surprisingly, offers homeopathy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and the usual naturopathic quackery. To this, he adds oxygen quackery, including hyperbaric oxygen. Then there’s the immersion bath:

This is a wonderful, relaxing, enjoyable therapy that gives lasting relief from pain and stress. It is effective on many levels simultaneously, as the warm water soothes and relaxes, the jets promote circulation, colors can be chosen for various effects, and essential oils of selected herbs are added to deliver a wide array of desired outcomes.

Because of its versatility and enjoyable effects, this treatment can be tailored to suit almost any patient.

New immersion bath technology from Germany contains an oil dispersion nozzle which atomizes botanicals and essential oils added to the bath water. This process provokes a thousandfold expansion of the oil surface so that it can be absorbed intensively by the skin. A specially designed bubble mat keeps mixing the water and herbal oils around you while allowing the bath to take place in quiet comfort. Human Nature Natural Health's bath solutions are all-natural herbal formulas, containing no synthetic chemicals.

Serious woo. It’s basically a bubble bath with essential oils and oxygen. Still, you know what I consider to be an infallible sign of a quack? This:

The German Footbath is used to clear the blood and lymphatic circulations of impurities. For reasons that are not yet understood by science, the soles of the feet have a special relationship to the body as a whole.

This relationship has been utilized for thousands of years in reflexology, Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda, the natural medicine system of India, among others. Detoxification of the circulation and tissues is among the primary goals of natural medicine systems around the world, as it enhances recovery of many conditions and promotes overall health and vitality.

Patients immerse their feet in the basin of water, to which has been added a blend of imported herbs and minerals. The activator is switched on, and within minutes the patient experiences a burning or tingling sensation on the bottom of the feet. This is the signal to turn the activator off, as the burning can become painful. The thermometer clearly shows that the burning sensation is not related to an increase in water temperature. Treatment time is 20 minutes per session.

A “German Footbath”? This is nothing more than what we know as the detox footbath. Basically, it’s a footbath with minerals through which a weak current is passed. The claim is as above: That the water changes color because the foot bath is drawing “toxins” out through the person’s feet. Of course, it’s utterly ridiculous on a strictly physiological basis to posit that any significant “detoxification” can occur through the feet. Also, it’s been shown many times that the water changes color whether a person’s feet are in the bath or not, as I’ve explained many times. It’s all just another bit of “detoxification quackery,” a form of quackery of which naturopaths are particularly fond. No wonder Bier also offers colon cleanses, lymphatic drainage massage, and far infrared sauna.

Yes, Massachusetts naturopaths are much like Michigan naturopaths and offer the same sort of quackery. I could have gone on, as there were many websites that I didn’t cover, but if you’re interested in more, Britt Hermes has looked at some sites that I haven’t. Of course, this is not surprising, given the nature of naturopathy as a pseudoscientific specialty.

We are currently witnessing a concerted push by naturopaths to achieve licensure in as many states as possible, their goal to have licensure in all 50 states by 2025. They’ve scored a victory in Massachusetts that can still be reversed if the citizens of Massachusetts make sure that S.2335 never gets through the House. In the meantime, I will be keeping an eye on HB 4531 in Michigan to try to find out when it comes up for debate in the House. This could be a more difficult task than you might think at first, as the Michigan legislature is very good at debating and passing bills under the radar without much press coverage. If you don’t have someone on the inside, you can easily miss when a bill comes up for debate. I learned that when the Michigan legislature sneakily passed our “right-to-try” bill in 2014.

oracknows Mon, 06/20/2016 - 21:07

Tags

complementary and alternative medicine

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

Politics

The Great and Powerful Dr. Oz: Humbled by Senator Claire McCaskill

oracknows — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:01:47 +0000

The Great and Powerful Dr. Oz: Humbled by Senator Claire McCaskill

I almost feel sorry for "America's Quack," Dr. Mehmet Oz. Well, not really.

Remember last week when I took note of an upcoming Senate hearing, specifically a hearing on weight loss scams in front of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, which is chaired by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). At the time, I wasn't pleased, because I assumed that the reason Dr. Oz had been invited to testify was in order to bring some star power to the proceedings and get some television coverage, given that the rest of the witnesses consisted of representatives from government regulatory agencies, from supplement manufacturers, and from Internet advertising agencies. (Talk about self-serving testimony and lies.) Actually, that's what happened today after the hearing this morning, but not in the way I had predicted. In fact, as I learned a few hours after the hearing over at The Consumerist:

Missouri Senator Clair McCaskill, Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, went straight for Dr. Oz’s jugular in her opening remarks on this morning’s hearing about the false and deceptive advertising of weight-loss products.
“When you feature a product on your show, it creates what has become known as ‘Oz Effect,’ dramatically boosting sales and driving scam artists to pop up overnight using false and deceptive ads to sell questionable products,” the Senator explained. “I’m concerned that you are melding medical advice, news and entertainment in a way that harms consumers.”

I couldn't wait until I got home to see the actual video of Dr. Oz's testimony, which has been posted on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation website and on C-Span:

Now, I'm not a politician, but I do follow politics, and if there's one thing I know about Congressional hearings, it's that they are very much like a Kabuki dance. It's highly stylized and constrained, reminiscent of the Kabuki style of Japanese stage play. Indeed, there is even a term, Kabuki dance, that is used in politics to describe an event that is designed to create the appearance of conflict or of an uncertain outcome, when in fact the actors have worked together to determine the outcome beforehand. The question I have is what the original outcome was intended to be.

In fact, I rather suspect that Dr. Oz didn't see this coming. Otherwise he likely wouldn't have accepted the invitation to testify, which is why I also suspect that skeptics had a bit to do with this. For instance, "Dr. Joe" Schwarcz had some of his writings about Dr. Oz forwarded to McCaskill's staff. In response to my post last week, I know several people (at least) forwarded some Orac-ian "insolence" to McCaskill and other Senators on the committee, as well as some writings from one of my favorite blogs (for obvious reasons) Science-Based Medicine. The reason I suspect that is because Sen. McCaskill used a term I've never heard used by a politician before: "science-based medicine." Yes, she used the term "science-based medicine," not the usual term used by most doctors and most people who know a little about medicine, "evidence-based medicine."

My guess is that originally McCaskill wanted Oz primarily for his star power and didn't plan on grilling him so harshly. But then the reaction and negative publicity Sen. McCaskill endured after announcing that Dr. Oz was going to testify at this hearing led her to change strategy. At least, I like to think that. Quite frankly, at this point, I don't care that much what her original motivation or plan for the ending of her Kabuki dance was. I just like what the ending ultimately turned out to be, Dr. Oz squirming in front of several Senators and showing up on national TV doing just that. And, of course, every play needs a villain. They often say about such hearings that there has to be at least one villain and one hero. However, usually the hero ends up being either the chair of the committee or one of the committee, with seldom room for more. I bet that Dr. Oz thought he was going to be one of the heros. He found out otherwise, much to his dismay. Every hearing needs someone whom grandstanding politicians can lecture and berate for their offenses and thus use as an example of why a new law or policy is needed. Dr. Oz, being the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, had an enormous target painted on his chest, right from the start. Only he didn't appear to realize it.

Part of the Kabuki dance of these hearings is that each witness gets to read a prepared statement. Oz's statement was full of self-serving blather, about how he got to where he was and his commitment to fighting obesity and promoting health. Particularly telling is this passage:

To make the Dr. Oz Show succeed in its mission, we have to overcome certain obstacles I learned in years of conversations with patients. We have to simplify complicated information. We have to make the material seem interesting and focus on the “wow” factor.

All of which is true, as far as it goes. This becomes more important later in the hearing, particularly the bit about the "wow" factor. More revealing is this:

In 2012, we aired a show on a little known supplement called Green Coffee Extract. This is the supplement that is so prevalent in all the ads that are being exhibited today.

In this show I used the word “miracle” when referring to how green coffee could melt fat and I explored a new study on the supplement. I was enthusiastic that it could be a tool to assist people in losing weight and I knew the audience wanted and needed this information. After the show aired an explosion of ads and marketing followed along with criticism that our characterization went to far in describing green coffee. My way of dealing with it was to construct a second show and answer the criticism of our original segment. While we covered Green Coffee in the show, we devoted about half of the hour to me explaining to viewers that they are being duped by unscrupulous people who are illegally using my name in ads. The entire discussion of Green Coffee was prefaced with a warning to the viewer in the interest of protecting them.

Most importantly, in this show I spent an enormous portion of the broadcast demonstrating the false ads and how the various retail scams work – again trying to protect the viewer. I also reexplored green coffee this time using the audience to reveal their anecdotal experience after trying the supplement for two weeks. Some had lost weight, others had not. It seemed to help some people in their weight loss efforts. The internet lit up again, the illicit ads proliferated, and we faced additional criticism.

Yes, indeed. As I've pointed out time and time again, however, whenever I saw segments with Oz discussing supplement scams, his concern seemed to be far more focused on protecting his name from being used by supplement hawkers than it was on protecting his audience, culminating in an "investigative" report in which he burst in on nefarious supplement scammers using his name to sell Garcinia gambogia weight loss products like a cut rate Geraldo Rivera opening up Al Capone's vault. It's as though he thought he were Morley Safer and Dan Rather in the glory days of 60 Minutes showing up with a camera crew to confront a ne'er do well.

In fact, it was all of that that got Sen. McCaskill started. She started out by showing a clip of Dr. Oz promoting the virtues of green coffee bean extract and then listed some quotes from Dr. Oz during his shows:

(On green coffee extract) — “You may think magic is make-believe, but this little bean has scientists saying they found the magic weight-loss for every body type.”
(On raspberry ketone) — “I’ve got the number one miracle in a bottle to burn your fat” (raspberry ketone)
(On garcinia cambogia) — “It may be the simple solution you’ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.”

In other words, typical Oz hyperbole, the likes of which we've seen dozens of times. Here's a key part of the exchange between Sen. McCaskill and Dr. Oz:

Just look at Oz's reaction to the first barrage, in which McCaskill, who was once a prosecutor, shows those old skills as a prosecutor and berates Oz, basically calling him a liar to his face:

I don’t get why you need to say this stuff because you know it’s not true. Why, when you have this amazing megaphone, and this amazing ability to communicate, why would you cheapen your show by saying things like that?

It is a thing of beauty:

Oz's response is, for once, not particularly slick, at least in the beginning. He was clearly taken off guard, and let his body language show it. After all, it's not every day someone is called a liar to his face on national TV by a Senator. And, make no mistake, that's exactly what Sen. McCaskill did: Called him a liar. (What else does it mean to accuse someone of saying things he knows to be untrue? By definition, that's lying.) Dr. Oz starts out by disagreeing that green coffee beans don't work and trying to cites multiple studies, but McCaskill had done her homework, even pointing out that the study he relied on was small and funded by the company. He then retreats into a highly disingenuous false equivalence by saying that many of the things we recommend with respect to diet are controversial and blathering about how medicine advances by embracing new ideas and challenging old ideas. It's a huge load of fetid dingo's kidneys, of course, because the controversies over these sorts of issues tend to be based in far better evidence on both sides than the evidence Oz has used to defend his green coffee bean extract show. Unwittingly, he basically admitted that the "clinical trial" he himself did with green coffee bean extract wasn't a real clinical trial and admitted that it wasn't done under "appropriate IRB guidance."

In other words, Dr. Oz just admitted that he had performed human subjects research without proper ethical approval, as I accused him of lo these many months ago! Thanks, Dr. Oz!

He also points out that he has done shows on the power of prayer and was criticized for it, arguing that he does, contrary to McCaskill's intimations, believe in the things he features on his show and says his show is all about "hope":

Oz took great issue with the Senator’s assertion that he doesn’t believe in the treatments he endorses.

“I don’t think this ought to be a referendum on the use of alternative medical therapies,” said the doctor. “I’ve been criticized for having people coming on my show to talk about the power of prayer. As a practitioner, I can’t prove that prayer helps people survive an illness.”

Countered McCaskill, “It’s hard to buy prayer… prayer’s free.”

“I do personally believe in the items that I talk about on the show,” responded Dr. Oz, who acknowledged that statements he’s made in the past have encouraged scam artists and others looking to make a quick buck on people looking for an easy way to lose weight.

And so it went. Oz tried to defend himself. He admits that he uses flowery and over-the-top language to express his enthusiasm for the products he discusses on his show and regards himself as a cheerleader for weight loss and health, although he was forced to admit that none of his recommendations besides diet and exercise have actually been proven to work. He also kept saying that those shows that McCaskill was harping on were two years old and that he "doesn't use that kind of language any more," having become a lot more conservative. (Actually, one of them was less than a year and a half old, but let's not quibble too much.) McCaskill, wily old prosecutor that she onces was, had done her homework, however. She called Dr. Oz out on his lies—and, yes, I do believe that Dr. Oz was lying—by listing examples of language just as "flowery" from a mere three weeks ago and a couple of months ago. Indeed, I went over Oz's website earlier today and I found many such examples in just the last few months, more than I could list (for example, his show about forskolin).

Oz also kept repeating that he himself doesn't sell any supplements. That is obviously true, but so what? As I've pointed out, he's had many, many people on his show who do sell supplements, worst among them Joe Mercola and Mike Adams. It's as though Oz lends his name to certain "approved" supplement sellers. Indeed, Oz went straight into one of the more nonsensical defenses I've ever seen, in which he claimed that he did his audience a disservice by not giving his audience a list of "reputable" companies that sell the products he's featured on his show. Yeah, right. He doesn't admit that the products he's been pushing don't work for weight loss, and the worst things he can find to "confess" about are using too much flowery language and not doing right by his viewers by telling them where to buy these products. Anyone wonder whether Dr. Oz will soon be coming out with a list of "Oz-approved" companies and products? I don't. He will. He even basically said as much. Never mind that there is no supplement that has been demonstrated to result in reliable long term weight loss.

McCaskill saw right through that as well:

I know you feel that you’re a victim, but sometimes conduct invites being a victim. I think that if you would be more careful, maybe you wouldn’t be victimized quite as frequently.

Or, as I put it, if you promote "miracle weight loss" supplements on your show, like Garcinia gambogia, why are you surprised that companies making Garcinia gambogia think you recommend it and want to take advantage of your recommendation for marketing purposes?

At the end of the Kabuki play, McCaskill gave Oz the required chance at redemption, saying:

We didn’t call this hearing to beat up on you but we did call this hearing to talk about a real crisis in consumer protection, and you can be part of the problem or you can be part of the police.

At this point, the Great and Powerful Dr. Oz, chastened and chastized, promised to be a good boy from now on and promised that he wanted to be part of the police. After all, there must be a repentance at the end of these proceedings, and Oz delivered. In addition to telling his audience what supplements meet his exacting standards, use less "flowery" language in the future. We'll see. If he does that, though, his show's ratings are going to tank, and I bet he knows that. It's also why I bet that Dr. Oz will clean up his act for a little while—but just a little while. Meanwhile, right on queue, Mike Adams amps up the crazy, accusing Sen. McCaskill in a gut-bustingly funny post of "unleashing an Orwellian thought crimes attack on Doctor Oz for trying to help Americans overcome obesity." I leave the deconstruction of his rant as an exercise for my readers. (Why should I have all the fun?)

In the meantime, it looks to me as though a bit of skeptical activism had an effect, although I can't prove it. I hope it did. This is the sort of thing that can make a difference.

ADDENDUM: Apparently Dr. Oz really was blindsided:

A production source close to the 54-year-old cardiologist — full name Mehmet Oz — said he was perplexed.

“We were invited down to Washington to testify at a hearing about scams and instead it became all about how much we hate your show,” the source told the Daily News.

oracknows Tue, 06/17/2014 - 18:01

Tags

complementary and alternative medicine

Entertainment/culture

Subcommittee on Consumer Protection

supplements

weight loss

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

television

Categories

Policy

Love it

At one time he did have approved products although he did not sell them. I blogged about it in 2011,

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-seal-of-approval/

The Live Better Newsletter still has:

Oz-Approved: Health, Diet and Beauty Essentials!
Dr. Oz gives his official seal of approval for the remedies, treatments and foods he's most passionate about. From alternative health care to better beauty, they've improved the Oz family's life and can do the same for you, too. Tune in today!

Get the complete Oz-approved list! at

http://www.doctoroz.com/newsletter/live-better-newsletter-november-4-20…

but it leads to

Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.

So he took it down. sort of.

It is not in the way back machine

Unexpected and wonderful. And nothing tops it off quite like an Oracian take down commentary. I've been waiting all day for that cherry on top of Dr. Oz' testimony.

You know, I'm not so sure that McCaskill didn't know exactly what she was doing from the start. This is the woman who hand-selected Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin to be her opponent in her last senate race. She seriously bought ads to promote what a hardcore conservative he is to get him through the primary, and then just sat back and let him ruin himself with his own words.

I can EASILY believe that this was a set-up from a start. Invite him, put out the glowing press release, and let his own ego walk him straight into a trap. She would know that he's enormously popular and that grilling him would guarantee her headlines for the issue she's trying to promote.

What I'm trying to say is that I kind of love Claire McCaskill.

Kudos to Senator McCaskill for keeping her foot on Dr. Oz's throat. She has a reputation of doggedly going after government programs and other initiatives that she feels strongly about. Perhaps she is a born-again crusader against fake science.

I cannot handle that Mike Adams guy.

It was a very pleasant surprise to see someone in Congress who understands that the frauds are taking advantage of the vulnerable.

The victims are not the 'Great and Powerful Ozs,' but the people who are duped into buying these supplements that are not as safe as drugs, not as effective as drugs, but are as expensive as drugs.

We do need to take the same approach to 'conventional' medicine.

There are too many treatments that are the inverse of science-based. They have biological plausibility, but have not been demonstrated to improve outcomes that matter, yet they are FDA approved.

That naturalnews article made me physically sick. Like, I couldn't read more than a few paragraphs before I felt like throwing up. And that jab at the top abot McCaskill's weight - way to stay classy, Mike. Way to stay classy.

Oh Mikey.

This is from one of his *real educated* commenters:

TOM WHITMIRE for CONGRESS • 6 hours ago

It Is issues like this that have led me to Run for Congress in MI's 5th District. The real educated people of this country need a voice in DC and I plan to be heard. That you (sic) natural news for inspiring me to RUN for CONGRESS! NUTRITION, HEALTH, EDUCATION & AGRICULTURE are my main platforms. Thank you for your support!

Wow - science based medicine! Is that really a thing?

Regarding the hearing, it was a pleasure to see Oz squirm, in payment for all of the squirming he has caused me when I see his miracle magic pills plastered on magazines in the checkout aisle.

And I can speak from some experience that the FTC is underfunded and understaffed to go after all of these guys (or even more than a very small fraction)....it really is an uphill battle, especially when morons like Dr. Oz create this atmosphere that these types of things are "okey-dokey."

Good takedown by the Senator....

Epic win.

I've never read anything from Natural News before ... is this their usual standard of reporting? Just for starters, even before I opened the article, I'm confronted with a really nasty photo of the Senator, overweight, scruffy-haired and snarling, next to a photo of Dr Oz, clean-cut, well-groomed and with a hurt expression on his face. The article starts and continues for some way with an attack on Big Pharma (what's new?) and it ends with a lengthy hagiography of the cruelly-persecuted Saint Mehmet..

Googling across the internet, I found this article on low vaccination rates in Arizona. Specifically which schools report vaccination rates that put them below the herd immunity threshold.

Considering the rash of outbreaks we've seen this year, Arizona could be the location of the next one.

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/kids-skipping-shots-in…

Kathy, that's pretty much NaturalNews's MO. Mike's arguments are transparently awful to anyone with a basic understanding of how cranks work, but alas, that doesn't include everyone.

If only the government would do this stuff, all day, every day . . .

I saw a clip of that on the NBC nighlty news last night. My wife is a pharmacist and gets lots of questions from Oz viewers who want to purchase some questionable product they saw on his show. They get mad at my wife when she tells them that based on her professional understanding, the products don't work like Oz claims. She was clapping by the time the news segment ended.

Senator McCaskill has the power to call for testimony and shame publicly, exerted to its fullest yesterday. Now if only state medical boards would exercise their power to sanction MDs who are clearly not practicing within the limitations of their licenses (well, I can dream, can't I?).

Ha!, just splendid! I saw this in the news elsewhere and figured Orac would swing into action against the Woozard of Oz.

AngryScience @ 8: Nothing like a good 'puke challenge' to get me to go read an article! And lo & behold:

The opener, a 'satire parody' [sic] where Mikey has Senator McCaskill saying 'promoting green coffee beans for weight loss is unacceeptable,' and Oz replying 'is that because you want them all for yourself?' actually got a chuckle out of me. It's at least slightly funny in the genre of partisan sniping.

Mikey's claim that 750,000 doses of Gardasil were recalled due to having 'tiny shards of glass' in them should be actionable as libel.

He says 'green coffee bean extract, [is] a supplement that really does help support sensible weight loss efforts.' Does this stuff have caffeine in it, by any chance? Any other stimulants? In which case it's an 'all natural' analogue of old-fashioned diet pills that contained amphetamines. But even Mikey knows enough to say 'support' weight loss, as in, blowing your nose also 'supports' weight loss if you have to run up and down stairs to get some bog paper for tooting your hooter.

Apparently Mikey didn't just 'appear' on Oz' show, he 'experienced the honour' of appearing there. YES, You Too can Experience the Honour, and Prove to Yourself that the Placebo Effect Really Works (excess capitalisation intended).

'He simply wants to share the Good News with his fellow Americans...' Oh hurrah!, another telly-evangelist, preaching the bloody Good News! I thought we'd all had enough of those nowadays. 'Are you saved?' 'No, I'm wasted, here have a puff of this...' Right!

'Not only is it a crime in America to sell fresh cow's milk...' No it is _not_ a crime to sell 'fresh' milk, it's a crime to sell _un-Pasteurised_ milk, because it can make you sick six ways from hell.

Lastly, anyone who writes an 'about the author' six-paragraph hagiography about himself, is clearly a narcissist of first order.

Let's see - according to Natural News, Sen. McCaskill unleashed an "Orwellian thought crimes attack" on poor Dr. Oz over his endorsement of unproven weight loss products.

This is the same Natural News that delivered a venomous attack on Oz as a "pharma shill" for belatedly endorsing vaccination:

http://www.naturalnews.com/036111_Dr_Oz_vaccines_children.html

Now I'm confused. Just what is a thought crime, anyway?

@ Anj #15-- Arizona already *is* having these outbreaks. For 2013 there were ~ 1300 cases of pertussis (http://www.evernote.com/shard/s15/sh/c4bdb8ce-0a94-4034-9f1b-8d17cc1ec4… ) with current tracking for about 800 cases this year (however, it is summer and about half of AZ goes to CA beaches rather than melt in 110 degree heat, so I expect counts to increase in AZ as some of AZ's unvaccinated bring pertussis back from vacation.

Also (as I live and practice pediatrics in AZ) worth noting is that at least the law in California requires all schools to track and publicly publish vaccination rates--so a parent in California can make sure their child isn't going to a school with only a 50% vaccination rate. For the last several years, attempts to get such a law passed in Arizona have failed in the state legislature. Here, parents are facing a crapshoot when it come to knowing whether their kid's school has herd immunity or not. I was practicing there last year when the outbreak hit (http://www.evernote.com/shard/s15/sh/c4bdb8ce-0a94-4034-9f1b-8d17cc1ec4…) and there was clustering of cases at 2 schools that clearly had below-herd-immunity level vaccination rates. What was deeply frustrating was that the parents who do vaccinate had no way of knowing that their child attended such a school until news of the outbreak was released to parents at that school--as the school district was under no compunction to disclose such information. Caring for children who are especially vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases (those who've had chemotherapy, those with organ transplants and those with immune deficiencies), I think it is criminal that parents cannot know if their vulnerable child is walking into a death trap.

@ Anj #15 - current pertussis tracking at about 800 cases for the whole year based on http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/pdf/weekly.pdf. It is odd (which is why I had to link to the 2013 end of year data from the file I had downloaded myself from AZDHS) that AZDHS has still not finalized 2013 infectious disease reporting.

I have to admit; when seeing the footage I giggled like a schoolgirl.

I thought it was a bit comical how Oz kept retreating to and arguing that he uses "flowery language" to describe his own descriptions of these supplements. To my ear (coming from a law background) it sounded as though he was referring to "puffery" - basically a term for a sales pitch so outrageous that no reasonable person would believe it to be literally true. So does Oz believe that what he is saying is puffery and that his audience should be smart enough to realize that these claims cannot possibly be fulfilled? But to do that, wouldn't he basically have to admit that he is effectively no longer a physician, but merely a salesman?

Now I’m confused. Just what is a thought crime, anyway?

Mike Adams is one of several woo-pushers whom I suspect know as much as they do about 1984 because they have been using it as an operations manual. We are allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia, and have always been allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia, notwithstanding your (obviously false, as of this week) memories that just last week we were allied with Eastasia and at war with Eurasia. Likewise, Mike has always been a friend of those who push the right kind of dietary supplements (e.g., Dr. Oz) and a enemy of those who support vaccination of kids (e.g., Dr. Oz). This week, Mike calls Dr. Oz a hero for holding his views on dietary supplements in front of a hostile Senate committee. Are you going to believe Mike, or your lying eyes?

@ Lurker:

If you enjoyed his "6 paragraph hagiography" please read his bio/ history @ healthranger.com. It's longer. And funnier.

I was raised in the belief that one shouldn't ever ' toot one's own horn', i.e. if you are indeed brilliant, excellent, well-versed, accomplished, superlative etc
let OTHERS take notice and comment.

But perhaps that tells us something about people who DO write ( or videotape) long, self-serving bios:
- they're trying to market their personae as well as products
- they may be trying to make up for their apparent lack of real credentials by inventing accolades and awards
- they may not have the skills that inform them doing so is rather gauche, obvious and un-cool
- they may be aiming at an audience who doesn't have the skills to label braggadocio as advertising, i.e. clueless

Because I hear audience feedback from another woo-meister, I am (almost) surprised that fans fall for his over-padded bio, false accomplishments and self-deifying con artistry:
they thank him for "all he does"
they ask advice about family members with serious conditions BEYOND what doctors have advised or prescribed
and they continue the exultation and praise he began.

While I support sceptics leading readers to scientific articles on research and theory, as well as more formal study, I think that there is a ground of common sense about the the world and other people to which we can appeal first.
Reading and studying take effort and time that many may lack or not want to invest at first.

BUT if we can engage them by showing them the _apparent_ we up our chances of getting through to them.

That's why I try to question :
How likely is it that ONE person can be expert in several un-realted fields ( health, economics, politics) when most professionals need to specialise in ONE part of ONE area?

Oh, that's UN-RELATED.

-btw- the look on Oz's face is precious!

Good for Senator McCaskill, whatever her initial strategy was, the end result was amazing.

As for Mikey, does he understand that making a claim that a product does something when all available says it doesn't isn't a thought crime, it's fraud? Then again, he seems to think the manufacturerers of Vioxx, Baycol, and Serzone never appeared before any government body to explain their decisions. This despite referencing Merck's hearing in an article from 2004:http://www.naturalnews.com/002534.html. So, how deep is the memory hole Mikey? Who are we at war with this week?

I noticed the reference to "science based medicine" as well. I agree that it is not proof of anything, but it sure is suspicious(ly awesome).

Yesterday I "liked" her facebook page, sent her an FB message of congratulations, put her clip on my FB page with congratulations, and tweeted both her and my (very few) followers with solid praise.

I think it is very important to vigorously praise our politicians when they do the right thing and heartily throw our support behind them while spreading the word. I can only hope that this sort of thing will snowball into the the death knell of Dr. Oz .

@ Denice

How likely is it that ONE person can be expert in several un-related fields ( health, economics, politics) when most professionals need to specialise in ONE part of ONE area?

Careful, here, polymaths do exist. Look in the linked article, "Real Life" section, for a few examples of these Renaissance men, modern examples included.
For the American reader, I will just drop the names of Benjamin Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt.

However, you are right pointing out that due to the massive amount of knowledge to acquire, excelling in more than one field today is difficult.

You would also be right pointing out that most, if not all of these multiple-fields experts were sought after by political leaders and by mainstream scientists. In other words, recognized for their value by other experts.
Something which is not happening to Mike Adams.

@ Denice #27

How likely is it that ONE person can be expert in several un-related fields ( health, economics, politics) when most professionals need to specialise in ONE part of ONE area?

However, you are right pointing out that due to the massive amount of knowledge to acquire, excelling in more than one field today is very unlikely.

Apologies for the double post.

@ Helianthus:

Of course.
HOWEVER these guys aren't even accomplished in ONE area. They need to pad the paucity: Mike and Gary have only two standard degrees between them ( a four year one in an unspeciified science at an unspecific locale and a two year business one in West Verginia, respectively).

Whilst I really shouldn't admit it, I studied across more than one area myself and have relevant degrees which don't emanate from distance learning programmes or alternative universities. I won't bore you with the details.

And it's no big deal- I'd guess that it's not at all uncommon @ RI ( you know who you are). If education is more than window dressing, it usually makes itself known.

That woo-based window dressing requires constant maintainence because the real deal isn't there. They have to keep reminding their audiences of how brilliant they are.

And degrees aren't entirely the thing either but they do give us a bit of a standard measure of *external* evaluatiion. It's taken for granted that most experts in a field have at least a graduate level education. The poseurs need to cover-up that simple fact: they don't have it; they didn't do it; they weren't accepted and they need to claim substitute qualiifications to make up for this lack.

The self-aggrandisement seen here is probably a inherent facet of personality as well as advertising copy.

AN inherent. facet.

a four year [degree] in an unspeciified science at an unspecific locale

I'm getting a whiff of the other kind of B.S. here.

Poor Dr. Oz. The video of his testimony in Congress has been picked up by every mainstream media outlet and the only one who is defending him is Mike Adams.

Senator McCaskill really stuck it to him about that Indian study for a weight loss product with 16 participants, paid for by the manufacturer. His smarmy veneer collapses as McCaskill repeatedly questions him about his extraordinary claims for these crappy supplements.

The bottom line is that Dr. Oz traded his reputation as a competent cardiac surgeon to become just another media whore snake oil salesman.

@Casual Observer--

Yeah, Sen. McCaskill is a breath of fresh air in the fetid cesspool that is Missouri politics. Our state legislature is really a piece of work: banning Sharia law, nullifying federal gun laws, attacking science. It's really depressing. Kansas is worse, but just barely. It really sucks sometimes being a blue person in a very red state.

The bottom line is that Dr. Oz traded his reputation as a competent cardiac surgeon to become just another media whore snake oil salesman.

Do we know he was a good surgeon?

Is it worth writing to Columbia's IRB to point out that he conducted an unauthorized trial? How about to the FDA, since he conducted a trial intended to support marketing for the product?

Do we know he was a good surgeon?

Yes, we do. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s he was considered one of the best.

@madder

How about to the FDA, since he conducted a trial intended to support marketing for the product?

Ah, but is it marketing or entertainment? Did he conduct it so he could sell it for that use?

I doubt that the FDA angle would work. Going to Columbia's IRB or even to OHRP might. Does the Federal Rule apply?

I would argue that it does. Columbia University receives federal funding, and Dr. Oz is faculty at Columbia University. Consequently, the Common Rule should apply. Whether Dr. Oz could weasel out of it would depend on how strict the Columbia faculty code of conduct and ethics is.

We get the impression that altho' he IS rather affluent ( see 'Dr Oz's house in Cliffside Park/ Celebrity House Gossip) he ISN'T down the road hanging out with Beyonce and JZ.

@Orac

Well, I guess I was wondering more, did he conduct the trial using Columbia's resources or as an employee of the university? If he conducted it outside of employment hours, off-campus as a private individual, then the Federal Rule wouldn't apply and the IRB would have little it could do to sanction him.

But, if he used any materials or space from Columbia's supply, I think it could probably be argued that that is enough to involve the university, so the Federal Rule would apply, and all of the IRB review regulations would come into play.

It's not entirely clear. A certain "friend" of mine quoted the Columbia University Human Research Protection policy, which states that it doesn't matter where a Columbia faculty member carries out human subjects research. The policy still applies, and the research is subject to a Columbia IRB:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-great-and-powerful-oz-versus-sc…

At the very least, Oz arguably violated Columbia human research subjects protection policies.

@Orac

Ah, your friend is correct. Even if he doesn't fall under OHRP jurisdiction, he clearly is covered under Columbia's IRB regulations. Has anyone contact Columbia's Human Research Protection Program regarding his antics?

Uh oh. Mikey will not be pleased if Orac says that about his new bestie.
It may mean an investgative report by Natural News: 'Who is Orac?'

Regarding Mikey: it's curious how he throws all his ire at Senator McCaskill's treatment of Dr. Oz while completely ignoring the other panel members, including the representatives from the FTC, Council for Responsible Nutrition, and the Natural Products Association. One wonders if Mike watched the whole thing.

Regarding the hearing: if there really any teeth in it? What's to prevent Dr. Oz from making a show of complying, and then going right back to his old ways?

lsm@49: Do you mean the other Senators, or the other witnesses? The news reports I have seen only mention McCaskill's questioning, but I also have not watched the video of the full hearing. The people you list would be witnesses before the committee.

As for your other question: The hearing by itself doesn't mean anything, but since Dr. Oz was not testifying under a grant of immunity, other federal agencies (as well as Columbia's medical school, per the comments of Orac's friend) could use it as evidence in any actions they take against him. If, of course, they choose to take action.

I love Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon. The money quote in her article today on the not-so-great Dr. Oz:

"If you search on his site for the word “miracle,” you will get 1,890 results, which is considerably more than you’ll find in the entire bible and 1980 US Olympic hockey team combined."

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/18/dr_ozs_bad_medicine/

The picture in the Salon article makes Oz look like a deer caught in headlights.

Dr. Chris, having just left public health in AZ for public health in NC I can tell you that ADHS is underfunded and chronically understaffed suffering from high turnover. I am not at all surprised they have not finalized last years data. It routinely takes them until July to get the final dataset out. Which plays merry hell with everyone else's report writing, as the final state numbers are used by all the counties. So much fun. AZ is ripe for an outbreak as are many areas in the US. There are a lot of charter schools in AZ and those tend to have much lower vaccination rates than public schools. Add in the shifting population and an international border and it's a matter of when not if.

Orac:

You should admit that you screwed up and misunderstood her intentions. I almost let her have it as well, but then went back and reread the release on her site, and my gut was telling me that it was going to go exactly the way it did, because of the careful wording of the release. You jumped the gun and practiced very poor journalism, and now you're trying to take credit for her lambasting him, saying it put pressure on her? Give me a break. I didn't see her amazing performance as something pulled out of a posterior orifice at the last minute because people assumed the worst of her. That kind of grilling seems like it has been planned for a while.

Usually you do good work, but this time, your arrogance is showing. You owe Senator McCaskill an apology and should do a full mea culpa for accusing her of having "fried" the irony meter. You leapt to an improper conclusion based on an assumption.

And I called you out for it here: http://ca.askmen.com/news/sports/dr-oz-weight-loss-scams.html

You're welcome.

James Fell

Something odd (in addition to everything else that's odd) about NaturalNews - instances of phony quotes and headlines that are labeled (rather inconspicuously) as "satire".

In addition to a fake quote in the McCaskill hearing story attributed to Dr. Oz, there's a current NN story about the Washington Redskins' denial of trademark protection, using a headline proclaiming that 20 U.S. states are being required by the federal government to change their names (only in the body of the story is the word "satire" mentioned).

Maybe we should start doing the same thing in reference to NaturalNews. For instance, NN has just posted stories* with the following headlines:

"Mike Adams' Lab Is Cited For Numerous Health And Safety Violations"
"Natural News Store Shut Down Due to Heavy Metal Contamination of All of Its Supplements"
"Vaccines Proven To Prevent Disease, Save Lives"
"Mainstream Medicine Was Right All Along About Quackery, Admits Shamefaced Mike Adams"
"Natural News Subscribers Found To Have Extremely High Rates Of Mental Illness"

*satire

@ Dangerous Bacon:

Mikey is calling out the senator's "hidden"** COIs-
it appears that she received contributions from a pharma retail company and ((shudder)) Monsanto!

Therefore she is mere;y trying to damage Oz's- the competition's- credibility.

** so hidden that they're public

@James Fell
Wow, dude, reeeeaaally needed to get that dig in, didn't you?

Oz: "I thought it was going to be a hearing about scams -- OTHER PEOPLE'S scams."

Yes, we do. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s he was considered one of the best.

I have looked for and cannot find any metric that suggests Oz is any better than any other surgeon; mortality rates, infection rates, length of stay, re-op rates are not published anywhere I can find. 30 years of infection control and quality have made me skeptical of surgical reputations;

And I called you out for it here

Well, so long as its enshrined at... "Ask Men," I guess that takes care of that.

@James Fell:

Aren't you clever? And now, don't we know it?

Actually, I do see his recommended list in the wayback machine aka archive.org. Here's a snapshot from April 2012 of it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120419051837/http://www.doctoroz.com/vide…?

@ James Fell -- You shall be our new god!

Managed to resist the temptation to call Mike Adams for being a snake oil salesman. He might be sincere, but that doesn't change anything, does it?

@TBruce

That just happened to be the vehicle which I used, a place I've had a column for over 3 years. I chose them for this piece because timing was important I knew they could get it posted immediately, and they let me write precisely what I want with zero agenda. They never change my message and I have an amazing editor.

If you bothered to Google me you'd learn that I have a syndicated column with the Chicago Tribune that runs in dozens of respected newspapers as well as another column for TIME Magazine. Not only that, but Michael Shermer endorsed my book published by Random House.

But no, all you can see is "AskMen," and you leapt to an erroneous conclusion the same way that Orac did, blasting away without actually understanding the full story. If Orac wants us to trust him, he needs to be more careful. He's not doing medical and health skepticism any favours by making the assumptions that he did, and the way to recover from such a thing is to apologize and promise to do better in the future, not be arrogant and act like it was all because of his writing that put McCaskill on this path in the first place.

We should all be holding people like Orac to an exceptionally high standard, not acting like a bunch of starstruck fan boys.

Oops. The above comment was actually primarily targeted towards @Narad. I made a mistake by commenting too quickly, and now I'm going to apologize for having done so.

See how that works?

@ James Fell: Did you actually read this post by Orac and his prior post and actually read the comments? I doubt it.

If you had read the comments, you would find that a number of people actually contacted Senator McCaskill and provided her with information directly from Respectful Insolence and from the Science Based Medicine bloggers about the products Dr. Oz has promoted on his show. Apparently, those communications had an effect on Senator McCaskill, because she definitely used the material during her opening statement and during her dialogue with Dr. Oz. Do you think her use of the phrase "Science Based Medicine" is her own neologism?

I've read some of your columns about fitness; there is nothing objectionable in them. There is also nothing of substance which could have been sent to Senator McCaskill for her to use in her opening statement or during her questioning of Dr. Oz.

You're welcome.

One notes that I also acknowledged that it's quite possible McCaskill had intended this result all along, which is why I said I don't much care whether this is the original ending planned for the Kabuki play or whether there was a rewrite in response to skeptics contacting McCaskill's office and only said that I "like to think" skeptics had something to do with it. Certainly her use of the term "science-based medicine" suggests that this is so, because that is not a term commonly used (or even known) by politicians or the general public, which is why its use grabbed my attention so.

In other words, Mr. Fell's "disappointment" in me does not particularly resonate. We have no way of knowing whether McCaskill intended this all along (and, no, I don't think her press release is sufficient "evidence" that she did). Certainly, she's unlikely ever to say one way or the other, at least not while she's still in office. (Maybe if she ever writes her memoirs...) However, given the history of politicians and science, there were lots of perfectly valid reasons to doubt McCaskill when she invited someone like Dr. Oz to testify. Sure, she deserves praise for ultimately having done the right thing, regardless of whether she intended it all along or changed course after some prodding by her constituents, but I don't see any apology necessary. If Mr. Fell is so horribly, horribly "disappointed" in me for that, well, I won't exactly lose any sleep over it.

Given the tendency of politicians to double down on their positions when encountering contradictory evidence, McCaskill is even more praiseworthy if she was influenced by the information she received.

Tincture of Oprah

You know you're on the ropes when you become the butt of nighttime talk show jokes. Letterman:

Top Ten Products Endorsed by Dr. Oz
Wednesday, June 18, 2014

10. Fat-burning mayonnaise
9. Contraceptive grout
8. Swedish Nyquil balls
7. Spray-on abs
6. Tincture of Oprah
5. Non-stick band-aids
4. Weight-loss fedora
3. Self-inflating latex glove
2. Appendix-be-gone
1. Self-locking duck gates

It will be interesting to see how he spins this meeting on his next show.

We might have to wait until next season. His season's almost over, and chances are that all of this season's remaining episodes have already been taped.

A goole search for "science based medicine" comes up with 2.3 million results. Not exactly proprietary. And "horribly, horribly" is a significant overstatement. I consider myself at most moderately disappointed. I would have thought a man who otherwise shows so much wisdom and critical thinking would be reflective enough to admit to an error. Regardless of you qualifying your statements in a follow up piece ("like to think"), it doesn't change the fact that in your first piece you nailed her to the wall by making incorrect assumptions. In my world, that at least calls for an "I'm sorry."

Are starstruck fanboys all you really want? I would think you'd welcome some critical feedback.

He has a Facebook post up about the hearing:

I was pleased that the hearing yesterday dealt with some complicated issues and had all the players present whose cooperation will be necessary to move forward in protecting the consumer. For years I felt that because I did not sell any products that I could be enthusiastic in my coverage and I believe the research surrounding the products I cover has value. I took part in the hearing because I am accountable for my role in the proliferation of these scams and I recognize that my enthusiastic language has made the problem worse at times. To not have the conversation about supplements at all, however, would be a disservice to the viewer. In addition to exercising an abundance of caution in discussing promising research and products in the future, I look forward to working with all those present yesterday in finding a way to deal with the problems of weight loss scams.

Oh, and McCaskill's release does indeed give no indication of grilling Dr. Oz. However, it also gives no indication of the opposite: kissing his ass or bringing him in for his "star power." That's your error. You assumed it was her intention without any evidence.

@ Todd W,:

Right. How will he apply that towards selecting his guests?
Mikey, Mercola, etc.

@James Fell

It's very easy to point fingers and be all high-and-mighty in retrospect. How would you have reacted if Orac assumed that it was going to be a slam-dunk for SBM and skepticism, and then it turned out to be nothing but promotion of Dr. Oz? Would you be up in arms at him the way you are now? If he didn't mention anything about it, would you have thought, "Man, someone should've spread the word about this and contacted her office?"

As a layperson, from my reading of the press release, there was no clear indication which way it would go or why Sen. McCaskill had invited Dr. Oz to testify, especially in light of his recent activities against hucksters using his name to market their products. There was just cause to be cautious and to contact Sen. McCaskill's office with more information about him.

Clean up the smug a bit. You admit to having a "gut feeling" which could very well have turned out to be wrong. You didn't base your opinion on any solid evidence, so to turn around after everything was settled and done and point fingers at those who expressed concern is, to put it mildly, a bit arrogant and uncalled for. The tone of your comments doesn't help, either, nor does your choice of venue. You just had to get it up quickly, you say? Why? So you could make sure word got out as fast as possible about how mean you thought everyone was to Sen. McCaskill? So you could gloat and crow about how awesome you are? (After all, you're a syndicated columnist who's been endorsed by Shermer...oooh, ahhh.) Are we supposed to be impressed?

I will call out Orac when he's wrong about something, because I know he will take the criticism as it's meant, constructively. His post was within reason given the evidence at hand at the time.

@Denice Walter

The comments are predominantly gushing Oz fans going on about how Big Pharma's scared, the government's corrupt, blah, blah, blah. The few who take Oz to task are quickly shouted down.

That just happened to be the vehicle which I used, a place I’ve had a column for over 3 years....

And I'm sure your regular audience will duly appreciate the import of burying the lede (such as it is) in favor of a digression involving carping about their other regularly scheduled reading, RI.

"No comments yet!"

If you bothered to Google me

*blink*

you’d learn that I have a syndicated column with the Chicago Tribune that runs in dozens of respected newspapers as well as another column for TIME Magazine. Not only that, but Michael Shermer endorsed my book published by Random House. the new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!

FTFY.

But no, all you can see is “AskMen,” and you leapt to an erroneous conclusion

No, I think my conclusion was quite sound.

the same way that Orac did, blasting away without actually understanding the full story.

If Orac wants us to trust him, he needs to be more careful.

"Us"? "Trust"? What leads you to believe that the readership here is prone to just blindly accepting what's put in front of their faces?

He’s not doing medical and health skepticism any favours by making the assumptions that he did, and the way to recover from such a thing is to apologize and promise to do better in the future

I get a really strong sense that what you really mean here is "apologize to me."

not be arrogant and act like it was all because of his writing that put McCaskill on this path in the first place.

Personally, I don't care about the reason for the outcome. I'm mildly interested in what happened. And your performance here isn't a particularly convincing demonstration of your having slipped the chains of "arrogance." After all, your own post at Ask Men is as much about you as this one is "about" Orac.

We should all be holding people like Orac to an exceptionally high standard, not acting like a bunch of starstruck fan boys.

TINW. HTH. As you have seen fit to use the "starstruck fan boys" line twice now, perhaps you could get on that "exceptionally high standard" bit and actually demonstrate that it is an accurate assesment of the fine-feathered commentariat rather than a caricature that you pulled out of your needlessly chapped ass.

starstruck fan boys

Huh. And to think that some of us are girls. Wonder what we will be referred to as.

ScienceMom @80 -- I imagine that when Orac appears at TAM, he's mobbed by a crush of adoring middle-aged women, like Tom Jones.

Or maybe not.

I have to say, this little kerfluffle over Fell is pretty entertaining. I thought our host handled it with admirable restraint.

But then again, I'm just an adoring fanboy,.

I must say, though, for such an accomplished journalist as Fell, he made a horrible error. He spelled "fanboi" wrong. Tsk tsk. Amateur mistake.

I imagine that when Orac appears at TAM, he’s mobbed by a crush of adoring middle-aged women, like Tom Jones.

And there you have your answer: it's the starstruck fanboys (or "fan boys"; must not be in the AP manual) and the panty-throwers.

Another cheap political trick from the D.C. cesspool.
Why is that woman wasting taxpayer funds putting on her silly show? There have been no complaints filed against Oz. No illnesses. No deaths. No charges. Nothing will come of this whip-up. Just showhorsemanship at its worst. I trust Oz more than I do some senator.

"There have been no complaints filed against Oz."

http://nypost.com/2014/05/12/man-wins-2-3m-after-wife-dies-following-dr…

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/man-sues-dr-oz-burned-feet…

Dear Mr. Born, there is thing called "google", all you have to do is use it before saying silly things.

I believe Senator McCaskill’s intent all along was to grill Dr. Oz, particularly since she has a track record of supporting consumer protections. However, she needed to ensure that he would show up to the hearing. What better way to accomplish this than to put out a press release that gives the appearance of him being a star witness. She played to his ego, and he took the bait. However, the press release could understandably be read to imply that the senator supports his positions with respect to diet supplements. I can see where persons would have this impression, and then react strongly to it.
I doubt the senator needed to have her mind changed wrt Oz and his outrageous viewpoints – she most likely was already aware of his antics. It is unlikely that bloggers sending her information would have changed her mind, if initially she had been sympathetic to Oz. Having lived her in Washington for over a decade, I’ve found there are only a few things that will cause a member of Congress to radically change their position on a subject in a short amount of time: they are about to lose an election, or lose a key vote in Congress, or lose the support of key constituents and/or major donors, or lose a budget battle, or they are being pressured by their party leadership to change their position.
Kudos to Senator McCaskill and her staff for pulling off this hearing. I admire their gamesmanship.

@James Fell --

I completely agree that it's unlikely that McCaskill ever intended anything other than what she did, simply because doing last-minute turn-arounds after the press release has gone out just isn't how senators roll.

But get a grip. It's Orac's job/responsibility/civic duty to say what he thinks and give his reasons for thinking it. As long as he does that in a duly diligent way and acknowledges error when wrong, he has nothing to apologize for.

Furthermore, I'm sure that McCaskill's staff (and probably McCaskill) used (and probably relied on) stuff he wrote when prepping the hearing. So I doubt she's feeling offended. It's not like she's going to lose any votes over anything he said.

Why create conflict where there is none, in short? Everyone did fine.

Even if he doesn’t fall under OHRP jurisdiction, he clearly is covered under Columbia’s IRB regulations.

That's not so clear to me. In fact, I think it's unlikely. He did it as a part of the show. That was plainly explicit. And logically, there's no reason why Columbia would automatically have authority over what its faculty members do on their own time, at their own expense, and/or when in the employ of other institutions or entities.

I don't know what the custom is, though.

@ann

I rather suspect that James Fell wanted to assert his superiority over me in this particular episode in such a way that everyone sees what an awesomely prescient dude he is. This is not the first time I've had this sort of "I'm soooo disappointed in you" and "I hold you to a much higher standard" nonsense directed at me.

As for Columbia's IRB policy, I don't see where it distinguishes.

"We were invited down to Washington to testify at a hearing about scams and instead it became all about..."

The Doctor Oz Show?

As a mere layman, I take it from that first piece of video that Oz is saying there's evidence for stuff and there's evidence against stuff and you can pick holes in any trials supporting either side and we really can't ever know anything because "prayer", and therefore "buy this stuff".

As an Aussie, am I right to assume that "prayer" (apart from being "free") would actually be a very powerful argument in the US Congress? How many congresspersons would be willing to stand up and declare prayer to be as useless as diet supplements?

Has Mikey's post been taken down? I can find it in Google but the link on his site goes to the home page.

Your pharmaceutical whore

Let's try that again. You are a pharmaceutical whore. Your disinformation scam is exposed. My guess is you also write the various positive comments. Who's the paymaster whore boy? I don't feel sorry for you...

Don't forget to delete this post.

I’ve found there are only a few things that will cause a member of Congress to radically change their position on a subject in a short amount of time

You missed out "discovering that a family member is personally affected by a previously abstract and irrelevant problem".

You missed out “discovering that a family member is personally affected by a previously abstract and irrelevant problem”.

A French lawyer likes to point out that the rules for due process are often updated after a politician found himself at the receiving end of it...

Let’s try that again.

No, no, you were making more sense the first time.

@ann 388:

He did it as a part of the show. That was plainly explicit. And logically, there’s no reason why Columbia would automatically have authority over what its faculty members do on their own time, at their own expense, and/or when in the employ of other institutions or entities.

There is a principle in employment law that if an employee's conduct in his or her own time (i.e. outside of work hours) has a detrimental affect on the employer, then the employer is entitled to take action against the employee. In the case of Columbia University, an employee conducting a trial without IRB approval could be viewed as damaging to Columbia, even if that employee didn't use Columbia facilities and did it outside of working hours.

If conduct detrimental to the reputation of one's employer in academia was a compelling reason for disciplinary action or dismissal, then it's hard to understand why the University of Kentucky hasn't revoked Boyd Haley's status as emeritus professor of chemistry.

Haley has arguably far outdone Oz when it comes to behavior that's embarrassing and ethically questionable.

@Orac, Julian Frost:

You're right, as was Todd W.

The IRB has the responsibility to oversee the conduct of research that it approves. Consistent with this responsibility, the IRB may audit research studies conducted at Columbia University or Columbia University Medical Center as well as research in which faculty and/or staff of Columbia University are engaged outside the institution.

So I'd say "clearly covered" was and is accurate.

Another cheap political trick from the D.C. cesspool.
Why is that woman wasting taxpayer funds putting on her silly show?

In order to raise awareness of the problem of deceptive advertising for fraudulent weight-loss aids, by which milliones of taxpayers are victimized?

Just a guess.

There have been no complaints filed against Oz. No illnesses. No deaths. No charges.

Yeah. I didn't notice her accusing him of breaking the law, or of killing or sickening anyone. She just wanted to know why he was calling products that he had no reason to think would work "miracles."

Nothing will come of this whip-up.

Something already has. Awareness was raised.

Just showhorsemanship at its worst. I trust Oz more than I do some senator.

Of course. Because when you have to decide which of two strangers -- both of whom are in the business of persuading you to trust them for personal gain -- to trust, it's always a good idea to pick the one who's totally unaccountable.

Good thinking.

@keith

Ah, the old pharma shill gambit, a sure sign that you have no original thoughts and have no coherent arguement.

Also, Orac rarely delete comments. In your case, it's a good thing, since it exposes you as an idiot and provides the regulars here with some laughs at your stupidity.

Fifty quatloos say it's the OT III Keith Jaeger.

(NaturalNews) The pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together on U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill's bizarre attack aimed at Doctor Oz. In a scathing Senate hearing exchange, Sen. McCaskill all but accused Doctor Oz of peddling quack weight loss products -- even though Oz actually runs a very meticulous, science-based operation where dietary supplements are heavily researched before being recommended to the public.

Now Natural News has learned that Sen. McCaskill received over $146,000 in campaign contributions from one of the largest pharmaceutical retailers in North America. According to campaign contribution data published at OpenSecrets.org, prescription drug mega-retailer Express Scripts gave McCaskill over $109,000 in campaign contributions, most of which was routed through lobbyist groups or PACs. (1)

Sen. McCaskill also accepted over $37,000 from Monsanto, widely regarded to be the most evil corporation in the world and an enemy of sustainable food production, heirloom seeds and traditional American farming methods.

Strangely, McCaskill also received over $32,000 from Google, Inc., and another $29,000 from Comcast.

In contrast, Doctor Oz receives no money whatsoever from recommending natural dietary supplements on his show. In fact, he goes out of his way to halt dietary supplement companies from using his name to promote such products.

Oz is the one operating in integrity here, while McCaskill is hiding her financial conflicts of interest. (Is anyone surprised?)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045619_Senator_McCaskill_campaign_contributi…

@jan - lol....too funny. You're an idiot.

I love how "McCaskill is hiding her financial conflicts" despite the fact that anyone with the internet and a working brain could've found that info in 5 minutes.

What does Oz earn per year from his carefully crafted persona delivered via television?

What does Oz earn per year from his carefully crafted persona delivered via television

A cool $4 mil a year, according to this:
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/dr-oz-net-worth/

What does Mike Adamd earn per year from Natural News and his various other compnaies/

Pardonnez les typos, svp.

@jan

Yawn, another pharma shill gambit, a sure sign that you have no actual argument.

You do know how politics works right? Also, I don't see you worked up in a tizzy over mikey's undeclared COIs and money he makes form selling products on his website.

@ann:

Yeah. I didn’t notice her accusing him of breaking the law, or of killing or sickening anyone. She just wanted to know why he was calling products that he had no reason to think would work “miracles.”

I think what he means is something along the lines of "there's much bigger fish to fry than Dr. Oz". Or, in other words, "why are you spending time on this problem when you should instead be spending time on these other problems".

What does Oz earn per year from his carefully crafted persona delivered via television

A cool $4 mil a year, according to this:
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/dr-oz-net-worth/

@#105

That would also be what he earns from recommending natural dietary supplements on his show, btw.

The money doesn't always have to travel directly from point A to point B with no intermediary stops for there to be a profit motive.

Strangely, McCaskill also received over $32,000 from Google, Inc., and another $29,000 from Comcast.

Does anyone know what that "strangely" is doing there?

She's on the Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee. It doesn't seem strange to me that Google and Comcast are among her donors.

It would be interesting to see what senators got what from which pharma companies. All supplement studies are small, due to lack of funding. It doesn't make them less valid if the effect is large. If you need 60000 patients to show a 1% difference (like statins), does that make it useful? Where are the pharma guys in front of the Senate justifying the harm they cause to consumers? Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will! Where's the protection against that? It's all about education and Dr Oz does a valuable service and if it encourages people to take their health seriously and educate themselves, then in spite of everything, it is worthwhile.

Gee Dr. Jeff, have you got any studies from peer-reviewed journals to back up your statements about statins?

Do you think the one study that Dr. Oz touts for a weight loss supplement, with 16 subjects, which was financed by the supplement manufacturer, is a valid study?

It would be interesting to see what senators got what from which pharma companies. All supplement studies are small, due to lack of funding.

Because Big pHARMa doesn't sell supplements. Oh, wait.

Well, at least Big Suppla isn't spreading around campaign donations, right? Whoops.

Heh. Orrin Hatch got $45,780 when he wasn't even in an election.

"Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will!"

One of these things is not like the others.

It would be interesting to see what senators got what from which pharma companies.

There's nothing easier:

www.opensecrets.org

Have at it.

But it's not a one-lobby-group show. As the informative article at Narad's link entitled "Dietary Supplement Industry Bombards Congress with Cash, Gets Its Way" says:

Lobbying spending by the industry has increased 86% since the 109th Congress. Further, the political action committees (PACs) linked to the supplement industry have increased donations to federal candidates. In addition to Sen. Hatch and Rep. Amash, CREW found major recipients of supplement industry cash during the 2010 election cycle included Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), all of whom either sit on committees considering legislation affecting the industry or have an industry presence in their home states. The supplement industry is the third-largest industry in Utah, with revenues estimated at up to $4 billion a year.

Pharma does it too, as do many other industries. It's not hidden. You can go see exactly what they're all doing.

Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will!

I agree that alcohol and tobacco kill plenty, and misuse of prescription drugs kill almost as many.

Citation, please, that proper use of approved drugs kill more than those that use supplements only for the treatment and management of disease.

If you fail to provide this, you will be considered a total vegetarian.

Where are the pharma guys in front of the Senate justifying the harm they cause to consumers?

Could you narrow that down a little? I don't know which pharma guys who've gotten hauled in to be yelled at by subcommittees you might be curious about.

It does happen from time to time, though.

Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will! Where’s the protection against that?

Maybe try the federal agencies that have words like "drugs," "alcohol," and/or "tobacco" in their names.

It would be interesting to see what senators got what from which pharma companies.

The kids tell me that there's this thing called Google, if you are sincerely interested.

Maybe try the federal agencies that have words like “drugs,” “alcohol,” and/or “tobacco” in their names.

Like BATFE? Who's bringing the chips?

Dr Jeff,

If you need 60000 patients to show a 1% difference (like statins), does that make it useful?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are referring to the "number needed to treat" to prevent a specific outcome? With statins you need to treat 50 or fewer patients for 5 years to prevent one heart attack, stroke or death:

For the end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, or death, the 5-year NNT within JUPITER was 20 (95% CI, 14 to 34). All subgroups had 5-year NNT values for this end point below 50; as examples, 5-year NNT values were 17 for men and 31 for women, 21 for whites and 19 for nonwhites, 18 for those with body mass index <or=25 kg/m(2) and 21 for those with body mass index greater than 25 kg/m(2), 9 and 26 for those with and without a family history of coronary disease, 19 and 22 for those with and without metabolic syndrome, and 14 and 37 for those with estimated Framingham risks greater or less than 10%.

Are you seriously suggesting these are not useful drugs?

Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/29/us-antioxidants-idUSBREA0S1QV…

Are you seriously suggesting these are not useful drugs?

Of course. How much would you like to wager "Dr. Jeff" is a chiroquackter with no prescriptive authority?

Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will!

No doubt lots of things kill more people than any supplement ever will, including but not limited to starvation, war, and motor vehicle accidents,

But that doesn't mean that the people who are killed or injured by supplements that nobody has shown to be helpful to a single person other than the one who profits by selling them are any less dead or injured.

For example (and it is just one; there's no system for tracking/tabulating the total):

The Food and Drug Administration can’t protect you. It didn’t protect Sonette Marras, a 48-year-old mother of seven who died in Hawaii last month. It didn’t protect Michael Lee Sparling, a 22-year-old Army private who died at Fort Bliss two years ago. Nor can it protect the more than 2,000 Americans a year who will die or suffer illness after taking over-the-counter dietary supplements.

Don’t expect the FDA to protect you now. The laws it enforces protect the $30 billion-a-year industry that makes and sells the supplements, not the 53 percent of Americans who take them.

Not quite medicines, not quite food, dietary supplements fall into a regulatory black hole. A big black hole. And one of the most glaring examples of what can go wrong occurred in Dallas, where a company continued to manufacture dietary supplements with an illegal ingredient, DMAA, one year after this laboratory-made stimulant was deemed unsafe.

The story begins in 1994, when Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced a federal law, the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act, that opened the door for supplements to be sold without safety testing.

This means that the pills, powders and potions on sale across the nation are deemed safe — until someone gets sick. “We don’t approve these products for safety or efficacy prior to going to market,” says Dr. Daniel Fabricant, director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA. “They’re not like drugs. The way the law is, firms don’t have to register their products, so dietary supplements come on to the market freely.”

It’s a huge market. In 2009, 55,000 supplements were on sale in the U.S., according to the Government Accountability Office. That’s up from 4,000 in 1994, a nearly 1,300 percent increase.

When a supplement is suspected to have caused deaths or illnesses, it’s up to the FDA to prove that the supplement is unsafe. “The burden is on us,” says Fabricant. “Proving that something caused harm directly is very challenging.”

Jacob Geissler has taken full advantage of that challenge with his Dallas sports supplement company. The 37-year-old founded USPLabs in 2006 after graduating with a degree in nutrition from Texas A&M in the mid-1990s.

In between graduating and starting USPLabs, Geissler was indicted in Bexar County in 2003 for possessing thousands of pills containing anabolic steroids. He was ordered to serve 10 years of community supervision; he served five of them before his petition for early termination was granted in 2009.

By then, USPLabs was well-established. Today, the company is best known for its popular Jack3d and OxyElite Pro supplements. Both are advertised as simultaneous fat-burners and muscle-builders that will take your workout to the next level. Until July, just four months ago, both contained DMAA, which has been illegal in the U.S. since April 2012. USPLabs declined multiple requests for an interview with Geissler or another company representative. However, company officials have defended their actions elsewhere, maintaining that DMAA is safe. A statement sent to marketers stated that the company was phasing out products containing DMAA “for business reasons.”

Originally developed as a nasal decongestant by Eli Lilly in the 1940s, DMAA was removed from the market in 1983 at the company’s request. Scientific studies of its effects had demonstrated increases in heart rate and blood pressure, alongside nervousness and tremors. But DMAA enjoyed a comeback after 2006. Touted as a natural derivative of geranium, it became an active ingredient of performance-enhancing and weight-loss supplements.

After six deaths and more than 100 reports of sickness were linked to DMAA, it was banned by the FDA in April 2012.

But the U.S. Defense Department didn’t wait for an FDA ruling. Military officials had banned DMAA four months earlier after the deaths of three Fort Bliss soldiers, all young and previously healthy. Sparling, the Army private, was one of those soldiers. The 22-year-old Californian collapsed after a 10-minute run with his unit. He had taken the recommended dose of Jack3d before training.

When a fourth soldier died after taking DMAA, the Defense Department convened a safety review panel and conducted a case control study of nearly 2,000 active-duty military personnel. Among the panel’s findings: 15.4 percent were taking DMAA; 40 soldiers had reported illness to a military doctor after taking the supplement, and two soldiers suffered liver failure. No other cause could be found to explain their illnesses.

There were warning signs in other countries even earlier than the military ban. New Zealand suspended the sale of DMAA in 2008 after it was associated with strokes in four people. DMAA was also banned in Canada, the UK and at least six other countries.

In April 2012, four months after the Defense Department’s ban, the FDA sent a warning letter to 11 DMAA manufacturers, including USPLabs, stating that DMAA must be removed from all products. Ten companies complied. USPLabs did not. OxyElite Pro and Jack3d continued to be manufactured with DMAA and put on store shelves.

Even then, it was the Texas Department of State Health Services, not the FDA, that stepped in first. “We embargoed the product at the USPLabs warehouse in Dallas in May [2013] and handed it over to FDA in June,” spokesperson Chris van Deusen said. “Under state law, we can act a little more quickly than the FDA.” USPLabs had been illegally making OxyElite Pro and Jack3d with DMAA for 13 months.

In July, after legal action by the FDA, USPLabs voluntarily destroyed $8.5 million worth of OxyElite Pro and Jack3d at its Dallas facility. But bottles that were already on store shelves stayed there. “We didn’t recall product,” says the FDA’s Fabricant. “But at the same time, in terms of our authority, it was a significant step to get it out of the hands of the distributor and have it voluntarily destroyed.”

The largest retailer of dietary supplements, GNC, continued to sell OxyElite Pro and Jack3d until the FDA obtained seizure orders for warehouses in South Carolina and Pennsylvania in June. GNC declined requests for an interview. But in an email to The New York Times, a GNC spokesperson said, “It is hard to view this action as anything other than a biased agency action against GNC in retaliation for GNC’s stance on DMAA.”

But not even the GNC seizures marked the end of OxyElite Pro and Jack3d.

USPLabs, like many dietary supplement manufacturers, presented a moving target. It reformulated OxyElite Pro, under the same name, without DMAA. This time, it added a new ingredient: aegeline. An extract of the Bael tree, which grows in Southeast Asia, aegeline is deemed unsafe by the FDA.

This new formulation of OxyElite Pro is linked to a fatal outbreak of liver disease that began in Hawaii and has spread to the mainland. More than 60 people have been sickened, including two who needed liver transplants. Sonette Marras, a mother of seven from Hawaii, developed liver failure and died last month. She had been taking the new formula of OxyElite Pro to lose weight she’d gained during pregnancy.

(more at link: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20131129-the-risky-…)

Is there something wrong with making people aware that under the present system supplements pose an unknown, potentially fatal risk from which nobody is protecting them?

If so, please tell me what it is.

Johnny,

Citation, please, that proper use of approved drugs kill more than those that use supplements only for the treatment and management of disease.

Not meaning to undermine your point, but I have little doubt that the proper use of approved drugs does kill many, many people. However, since those drugs either save far more lives than they end (anticoagulants for example), or transform lives by reducing pain and inflammation (NSAIDs) or allow (and often hasten) a relatively painless end of life (opiates), I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

These drugs would be even better without the fatal side effects, of course, but they are far better than anything alternative medicine has to offer. How, I wonder, would a chiropractor treat a clotting disorder? Severe arthritis? Heart attack? Terminal illness? I often wonder if these people rail against conventional medicine because they rarely see any patients that are actually seriously ill.

Dr Jeff - Senator McCaskill expressed her concerns about Dr. Oz saying things that were exaggerated, misleading, or in some other way unsupported by fact. These detract from his credibility and lead people purchase products that, while not necessarily actively harmful (such as, say, ephedra), do not actually provide the benefits claimed.

So that's OK?

To add to what Ann wrote, as I have mentioned here before there is evidence that calcium supplements (taken alone as I recall) increase cardiovascular risk far more than Vioxx does. It's curious that those who make a noise about Vioxx, which is indisputably a highly effective anti-inflammatory, are silent about calcium supplements which aren't much good for anything:

In sum, there is little substantive evidence of benefit to bone health from the use of calcium supplements. Against this needs to be balanced the likelihood that calcium supplement use increases cardiovascular events, kidney stones, gastrointestinal symptoms, and admissions to hospital with acute gastrointestinal problems. Thus, the balance of risk and benefit seems to be consistently negative.

The news about antioxidant supplements continues its march from 'disappointing' to 'worrying'. Now it seems antioxidants may accelerate tumor growth, specifically by turning off p53 defenses:

For the new study, the Gothenburg scientists gave vitamin E and a generic drug called N-acetylcysteine, both antioxidants, to mice with early lung cancer. The vitamin E doses were comparable to those in supplements; the doses of acetylcysteine, which is prescribed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to reduce mucus, were relatively low.

The antioxidants caused a 2.8-fold increase in lung tumors, made the tumors more invasive and aggressive, and caused the mice to die twice as quickly - all compared to mice not given antioxidants.

When the antioxidants were added to human lung tumor cells in lab dishes, they also accelerated cancer growth.

These mice clearly needed some attention from Dr. Bengston.

NAC of course is also one of the glutathione supplements popular in the biomed swamp.

A Senator grilling a T.V. host over supplements? Odd at best. Look a little deeper and find out that Senator McCaskill has received plenty of $$$ from big pharma and Monsanto. They have a lot at stake in wanting Americans to use medication to tackle obesity. I'm sorry to see so many Americans being taken in by politicians. Look to the money, as usual, people.

Bingo: "Look to the money, as usual, people."

That's the point. Check out how much cash Senators Hatch and Harkin pulled from supplement lobbyists! Here is an idea, just read about their "protect supplement companies" law on this website: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/dshea/

I should add that you need to see the post on this blog about John Oliver's piece on his HBO program, and then read this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/utahs-senator-orrin-hatch-defender-…

Look a little deeper and find out that Senator McCaskill has received plenty of $$$ from big pharma and Monsanto.

Wow, it's almost as though you didn't bother to read the comments. Try starting here, Bingo (clap).

WOW! It is very interesting that McCaskill received in excess of $720,000 form the established medical industry for her 2014 campaign. And that the "medical" industry has received in direct payments from big pharma over 2.5 billion dollars from 2009-2012 alone. Do you think that maybe the natural supplement industry is starting to make a dent in big pharma and "traditional" (prescription writers) medicine?

The fact that Senator mcCaskill received campaign contributions from the 'established medical industry' doesn't invalidate a single one of the panel's criticisms of Dr. Oz's promotion of supplements.

It doesn't change the fact that he now admits he's recomended interventions, other than diet and exercise, he does not know to be effective and alos has made statements he now knows not to be true for the explicit purpose of engaging and building/retaining his viewing audience.

So what exactly is interesting about the campaign contributions to Senator McCaskill?

Bingo, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the supplements Dr. Oz recommended on his show--green coffee extract, etc.,--are effective at promoting weight loss? Dr. Oz admitted to the panel that he didn't have any.

And in the absence of evidence that the supplements are safe and effective, it isn't the politicians we need to worry are taking people in: it's the supplement manufacturers and those promoting their use (like Dr. Oz).

@Michael Weeks

Do you think that maybe the natural supplement industry is starting to make a dent in big pharma and “traditional” (prescription writers) medicine?

If by that you mean are they providing treatments that are shown to be at least as safe and as effective as prescription drugs to treat medical conditions, then no. If you're asking if they're significantly cutting into pharmaceutical company revenues, then the answer appears to be no.

Thanks for asking!

Especially since a lot of them *are* Big Pharma and the providers of conventional medicine. There's a hell of a lot of money in snake oil, especially snake oil that doesn't do anything at all and offered as a supplement to conventional treatment.

Who wants a squeaky snake, after all? Or a rusty one - I think its likely a good idea to use WD-40 or some equivalent on a closet snake after use to avoid rust.

I was going to say something about trouser snakes but I successfully resisted the temptation.

WOW! It is very interesting that McCaskill received in excess of $720,000 form the established medical industry for her 2014 campaign. And that the “medical” industry has received in direct payments from big pharma over 2.5 billion dollars from 2009-2012 alone.

She could have received seven hundred and twenty million from the established medical industry. There still wouldn't be one whit of proof that those diet aids are anything besides a means to part fools from their money.

M'OB :Who wants a squeaky snake, after all?

Well, me. Ours has been on the lam for months, and I hope she's still alive.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to say.

Moreover, calling upon someone publicly to explain what he or she said publicly is an exemplary exercise of the right.

Funny that they call that rag Reason,

I know it's only a pingback and Baylen won't see this, but "defending" Dr. Oz? Really? Way to miss the point about how "free speech" doesn't mean "free from criticism." *SIGH*

That essay's really annoying. It's not just that he's defending Oz. It's that he's promulgating and ignorant, inaccurate and incoherent view of the first amendment:

Oz has absolutely zero responsibility to hold mainstream views and every right to make money off of those views. His popularity has absolutely no impact on his right to say whatever the hell he wants to say. And being hauled before Congress for saying what he wants places a tremendous burden on his, your, and my First Amendment rights. While Sen. McCaskill's actions are nowhere near those of Sen. Joseph McCarthy decades earlier, the chilling effect that Congress can have on speech can't be understated and shouldn't be forgotten.

^^That's nonsense.His right to his beliefs is absolute. But neither he nor anyone else has an unlimited right to say and/or do whatever he or she wants. For (just one very relevant) example, false statements of fact that can lead to the tortious harm of individuals are not necessarily protected.

The comparison to McCarthyism is a false equivalency, therefore.

The comparison to McCarthyism is a false equivalency, therefore.

Well, that and the part where Oz was invited.

And confusing HUAC with McCarthy.

Almost forgot.

MOB

Who wants a squeaky snake, after all? Or a rusty one – I think its likely a good idea to use WD-40 or some equivalent on a closet snake after use to avoid rust.

There is actually a product call Snake Oil that is intended specifically for treating sewer snakes to prevent rust after they have been cleaned.

Pesky thing, that Constitution. Everybody cites it, nobody ever reads it.

Kind of like the Bible.

There is actually a product call Snake Oil that is intended specifically for treating sewer snakes to prevent rust after they have been cleaned.

It was too good an idea not to already exist, I guess. Clearly that idea won't fund my retirement.

Who wants a squeaky snake, after all?

well..how about a Sneaky Snake?

I felt the way Dr. Oz was ask to come to Washington was very underhanded. This was one of our representatives doing this? Dr. Oz would have come even if he know the true subject.
I felt that Senator Claire McCaskill was grandstanding. Was this a way to wins votes!? I am a democrat, and this alone would make me change my party affiliation. I was actually embarrassed on how this how thing was managed.
Dr. Oz at the end of each show asks for help in policing the use of his name to sell their products. I think that is the only attachment he has to those companies - they steal his name and use it until they are caught. i also feel bad for the people that are not smart enough to see that fraud.
I agree with most of the points that have been written about in this blog. I hope everyone has seen the show. . .
Anyway, my problem is how low the Senator went to do what?
Has everyone read what Dr. Oz is involved with/in?

Surprised: Dr. Oz would have come even if he know the true subject.

Haha, you are either the most naive person on the 'net, or Dr. Oz himself.

I am a democrat, and this alone would make me change my party affiliation.

Good, go join the 'other science deniers, and don't forget to go to some unspoiled natural place and litter for the glory of God.

Dr. Oz at the end of each show asks for help in policing the use of his name to sell their products.

And this casts his hyping such products to start with in a better light how?

Actually, I'd rather like it to be because she's from Missouri, which is the "Show Me State". It's a very scientific and skeptical slogan. I'm willing to be convinced, but you have to "show me" the evidence. I won't just take your word for it.

Dr Oz, on the other hand, is quite willing to give his word that these things are good for you. He has a lot of trouble, however, when it comes time to show me (or anyone else such as Dr Novella) the evidence for his claims.

Because his word is his brand, but not his bond or he'd be more careful with his statements, he devotes a lot of effort to protecting that brand, including his statement at the end of the show.

"Surprised" appears to simply be offering up a poorly assembled casserole involving Mr. Augie, Sr., Baylen Linnekin.

Thanks for the link, Narad.

They do seem to be drinking from the same well.

I am a democrat, and this alone would make me change my party affiliation.

A great loss, I'm sure.

Thanks to Dr Oz we now have a Forskolin Guru. (https://www.facebook.com/ForskolinGuru)

What next ?

How did the Democratic Senate Talkathon on Climate Change go?

gregladen — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:01:27 +0000

How did the Democratic Senate Talkathon on Climate Change go?

Daphne Wysham and Daniel Weiss interviewed on Real News about the event of two nights ago.

gregladen Wed, 03/12/2014 - 07:01

Tags

Al Gore nailed this years ago - some people are never going to take action because they are too vested in making money through fossil fuels, and in getting paid off by the industry. Our economy is currently run by the most corrupt human beings in the history of mankind.

U.S. SENATE BACKS CREATION OF NATIONAL SCIENCE WEEK AND SUPPORTS USA SCIENCE & ENGINEERING FESTIVAL

carlyo — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:47:08 +0000

U.S. SENATE BACKS CREATION OF NATIONAL SCIENCE WEEK AND SUPPORTS USA SCIENCE & ENGINEERING FESTIVAL

Efforts Will Bring Together Children, Families, Teachers, Businesses and World Leaders in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

The USA Science & Engineering Festival (www.USAScienceFestival.org), supported by presenting host sponsor Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT], is pleased to announce the passage by the U.S. Senate of Senate Resolution 329, which “Express(es) support for the goals and ideals of the biennial USA Science & Engineering Festival in Washington, D.C. and designati(es) the last week of April 2014 as ‘‘National Science Week.” The resolution was introduced by Sen. Chris Coons (DE), who was joined by a bipartisan group in co-sponsoring his efforts, including Sen. Kirk (IL), Sen. Rockefeller (WV), Sen. Alexander (TN), Sen. Baucus (MT), Sen. Crapo (ID) and Sen. Durbin (IL).

The USA Science & Engineering Festival was co-founded by serial entrepreneur Larry Bock and Lockheed Martin Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Dr. Ray O. Johnson. The Festival will take place April 25-27, 2014 at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. The free, nonprofit Festival will serve to highlight our Nation’s commitment to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is the largest STEM event in the world, with over 350,000 attendees expected. The Festival is filled with hands-on exhibits, experiments, concerts and talks from leading technology entrepreneurs, Nobel Prize winning scientists, Hollywood celebrities, Fortune 500 CEOs and many others.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. led the world in high school graduates; now we are a mere 20th. And of the students who do graduate, only 30% are ready for college level science and 45% for the rigors of collegiate mathematics. The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 52nd in the quality of mathematics and science education. This drop is having a noticeable effect, as over half of all U.S. patents are now awarded to non-U.S. companies. Numerous reports, including the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine’s “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” report, sound a clarion’s call that we are a “nation at risk.” Today, for the first time in history, America’s younger generation is less well educated than its parents. The creation of a National Science Week —to be celebrated at the USA Science & Engineering Festival— is one big step in the right direction of recognizing that STEM is once again a national priority.

“If our nation is to remain a leader in scientific research, innovation, and the development of new technologies, the next generation of American workers must be better educated and more skilled – especially in science, technology, engineering, and math,” said Senator Chris Coons. He added, “A quality STEM education is the best gift we can give our children to ensure they are prepared for the jobs that will power our 21st century economy. The USA Science & Engineering Festival is a strong promoter of American STEM leadership and I am proud to join my colleagues in recognizing its important contribution to our nation.”

“A Nation gets what it celebrates, and if we celebrate reality TV stars and athletes instead of great scientists, technology entrepreneurs, engineers and mathematicians, future generations of Americans will suffer for it,” said Larry Bock. He added, “We thank the U.S. Senate for their support and efforts in creating National Science Week and strengthening the STEM educational foundation of our nation, which is vital to our future economy and the health, safety and well- being of America’s families.”

“Fewer than 50 percent of high school graduates are prepared for college-level math and science classes,” noted Senator Mark Kirk. Adding, “We can and must do better. Investing in STEM education will help prepare our kids to compete in a global marketplace and keep Illinois at the forefront of high-quality research. The USA Science & Engineering Festival particularly is important to Illinois because of our two national laboratories – Fermi and Argonne – that lead the world in innovation and technology development. I'm honored to help highlight this important event.”

“Innovation, technology, and engineering continue to be essential to America’s economic development, and they will only become more important to our global competitiveness in the years ahead,” said Dr. Johnson. He added, “It is imperative that the academic, business, and government leaders of our nation work together to celebrate the STEM fields. Initiatives like National Science Week and the USA Science & Engineering Festival serve to awaken a passion for curiosity in our young people and influence conditions that will accelerate U.S. productivity, strengthen our economy and ensure the prosperity of our citizens.”

The U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a similar Resolution, H. Res 276, Co- Sponsored by Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (MA). Members of Congress, the Obama Administration and numerous federal agencies will be among those participating in this groundbreaking and vital event in our Nation’s Capital and supporting National Science Week.

carlyo Wed, 01/08/2014 - 12:47

Tags

USA Science & Engineering Festival

National Science Week

Surprising to see no comments on this, as it's really good news and the community should be standing up & cheering about it.

My Father use to deliver newspapers Geo. Washington Carver daily newspapers to his home in Tuskegee, Alabama. My Father, at that time, was a boarding student at Tuskegee & then went to Tuskegee Institute, now Tuskegee Universiy.
Looking forward to volunteering at the USEF this April.

Are the wackos wacko enough?

stoat — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:58:57 +0000

Are the wackos wacko enough?

A while ago I reported Watching the Deniers say that "There will be no US Congressional investigation into "Climategate": or how global warming sceptics got duped" and commented that Even the wackos aren't really wacko enough to take on the science. But! Maybe I'm wrong. Science says:

The House of Representatives science committee's panel on basic research and education plans to hold hearings on climate change to present more views on the topic, says its new chair, freshman Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL).

Mel Brooks is very clearly a wacko, because he is dumb enough to try and take on The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus, and it is fairly clear from the Science piece that he has spent too long talking to S+C in Huntsville.

Anyway, we can hope that Popcorn Time isn't too far away.

Incidentally, while we're on wackos there is some Ryan O'Donnell fun that I'm late to. It seems a bit reminiscent of Porky Pearce whereby you lie about people, get lots of attention, then back off later. Though whether RO has backed off much isn't clear.

You probably want to start off by reading O'Donnellgate at RC.

Note that post starts by noting that Ryan has offered to retract these allegations but as far as I'm aware has not actually done so at time-of-writing.

This was in response to a post called "Eric Steig's Duplicity" (Feb 7, 2011 - 11:53 AM) at CA (subsequently edited to Steig's Trick, note that they also carefully edited the basename too). As far as I can tell, the new post title is rather clumsy, because there is no "trick" mentioned: presumably whilst they realised the first title had gone too far they couldn't back away from insults entirely.

There has had to be heavy redaction of the text, too. For example currently we have:

While there is not much untrue about this statement, there is certainly a [material] [snip] omission. To see this [material omission], we only need look at the raw data from Byrd over this period:

but the original was far spicier:

While there is not much untrue about this statement, there is certainly a lie of omission. To see this lie, we only need look at the raw data from Byrd over this period:

And indeed, RO continued There are not enough vulgar words in the English language to properly articulate my disgust at his blatant dishonesty and duplicity. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

There is an interesting bit towards the end:

I have known that Eric was, indeed, Reviewer A since early December. I knew this because I asked him. When I asked, I promised that I would keep the information in confidence... However, when someone makes a suggestion during review that we take and then later attempts to use that very same suggestion to disparage our paper, my obligation to keep my mouth shut ends.

Which appears to amount to, RO will keep something he promised to keep confidential, only for so long as is convenient to him. I doubt anyone will be trusting him with confidential information in the future. and this is all the more mendacious as it is clear from Eric's post at RC that RO has nothing to complain about here.

More: DC raises an interesting point in the comments at RC: RO claims to have put all the papers relevant to submission at http://www.climateaudit.info/data/odonnell/ for all to see (not troubling himself that he has thereby breached confidentiality, but never mind, remember: he has absolved himself of all responsibility to keep his promises).

But... where is the 4th review round? Could it be, perhaps, that there isn't one? This is the index as of now:

Index of /data/odonnell

      Name                                               Last modified      Size  Description
      Parent Directory                                                        -   
      .ftpquota                                          07-Feb-2011 02:10   13   
      1 20100209 Submission.pdf                          07-Feb-2011 13:25  746K  
      1 20100325 SI Revised.pdf                          07-Feb-2011 13:25  2.3M  
      1 20100412 decision.pdf                            08-Feb-2011 12:05   13K  
      1A 20100305 Review A.pdf                           07-Feb-2011 13:28  209K  
      1A 20100426 Response to Review A.pdf               07-Feb-2011 13:28  877K  
      1B 20100407 Review B.pdf                           07-Feb-2011 13:28   24K  
      1B 20100426 Response to Review B.pdf               07-Feb-2011 13:28   54K  
      1C 20100407 Review C.pdf                           07-Feb-2011 13:28   31K  
      1C 20100426 Response to Review C.pdf               07-Feb-2011 13:28   78K  
      2 20100419 Submission.pdf                          07-Feb-2011 13:25  1.1M  
      2 20100422 SI Revised.pdf                          07-Feb-2011 13:25  2.3M  
      2 20100425 Submission.pdf                          07-Feb-2011 13:25  1.1M  
      2 20100426 Cover Letter.pdf                        07-Feb-2011 13:28   62K  
      2 20100429 Submission.pdf                          07-Feb-2011 13:25  1.1M  
      2 20100522 correspondence re first review.pdf      08-Feb-2011 12:13   23K  
      2 20100610 Submission Rev.pdf                      07-Feb-2011 13:25  1.4M  
      2 20100722 decision.pdf                            08-Feb-2011 12:15   18K  
      2 20100826 General Note to All Reviewers.pdf       07-Feb-2011 13:28   82K  
      2A 20100721 Second Review A.pdf                    07-Feb-2011 13:28  167K  
      2A 20100816 Response to Second Review A.pdf        07-Feb-2011 13:28  117K  
      2B 20100705 Second Review B.pdf                    07-Feb-2011 13:28  132K  
      2B 20100816 Response to Second Review B.pdf        07-Feb-2011 13:28   93K  
      2D 20100710 Review D.pdf                           07-Feb-2011 13:28   29K  
      2D 20100816 Response to Review D.pdf               07-Feb-2011 13:28   99K  
      3 20100810 Submission.pdf                          08-Feb-2011 11:54  1.4M  
      3 20100812 SI.pdf                                  08-Feb-2011 11:59  1.1M  
      3 20101101 correspondence.pdf                      08-Feb-2011 12:19   14K  
      3 20101124 decision.pdf                            08-Feb-2011 12:21   30K  
      3A 20101025 Review A.pdf                           07-Feb-2011 13:28   93K  
      3A 20101103 Response to Third Review A.pdf         07-Feb-2011 13:28  117K  
      4 20101126 Submission.pdf                          07-Feb-2011 13:25  1.5M  
      4 20101208 SI Revised.pdf                          11-Dec-2010 22:23  1.1M  
      RO10 Code.txt                                      11-Dec-2010 22:21  212K  
      RO10 Script.R                                      08-Feb-2011 14:46  201K  
      Tir_lats.txt                                       07-Dec-2010 14:38   91K  
      Tir_lons.txt                                       07-Dec-2010 14:38   91K  
      aws.Rdata                                          03-Jan-2011 09:18   20K  
      aws.txt                                            03-Jan-2011 10:44  142K  
      e_w.recon.txt                                      03-Jan-2011 10:46   57M  
      manned.Rdata                                       03-Jan-2011 09:19   35K  
      manned.txt                                         03-Jan-2011 10:44  118K  
      readme.txt                                         03-Jan-2011 09:30  2.5K  
      rls.recon.txt                                      03-Jan-2011 10:52   57M  
Apache mod_fcgid/2.3.5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at www.climateaudit.info Port 80

I put in a comment at CA, thus:

Well, this is all jolly fun.

I have a question: you say: Rather than go into detail here, I will shortly make all of the versions of our paper, the reviews, and the responses available at http://www.climateaudit.info/data/odonnell. But I don't see the reviews from round 4 there. Could you point them out, please? While you're at it, could you clearly indicate how you obtained permission to publish this confidential material.

And Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy on Harrison Schmitt "Moon walker, climate change denier" is worth a read too. Its about Articgate [sic].

[Update: PP reports that "Schmitt withdraws from NM Energy appointment".]

Refs

* What Steve and Ryan Knew and When They Knew It
* O'Donnellgate at Deltoid.
* Bart

stoat Wed, 02/09/2011 - 10:58

Tags

Following my exploration, billions of people on our planet receive the mortgage loans from different banks. Hence, there's a good chance to find a car loan in all countries.

If anyone's at a loss for entertainment, there's a lovely new piece by Peter Watts (he of "... science drags us kicking and screaming ...")

The new piece, about the recent paper suggesting that pornography primes precognition, touches on its authors' earlier work, different kinds of statistical analysis, reanalysis by skeptics, how we deal with extraordinary claims, and a pointer to another blog where the paper's author and critics are engaged in a "three way slap-fight."

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1793

Good context for how science really is done.

Don't be so sure that the House UnAmerican ActivitiesScience Committee hearings will be all that amusing. It's theater, and there is a very well-developed body of prior art on House political theater.

Witnesses are damned if they do and damned if they don't: refusal to play along can get you a stretch in Club Fed, not going along with the script likewise, and going along with the script essentially makes you a witness accusing other scientists of felonies. That may not play in any later prosecution, but it's wonderful for headlines and providing a fig leaf for another ACORN exercise, possibly rescinding prior funding (just to name one possible punitive measure.)

Mel Brooks is not a whacko. He is a genius. On the other hand, Mo Brooks may be a whacko.

It seems majority of the people are catching up to the global warming wackos and exposing their global warming scam and putting out the truth.

Just remember, no wacko can hide the truth forever.

Why are you assuming there was a fourth round? What confidentiality agreement would have been broken? I certainly never signed or agreed to anything like that although the journal warned me that publishing the reviewers comments could prevent publication (certainly their right).

[Because there was a 4th version of the paper, substantially different from the earlier ones. It would be unusual in that case for it to go through without review, sufficiently so for it to have been remarked. This is obvious - are you paying attention?

As for the confidentiality of peer review - this is implicit, certainly. I don't know whether it is also explicit -W]

"... the editor at Journal of Climate â Dr. Anthony Broccoli â added a fourth reviewer ...."
-- "Guest post by lead author Ryan OâDonnel." [sic]
at Wattsup 2010/12/01/

Why are you assuming there was a fourth round? What confidentiality agreement would have been broken? I certainly never signed or agreed to anything like that...

He said "confidentiality", not a "confedentiality agreement".

I certainly never signed or agreed to anything like that although the journal warned me that publishing the reviewers comments could prevent publication

In other words, if you break confidentiality, you might get punished - not legally, but rather by not having your paper published.

While we are at it. I really don't see how Steig can get away with criticizing a method that he "insisted on" without at least revealing that he did that.

[You've fallen for the spin. Who says Steig "Insisted on" a method? -W]

WMC,

You asked me about political leanings of Gavin et al. This post says it all.

Sorry, but if Eric had simply acknowledged he was making the review comments on a paper critical of his, none of this would have happened.

[Response: And if the U.S. had admitted it had a flawed middle east policy, 911 wouldn't have happened?--GW Bush.]

[I think what you've just quoted shows rather more clearly your own leanings. I hope you don't really believe that tiny snippet "says it all". and please - when quoting stuff like that, include a link so I can see context. Without context, it is simply meaningless. I don't even understand it: who has signed the reply "G W Bush" - are you saying, Gavin did? If so, why do you think that? -W]

I really don't see how Steig can get away with criticizing a method that he "insisted on" without at least revealing that he did that.

Uh, it was RyanO et al that put the iridge analysis forward as being better. Steig says ... if they think it's better, insist on them putting it into the paper.

Meanwhile, he warns against reported problems with the methodology, and suggests they investigate it, making clear he thinks they're qualified to do so.

They chose not to follow up and investigate possible problems (probably because they were put some time previously in a general way by noted Climate Fraudist Michael Mann, who we all know as Piltdown Mann, therefore not worth paying attention to).

Paper comes out, they didn't follow Steig's suggestion they investigate possible problems with the apparently "best" methodology, Steig was removed as reviewer, and did not review the final version, it is accepted.

And now you say Steig can't criticize them for not chasing down whether or not the iridge analysis actually *might have* the problems he warned against?

Feh.

And NN isn't a closet denialist? Feh^2.

And further more, NN, given the convoluted history here, you're buying into the RyanO et al claim that this was just a *trick* to get them to publish a flawed paper so he could point out it's flawed?

That's only credible if you accept the notion that their goal was only to get published, not to publish something credible ...

Yet, through all this ... Steig repeatedly has in the past and still now pointed out that RyanO et al has contributed to how to do such reconstructions, and continues to take the high ground, while the denialsphere - and you, who William insists is not part of that - insists he was evil in all this.

[As far as I can tell, NN is coming to this through a RO mindset, of believing what RO has said. That isn't a supportable worldview, and hopefully NN will realise that before he digs himself in too far to back out -W]

Sorry, but if Eric had simply acknowledged he was making the review comments on a paper critical of his, none of this would have happened.

He didn't need to do so in the review process, that's why he was chosen to review the paper.

Or are you suggesting he should've done so on Fox News or somesuch?

Clarify, please.

Now, if you're playing the morality game, how do you justify RyanO breaking the anonymous peer review process by e-mailing Eric and asking him if he were the reviewer, and after Eric, in good faith, said yes - with RyanO promising he'd keep it confidential (as is proper, and Eric, when asked, could've very properly said "fuck you" and notified the editor that RyanO was trying to find out who the anon reviewers were) - then publicly identified Eric as the reviewer (with all sorts of attacks by him and McI and The Scrubs who are so desperate to become promoted to The Team)?

And publishing the full review-response chain?

Are you morally challenged, or what?

There is a paper dated Feb 9 on that list now, comparing 3 amd 4:

http://www.climateaudit.info/data/odonnell/Rev%203%20and%204%20compared…

dhogaza,

I simply said that if he was going to criticize this approach he needed to acknowledge that he had insisted on it. He could have gone on to say whatever he wanted about it. You lose all credibility if you don't see the issue here. I would be totally annoyed if someone reviewing my paper had insisted I change something and then picked at it without acknowledging their role

[We're going round in circles. How do you know that "he had insisted on it"? Who has said that, and why are you believing them rather than ES? -W]

I am not at all saying that he wanted the paper published so he could criticize it and I actually haven't seen anyone else claim that either.

Finally once again you can't seem to see that this has nothing to do with the big picture. If I criticize someone in the "church" then I am criticizing the church? Have we really sunk to that level.

Hank,

A fourth reviewer isn't the same as a fourth review.

A fourth reviewer isn't the same as a fourth review.

Now that's a reach ...

So a fourth reviewer's asked to review and simply doesn't answer e-mail, etc, and no one knows?

I'd think an editor in this situation might probe a bit, ya know...

A fourth reviewer isn't the same as a fourth review.

That is an energy-efficient way to gather reviews and reviewers, better than telecommuting, really, much less the Volt ...

Eric Steig has announced, on RC, that his efforts to cooperate with these people, or to talk about the crap, has come to an end.

So, the "gatekeeping" denialists claim exists is now reinforced by their trying to discredit a scientist who tried to work with them, only to be stabbed in the back by them.

Clarify, please.

Some clarity can be had by realizing that NN is quote-challenged. By which I mean he is actually quoting this comment at RC, but you can't tell because there are no visual indicators. I think he was only commenting on Eric's response (in square brackets) and how that makes him a librul.

NN should also note that Eric comes out as a Canadian and that may cloud the issue a little; Canadians don't understand just how polarized politics are meant to be, nor do they comprehend just how far to the right a conservative must be to avoid being a Stalin-blowing commie.

I have to agree with D. C. Sessions that you may be a bit too optimistic. Politicians play by their own rules, and may very well win on those terms, even it is wacko from the veiwpoint of a scientist.

The dots begin to appear. It is pretty clear that Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id were planning to publish the reviews and accuse Eric Steig as soon as they learned that he was a reviewer. That they wound up O'Donnell, is as they say, well that's what they do for a living.

Nicolas, you say "I am not at all saying that he wanted the paper published so he could criticize it and I actually haven't seen anyone else claim that either."

Well, that's what O'Donnell said, almost literally. According to O'Donnell Eric Steig proposed the iridge method, so that failing to include it would give him a reason to reject the paper, or so that he could criticise using it when the paper would get published.

We now know several of these claims were false, starting with Steig supposedly proposing the method. He didn't. He indicated that this method should be in the manuscript if the authors were right that it gave better results (apparently it was only in the SI), that he also suspected it would give better results, but would the authors please take into account the potential issues and write some sentences about that? O'Donnell et al dismissed there were any issues with iridge, and thus, on RC, Eric Steig criticised the use of iridge, since he felt the paper did not take into account the potential issues with this routine.

End result? A scientific controversy ("iridge does have potential issues" versus "iridge is just fine, no need to discuss further") was turned into a catfight by O'Donnell et al. That puts to the grave the idea "the Auditors" are such nice people who are being unjustly treated by "the Team".

> A fourth reviewer isn't the same as a fourth review.

You need to argue that fine point with O'Donnell, if you think he's weasel-wording by saying 'review' not 'reviewer' -- do you?

> A fourth reviewer isn't the same as a fourth review.

You need to argue that fine point with O'Donnell.
Do you think it's weasel-wording to say'review' not 'reviewer'?
You can find the words I quoted from WTF. Google.

Aside to William -- typo above as someone noted.
"Mo" http://www.google.com/images?q="Mo+Brooks"
"Mel" http://www.google.com/images?q="Mel+Brooks"

PS, Mo Brooks has a campaign web page that opens directly to the setup page. Don't mess with it, there's probably a law.

[It wasn't a typo. As I understand it, MB is a comedian, no? I've added a pic to clarify things -W]

WMC,

Here is the quote from the second review by "A."
"My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the âmostly likelyâ West
Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3." It seems clear from context that these were in fact the ridge results.

In comments RC/Eric have effectively acknowledged that this was a reference to the ridge results. They carefully avoid the fact that the words "insisted" and "in place" were used.

[NN, you have (as I said) fallen for the RO spin. Insisting on the 'most likely' results being used is very different from what RO said, which is that Steig forced him to use this particular method. Please don't blow your credibility on this -W]

It is not at all clear that there was an actual fourth review. Frequently papers are completed with back and forth with the editor. By that time Steig had essentially been removed as a reviewer (again by his admission) so he doesn't actually know.

[There may have indeed been no fourth review. But to not have a review of a draft differing substantially from the previous one would be very odd -W]

Admittedly late at night when I made the "says it all comment", but it is in green in the comment stream on RC as a response so obviously done by one of the RC folks. Since it is unsigned, and unlikely to have actually been George Bush, I'm guessing likely Gavin. An irrelevant shot at George Bush about the Iraq war seems much more likely than not to come from a Democrat. Republicans tend to take shots at other Presidents for other reasons, but I think the whole reference was poorly chosen.

[You're welcome to think it poorly chosen; had you just said that, I wouldn't have cared much. But to assert that a comment made by you-don't-know-who entirely summarises Gavin's political views is poor form -W]

I suppose I am seeing this from the RO perspective as someone who recently published a paper as an outsider. I think it was unseemly for Steig to write the blog post trashing the paper in the way that he did. As he acknowledges many of his criticisms were the same ones he made during review, and he was removed from that role before the end presumably because the other reviewers and the editor weren't agreeing with him. He therefore needed to acknowledge that not everyone would agree with his views, and in fact didn't. Instead his post made it sound like these were simple obvious mistakes with the paper. And he certainly shouldn't gone after an area where he pushed to authors towards.

[I don't think you're reading Eric's post. It is here for peoples reference. I don't think you can read it, because you're still seeing this all from RO-tinted glasses. To say that Eric has "trashed" RO's paper is ridiculous. He raises objections to it, but politely. To say, as you appear to, that because he reviewed it he is no longer allowed to comment on it is silly. And "pushed" just repeats RO's lies as your own -W]

If Steig wanted to write this post, he should have acknowledged being a reviewer on the paper. (By the way I think having Steig as a reviewer was a good idea and should always be done in this type of situation.) Stated his objections to the paper acknowledging that he wasn't in the majority, and then said where he would likely go from here.

[I think you are entirely wrong -W]

NN @8

While we are at it. I really don't see how Steig can get away with criticizing a method that he "insisted on" without at least revealing that he did that.

If you have ever been involved in reviewing a paper, you will know that no reviewer is in a position to insist on anything. Presumably you put the "insisted on" in quotes so that you could mislead about Steig without actually being accused of lying (my understanding is that he recommended the editor to insist upon certain changes).

NN @25

If Steig wanted to write this post, he should have acknowledged being a reviewer on the paper.

It is supposed to be a confidential review. If he revealed that he was a reviewer, he would run the risk of being black-listed by the journal.

Richard,

Specifically Steig asked the editor to "insist" on this approach. Seems like a subtle difference to focus on.

I sincerely doubt that with everyone's permission Steig couldn't have acknowledged being one of the reviewers. The purpose of confidentiality is to protect Steig from the one being reviewed, and he had already revealed that information. The publication has little interest in it on their own.

WMC,

RO didn't say he was forced, I didn't say he was forced. He said that Steig "recommended it" and then burned them when they followed the recommendation. I emphasized the word "insist", because it was certainly more than a casual suggestion in the review.

Steig knew that asking the editor to insist on the "most likely" meant using Ridge, or is your argument that he was just making a general statement and didn't know this meant using the Ridge approach? It seems clear to me from the record. If you agree that he knew that, then is just arguing over semantics. I'm not questioning his motivation for insisting on the Ridge approach at the time he probably thought it was a good idea. But it certainly isn't nice to then criticize it without acknowledging it was done based on his feedback. The implication was that the authors had made a poor choice.

"Second, in their main reconstruction, OâDonnell et al. choose to use a routine from Tapio Schneiderâs âRegEMâ code known as âiridgeâ (individual ridge regression). This implementation of RegEM has the advantage of having a built-in cross validation function, which is supposed to provide a datapoint-by-datapoint optimization of the truncation parameters used in the least-squares calibrations. Yet at least two independent groups who have tested the performance of RegEM with iridge have found that it is prone to the underestimation of trends, given sparse and noisy data (e.g. Mann et al, 2007a, Mann et al., 2007b, Smerdon and Kaplan, 2007) and this is precisely why more recent work has favored the use of TTLS, rather than iridge, as the regularization method in RegEM in such situations. It is not surprising that OâDonnell et al (2010), by using iridge, do indeed appear to have dramatically underestimated long-term trendsâthe Byrd comparison leaves no other possible conclusion."

They had in fact originally chosen TTLS and changed as a result of, it turns out, Steig's review comment.

As to politeness, I hardly think this qualifies.

"Iâll then try to make sense of how OâDonnell et al. have apparently wound up with an erroneous result." This statement effectively trashes the whole paper in a sentence.

[This is just going round in circles, which is dull -W]

William Nierenberg, are you reading the same blogs that everybody else is reading? Is English your first language?

[You have the wrong Nierenberg. NN is the son of WN -W]

My bad. Should have been "Nicholas Nierenberg". Apologies.

I feel like I'm starting to tease out a bit of a history of what happened and why, but it's damn difficult. It would be far nicer if someone who actually understands all the gibberish were to do it.

Round 1:

Reviewer A criticizes something I don't understand (kgnd) and the authors reply by talking about another thingy called ridge regression which yields results closer to what they have ended up thinking is most accurate. Even though they had planned on only using the better results in the future, they're now including them in the text.

See: "1A 20100426 Response to Review A.pdf" (Problem 4)

Round 2:

Reviewer A suggests that the editor "insist" that the results the authors consider better be put in place of the ones they think are not.

If that is the case, why not show it? I recognize that these results are relatively new â since
they evidently result from suggestions made in my previous review â but this is not a compelling reason to leave this âfuture work'

See: "2A 20100721 Second Review A.pdf"

Round 3:

Reviewer A claims the "iridge" stuff is likely better than the previous stuff, but warns them to at least talk about the issues other people have found with it.

See: "3A 20101025 Review A.pdf" - In particular, two of the last three paragraphs.

---

So why do we get the impression that the use of iridge was all Eric's idea? He started off just by saying that he didn't think something was correct. When the authors came back with what they described as a better thing, he wondered why they weren't using it. Later on, I'm guessing after he had looked into the process more, he points out caveats with the iridge stuff.

A lot is hidden in the back and forth, but in terms of iridge, the impression I get is that Eric's recommendations are:

1. Use your best work and
2. Justify your decision

They only did the first part. Meanwhile, Eric looked into it further (and also had to wait to get the final edition of the paper) and now is saying that it's a good way to process some data, but probably not the data they used.

At least, that's the impression that I get.

[Looks about right to me -W]

pough @30. I've been reading around the blogs and this seems the best "praisee" yet.

How does the Nielsen-Gammon email of early December tie into this though?

"[You have the wrong Nierenberg. NN is the son of WN -W]"

Thanks, Wm. And I added an 'h' to Nicolas, so apologies for that, too.

Pough, thanks.

Hmmm ... I raised the same issue about the missing fourth round reviews at RC.

Reviewer A (Steig) was gone on the fourth round. And therefore Steig had never seen the fourth (final) version, and probably not the responses to the third review (which turns out to be the case). But of course, Ryan O couldn't figure that out and accused Steig of lifting his correction of a reference to Mann et al (2007).

Not showing the other reviewers (B, C, D?) on the fourth round seems an attempt to distract from those facts. Unless there were no fourth round reviews sent, which no one thinks is likely.

Still no answer to your question at CA as far as I can tell.

But I did find this in the "you-can't-make-this-stuff-up" bin, so all is not wasted:

================================
Bad Hominim
Posted Feb 9, 2011 at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

Kudos to SM to see that the blog policy violations have been correctedâ¦ and so speedily! (2 days to spot them is not bad at all, especially when hidden in the title.)

Liebawitz
Posted Feb 10, 2011 at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

Bad Hominim, your sarcasm would be better directed at the stream of incivility and hypocrisy at Real Climate.

============================

grypoS put it all together on another blog and after reading it I came to the same basic conclusion as pough.

They ignored ES and now they want to blame him for the fact they ignored him. Weird. Beyond weird. I see this as what it boils down to:

ES, we failed to follow your excellent advice you tricky duplicitous bad scientist!

In a confidential system, no reviewer should reveal his identity as it chips away at the basic right of all reviewers to be confidential. "Reviewers commonly reveal themselves; therefore, we demand you do the same. If you don;t, then it's proof something nefarious has happened."

[On that last point: if you go into a system (as reviewer) expecting anonymity, then everyone else has a duty to maintain that. that includes your identity, but of course also the review comments themselves. However, there is a good deal to be said for open peer review, and James has been (a) saying it and (b) pushing some of the EGU journals which do that. Also, when I left science it was commonplace for journals to ask you if you wanted your identity revealed to the authors, and I (almost?) always said Yes. On the familiar reasoning that there shouldn't really be anything you said that you wouldn't say to their face anyway. Of course, I never had to deal with wazzocks like RO (i had to deal with wazzocks, but differently so) -W]

Oops I see *I* was the one who raised it first, and WC picked up on it!

But I gotta hand it to you for going over and asking the question.

[Yes it was you, I shamelessly stole the idea. I was hoping this was the sort of thing you might dig deeper into -W]

Additional info from round 2:

I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text. Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the âiridgeâ infilling should be used instead.

So it's clear that Steig isn't recommending *which* method be used, but only that the method the authors themselves believe to be best should be used. RyanO et al have stated (complained?) that this required a rather large rewrite, but from what Steig says above I think it's clear he's trying to get them to improve their paper by presenting the results they feel are most robust.

Now, that paragraph clear keeps the door open to RyanO et al to say "well, actually, it appears our first thoughts were correct and we'll stick to kgnd".

Round 3:

Pough:

Reviewer A claims the "iridge" stuff is likely better than the previous stuff

The actual statement isn't quite that strong, and makes it clear he's basing his assessment on what the authors have been saying, not any analysis of his own:

The use of the âiridgeâ procedure makes sense to me, and I suspect it really does give the best results

Pough:

but warns them to at least talk about the issues other people have found with it.

Yes, somewhat strongly, actually.

But also Steig is looking for something that he thinks would be useful on general grounds:

The main thing is that the âiridgeâ procedure is a bit of a black box, and yet this is now what is emphasized in the manuscript. Thatâs too bad because it is probably less useful as a âteachingâ manuscript than earlier versions. I would love to see OâDonnell et al. discuss in a bit more details (perhaps just a few sentences) how the iridget caclculations actually work, since this is not very well described in the original work of Schneider.

In other words, he'd love to have the authors tell the world how this method actually works, because Schneider didn't do a very good job of it.

However,

This is just a suggestion to the authors, and I do not feel strongly that they should be held to it.

What I see here is someone trying to push the authors to make their paper as strong as they can, in part by strongly suggesting some things be done he thinks are very important (i.e. use their best results rather than save them for follow-on work), and saying it would be cool if they could tell the world how this particular iridge methodology works but also making it clear it has no bearing on whether or not the paper should be accepted, in his view.

Now the duplicitous bit ... reading the full exchange it seems that RyanO et al were talking about following up their first paper with another using the iridge analysis.

So in terms of them being "set up", Steig would've very likely taken a close look at the follow-on paper if it had been accepted and published, and on close examination have found the same problems, no???

One subtext here seems to be that O'D really wanted to write a refutation paper attacking S09 and point out its flaws, and then do their own reconstruction using their preferred methods later.

Two different agendas at play here: Scoring points vs getting the science as right as possible.

Where have I seen that movie before?

Deep 33, after a paper has been through the mill the editor will sometimes just show the whole bundle to a buddy and say, this is enough, should we publish now. There may have only been a single referee for the fourth round. It avoids the oh crap do I have to look at this thing again from ABC

#31 (Chris S.) My preyzie of the relevance of my email:

1. Having Steig as a reviewer was not wrong.

2. Posting the anonymous reviews publicly was not wrong.

3. Publicly announcing the identity of an anonymous reviewer was wrong, and the hosts of the two sites where this happened had been so advised.

[I'm surprised to see you assert 2. Would you really find that acceptable in general? I think most scientists would regard reviews as confidential: you can show them to your immeadiate colleagues at need, but not post them on the web -W]

One subtext here seems to be that O'D really wanted to write a refutation paper attacking S09 and point out its flaw

Well, they were expecting to refute Steig's finding that western antarctica is warming (slightly).

I'm sure the fact that their results didn't dispute that basic finding annnoyed the hell out of them.

Two different agendas at play here: Scoring points vs getting the science as right as possible.

Where have I seen that movie before?

In all the blogscience that led to their first write-up (which, Steig said in his review, read as though it was cobbled together from a bunch of blog posts, which is where it did come from).

Eli is with John N-G on 1-3, but thinks it would fair game for Steig to now publish versions 1-3 of the paper, or maybe OD and Steve will do it for us.

O'Donnell has already put versions 1-3 online, if anyone can be bothered wading through them. He's also said that the version accepted was virtually identical to version 3, after the authors declined to make any changes in response to Steig's 3rd review, so not sure where the concept of a significantly different 4th version came from.

thanks

[I'm surprised to see you assert 2. Would you really find that acceptable in general? I think most scientists would regard reviews as confidential: you can show them to your immediate colleagues at need, but not post them on the web -W]

If the reviews are anonymous and anonymity is preserved, there's no harm to the anonymous reviewers. If an author wishes to announce to the world, "somebody thought my paper needed to be improved in this and this way and here's how I responded, while another one thought it was ****", that's their prerogative. The only people whose name might be sullied by publicization of the anonymous reviews are the authors themselves, so only they have the right to do this; reviewers and editors must keep reviews confidential.

Old reviews serve as good educational material for budding scholars who need to learn how to write a review and how careful they need to be in their manuscripts to discuss everything fairly, openly, and accurately.

The publishers of the AMS journals agree with me on this, but I can't speak for all journals. Some may have a policy that reviews and responses must be kept private by everyone; I haven't looked elsewhere. Meanwhile, I'm submitting a review later this afternoon (anonymously) to the open-access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics which will immediately appear online for the world to see.

Meanwhile, this is why items 2 and 3 of my preyzie are inextricably linked. Announcing the identity of the anonymous reviewer was wrong in and of itself. The seriousness of the offense deepens to the extent that the author also reveals some of the content of the review. Revealing the identity of the reviewer while simultaneously publishing the complete content of the reviews makes this particular ethical violation as bad as possible.

Andrew, where did you find a claim of a 'significantly different' 4th version? The "fourth reviewer" was identified by "lead author Ryan OâDonnel." [sic] at Wattsup 2010/12/01/

#45
Let's not confuse fourth round with fourth reviewer. Reviewer D makes an appearance in round 2, according to the archive WC provides. I think Steig himself said the 4th version was different - not sure though. Apparently it's not that different, but maybe there are certain small but significant changes. Also the SI may have changed. The amount of change is not really the issue I was raising though.

#38
I agree - probably a light review. The point here is O'Donnell knew that Steig was not a reviewer of round 4. So O'Donnell knew that Steig didn't see the last version and likely didn't see the round 3 review reply either. (In fact, Steig didn't).

Yet O'Donnell criticized Steig (yes, he's this petty) for getting a reference wrong in the 3rd review and then correcting it in the RC piece based on O'Donnell's reply without acknowledgment. Which Steig had never seen.

What else did O'Donnell misunderstand? (And no I'm not interested in going through with a fine tooth comb - I think those who have done that have got it right above e.g. #36 dhogaza).

It is irrelevant (as part of O'Donnellgate) how much the fourth version differed from the third. Eric publicly asked O'Donnell to send him a copy of the paper, and some deniers (at the Blackboard?) argued that Eric was dishonestly implying that he was not a reviewer by asking for a copy. But he did not have a copy of the fourth and final version when he asked for it.

The idea of the fourth version of the O'Donnell et al paper being significantly different comes from Eric Steig's real climate post "O'Donnellgate".

"However, I did not the review draft four, which was the published one, and which is markedly different from draft 3."

and to which Steig also added later:
"Mysteriously, this table is now absent in the final paper (which I was not given a chance to review)."

This is about a table in the Supplemental Information, not sure how different that is from version 3. Not interested anymore, either.

I am unfamiliar with this.

Is it possible for a 4th rendition of a paper, significantly different than the 3rd rendition, to be accepted for publication without a 4th review? Do editors commonly make the last "review" on their own?

Steig indicated he would be stunned if that is what happened.

[It seems odd to me (but it would appear that Eli disagrees). It might happen if the editor got sick of the whole process but I have no experience of that. More likely, there was a 4th review that isn't being revealed -W]

They reviewed it internally most likely. Happens all the time.

@ 44 John-N-G
I hope to hell that you first got permission from your reviewers before you gave that response ("2. Posting the anonymous reviews publicly was not wrong.") because you are very, very much wrong about that if you didn't:

Firstly, the reviewers own the copyright to their comments, (unless it is otherwise explicitly stated that they revoke it or pass that copyright to the journal upon submission) and you have just encouraged someone to unwittingly violate those copyrights leaving them open to legal action should any of the reviewers be incensed enough to take it.

Secondly, a major part of the anonymity process in peer review is that the only people who know about any one review is the authors, that particular reviewer and the editor of the article. Even the other reviewers should not see other's reports if their explicit permission for that to happen has not already been given.

I'm sorry to say it but letting someone's anonymous review be publicly published without getting their permission first - if that is what happened - would be as gross a violation of anonymous peer review protocol as O'Donnell and McIntyre have perpetrated here by exposing a reviewer's name without their or your permission.

If that is indeed what has happened here, I strongly recommend you apologise to all your reviewers post-haste, apologise to O'Donnell and McIntyre for giving them incorrect information, and that you draw up some strong guidelines for your Editorial team that explains what is and is not permissible when it comes to reproduction of a reviewer's comments in a public forum. (Likewise, my apologies to you if you did in fact receive permission from your reviewers first, but that isn't clear from any of the public information I've seen so far, and it seems highly unlikely from Eric Steig's writings and comments on it so far).

For context, I am a former editor of a leading biochem journal so I believe I know what I am talking about.

The diffs between the 3rd and 4th editions are available here:

http://www.climateaudit.info/data/odonnell/Rev%203%20and%204%20compared…

I wouldn't call them significantly different, nor see any reason to speculate on a secret 4th review. YMMV. AFAICT, the editor just asked them to change some wording slightly, they fixed a typo, and tidied up the formatting of the equations.

Bored now.

I wouldn't call them significantly different, nor see any reason to speculate on a secret 4th review.

It's not speculation, that came from their camp.

"It's not speculation, that came from their camp."

Oh dear oh dear. I was alluding to our host's speculation that "More likely, there was a 4th review that isn't being revealed". If The Evil Ones have posted a link claiming that there was a secret 4th review, please do share.

Your reference to "their camp" is deeply depressing. It sounds as if, in your opinion, this is all on the level of Arsenal versus Spurs - "Spurs are magic, whereas Arsenal are boring and defensive." Mind you, that's true about Arsenal and Spurs.

Jonathan (#52): You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I was the editor in charge of the submission. I was not. I was a casual observer who thought that the question of whether posting anonymous reviews was okay or not deserved an authoritative answer. So I sought one out and provided it.

[Ah, I too was a bit confused by your role. You mean: http://blogs.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/02/on_revealing_the_identity_o… ? But it isn't clear from that what authority you are quoting -W]

John N-G: and it is now abundantly clear from comments by both Jeff Condon and Steve McIntyre that they don't care at all about your opinion (or of AMS leadership for that matter). There is, apparently, no written rule that says so, so your mail was just expressing an opinion that could be ignored. And I don't think I'm interpreting what they have said in a negative way, I really can't see any other way of interpreting what they write.

@56, John N-G

My mistake and my apologies to you for the assumption made but, for the reasons I stated, you (and the AMS leadership) were still in error to suggest to the authors that it is perfectly fine to publish anonymous reviews. I recommend that you have a further discussion with AMS leadership to clarify the position that should be taken in the future should such an issue come up again.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/revkin-steig-o%e2%80…

"I didnât care either way if someone anonymously considered something ethical or not because their opinion is not mine."

Wacko? Solipsistic*
____________________
"solipsism - A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind. www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

#44, John N-G ",em>Revealing the identity of the reviewer while simultaneously publishing the complete content of the reviews makes this particular ethical violation as bad as possible."

John, the reviewer freely revealed himself to the author.

[I don't think you have been paying attention. The reviewer did not "freely" reveal himself. He revealed himself under condition that the information not be passed on, a condition RO clearly breached, and then tried to find some weaselly excuses for doing so." -W]

Professional confidentiality is required by journal policy but belongs only to the reviewer. One that is given away, the reviewer has surrendered all ownership. Professional ethics were irretrievably breached by that admission alone.

[You're suggesting that reviewers are not allowed to identify themselves? That is nonsense -W]

[Snip repetition of nonsense -W]

Pat Frank, IMHO you are wrong on all accounts. Reviewer confidentiality ALSO applies to the authors, even if the reviewer makes himself known to the author. That's the general understanding of the ethical rule on reviewer confidentiality in the natural sciences.

Moreover, reviewers have the right(!) to make themselves public to the author, so another one of your claims goes out of the window.

Then there's the claim that reviewers have the power to require methodological changes AND that Steig abused those powers. The first issue is nonsense. Reviewers do NOT have the power to require methodological changes. Only the Editor has that power. Reviewers can only *suggest* methodological changes, upon which the authors can argue their way out of making such changes. It is clear that this is what ultimately happened. The issue of whether Steig abused his 'powers' will forever be a matter of "which side are you on?". Steig believes the authors did not respond to one of his criticisms, one he repeated in two of his reviews, and one he considers a major issue.

But let me guess, you have hardly published any papers in the peer reviewed literature, right?

#60, "Freely" means 'not coerced,' Bill. It doesn't mean 'unconditionally.' Eric violated the ethical grounds of his contract of privacy when he abused them.

[You don't know me, and I don't know you. So please don't presume to use a contraction of my name.

Freely means many things. In this instance, it is clear that Steig revealed the information conditionally: the condition was, that it not be passed on. RO broke that condition, which was shameful, but you don't care. Your assertion that Steig revealing his identity broke any rules is just weird. If you have a basis for it (other than your own assertions) please share it -W]

The rest of my snipped post was not repetitious. For those interested, William's editorial acumen can be judged by reference to the original content.

[If you have stuff you want to say that I've deleted, this is the way I approve of including it, via link elsewhere -W]

Marco, I'm supposing you've responded to William's truncation of my post, rather than to the original content, in which the full reasoning was laid out.

Reviewers have the power to require methodological changes on the consequence of withholding their approval. Editors have the power to ignore the reasoned views of the reviewers they, themselves, have recruited. An editor who ignores his reviewers' disapproval effectively repudiates his earlier self and his own expert judgment in choice of reviewers.

[No, this is false. Peer review is more complex than you naively suppose. An editor may have many reasons for disagreeing with a reviewer, most of which do not amount to repudiation -W]

So, either reviewers have the power of requiring changes, transferred to them by the editor on their choice, or editors have the power to disparage their own choices and violate their editorial ethics.

[No idea what you think you are saying there. The truth is "The reality is that editors, not reviewers, make decisions about what is acceptable and what is not. ", so I suggest that if you're confused about this you trying reading RealClimate. Reviewers have the power to ask for changes; authors have the option to resist, and then editors get to decide -W]

60+ peer-reviewed publications and counting, Marco; most of them in the use of x-ray absorption spectroscopy for in situ study of elements of biological relevance.

[I find that hard to believe, given the ignorance of peer-review that you display. Are you this (http://www.labome.org/expert/usa/stanford/frank/patrick-frank-240171.ht…) PF? -W]

"... the only way to know that climate has warmed is through observational information" ... "the timing of Spring migrations, the advance of the northern tree line, etc."

Editors ALWAYS have the right to ignore or accept the advice of referees and trying to say they cannot is arrogant idiocy. Referees ADVISE the editors. Capice? Having been on the author and the referee side of the fence both 100+ times Eli will tell you it all happens a lot(you show me yours and Eli will show you his). If you disagree with a referee you write the editor carefully and in detail explaining why the referee is a fool. If something gets published you refereed that you think is crap you shrug your shoulders. It was NEVER your call. What part of that does Pat not get?

[PF's version of peer review is indeed rather weird, and I can't even guess where he gets it from. If he is the PF he claims to be then his last first-author paper was from 2007, so he isn't exactly prolific; perhaps he has forgotten -W]

cross-reference to Frank's response to Brin's response to Frank: http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201001/2173359641.html

(I'm guessing the PF here is this guy:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of…

Someone by the same name has recently published in Energy and Environment, this one:

'We do not have any scientific proof .. - Environmental Issues ... Feb 3, 2011 ... Patrick Frank, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2436, USA, Energy and Environment, Volume 21, Number 8 / December 2010 DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969 ...
community.beliefnet.com/...

[Ah, excellent, thank you. That makes everything clear: PF is one of the wackos (so it is entirely appropriate he should be on this thread). Presumably that means he is deliberately misrepresenting peer review rather than just ignorant of it -W]

P.S., I'd dug this up previously, and managed to forget it:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-is-climate-so-stable.html

I was led to this site by a link. Though I appreciate many of the comments here for their information, the nasty tone of many of your commenters ensures I won't be back. I hold you responsible. Much of this, seems like immature, tribal, mental masturbation,(though, not necessarily worthless) and a poor use of my time. This comment is not meant for posting.

[Errr... if it wasn't meant for posting, it would have been better not written -W]

Hank:

I'm guessing the PF here is this guy

That's consistent with William's guy - Stanford's in Palo Alto (as Hank knows for sure, but William might not).

[Snip]

In #62, William ignores the meaning of "reasoned" in the "reasoned views" of a reviewer, in order to suppose that an editor can reject a reviewer's cogent criticism without repudiating his own choice of reviewer.

Reviewers have the power and right to demand changes, William, on the consequence of recommending rejection. An editor can accept or reject that judgment. However, given that the reviewer validly supported that judgment, then an editor who dismisses the judgment is professionally remiss.

[I agree with you that the editor who dismissed Steig's judgement was remiss. But your logic is faulty and your word-twisting won't work -W]

Your judgment of my experience of peer review, on the other hand, is of no consequence, especially considering that your reply ranges from tendentious to facile.

I am indeed the guy you found exemplified at labome.org.

#63, Eli, you wrote: "Editors ALWAYS have the right to ignore or accept the advice of referees and trying to say they cannot is arrogant idiocy."

Except that I wrote, "Editors have the power to ignore the reasoned views of the reviewers they, themselves, have recruited.."

So, on the one hand I'm not guilty of "arrogant idiocy," and on the other your statement leaves us wondering what one may label a misrepresentation of the obvious.

If I, as an author, disagree with a referee, I never explain why a s/he's "a fool." I carefully explain why I think s/he's wrong. Your disrespect trivializes the process.

In peer review, it is always the reviewer's call to label error, but the call must be demonstrated analytically or by reference to published science. If the reviewer's argument is correct, it's the editor's professional obligation to support that call. To do otherwise is to violate the obligation.

And to suppose that editors may be whimsical in their decision (Wlliam: "editors, not reviewers, make decisions about what is acceptable and what is not...", and Eli: "Editors ALWAYS have the right to ignore or accept...") is to completely misconstrue the review process.

Here is what may be a 100+ revelation for you, Eli: being thoughtfully wrong on occasion is an honorable estate in science.

[Agreed. But blindly pushing tripe, as you've been doing, is dishonourable -W]

William, regarding your response to #64, I think it's weird that Eli refers to himself in the third person.

You'll be relieved to know, in any case, that my last first-author paper was in 2009, two in 2008, and more to come.

Given the nature of the conversation here, William, I'd appreciate it if you'd not snip my posts for the duration. I promise to be civil and on topic.

[I'm afraid you failed, so just to be pointy I did snip a little. You'll have to also avoid repetition. In this one, other than pointing out your last first-author post, you've said nothing new -]

#66, William in response: "[Ah, excellent, thank you. That makes everything clear: PF is one of the wackos..."

Let's see you refute the E&E paper on analytical grounds, William.

... "(so it is entirely appropriate he should be on this thread)."

I came onto this thread because I was alerted to the poor thinking that was already on display here.

"Presumably that means he is deliberately misrepresenting peer review rather than just ignorant of it -W]"

Good job, William. There's nothing like character assassination to win a substantive debate.

Down below, in #67, Hank referenced my earlier conversation with Michael Tobis. In a nice parallel with your tactics, William, Michael enriched his position with an unpleasant innuendo, but then went on to close comments. Presumably, you have more courage than that.

[I think you're doing a fine job of assassinating yourself, I don't need to help -W]

Re #56: I was specific about the source of my authority to Steve and Jeff. I did not publicly post that part of my email to them because I didn't want to drag anybody else into this.

Call me confused. Pat Frank claims significant experience in the field of scientific publishing, and yet he managed to get several aspects desperately wrong.

It appears to me that Pat Frank has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the narrative of "the Auditors". Not a surprise for a WUWT regular, though...

I can sneak in two urls by leaving off one http:

"Errors in IPCC climate science"
-- Guest article by some guy named Pat Frank
Jan 14, 2011 "... IMO, the only way to know that climate has warmed is through observational information, such as you cited, along with the timing of Spring ..."
www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=780

"We show the first large-scale evidence of the poleward range expansion of modern corals, based on 80 years of national records from the temperate areas of Japan, where century-long measurements of in situ sea-surface temperatures have shown statistically significant rises. Four major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction. The speed of these expansions reached up to 14 km/year, which is far greater than that for other species. Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress.â Yamano, H., K. Sugihara, and K. Nomura (2011), Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L04601, doi:10.1029/2010GL046474.
hat tip to: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/new-research-from-last-week…

[Weeell, that demonstrates that PF is a waste of time, but we knew that once we knew he was a E+E man -W]

Odd, labome.org/expert/usa/stanford/frank/patrick-frank-240171.html doesn't list 'Energy and Environment' as a publication.

Oh, dear: http://www.google.com/search?q="patrick+frank"+"energy+and+environment" finds a lot of PR being done, e.g.
"Jan 26, 2011 ... Scientist Patrick Frank, in a just published article in the respected Energy and Environment journal , also questions the land-based climate ..." from a "green supply" blog.

Uh-oh, Green Supply Chain might bear further study, given references to Monckton & Watts.

> Green Supply Chain
> further study

Further study proves painful:

"Satellite data .... Roy Spencer .... Lord Monckton, a British politician and journalist .... Let us know ylour thoughts on the Feedback button below.... www.twitter.com/greenscm"

Condemnation for the message, and conclusion by oracular pronouncement. Great analytical job, guys, and have at it.

[I see you've given up any attempt at content :-( -W]

greenscm, greenscm, hmmmm, what could that mean?

I don't get it.

SCM = Supply Chain Management, and it is a long-established acronym... so I don't think it means something else devoweled. :-) The articles are a somewhat weird mix.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Frank/uncertainty_in%20global_average…

Abstract

"Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average Â±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the Â±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of Â±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This Â±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable."

But if you read the text, you'll find

"although Earth climate has unambiguously warmed during the 20th century, as evidenced by, e.g., the poleward migration of the northern tree line [60-62], the rate and magnitude of the average centennial warming are not knowable."

In other words, we have reliable proxies for temperature, but can't use them, eh? Strange.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global+temperature+measurement+unce…

Will the E'n'E article be added to Pat Frank's
list of publications at Stanford?

Will it be cited by any science journal article?

Will E'n'E ever show up in the ISI list of peer-reviewed journals?

"... E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and âparadigmsâ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research.

We do not claim to be right, but the editor â having researched the subject since the 1980s - believes that climate is too complex to be predicted for policy purposes ...."
-- Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen [the editor] 3 September, 2009
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407763

Hat tip to Pete D. at RC

[Yep, the RC article is fun. Over to E+E, ha ha -W]

Well, E'n'E does claim they do peer review and Pat Frank claims his work has been reviewed by his peers. Show'n'tell?

Tracking: http://www.takeonit.com/expert/835.aspx

[Fun! -W]

Tracking: http://www.takeonit.com/expert/835.aspx

PF has conservapedia on his side, he must be right!

And for anyone new to the subject:
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/bottom-of-barrel.html

Senators blocking Obama science picks

sciencewoman — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:59:31 +0000

Senators blocking Obama science picks

President Obama's picks for science advisor (John Holdren) and NOAA administrator (Jane Lubchenco) are being blocked from receiving confirmation because of the anonymous holds of one or more Senators. Mike Dunford at The Questionable Authority has been following the story for at least a week and writes today that:

As I've already said - possibly to the point of inducing tedium - the scientific community needs to keep pressure on the Senate. There are so many other things going on in Washington right now that this issue is not going to get much more attention from the traditional media than it already has.

We don't know exactly which Senator(s) have placed the holds, but as Majority Leader Harry Reid can move the confirmation process forward even with the holds in place. While NOAA will continue to function without an administrator and the President is plenty busy these days even with no science advisor, having these positions blocked is a real impediment to developing and implementing a new vision for science in this new administration. If you think that the Senate should stop playing politics with qualified, competent picks for Obama's science team, take a few minutes to contact your Senators and send an email to Harry Reid. Thanks.

sciencewoman Mon, 03/09/2009 - 15:59

Tags

I saw this yesterday and was going to send you an email about it. From what I understand, it was Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who put the hold on them, but I haven't read into the details.

Thanks for the post and trying to rally the troops. I'll be sending emails today!

The Buzz: Science Not Serving Senator Harkin

amillikan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:23:05 +0000

The Buzz: Science Not Serving Senator Harkin

After complaining during a U.S. Senate hearing that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine he spearheaded wasn't yielding results that validated such practices, Senator Tom Harkin (D–IA) is facing the backlash of his statements from ScienceBloggers. Many of the alternative medicine practices Harkin advocates have already been subject to the thorough scrutiny of the NIH and other scientific institutions, which failed to find convincing evidence that these practices are beneficial compared with placebos and with established medical practices. Many have questioned whether NCCAM should continue to receive funding, but Harkin called for an end to the "discrimination" against alternative health care practices, and encouraged their inclusion in new health care policies. "He just doesn't get it," criticized ScienceBlogger PalMD. "If you choose to investigate a scientific question, you have to be prepared for 'bad news.' You don't get to decide the outcome before the fact."

amillikan Fri, 03/06/2009 - 05:23

Tags

This is a great example of why science education in K-12 is so important. Even people who do not go on to study science or pursue careers in science need to understand the basic premise. Science education in this country failed Sen. Harkin. Maybe that money for NCCAM should be redirected to science education in our public schools.