skeptics

Eric Merola releases a 2016 "update" of his original movie about Stanislaw Burzynski, and the misinformation flows (again)

oracknows — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:45:59 +0000

Eric Merola releases a 2016 "update" of his original movie about Stanislaw Burzynski, and the misinformation flows (again)

I feel as though I'm experiencing an acid flashback to 2011, and I've never in my entire life once tried acid—or any mind-altering substance other than booze.

What am I talking about? Let's take a trip down memory lane, if you will, back to those halcyon days of—oh—five years ago. That was the time when I first took an interest in the Polish oncologist wannabe named Stanislaw Burzynski. Although I had mentioned him before because he featured prominently in Suzanne Somers' 2009 paean to quackery Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer–And How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place, it wasn't until one of his minions named Marc Stephens started harassing a British teen named Rhys Morgan with vacuous legal threats that I really took notice of Burzynski. Before that, British blogger Andy Lewis was targeted.

Regular readers know just how much I detest bullies whose tool of choice is legal thuggery, and my first contact with Stephens led me to discover a propaganda movie by Burzynski's very own Leni Riefenstahl, a woo-friendly filmmaker named Eric Merola. The movie was called Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is Serious Business, and I deconstructed its claims in my own inimitable way. After that, I went on to continue to analyze Burzynski's claims of near-miraculous results for his antineoplaston (ANP) therapy against brain cancers considered incurable. In doing so, I later learned that his so-called "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" really does mean making it up as you go along and that he's been basically selling ANPs as "natural" sodium phenylbutyrate (or perhaps sodium phenylbutyrate as ANPs), a drug that has had some minor promise against cancer but nothing particularly convincing in terms of results. In any case, whatever he was selling, Burzynski was always the first to charge his patients huge "case management" fees that could reach tens of thousands of dollars per month. If you want to understand why skeptics object to Burzynski, read a couple of Skeptical Inquirer articles Stanislaw Burzynski: Four Decades of an Unproven Cancer Cure and Skeptic Activists Fighting for Burzynski’s Cancer Patients. The latter article, in particular, by good bud Bob Blaskiewicz, describes skeptical activities opposing Burzynski and trying to protect cancer patients from his dubious treatments and high cost that so irritate Eric Merola to the point of referring to a certain blogger as a white supremacist who eats puppies.

When last I left the Burzynski saga, he was finally facing justice in the form of a hearing before the Texas Medical Board (TMB), which was attended by Blaskiewicz, who reported on it ably. Although I fear he might get off, I still think there's a chance that Texas will do what it should have done 30 years ago and strip Dr. Burzynski of his license to practice medicine. Predictably, Burzynski's minions and patients who believe that he saved their lives, such as Hannah Bradley and her husband Peter Cohen, rapidly leapt to his defense. I don't blame them, given that, as mistaken as they are in giving Burzynski the credit for their survival, they really do believe that Burzynski saved Hannah Bradley's life. Instead I blame Burzynski for leading them to believe that.

In any case, a couple of things have happened since December. First, Burzynski has had a health issue that is going to delay the second phase of his hearing, originally scheduled for later this month. Unfortunately, Burzynski appears to have had a minor heart attack. There has been a statement from Dr. Oscar Rosales, a cardiologist, saying:

Dr. Rosales specifically states, in his letter, that he is the treating cardiologist for the Respondent, that the Respondent has been diagnosed with acute Coronary Syndrome, and that Respondent would require several cardiac procedures during the next three months. Dr. Rosales states that Rcsp0ndcnt’s condition “is in a very critical state and he is not medically cleared for traveling or panicipating in a hearing or any other stressful situation that would be detrimental to his health until the procedures are completed.” In addition, Dr. Rosales opines that he has given Respondent “specific instructions to not participate, in any manner in the hearing as increased stress at this point could have potentially deadly consequences.” Dr. Rosales states that, in his professional opinion, Respondent is “medically incapacitated.” Finally, Dr. Rosales opines that, pending successful treatment and recovery, Respondent should be cleared to attend and participate in the hearing by mid-April 2016.

Bummer. I actually feel sorry for Burzynski in a way. On the other hand, my sense of justice would be very much offended were Burzynski to shuffle off this mortal coil prematurely; i.e., before justice can be delivered. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that that will happen. I never thought I'd be offering Burzynski my best wishes, but here's hoping for a rapid recovery from his heart problems.

Unfortunately, the other development is that Burzynski's very own Leni Reifenstahl, Eric Merola (yes, I know I keep repeating that, but it's so damned appropriate given that Merola's movies are such naked examples of pure propaganda) is at it again. Here's what I found in my email in box:

Announcing Burzynski: Moving Forward:
Director Eric Merola is proud to announce his new partnership with the social-good platform UPTOGOOD.org for the newly updated FREE release of a *2016 Edition* of Cancer Is Serious Business + new production on the 3rd (and perhaps final) installment of the Burzynski Documentary Series called Burzynski Moving Forward..

Click here to watch the new *2016 Edition*, FREE.

About the *2016 Edition*:
A streamlined re-edit of the original documentary, with unseen TV footage from 1982 through today; how Burzynski is being handled within the online propaganda campaign against him, his patients, and this documentary series; plus a call-to-action so supporters like you can help the filmmakers in the production of Burzynski: Moving Forward.

About Burzynski: Moving Forward:
This new documentary will be following more patients seeking ANPs and Burzynski's revolutionary personalized gene-targeted treatment; the recent persecution by the Texas Medical Board which continues into 2016; and the regulatory hurdles that must be navigated to cross the finish line for FDA approval of ANPs.

And here's the movie:

Hilariously, Merola appears to have added some footage at the end. It begins at around 1h26m, with this:

Somehow, a few skeptics trying to raise awareness and keep the pressure on the Texas Medical board and FDA is a "relentless propaganda campaign." Irony meters explode everywhere at this characterization.

Merola goes on to his usual conspiracy mongering. Pharma doesn't want to allow ANPs to be approved because if they were FDA approved for even one cancer then they could be used off-label for any cancer. He then shows a shot of Sharyl Attkisson—yes, the antivaccine conspiracy loon reporter Sharyl Attkisson—giving her famous TED talk about "astroturfing." I couldn't help but think back to nearly a year ago, when Attkisson showed that she likes me. She really likes me. She likes me enough to name me as one of the "top ten astroturfers." I was amused because she seemed to think that I'm all there is to Scienceblogs. Now, like my 'nym-sake, my ego might be a tad on the massive side, but even I don't make that claim. In any case, given Attkisson's history of antivaccine pseudoscience and conspiracy mongering, it's hard to take this seriously. No wonder Merola was impressed.

I was particularly gratified when, at around 1:33:30, Merola claims that this "anti-Burzynski" campaign began in November 2011 with Scienceblogs (i.e., me). Would that were true! Would that I could take credit for the skeptic campaign to try to put a stop to Burzynski. Merola really does bestow too much of an honor on me, given that Rhys Morgan was at it before I was and it was legal threats by Marc Stephens that I mentioned above that first drew my serious attention to Burzynski. Moreover, there were other bloggers, lots of other bloggers, who had looked into Burzynski's dubious claims before I ever took an interest. Don't get me wrong. I realize that I've been a major critic of Burzynski's cancer quackery, and I don't in any way downplay my role in explaining why Burzynski's claims are not convincing by explaining the science of the cancers that Burzynski claims to cure. I'm proud of that. (You hear that, Merola?) But I also realize that I am by no means the one who started this campaign. I just rolled with it.

Not surprisingly, Merola tries to discredit Scienceblogs and thereby discredit me by invoking the "Pepsigate" kerfuffle. You remember that? Basically our benevolent overlords screwed up royally back in 2010 when they invited representatives from Pepsico to blog here at Scienceblogs. Basically, management started the blog with no communication with the rest of us Scienceblogs bloggers, didn’t involve us in the decision-making process or even let us know about the blog before it went live. Worse, given that the Pepsi blog blurred the line between advertising and our content, many of us decided that, after factoring in all the other indignities and examples of not communicating with its own bloggers about such issues, they could no longer be associated with ScienceBlogs. That context makes Merola's smear rather amusing in that several former Scienceblogs bloggers left rather than be tainted with the hint of industry influence and those of us who stayed were rewarded by the disappearance of the Pepsi blog. If anything, Merola's example shows how much bloggers here value their independence.

Even more hilariously, Merola invokes my not-so-super-secret other blog as well. It's not his invoking that blog that amuses me. I was just as critical of Burzynski there as I was here, only with perhaps less "insolence." Rather, Merola claims that that blog "spawned" The Houston Cancer Quack. In fact, although I consider the man who started that website to be my friend, in no way did my not-so-super-secret other blog "spawn" anything. The two blogs have always been and remain independent entities who do not coordinate their work. To claim otherwise is to downplay some excellent work by my friend. Merola even claims that Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients is an astroturf organization, which is about as unsupported and ignorant a claim as I've ever seen. I was, however, amused at Merola's outrage at Burzynski's "clinical trials" being likened to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the most excellent blog The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group, which presents fact- and science-based descriptions of Burzynski patients who have died that illustrate how useless Burzynski's treatments are. Notably, Merola objects to the policy of the website that it won't publish the full names of Burzynski patients as though this is a strategy to obfuscate. It's not. It's a policy to protect the privacy of Burzynski's victims when possible.

Truly, the outraged tears of Burzynski's chief propagandist are delicious!

It gets better, though. Merola seems to think the power of skeptics is without bounds! Check it out:

Behold, the power of skeptics!

He even makes the claim that we're so powerful and nefarious that we've fooled the mainstream press into writing reports unfavorable to Burzynski, such as the USA TODAY report from 2013. I wonder what Liz Szabo thinks about the accusation of her being in thrall to skeptics. Apparently Wikipedia is under our nefarious sway as well. While it's true that skeptics, spurred by the example of Susan Gerbic and others, have been trying to clean up Wikipedia to get rid of credulous discussions of quackery and pseudoscience in favor of science-based characterizations. Naturally, quacks don't like that. Not surprisingly, they think there's a vast conspiracy to "own" Wikipedia. I was half tempted to say that I wish that were true, but the fact is that, compared to the purveyors of pseudoscience, skeptics trying to enforce scientific standards on Wikipedia remain outnumbered and outgunned, the equivalent of the rag tag fleet in Battlestar Galactica battling the Cylons or, to steal a Star Wars analogy, we're the rebels in comparison to the Empire or the First Order. Merola's even more annoyed that we would have the temerity to leave comments on PubMed regarding Burzynski's papers, which makes me think that we should start commenting on PubPeer as well, if we haven't done so already.

Later in the extra footage, Merola regurgitates bits that he's already posted on YouTube before, such as when Brian Thompson attended a pre-screening of Eric Merola's second Burzynski movie (which I like to call Burzynski II: Electric Boogaloo), a movie as full of misinformation and lies as the first Burzynski movie and spoke with Steve Siegel after the movie. As much as I admired Brian for what he did, I did point out at the time that he had fallen into a very basic trap that those who are not familiar with Burzynski frequently fall into, claiming that Burzynski hadn't published his antineoplaston trials in the peer-reviewed literature. As I pointed out at the time, in fact, Burzynski does publish. That’s not the problem. The problem is that he publishes in bottom-feeding journals and has not yet published a completed phase II clinical trial. That’s plenty bad enough. Burzynski has only published abstracts and partial reports on phase II trials, none of which are particularly convincing. His publications are all, as far as I’ve been able to tell, crap, and I’ve read nearly all of them. None of that has changed in the three years since that movie premiere, other than that Burzynski did publish a couple of his trials. The papers reporting the results have been uniformly of poor quality and show incredibly unconvincing evidence of any benefits due to ANPs in brain cancer.

Merola also—surprise, surprise!—outright lies in another segment. This segment features Bruce Gleason, founder of Backyard Skeptics, an Orange County skeptic and atheist group. Unfortunately, as I noted at the time, Bruce shows what happens when even skeptics don't have enough background information. Basically, in a Q&A session with Merola and company plus Fabio Lanzoni (yes, that Fabio, I kid you not), he got up (see around 16:10) and said how he had been convinced and that he would now recommend Merola’s film to the 1,000 members of his Orange County skeptic organization. He also tried to distance himself from “those” skeptics apparently portrayed in the film. It was, I hate to say, a rather nauseating performance. However, what Merola leaves out is that Gleason later redeemed himself. After learning of Bruce's performance, a couple of skeptics contacted him and calmly explained where he had gone wrong and how deceptive the movie had been. AS a result, to his credit, Bruce publicly admitted his error and disavowed his prior remarks.

Funny how Merola leaves that part out. Truly his dishonesty with respect to defending Burzynski knows no bounds.

The rest of the additional footage is downright embarrassing. (Yes, it's possible to get worse. With Merola, it's always posible to get worse.) He likens skeptics critical of Burzynski to people who thought the earth was flat. Accuses them of pseudoscience in the most massive case of projection I've seen outside the antivaccine movement. He brings up Hannah Bradley and Pete Cohen using footage I discussed last month, even though, as I've described, Bradley's survival almost certainly has nothing to do with being treated with Burzynski's .

The additional footage concludes with what has to be one of the dumbest defense ideas I've ever seen, with Burzynski repeating the same old misleading version of his story and complaining bitterly about the TMB "harassing" him, claiming that the TMB wants to shut him down quickly because he's on the verge of proving ANPs work. Funny, but Burzynski's been able to practice his quackery for nearly 40 years; so if the TMB wanted to shut him down it's sure taking its sweet time about it.

In the end, Merola just regurgitates the same old misinformation. This is not surprising, but because it's been a while since I've dealt with him in depth and because he's consolidated a lot of more recent pro-Burzynski propaganda into the addendum to his movie, I thought it was worth discussing. My wishes for 2016 are now two-fold. First, I wish that Burzynski completely recovers from his heart attack. Second, I hope that the TMB finally strips him of his Texas medical license for good.

Actually, I have a third wish. I hope that Eric Merola fails to raise sufficient funds to torture us with a third Burzynski movie, particularly if Burzynski manages to slither away from justice yet again.

oracknows Fri, 01/15/2016 - 02:45

Tags

cancer

Clinical trials

medicine

Science

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

Categories

Hopefully the added bits about Scienceblogs (i.e Orac) will end up backfiring on them. If for every 100 rabid defender of Dr. B we get just one cancer patient or one of their family members go on this blog and by reading it decides against buying into the snake oil - that is a victory, I'd say.

Has MD Anderson Cancer Center (just up the road from Burzynski) ever simply come out and said that Burzynski is a dangerous quack?

Not sure if the center itself has, but I'm pretty sure that indiivdual doctors and nurses have in, written or televised, interviews said expressed the same sentiment but in much, muuuch harsher language and tone.

And... (drum roll!)... Eric Merola gets the January "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Award" for the largest number of adjectives before his nouns! Hooray! (Splat!)

I wonder why B. didn't use alt medicine for his heart attack. Merola, S. Somers, or Mike Adams could have helped him find something, I'm sure. Fake stem cell trial in Tijuana or something...

"Yes, it’s possible to get worse. With Merola, it’s always posible to get worse".

God, why is every post you write so negative? You'd think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you'd be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts. I know plenty of people like you: miserable with their lives, so they try to bring everyone else down to their level. I recommend trying to patch things up with your parents. You seem intelligent but your negativity is absolutely revolting.

Ah, but B.'s treatment is not alternative medicine! It's the cutting edge of medical research and B is a "real" doctor -- how dare you call it altmed?

The Riefenstahl/Merola comparison doesn't work for me.
Riefenstahl was a gifted filmmaker and photographer who understood the use of effective lighting, composition, storytelling, and editing to convey her twisted views.
Eric Merola, ...umm, maybe not so much...at least aside from the twisted worldview.
Personally, I think a better comparison all around is to Ed Wood, Jr., and guess who gets the better of that comparison.

Fair enough. There have been times when I've said that Eric Merola was Stanislaw Burzynski's Leni Riefenstahl, only without the talent.

I wonder why B. didn’t use alt medicine for his heart attack. Merola, S. Somers, or Mike Adams could have helped him find something, I’m sure. Fake stem cell trial in Tijuana or something…

Chelation therapy!

God, why is every post you write so negative?

How would you know every post I write is negative if you haven't been reading for a while? And if you've been reading for a while, it implies you get something out of it, even if it's a sense of superiority over how negative you perceive me to be. :-)

In the case of someone like Stanislaw Burzynski, it's hard not to be negative, given what the man does.

God, why is every post you write so negative? You’d think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you’d be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts. I know plenty of people like you: miserable with their lives, so they try to bring everyone else down to their level. I recommend trying to patch things up with your parents. You seem intelligent but your negativity is absolutely revolting.

Last I checked, this wasn't required reading for you Jim. Why don't you get back to your My Little Pony blogs to lighten your poor weighted heart.

"Merola claims that this “anti-Burzynski” campaign began in November 2011 with Scienceblogs (i.e., me)."

I became aware of Burzynski from reading Peter Bowditch's Ratbags website, and some of his postings on the Healthfraud listserv, for over fifteen years:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/burzynski.htm

Unfortunately it took the harassment received by Rhys Morgan to get many more people aware of Burzynski's misdeeds. Sometimes it takes some horrible thing to get people's attention. Over ten years ago I tried and tried to counteract the promotion of chelation on kids on the listserv for my son's speech disability. I also wrote the FDA about this dangerous practice, and got a non-answer. So I gave up, and left the listserv.

Two weeks later Roy Kerry killed a five year after strapping him down on a table and administering chelation through IV. Then people took notice.

And Burzynski has killed even more than the chelation folk (they mostly make the poor kids feel horrible),

I know plenty of people like you: miserable with their lives, so they try to bring everyone else down to their level.

Are you here to make new friends, Jim?

You seem intelligent but your negativity is absolutely revolting

Our sincere apologies, Dr. Pangloss.

Man, I bet Dr. Rosales was paid well for that letter.

Jim M @6

Jim - your blinkers are blinding you to the positivity in Orac's posts : that people seek the best treatment available for their conditions, that money which would otherwise wind up in the pockets of charlatans like Burzynski is available for their childrens' education, travel, good food... whatever.

Orac, you've never even smoked a joint?

"God, why is every post you write so negative?"

Have you been paying attention to the subject matter that interests him? Kind of hard to be positive about people being mislead, lied to and poisoned and academia and medicine circling the drain by romancing alternative medicine.

Yet he still has found positive things to write about even in these trenches. I just think you haven't been paying attention.

Orac, you’ve never even smoked a joint?

Nope. Read my posts on cannabis, where I mentioned that I've never tried the evil weed, not because I object to it morally or anything but because I cannot inhale smoke into my lungs directly like that. It's the same reason I've never smoked a cigarette. Alcohol in moderation has been my sole mind-altering drug, be it craft beer, fine wine, or single malt scotch; that is, unless you consider caffeine a mind-altering substance given that it's a stimulant. :-)

Getting to Jim's level would be very difficult.

Why don’t you get back to your My Little Pony blogs to lighten your poor weighted heart.

Hey now! Even My Little Pony* teaches kids that its not only wrong to sell fake "miracle cures," it's also wrong to withhold the truth when you know that someone is being deceived, even if the deception makes them happy.

*If you don't want to watch the whole show, the moment of truth comes at 20:30

"God, why is every post you write so negative?"

I don't think Orac is actually God. Though rumor has it he's preparing an R01 grant application for research aimed at genetically modifying him into a Skeptical Deity.

Nope. Read my posts on cannabis, where I mentioned that I’ve never tried the evil weed, not because I object to it morally or anything but because I cannot inhale smoke into my lungs directly like that. It’s the same reason I’ve never smoked a cigarette. Alcohol in moderation has been my sole mind-altering drug, be it craft beer, fine wine, or single malt scotch; that is, unless you consider caffeine a mind-altering substance given that it’s a stimulant.

Not even an Alice B. Toklas brownie?! :)

It's good that you can't inhale anything directly into your lungs. I haven't done drugs in 13 years, but I still struggle with on-and-off with cigarettes, the hardest thing I've ever had to give up, by far. I quit successfully for two and a half years when I was pregnant, then nursing. Wish I had your "problem".

I don't know. Smoke has bothered me ever since I was a child. I remember my grandfather (who was a big time smoker) sitting there in the den smoking cigarette after cigarette while watching TV. I also remember how I had a hard time staying in that room when he was smoking because I couldn't tolerate the cigarette smoke. Ever since then that experience has made is such that I really never even had a desire to try a cigarette, be it tobacco or pot. So I never did. I've never tried to inhale, not even once.

Same for my husband. His father (GP, no less) and mother (peds nurse, even worse) smoked like chimneys. Long car rides in the station wagon with the windows up and Mom and Dad puffing away. Mr. Delphine has never smoked a cigarette, but he does enjoy his weed every now and again.

My father (another GP) smoked and it killed him in the end. I had my first cigarette at boarding school with two other girls at age 14. One girl threw up, the other girl coughed like she was tubercular, and it hit me like a ton of very good bricks. In my top 2 regrets in life -- that I ever tried smoking.

It was a pretty sad showing by Merola. You can almost hear the diaper filling as he describes my site as unsubstantiated and without evidence. Of course, EVERYTHING is cited, and I depend on this to not be sued by Captain Kielbasa. Eric might also be reminded of the patients who have threatened to sue me over quoting them. I don't blame them. They are upset. That's why I don't identify them. The only reason I have gotten threats is because Burzynski supporters have contacted patients I was trying to protect. And, no, I did not take anything down.

I've often wondered why Burzysnki's supporters haven't internalized the huge amount of info we've accumulated over at theOTHERburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com. Like, read it. Just read it and explain it. Really.

"...research aimed at genetically modifying him into a Skeptical Deity."

I am uncomfortable with the thought of a Skeptical Deity, since it would undoubtedly proceed to conduct a series of experiments to test its own purported omniscience and omnipotence.

". . . You’d think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you’d be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts. . . . "

God, yes! Please, Orac, devote some time to trying to help people, rather than wasting it with blogging. Surely you could put just a modicum of effort into your education and life and find some worthy activity to fill your empty hours. Just think of the things you might have accomplished had you gone to medical school and learned something useful. Why, you could have contributed to saving people from some dreadful disease or something instead of hiding your identity behind that of a fictional Perspex box of blinking lights.

<blockquoteMy father (another GP) smoked and it killed him in the end. I had my first cigarette at boarding school with two other girls at age 14. One girl threw up, the other girl coughed like she was tubercular, and it hit me like a ton of very good bricks. In my top 2 regrets in life — that I ever tried smoking.

I tried it for the first time at 14, too, and could manage and liked it right away. I know it's not good for me, though, and I try to be considerate of others. Stepping so they're not downwind, etc.

I guess white people have to tolerate us for a while. Sorry, not really sorry!

-Indian half

Jimmo

God, why is every post you write so negative? You’d think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you’d be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts - -

The problem with ORAC is that he is far too positive in his posts. I certainly would not talk/refer/quote the CAM artsiste in the way that Orac does. Can you think of anything positive to say about: deception, fraudulent claims, lies and delusional thinking?

I see the image of Burzynski heading this blog post and it makes me wonder what happened to that old and respected tradition of college kids pasting some crank or crackpot in the face with a custard pie a la the Marx Bros. or the Three Stooges.

... I can think of quite a few self-important crackpots and quacks from whom this treatment would provide comic relief.

"He likens skeptics critical of Burzynski to people who thought the earth was flat. Accuses them of pseudoscience in the most massive case of projection I’ve seen outside the antivaccine movement. "

Well, apparently this level of projection can easily be topped my tone-trolling jackasses like Jim: "I know plenty of people like you: miserable with their lives, so they try to bring everyone else down to their level. "

Looks like Burzynski is turning 73 next week, which combined with his heart troubles doesn't sound too good for the chances of the TMB ever getting round to stripping him of his license.

Like our estimed host, I find it difficult to tolerate tobacco smoke. Back when smoking was allowed in bars and restaurants, I'd sometimes have to leave early because of coughing attacks, and I made sure to put all clothes that I'd worn in the washes immediately when coming home. Trying a ciggarette myself is unthinkable.

I tried it for the first time at 14, too, and could manage and liked it right away. I know it’s not good for me, though, and I try to be considerate of others. Stepping so they’re not downwind, etc.

Smoking for me is now confined to a small alcove on our front porch, or standing outside my car in parking lots. I won't smoke around my daughter or husband. I used to love smoking in the car. Fire up the tunes, hit the highway, etc. But even if they're not in the car, the car seat would pick up the smoke, and I can't do that.

After watching friends, colleagues, etc try to quit, I'm just grateful I never started.

I used to have a fairly high smoke tolerance because I shared work spaces with a lot of smokers. Then the DOD went smoke-free (early 90's, maybe? memory fails me) and now I can't stand the smell.

“. . . You’d think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you’d be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts. . . . ”
He IS intellectually superior to the average human; his great intellect has guided him to devote some of his time to blogging, possibly in the hope that he will bring enlightenment to the misled and castigation to the misleading.
By the way, I am smarter than the average human too, but Orac is definitely my intellectual superior.

I wonder if B is well enough to continue to scam people out of their money, I mean to go to work every day?

"I feel as though I’m experiencing an acid flashback to 2011, and I’ve never in my entire life once tried acid—or any mind-altering substance other than booze."

I can tell. Maybe you should, preferably Ayahuasca. You can't hide forever behind arrogance "I know the truth!". Life will get through to you eventually.

Five things I learned (second hand) from the recent screening of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part 2

oracknows — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:05:25 +0000

Five things I learned (second hand) from the recent screening of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part 2

Film producer Eric Merola seems to think that there is a conspiracy of skeptics (whom he calls The Skeptics) hell bent on harassing his hero, Brave Maverick Doctor Stanislaw Burzynski. According to his latest film Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2 (henceforth referred to as Burzynski II, to distinguish it from Merola's first Burzynski movie, to which I will refer as Burzynski I), there is a shadowy cabal of Skeptics out there just waiting to swoop down on any Burzynski supporter who has the temerity to Tweet support for him, any cancer patient being treated by Burzynski who Tweets or blogs about it, and any cancer patient even thinking about going to the Burzynski Clinic. I know this because he's made it very clear in the promotional materials of his movie that that's what he thinks and that skeptics were going to be the main target of his "film making" in his latest hagiography devoted to Stanislaw Burzynski. Very clear indeed. And, given how ham-fisted he was in his conspiracy mongering in Burzynski I, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I was at least a little concerned, because Merola made an explicit promise to "name names." So were some other skeptics. After all, Merola isn't exactly known for intellectual honesty (or even talent) in film making. We expected a heavy duty sliming, and curiosity (not to mention concern over our reputations) made us very—shall we say?—curious about what Merola was going to say about us.

So it was with great interest that I learned that Burzynski II was going to be screened at a film festival in San Luis Obispo last weekend. Its DVD release having been delayed from March 5 to July 1, I had thought that my curiosity about the contents of the movie would probably have to wait, and it will, at least as far as seeing the movie. A review of the movie suggested dark insinuations about Burzynski critics abounded, but that was not enough. Skepticism never sleeps, however, and its tentacles reach everywhere. This screening of the movie represented a chance that could not be squandered. So, wanting to please our great pharma master Lord Draconis Zeneca, we immediately connected with fellow pharma drones—cough! cough! Skeptics—who were eager to find out if Merola had truly penetrated the vastness of our conspiracy and thereby posed a danger to our plot for worldwide pharma domination. A few of our best agents, led by the intrepid Brian Thompson, drove posthaste to San Luis Obispo on Sunday. Although there were many eager volunteers, stealth, not overwhelming infiltration was required. So we settled on a handful of our best skeptics—excuse me, Skeptics—skilled at infiltration and, above all, fast and accurate note taking. Merola would never doubt that our tentacles reach everywhere again. Muhahahahahahaha!^*

When the reports and copious handwritten notes in perfect encoded reptilian script came back^**, however, I was faced with a problem. How does one review or discuss a movie second hand? How does one report on a movie that one hasn't seen, about which one has to trust the powers of observation (and not to mention the note taking capabilities) of someone else, no matter how well briefed beforehand about what to look for? I decided that there was only one thing to do, and that's just to go ahead and do it. I realize that there are likely huge swaths of information missing, but I definitely got a flavor of the movie from Brian's detailed account plus discussions, and a definite idea of how it is going to be promoted from what was reported to have been said during the Q&A. Then I'll discuss each of these points, thus inflating the rather thin observations I have from our Skeptics into a real post. Unfortunately, more detail from me will have to wait until the official release of the movie, or until such a time as Merola tries to bring the movie to somewhere in my neck of the woods. (Wouldn't that be amusing?)

So here are the five things I learned (secondhand) from the Burzynski II screening, thanks to The Skeptics.

1. Stanislaw Burzynski is a genius who invented "personalized gene targeted cancer therapy," and is now being emulated by centers like M.D. Anderson, which are furiously trying to catch up.

One thing I noticed immediately from our Skeptics' reports was that I was spot on when it comes to many of my predictions about the movie, so much so that I was tempted simply to do a link dump of my posts on various Burzynski claims in the form of "claim in Burzynski 2" juxtaposed with a link. But this is Orac, and I can't do that. In any case, this should not be a surprise. Burzynski's been telegraphing this particular message for the last few years, beginning at least as far back as 2009, when I first read his claims in Suzanne Somers' quackfest of a book, Knockout: Interviews With Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer And How To Prevent Getting It in the First Place. According to our Skeptics, the very beginning of the movie was in essence more of Burzynski's arrogance of ignorance about "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy," in which he demonstrates once again that he doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to genomics and targeted therapy and adds a healthy dose of special pleading that it is "impossible" to test Burzynski's woo—I mean "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" (which I will henceforth refer to as PGTCT)—in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This is not unlike the argument that homeopaths frequently make claiming that their woo can't be tested scientifically. It's also as nonsensical

That's why I can't resist mentioning that it's true that testing personalized cancer therapy scientifically poses certain challenges. It can't be done in the same way that we're used to doing RCTs. I discussed this very matter when I discussed Burzynski's PGTCT the first time around, and even analyzed an example of how it can be done. My analysis is probably now out-of-date because the field is moving so rapidly, but the bottom line is that real scientists and real physicians at real cancer centers, contrary to what seems to have been insinuated, think about these issues all the time. The FDA is devoting considerable effort to figuring out how new genomic technologies will fit into its mission and how it can find a scientifically reasonable method to grant approval to such therapies. Once again, Stan's arrogance of ignorance, hungrily lapped up by his lapdog Eric Merola, appears to be the order of the day. According to the reports, it's made to sound as though Burzynski invented personalized gene-targeted therapy, which is, of course part of the mythology that I demolished last year. Burzynski didn't invent PGTCT. He doesn't even do it right. Indeed, at one point, Merola even has the cojones to assert that cancer centers like M.D. Anderson haven't yet faced the problems Burzynski is facing because, I guess, Burzynski led the way. No doubt it's true that M.D. Anderson doesn't face the problems that Burzynski is facing. That's because M.D. Anderson is trying to do it right; Burzynski is not.

2. Burzynski is a Brave Maverick Doctor who is curing patients that conventional science can't cure, and it's not his fault when he can't

Early in the movie, just like in Burzynski I, there is a series of patient anecdotes, or, as I like to call them, testimonials. It turns out that nearly all of them are patient stories that I've discussed the before in great detail. For instance, Hannah Bradley and Laura Hymas feature prominently, but since I've discussed both of them in depth recently, I refer you to that link if you want to know why Merola's claims that Burzynski cured these patients is certainly contestable. One thing that was noted is that there was a long segment on Laura Hymas in which a tape of her and her family trying to persuade her NHS oncologist to support her decision to go to Burzynski. I would very much like to hear that segment, because it could be instructive to see how an oncologist handled Hymas' family's pleas to be associated with something he definitely didn't want to be associated with. I guess I'll have to wait until July.

Now here's the part that disturbed our intrepid viewers, and, when they told me about it, I was even more disturbed by it because I've seen less subtle variants of it before. I'm referring to the cases of two children from the U.K. with malignant brain tumors who became famous after their diagnoses because of their parents' success at raising money and bringing their children's plight before the British press and public. I'm referring to Billie Bainbridge, whose case led to widespread discussion in the British press in late 2011 because of very successful fundraisers featuring beloved celebrities, and Amelia Saunders. Both children, tragically, died of their disease, and I've discussed both cases, particularly Amelia Saunders, before. Now here's what bothered us. After interviews with each set of parents and glowing reports about how each child did so well on Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy, we learn of each child's ultimate demise in voiceovers. In Billie's case it's apparently mentioned that Billie had had radiation therapy for her tumor, and the narrator noted that children who hadn't had radiotherapy do better. Then, after an interview with Amelia's parents, the narrator intones that two months after the interview Amelia's brain tumor began to "swell and fill with fluid." He further intones that there was "confusion and disagreement" between the Saunders' radiologist in the U.K. and the radiologist in Houston over why this was happening, and that the Saunders decided to take Amelia off of antineoplaston treatment. It's then noted that Amelia died on January 6, 2013 with her family around her.

Here we see only slightly less subtle versions of two ploys favored by Brave Maverick Cancer Doctors designed to absolve themselves of blame and excuse their failures. In the case of Billie Bainbridge, the ploy is to claim that if only the patient had come straight to us and not used "conventional" therapy first, she could have bene saved. In fact, a lot more of this sort of claim is found later, during the Q&A when one questioner asks Greg Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski's son (or, as I call him, Mini-B), whether the clinic has statistics tracking how well patients who have never seen any conventional therapy before and instead came straight to the Burzynski Clinic for their only care did. It was actually a surprisingly good question. Mini-B couldn't answer and instead made excuses, claiming that his father was trying to publish that data but had been rejected. Instead, he trotted out Mary Jo Siegel, another testimonial, and there was apparently considerable discussion in which many of the panelists thought it was better not to receive conventional therapy before antineoplastons and that patients who went straight to antineoplaston therapy did better. It was all anecdotes and testimonials, no data. Maybe it's just my status as an evil conventional cancer doctor, but I found that to be a profoundly irresponsible message that encourages patients to eschew conventional therapy in favor of the unproven; i.e., antineoplastons.

The second favorite tactic of Brave Maverick Doctors like Burzynski is to blame the patient (or, in this case, the patient's family) when the patient doesn't do well. The insinuation here about Amelia appears to be that the reason she didn't do well is because her parents didn't follow the Brave Maverick Doctor's treatment plan to the letter. The implication in Amelia's case appears to be that the reason Amelia's condition deteriorated so rapidly and she died was because Mr. and Mrs. Saunders decided to take her off of the antineoplastons too soon. I'm sure I'll be corrected if my report on the matter was inaccurate. (I'm always open to a screener copy of the movie or a transcript from Mr. Merola to allow me to get it all correct.) Assuming it's accurate (and I have no reason not to), this sort of insinuation is despicable, particularly given the real story, which I discussed before. It's worth reminding my readers of what happened. On November 20, 2012, Richard Saunders posted this message on Amelia's Facebook page:

Amelia's tumour is dying, from the inside. We'll be getting another opinion from here on this, but the scans do back this up. There are cysts forming inside the tumour where cancer cells would have been before.

For the moment, we seem to be winning our little battle.

We are trying our hardest not to get too excited yet. These cysts are forming inside the tumour but it isn't shrinking - however this proves the treatment is working. Remember that Amelia has received no other treatment.

I pointed out at the time that these “cysts” almost certainly represented areas of ischemia (low blood flow) leading to tissue death as the tumor outgrew its blood supply. Again, this is a phenomenon commonly seen in advanced malignancy. Tumor cells are constrained in their growth to the diffusion of oxygen and nutrients in aqueous solution unless they can induce the ingrowth of blood vessels, a process called tumor angiogenesis. Tumors frequently can outgrow their blood supply, and when that happens, areas in the center of the tumor will die and liquify. Tumors frequently, as they progress, consist of a relatively thin rim of viable, growing cells surrounding a central area of necrotic tissue. In contrast, when tumors shrink due to chemotherapy or other treatment, they often shrink from the outside in because that’s usually where the most rapidly proliferating cells are. True, they don’t always shrink that way and sometimes do have spread-out areas of necrosis, but that’s less characteristic. Sadly, then, seeing “cysts” growing in Amelia’s tumor most likely said nothing one way or the other about whether or not Amelia's tumor was responding to Burzynski’s antineoplastons. That was assuming that Burzynski’s interpretation of the scans is even correct, which I doubted. Unfortunately, this is part of Burzynski's M.O. He has misinterpreted the formation of cystic areas in brain tumors before as indicating tumor response to therapy.

Unfortunately, I was correct. On December 11, 2012, Mr. Saunders posted this sad update on Facebook:

We had our meeting at Great Ormond Street yesterday and, sadly, they just don't have anything for us. We kind of knew this before we went - but wondered if they might have a trial that we could take part in. Unfortunately they don't.

They felt that Amelia is in the latter stages of the disease, and that what is called 'progression' has already started. This means her tumour is growing, the cancer is spreading and we don't have a huge amount of time left. Again we had already guessed this was happening but it was good in a way to have another opinion of this.

The other thing to mention is that I know I posted on here a few weeks back that Amelia had cysts forming in her tumour. Sadly it just appears this theory was wrong, and thank God we didn't get our hopes up too much about this. Chantal and I have been accustomed to trying to make sure we get lots of opinions about things, and ultimately Amelia's decline clinically is the telling factor. Her right hand side is now pretty well locked in position and her speech is going. Other functions like swallowing are also beginning to fail.

It tore my heart out to see that message. This is one time when I was not happy that I had been correct. More importantly, my disgust for Burzynski was greater than ever. Getting a report of Merola in essence excusing Burzynski and implying that Mr. Saunders was somehow at fault for listening to a real radiologist. One question that comes up in the wake of this part of the film is just which radiologists it is that Burzynski uses. I've heard of so many examples of dubious readings of imaging studies that I have to wonder.

3. Burzynski is a real scientist with tons of data supporting antineoplaston therapy who is being unjustly hounded by the FDA, the NCI, and big pharma to prevent him from bringing his cancer cure to market

In the movie, apparently not only is Burzynski a genius and pioneer who invented PGTCT long befoe conventional cancer centers like M.D. Anderson thought of it, but he's also been unjustly persecuted by the FDA, the Texas Medical Board, and the NCI. Merola goes to great lengths to point out that two chemotherapy drugs approved for glioma, Temodar and Avastin, never went through phase III clinical trials and were approved on the basis of phase II clinical trials. This is true. They were approved using the accelerated approval process, which was designed to bring promising drugs to market more rapidly and in Merola's hands is apparently portrayed as being a tool of big pharma to increase its profits. Merola bemoans how unfair it is (to him) that the FDA is requiring a phase III clinical trials for Burzynski's antineoplastons and refusing to grant accelerated approval for them, as it did for Temodar and Avastin.

It seems like a compelling point on the surface if you don't know about the drug approval process or Burzynski; indeed, The Skeptics who viewed the movie wondered about this claim. Here's what, as far as I can tell from my reports, Merola leaves out. Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval. Moreover, although Merola did apparently mention that the accelerated approval doesn't exempt manufacturers from doing phase III clinical trials, he apparently neglected to mention that if those trials are done and are negative then the FDA can revoke the accelerated approval. If Burzynski had ever published a complete phase II trial for antineoplastons for brainstem glioma, he might be considered for fast track approval. On the other hand, given his history, it's probably quite reasonable of the FDA not to grant him eligibility for fast track approval. Certainly another thing stated in the movie and mentioned in the Q&A, too, is that if antineoplastons were approved for the indication of brain cancers they could then be used off-label for any cancer. Assuming our Skeptics got it right, this means that getting antineoplastons approved for brain cancer and then encouraging their off-label use for pretty much every other cancer seems to be Burzynski's long term business plan.

There's also apparently a heapin' helpin' of conspiracy mongering in Burzynski II very much like the conspiracy mongering in the first Burzynski movie. Brian handles this issue quite well, but I can't resist chiming in as well. For instance, Merola claims that the FDA serves pharma, which uses it to suppress antineoplastons. It's basically a rehash of the same sorts of arguments from the first Burzynski movie, all conspiracy theories beloved of cranks, including that universities don't want a cure for cancer because they would loose all that sweet, sweet, NCI and pharma money, plus the even sweeter indirect costs that the NIH provides with grants. Then there's a claim that the FDA requires independent testing, but that no hospital will work with the Burzynski Research Institute to test antineoplastons because, apparently, they don't want to jeopardize all that filthy NCI and pharma lucre. (Has Merola actually seen the paylines for NCI grants these days? Obviously not. When the pay line barely reaches the 7th percentile, a lot fewer people are enjoying anything resembling Merola's fantasy of academic medicine.) This conspiracy mongering is taken to a ridiculous extreme in the Q&A, when Eric Merola reports in response to a question that David Axelrod saw a rough cut of Merola's first movie in 2009. At the time, Axelrod was a senior advisor to President Obama. Merola told the audience that Axelrod said the film was very important but that the issue was too big to deal with then given that the economy was tanking. Incredibly, Merola claims that Axelrod also said that approving antineoplastons would devastate the pharmaceutical industry, sending the country back into recession, and that the stock market would plummet as a result as well. When I read that part, I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

And, apparently, it's not Burzynski's fault that he hasn't been able to publish, either. The movie claims that up until 2006 antineoplaston papers were routinely accepted. Well, maybe. Or maybe editors are finally on to ol' Stan. Whatever the case, as I've pointed out Burzynski's publications since 2000 are pretty thin gruel and quite unimpressive, all in lower tier journals, some in "integrative medicine" and CAM journals, and some review articles. Although he's published preliminary results of one of his phase II trials, he's never, despite having had over 60 phase II trials, published a complete phase II trial. An amazing example of the nefariousness of journals is given. In November Burzynski tried to submit the results of a phase II trial to The Lancet Oncology, but we're told that the manuscript was rejected two hours after it was submitted with basically no explanation. Any scientist who's tried to submit to a top tier journal is probably laughing now. We've all accumulated stories like this. True, I've never had a two-hour turnaround time for an editorial rejection, but I have had a rejection in less than 24 hours. It's cutthroat out there, and the top tier journals get so many submissions that they frequently do a "first pass" of rejections of manuscripts that the editors deem to have virtually no chance of being published or that don't fit within the scope of the journal tightly enough. In fact, The Lancet Oncology is unusual in this:

All original research judged eligible for consideration by the journal’s editors will be peer-reviewed within 72 h and, if accepted, published within 8 weeks from submission. All accepted Articles will be published online first before appearing in the print journal.

That's a startlingly fast turnaround time. Maybe I should try to submit something to The Lancet Oncology. There's nothing to lose, as I would know if it was rejected within 72 hours, so that I could submit it to a different journal. Then I could have something in common with Stan.

4. The Japanese are on the verge of publishing definitive clinical trial evidence that antineoplastons work!

This one's no surprise either. I've addressed the issue of research on antineoplaston by Japanese anesthesiologist Dr. Hideaki Tsuda, and Keir Liddle has pointed out why this research thus far is not so impressive. I agree. But I was intrigued; so I suggested that our Skeptics pay close attention to whether any specific results of the vaporware Japanese trial were described. What the learned was that it was a trial of 63 patients with colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver randomized to either chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus a course of antineoplastons. The movie tells us that the results were awesome, namely that the addition of antineoplastons pushed median survival from 36 months to 70 months. This would indeed be an impressive result if it were validated, although one can't help but notice that, even in that case, antineoplastons would not be the cure that is often claimed. Even if the result held up, they would be a treatment added to chemotherapy. (Also never mind that antineoplastons are chemotherapy.) In any case, I can't evaluate this claim until I see a publication in the peer-reviewed medical literature other than to say that most scientists frown on discussing one's results in a propaganda movie before actually...oh, you know...publishing them in a decent peer-reviewed journal—and with good reason.

5. Skeptics are evil meanies who cackle evilly as they terrorize cancer patients online and delight in crushing their hope

This is the final thing my fellow Skeptics learned by going into the belly of the beast. Indeed, one of them even got to ask a question at the Q&A (more on that later). In this, I truly admire them, because they went into a theater where the film maker wanted to convince his movie's audience that we are Evil Incarnate, so much so that we are no longer skeptics but The Skeptics and are, according to Merola, a well-organized international group. Well, Merola got one out of two correct. There are skeptics from different countries critical of Burzynski. But well organized? Not so much. Merola obviously doesn't know any actual skeptics or skeptical organizations if he thinks that. Apparently we're also so all-encompassing that Merola didn't do what he had promised and actually name names. Features were apparently obscured, and names on Tweets and blog posts were treated similarly, while at one point the voice of a prominent Skeptic from a YouTube video was even electronically altered to make it sound really sinister, complete with an evil laugh at the end. I have no idea why Merola did that after all the hype about "naming names," but he did. I'd be lying if I didn't say I was a bit relieved that he did, too.

Be that as it may, no wonder our Skeptics were so interested in this part of the movie! They tell me that we Skeptics were accused of:

Attacking cancer patients online and telling them they should just die, accompanied by the image of Pete and Hannah crying, as previously seen in the latest Burzynski II trailer.
Keeping pro-Burzynski or even neutral Burzynski material out of Wikipedia. I will give Merola credit for one mildy funny line that our Skeptics remembered, namely that the only neutral information about Burzynski in Wikipedia is his date of birth and prior education. Apparently the audience thought it was funny too.
Publishing "death lists" of previous patients and republishing them on multiple blogs and websites to give the appearance of coming from more than one source.
Being paid by the government to attack Burzynski
Being paid by big pharma to attack Burzynski
Having been funded by the NCI, ASCO, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, (as though this were a bad thing)

I really wish I could have seen this part, because according to our Skeptics many Tweets and blog post excerpts were flashed on the screen, all designed to make The Skeptics really, really bad. And I'm sure Merola could find some, too. I have seen the occasional Skeptic go too far in my opinion in what he or she says about Burzynski patients.

One "skeptic" charge that apparently rankles is that the Burzynski Clinic charges huge sums of money up front. Merola's retort? He mentions a 2008 Wall Street Journal story about M.D. Anderson charging cancer patients $105,000 up front to begin therapy. Googling located the article quickly, but I can't get access to the original article. It is, however, extensively quoted here. As horrible as this story is, one can't help but note that M.D. Anderson didn't charge this patient for a clinical trial. This was for standard-of-care cancer treatment. That's bad enough and doesn't excuse such behavior, but it does reveal that Merola is comparing apples to oranges. The complaint is, after all, that Burzynski charges huge "case management fees" to his patients to be on his clinical trials. Whatever the case, saying in essence, as Merola does, "Hey, they do it too!" is not generally considered a particularly compelling defense, except perhaps among seven year olds.

The demonization appears not to have stopped with the movie, either. During the Q&A, I'm told, Merola used terms like this to describe us, helpfully transcribed by our Skeptics:

"No shame whatsoever."
"Blind mules."
"Really nasty people."
"Slippery, slippery people."
"Don't care about the truth."

The dislike Merola expresses for Skeptics in his movie is genuine, and I strongly suspect that he really believes that there is a massive conspiracy against Burzynski, and that we're simply the latest party to it, joining the FDA, the NCI, the Texas Medical Board, and, of course, big pharma.

The underlying lessons

One problem with trying to write about a movie that you haven't seen through second hand accounts is that you just can't get the whole experience the film maker intended because all you have to go on are discussions and other people's accounts. For instance, I have no idea how effective the use of Hannah Bradley and Laura Hymas was, although if the first Burzynski movie was any indication I'm guessing that Merola pulled out all the stops to emotionally manipulate the audience. Similarly, although I do know from the trailer and our Skeptic mule's report that the movie featured cancer patients crying at the "harassment" Merola alleges, I have no idea how effective his demonization of skeptics was because I only know that, what sorts of wrongdoing he accused us of, and a few of the adjectives he used to describe us in the film and in the Q&A. I have not experienced it all in context, with dialogue, music, sound, and images all combined to make Skeptics like me look like dogmatic, heartless bastards serving their pharma overlords' interests. I can take satisfaction that when Brian got up to ask a question, identified himself as a Skeptic (a "skeptic mule," to be precise), and, prefacing his question with the observation that Merola accused all of us of being funded by pharma, asked him about how he has funded his movies, Merola reportedly looked none too pleased. It was at this point that I think we get a full lesson in where Merola's at.

In a way, Merola's tenacity is admirable. He talked about how he so wanted to do his first movie that he took the easiest, highest paying jobs he could find, so that he could finance the Burzynski movie and work on it during nights and weekends. Ultimately he decided that he couldn't finish the movie unless he went all in. So he quit his job, which shows to me both how much of a true believer he is but also bespeaks a certain boldness and willingness to take risks that's admirable. It's sad that he offered up this boldness and risk taking in the service of someone like Burzynski, who, if Merola is to be believed, didn't trust him at first and had to be won over by a rough cut of footage about patients from the first movie. He also overcame other adversity, as during the first year after its release his movie didn't do so well and he was seriously hurting for money. Then, he was interviewed by Dr. Oz, and über-quack Joe Mercola started promoting him, after which his first movie took off. This timeline makes sense in retrospect to me. Even though Burzynski I was released in 2010, I didn't hear about it until well over a year later and didn't find online access to review it until November 2011. Apparently this time around things are easier because Burzynski trusts Merola and he has a better distribution deal, but even now Merola claims he won't start seeing any money until September. I can't argue that, as he was reported to have said, Merola "put his financial ass on the line." He also put a family member on the line in 2011, namely a cousin with a brain tumor whom he referred to Burzynski in 2011 and who tragically died despite antineoplaston therapy and whom he doesn't mention in the Q&A.

Perhaps that's why Merola is so vicious this time around in attacking his critics. He is clearly a True Believer, as evidenced by the work he did, the risks he took, and the price he paid, as only a True Believer would go to such lengths. Last time around, however, what he didn't face were Skeptics criticizing his movie, mainly because we hadn't heard of it, didn't see it, and didn't think much of it. That's why it makes perfect sense that the rise of his movie paralleled the vast increase in criticism of Burzynski by skeptics. Also not mentioned by Merola is that it didn't help that around the same time in 2011 Burzynski patients were getting into the news through their prodigious fundraising efforts, and Skeptics were taking note. Burzynski didn't react well, siccing his attack poodle Marc Stephens on a teenaged skeptic in the U.K., and thus invoking the Streisand Effect in full force. The side spatter from that kerfuffle naturally started hitting Merola as skeptics looking into Burzynski's activities started examining Merola's movie, which was by then freely available to watch on various websites. The first time around, Merola flew in under the radar and only became noticed when people like Dr. Oz and Joe Mercola started promoting his movie. This time around, he can't fly in under the radar. He has been noticed, and scrutiny began as soon as he announced Burzynski II. This time he does not have over a year to say whatever he wants, do whatever he wants, and screen his movie only to adoring, credulous believers in "health freedom" and quackery before skeptics start to take notice.

However this time, he's not going to get the free ride he got last time, and he doesn't like it. It has nothing to do with a shadowy conspiracy of skeptics and everything to do with his having reached a high enough profile as someone who has become in essence the biggest advertiser for Stanislaw Burzynski in existence. Although I actually believe that Eric Merola believes he is doing the right thing (as he claims he believes The Skeptics think they're doing the right thing), he is deluding himself when he claims to be an independent journalist. He was never such a thing and, in fact, has become such a True Believer in Burzynski that his is no longer capable of even a semblance of critical thinking about him. Instead of looking at the evidence objectively, he applies his skills as a former advertiser to cherry pick evidence and present only information that supports his True Belief. I'd almost admire him, if he weren't so manipulative and deceptive in his defense of Stanislaw Burzynski.

^*This is a joke. Given Eric Merola's gullibility, I feel the need to point this out, lest he conclude that there really is a worldwide Skeptic conspiracy against him and decide to lash out.

^**Another joke. We skeptics can hide our reptilian script quite well. it's indistinguishable from normal handwriting.

oracknows Wed, 03/13/2013 - 19:05

Categories

Brain and Behavior

Actually, the joke would be a *doctor* thinking his handwriting is indistinguishable from normal handwriting! HA!

Seriously, though, thanks for the review. I've been wondering about all the secrecy surrounding the "world premiere" screening!

You're a cancer surgeon who just blogged a 15 page "movie review" on a movie...... you haven't even seen?

The attention these two get from you over the stupidest things is remarkable. Has it ever occurred to you that Burzynski and Merola have now officially "won"? Makes you wonder if they sit and laugh together at how much of your time they own.

Never understood why Burzliebers don't question the 'suppressed research' gambit. As tho Burz has no possible way to publish his 35 years of what must be conclusive data.

You know, like On The Internet For All To See.

As an aside, I had to read this in two parts. One part was up to Mr Saunders' devastating - and devastated - FB post. The second was after going for a short walk to calm down. If anyone ever accused me of being part of some heartless cabal of paid bastards who would apparently love to suppress a genuine cure for cancer and revel in even more suffering like theirs, they'd be going to court. Or more likely, I would.

he took the easiest, highest paying jobs he could find,

The two are compatible?

Nice work by Skeptic Mule Brian, especially the question about funding. I also love the fact that Mini B is as clunkingly bad at answering "off script" questions as Daddy Dearest is.

WRT the Evil! Big! Pharma! rushed-through and deadly drugs of dangerousness, Temodar and Avastin, Count Stan can't be too opposed to their existence. I'm sure they've featured in his close your eyes and pick the names of four chemotherapeutic agents out of a hat PGTCT regimens. So the vast amounts of moolah he charges for his pick'n'mix blastathon would make him a pharma shill, no?

Right, I'm off to start my day by making some terminally ill toddlers cry, and then I'm going to spend an hour or two mocking foetuses with neural tube defects. I won't give away my foetal-communication methods, but vuvuzelas are involved, along with super-bright LED arrays.

I think I can resent the pharmaceutical industry for their rapacious profit-taking, yet also make a distinction between fake anti-cancer treatments and real ones. It's similar to the way I resent the worldwide oil industry for the way they manipulate prices (OPEC was invented to do just that, so it's not exactly a secret), yet also recognize that the $4 per gallon gas I use actually makes my car run.

Shorter version: When somebody refers to big-pharma, the logically appropriate response is, "So what? Their business is to sell drugs, and they are held to a pretty high standard of showing that their drugs work before they can bring a new drug onto the market. The fact that they overcharge for a lot of things is outrageous, but that's a political issue, not a medical issue."

I seriously doubt that the true believers are likely to be cured of their ailment, but I think it's useful to offer the counter-arguments so that more or less normal people who don't happen to have medical training will at least be exposed to the more reason based positions.

I agree that it's a horrible thing when deluded parents cause their children with treatable conditions to die (or to die painfully and prematurely). We don't seem to have solved this question yet as a civilization.

It’s similar to the way I resent the worldwide oil industry for the way they manipulate prices (OPEC was invented to do just that, so it’s not exactly a secret), yet also recognize that the $4 per gallon gas I use actually makes my car run.

In this analogy, Burzynski is the guy selling shares in his new invention that will let your car run on water.

Cancer quacks should in my opinion be held fully responsible for the misery they cause. Those who support them Merola, Mercola & Oz, et al should be held fully responsible for this misery as they are the ones who are really laughing at the deaths of the cancer patients they steer to parasites like Burzynski.

This thing is so politicized that it has drawn in parties that should not be Burzynski's allies. I suppose they may be defending an "anti-cartel position" where SB made more legal progress, defining limits to power and abuse, than clinical or scientific progress in the last 25 years.

Oddly enough, I think conventional medical practioners may owe SB a debt of gratitude - in the 1980s he seemed to be a price leader, smashing down price barriers. Now he seems left behind by conventional medicine - my friends have bills over $40,000-50,000 per month. With a little bad luck, they can run through $2 million in a year, conventionally, mostly unnecessarily in my eyes.

First, Burzynski appears a long way from home on "natural" as part of the primary components of chemotherapeutic treatment. Second, his TargetNow system seems vin ordinaire in the sense of not using research to select molecular and genetic tests to outperform TN to some degree. Third, his drug selection in an area that I'm familiar with doesn't seem to me to use existing literature to maximize therapeutic index, much less optimize costs like 1/10 or less.

To some degree, I tend to view this as pot vs kettle. In my eyes both have OS results that are more than a factor two off, and prices a factor 10 too high. I have experienced conventional MD failure reading a CT too. Oncologists run their own pharmacies for IV drugs so I am underwhelmed about complaints on SB's pharmacy. Std oncologists make treatment choices that respond to renumeration and reward, too.

I view Orac's effort somewhat as Aesop's fable about the wind and the sun. Conventional medicine can cut SB off at the knees just by improving performance and cost with existing technologies and with off label compounds, in my very limited experience.

prn,

You wrote: "Conventional medicine can cut SB off at the knees just by improving performance and cost with existing technologies and with off label compounds, in my very limited experience."

How? If the condition is such that there is no sound treatment for it, "conventional medicine" doesn't offer to "compete".

I suspect Merola didn't name names because he made potentially libellous statements about Burzyski's detractors.

You’re a cancer surgeon who just blogged a 15 page “movie review” on a movie…… you haven’t even seen?

Hey Einstein, he only said that numerous times at the beginning and proffered explanation why he decided to do it.

The attention these two get from you over the stupidest things is remarkable. Has it ever occurred to you that Burzynski and Merola have now officially “won”? Makes you wonder if they sit and laugh together at how much of your time they own.

Riiiight. Which is exactly why they have to churn out infomercials, send sleazy attack Shih tzus after Burzynski critics, and whine about all of their persecution whilst refusing to publish studies. Interesting definition of winning.

How about an animated film produced by the Evil Skeptics: "Stan Burzynski's Risky Business"?

We could commission the creator of the following website to make the film.

http://sci-ence.org/red-flags2/

Grant, outside of brain cancers, SB appears pretty easy to compete with - no real advantages detected even 20 years ago. It is the lack of performance and options, options that are already available in the literature but not within over rigid standards of EBM, that are closer to what patients are seeking. FYI, I consider the current form of EBM to be in conflict with the EBM that was described or promised at the outset, and that this mutant EBM is in actual conflict with SBM. At least science as it was taught and practiced when more fundamental breakthroughs were being made in US science and industry.

I do want to see this flick soon. Patience, Bob. Patience.

The trackback at #7, by the way, is from a site called "stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com". So I'd say Orac's needling is getting to Burzynski, or at least his minions.

I see what you did with referring to Greg as "Mini-B".

Eric Lund,

The trackback at #7, by the way, is from a site called “stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com”.

That's the blog belonging to DJT, or Squidymus as I prefer to call him, on account of his habit of emitting great clouds of irrelevant verbiage in an attempt to hide his cluelessness when under threat. His incoherence appears to be evolving into even more complete illegibility, if that is possible.

Whew!
Orac, I'm so glad you didn't tell them about the sceptics' dress code- that we have to wear predominantly bl...
Ooops!

Wait one minute!

On the one hand, Burzinski can't/won't publish because everyone from the government on down is blocking him. On the other, some oncologist in Japan can and will publish?

Which is it? Either the results get published or they don't. Why won't the Japanese researcher just publish Burzinski's data?

I'm confused. It may be too early for me.

The odd part is, even after 30 years or so of ANP therapy there doesn't seem to be (or otherwise he/she would surely been in the movie) any patient who was actually cured and is still alive after a significant time. All the people mentioned are either dead or still undergoing treatment with varying success.
But presumably big pharma paid off all the long term survivors to refuse their participation.

The five points elucidated by the film appear to be much the same as those trotted out by woo-meisters, like Null.

A solitary genius works for many years and cures those SBM can't** ; he ( usually is male ) proceeds through painstakingly applying scientific methods- although he may have gotten a clue from an older, also scorned, solitary genius who has now passed on after passing the baton. Other research is quoted- most times the data are abundantly clear and support said solitary genius. Science-y sounding terms are tossed about like confetti- " Let me put that in *lay* language for you". Often, the Japanese ( or the Russians***) are the first to acknowledge the worthiness of his project which they replicate.

Of course, the sceptics are entirely evil and work feverishly to malign his work and thus deprive worthy, suffering individuals ( the audience and their loved ones) of his important ground-breaking work. And him of the international recognition he so truly deserves.

It's a set piece. Add a few scenes of the Orthodox scientists loudly protesting his presentation at a conference- perhaps stomping out indignantly- and maybe an operative of the pharmatocracy confessing how he has tailed the hero, taking copious notes and tried to use a female shill to frame him in an indelicate situation. To no avail.

But eventually he triumphs because The People support his important work.

Right. It's a bad novel or a bad screenplay c. 1950s.

** cancer, hiv/aids, MS, ASDs, LDs, Alzheimer's etc.
*** I guess those two are chosen because their script is indecipherable to westerners and you can't go and look it up easily. He doesn't get that translation occurs.

Even if the FDA were the devil incarnate what's to stop Burzynski publishing his high quality data on his own website, or submitting it to some publication outside of the FDA's cloven hooved jurisdiction?

The FDA & "big pharma" just make for a convenient excuse when the reason for the lack of evidence is more straightforward - there is no good quality evidence that ANPs work. Pretend there is a conspiracy to "suppress" the evidence and use that as an excuse to never provide any.

Burzynski isn't interested in real scientific discussion of his treatments. The claims that he can't "publish" is just a smokescreen, an excuse to explain away the reason he isn't in Phase III trails or doesn't have strong peer-reviewed studies showing his work.

The excuse Big Medicine is bent against him is good enough to explain away the lack of published studies to the audience he's trying to reach. Burzynski doesn't care about impressing skeptics or the medical establishment. He just wants the desperate cancer patient to buy his product - it's a really a variation of the high-pressure car salesman who doesn't want you to read the fine print or do a thorough examination of the automobile.

@prn - The usual false equivalencies I see?

Two points of note:

1. WRT the reading of scans. Nobody's perfect, nobody has a 100% hit rate. However, the pattern in Burzynski's case points to either extreme visual impairment/total incompetence at best, and active deceit at worst. This isn't "One or two diagnostic errors" so much as "Every patient is given an apparently scripted speech about cyst formation and tumour breakdown"

Seriously. Read the case files at TOBPG.

2. Cost.

If the entire World used the US system you may have a hint of a point WRT equivalent costs between woo and medicine.

As you apparently keep failing to grasp, that's not the case. UK children, in particular, receive free oncological care at treatment centres at the cutting edge of paediatric cancers. So £0 vs £150k of lies and false hope isn't such a bargain, especially considering the increased pain and trauma (emotional and physical) associated with ANP "treatment".

@24:

Moreover, if the costs of the treatments were the same, or even if conventional treatment was somewhat more expensive, the cost/benefit analysis would almost certainly sway towards the conventional...because there's actual scientific evidence that shows that those treatments work - maybe not as well as we'd like, and with known side effects.

If I'm being unbelievably generous, the best I can say about Burzynski's treatment is that there's a chance it might be effective. Seems like if I had $200K to spend, I'd go with the surer thing.

In other woo-slinging independent cinema news:

( via AoA, advert)

"The United States of Autism" which documents a father's 11000 mile, 40 day search for *answers* about his son's autism by meeting 20 other families who apparently buy into woo ( or else it wouldn't make it past KS, would it now?)

You may find a screening ( starting in April) to reserve seats or *request* a screening of your own by which to raise funds for your own autism organisation ( 25% of net proceeds) through 'Tugg' ( oh where, oh where do they get these brilliant names?) "Create an event!"
-btw- if you don't pre-sell enough seats the event will be scratched.

To be perfectly honest, I didn't make that up. It's real- well, as real as anything @ AoA can be, i.e. it exists in writing.

According to Wikipedia:

The Skeptics was a New Zealand postpunk band from 1979 to 1990. They became notorious in 1987 for an unusually graphic music video entitled "AFFCO".

Why is Mercola so wound up about them? They broke up long ago.

Ren:

On the one hand, Burzinski can’t/won’t publish because everyone from the government on down is blocking him. On the other, some oncologist in Japan can and will publish?
Which is it? Either the results get published or they don’t. Why won’t the Japanese researcher just publish Burzinski’s data?

Indeed. In fact, what's stopping Scammyslaw from publishing it himself? He's got a website. He's rich enough to found his own medical journal if he wanted to. Given what a publicity hound Scamley is, it's hard to see how he could resist trumpeting his brilliant success to the world.

Unless, of course, he has something to hide....(dun dun dunnnnn....

prefacing his question with the observation that Merola accused all of us of being funded by pharma, asked him about how he has funded his movies, Merola reportedly looked none too pleased

I know I've been harping on this, but one might indeed care to look at the BZYR stock price around the time of the Oz and Mercola appearances. There was certainly a minor dump a few days ago when it hit 16 cents.

My understanding, from a friend who does corporate governance, is that there are no tax implications for the recipient of face-value warrants, which BZYR hands out like candy. Issue the warrants, put out the promotional piece, wait for the stock price to rise, and get right out. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Denice @21: As it happens, I am acquainted with a few Japanese journals (admittedly in physical sciences rather than medicine). The articles in those journals are invariably in English--in fact, I have not even seen a Japanese language abstract in those journals (journals that publish articles in multiple languages will typically publish a translation of the abstract from the language of the paper to the other language used; e.g., a Canadian journal will typically publish abstracts in both English and French). Russian language journals still exist, but as you point out, there are people who publish translations (at least of the ones that are important enough for Westerners to care about).

Off-topic, (but are Mercola's antics ever completely off-topic here?) I'm particularly irritated by Mercola's latest nonsense which claims:

Several months from now, a glass of milk could contain an ingredient that acts like a Trojan horse, invading susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, and wreaking havoc on your DNA. Side effects may include headaches, vision problems, and memory lapses...

Did you guess what he is referring to? It's aspartame, which has to be one of the substances most extensively tested for safety in history. I'm not sure I like the idea of such additives being added to foods without having to be listed on the label, but Mercola doesn't leave it there. Oh no.

He correctly states that the methyl group is broken down to formaldehyde but then claims that:

All animals EXCEPT HUMANS have a protective mechanism that allows methanol to be broken down into harmless formic acid. This is why toxicology testing on animals is a flawed model. It doesn't fully apply to people.

This is a double-dose of nonsense, since not only do humans break down methanol to formaldehyde and formaldehyde to formic acid, but formic acid, far from being "harmless", is a major cause of the acidosis and other problems such as blindness you see in methanol poisoning. However, the amounts generated by even large amounts of ingested aspartame are far too small to cause us problems.

Here's an informative document about chronic exposure to methanol in food and drink that states:

However, to maintain the equilibrium concentration of 2.6 mg/L, it was calculated that the daily turnover of formaldehyde would be 31-59 g/day, meaning that external sources of formaldehyde, including methanol, account for only 1-2% of the total daily turnover.

If our bodies detoxify at least 30 grams (that's 30,000 milligrams) of formaldehyde every day, it seems very likely they can deal with the maximum permitted 600 milligrams aspartame per liter of a soft drink which will generate 60 milligrams of methanol per liter. The maximum 0.1 milligrams of formaldehyde in a vaccine shot, by the way, is clearly insignificant in comparison.

At the time, Axelrod was a senior advisor to President Obama. Merola told the audience that Axelrod said the film was very important but that the issue was too big to deal with then given that the economy was tanking. Incredibly, Merola claims that Axelrod also said that approving antineoplastons would devastate the pharmaceutical industry, sending the country back into recession, and that the stock market would plummet as a result as well.

If that claim were true, I imagine the Burzynski labs and Merola's edit suite would have mysteriously gone on fire long before the film was ready for release.

@prn:

You say that outside of brain cancer SB seems easy to compete with. Do you have data regarding his success in brain cancer? The narratives that families share regarding patients' survival aren't data. I can, however, show you published data on survival rates for children with brain cancer that comes from actual research facilities like St. Jude. (Who, y'know, doesn't ask families to pay out-of-pocket for medical expenses.)

@ Sadie Burke: That entire comment of prn's...is a slam against EBM and SBM and the "progress" made during the past twenty years in effective treatment modalities for most types of cancer to effect long term remissions and total cures.

I just *dodged a bullet* this AM. I had my yearly mammography on Tuesday. Yesterday I received a call from my radiologist that a 7 mm DENSE nodule was seen on my left breast. This morning I underwent a 3-D left breast mammography and left breast sonogram and the radiologist assured me that the 7 mm Dense nodule is a cyst.

Yeah, it's an anecdote, but I'm delighted that advances made in diagnostic tests and the interpretation of those tests, was made by a competent radiologist...not a quack.

prn,

You avoided / didn't address the point I made, let me emphasis part of it: If the condition is such that there is no sound treatment for it, “conventional medicine” doesn’t offer to “compete”.

There are conditions that have no sound treatment. In that situation, the correct thing for medics to say is that there no sound treatment. By contrast, the likes of Burzynski offer "cures" where there are none, preying on people's wishes.

(There's a wonderful comment a reader wrote on this general issue that I put up as a post on my blog.)

Asking that medicine stoop to Burzynski's level makes no sense.

Treatments that are that are (potentially) effective, available and can be offered, already are offered. There's no collection of treatments that are "just not being used" so that you can point at them!

(You'll even see examples of medicine offering treatments it isn't convinced in on the patient's behalf, provided it meets other criteria (ethics, etc). As just one example, I know of a patient being given high-dose vitamin C under supervision of his oncologists. His "case trial" was eventually stopped when he [the patient] recognised it wasn't helping. Note, though, that this isn't "competing" in the way you asked for.)

"no real advantages detected even 20 years ago."

- No real advantages in what? - clarity needed. If you mean in success rates from cancer treatments, there are been improvements over the past 20 years alright. (Orac has noted this from time-to-time, too.)

"It is the lack of performance and options, options that are already available in the literature but not within over rigid standards of EBM, that are closer to what patients are seeking."

- Straw-man. You're asking that medicine adopt a double standard. (See my earlier remarks.)

"FYI, I consider the current form of EBM to be in conflict with the EBM that was described or promised at the outset, and that this mutant EBM is in actual conflict with SBM."

- No concrete statement in there.

"At least science as it was taught and practi[s]ed when more fundamental breakthroughs were being made in US science and industry."

- Another straw-man.

Tracking back others seem to have taken this up, so I'll let their words cover it.

@ Grant:

According to "prn"...

"Grant, outside of brain cancers, SB appears pretty easy to compete with – no real advantages detected even 20 years ago. It is the lack of performance and options, options that are already available in the literature but not within over rigid standards of EBM, that are closer to what patients are seeking. FYI, I consider the current form of EBM to be in conflict with the EBM that was described or promised at the outset, and that this mutant EBM is in actual conflict with SBM. At least science as it was taught and practiced when more fundamental breakthroughs were being made in US science and industry."

That's really a ridiculous statement. Here...a personal story about the death of Robin Bush, a beloved child, to leukemia:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2235807/Barbara-Bushs-heartac…

Barbara Bush relates how her four-year-old daughter, did not survive her bout with childhood leukemia....

"...They took bone marrow tests which were painful,' Mrs Bush said. 'A lot of blood. they put her on chemo, and poor gampy, every time she got a blood transfusion he's have to leave the room.'

Seven months later, almost age four, Robin died. Then Mrs Bush made the easy decision, she said, to donate her child's body to research.

'I think it made gampy and me feel something good is coming out of this precious little life and today, almost nobody dies of leukemia,' said Mrs Bush...."

A quotation from Marlo Thomas, daughter of Danny Thomas...the benefactor of St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital...

"...Today, the survival rate for a child surviving leukemia is 90 per cent.

At St Jude's Children's Research Hospital, which was founded nearly a decade after Robin 's death, the hospital's National Outreach Director, Marlo Thomas explained that its first doctors were willing to try new techniques to beat leukemia.

She said: 'We still have cells and DNA from patients that we treated in the 1960s, and now that technology has gotten better, we can go back and learn what caused those cancers and why some children were cured and others weren't.'..."

@ Krebiozen:

About 2-3 weeks ago, Adams had similar ranting about secret aspartame in milk( listed as 'most popular article'):
those who read his musings will obviously avoid any milk that not either raw or faux ( i.e. almond milk) - because, wouldn't you know- to Mikey,
'guns don't kill people, processed milk kills people'

". . .he’s never, despite having had over 60 phase II trials, published a complete phase II trial. . ."

To abuse a meme: "I don't have to show you any stinkin' data!"

Conventional medicine can cut SB off at the knees just by improving performance and cost with existing technologies and with off label compounds, in my very limited experience.

prn, did you miss the part where many of Burzynski's patient-recruitment effort is targetted at countries like the UK or Australia or NZ? Countries where the patients would not pay for the cost of standard EBM treatment?

Russian language journals still exist, but as you point out, there are people who publish translations (at least of the ones that are important enough for Westerners to care about).

Journals in translation seem to be a dying breed. This is unfortunate from my perspective, as the copy editing (if it exists at all) one is likely to encounter for a straight homebrew submission to an English-language journal generally isn't up to the task of doing the author--and, by implication, the readers--any particular favors and, indeed, such authors may not notice introduced errors. This isn't a complaint, as my job is to help just these authors get their results over as readably as possible, but the pay and time pressures often don't allow as good a job as possible.

IOP seems to have taken on part of the Acta [...] Sinica titles; I'm not sure how they handle them. Springer has some others, etc. The question is whether this is an added fee. ELSS seems to specialize in this niche, although using freelancers, and I'm not sure quite how the model works.

I do run into references that only have English abstracts with some regularity, though. I'm also old enough to remember when some sort of demonstrated reading competence in Russian, German, or French was a requirement for a Ph.D. in the physical sciences.

Denice,

to Mikey, ‘guns don’t kill people, processed milk kills people’

I do agree with the Health DeRanger and Mercola that products should be labelled to tell consumers if they contain HFCS or aspartame, but only if they are also labelled to indicate they may contain dangerous levels of pus, cow feces, listeria, salmonella and TB.

To Herr Doktor: Yes, I was thinking about the same example, of charlatans who talk about running a car on water.

The next time they do one of these B2 shows, where they screen the film and take questions, why doesn't somebody just ask for the data right then and there -- How many patients over the course of the years, including the fraction who are still alive, the fraction who died, and the fraction whose survival is unknown? They will get used to hearing that question and do their best to adapt, but just making stuff up will have consequences of its own.

"I have never heard of antineoplastons," said Yu Xiong, deputy president of the Shanghai Institute of Pharmaceutical Industry.

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-02/02/content_14528005.htm

From Orac's link to Brian Thompson's blog reporting on the Burzynski II movie: In the "silly" section on The Skeptics, Brian reports that the bulk of Merola's focus was on the people behind "The Other Burzynski Patient Group". Interesting.

“I have never heard of antineoplastons,” said Yu Xiong, deputy president of the Shanghai Institute of Pharmaceutical Industry.

Finally, barking up the right squirrel.

From Mark Thorson's link:

Li Qingchen, a doctor and member of Scientific Squirrels, a Chinese organization dedicated to the dissemination of scientific knowledge, said Thursday that the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) has been using an unapproved cancer therapy to swindle Chinese patients.
[...]
The Chinese representative office of A4M claimed on its website that it could offer a "breakthrough cancer therapy" developed by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who asserts that cancer can be treated with antineoplastons, a group of amino acids and petides normally found in urine and blood.
The organization also posted dozens of promotional videos and blogs on Sina Weibo, a popular Chinese microblogging site.

Sounds like the international trade in snake oil has run into CITES regulations.

What's the story with AAAAM? On first glance it's a umbrella organisation for a heterogeneous mixture of shysters and charlatans, including Burzynski's "Aminocare" sideline.

Off topic warning: Hey, this thread could use some humor. If you hate Dr. Tenpenny, you will love this. It's derptacular.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pByYy2uhIIU&feature=youtu.be

What’s the story with AAAAM?

Ram's ball pie, it seems.

Oh, I see. A cargo-cult imitation of academia, set up by a pair of osteopaths who have not succeeded in having their degree-mill medical certificates recognised anywhere outside Belize, who are currently suing Wikipedia for calling them what I just said. Touting the magical-thinking certainty (which has worked so well for the last century or so) that the key to immortality lies in the digestive, excretory and reproductive systems.

And Burzynski is associating with them -- in his search for overseas markets -- in the hope that some of their academic credibility might rub off and improve his own standing. Indeed. How could it decrease?

A4M is one of the professional organisations about which woo-meisters blather to make themselves appear to be
acceptable to the un-discerning masses.

Null has a history with them as do other greedy charlatans: he presented his study that involved 'reversing menopause' in post - menopausal women through veganism, supplementation, over-exercise and prayer ( I'm not being entirely facetious).
He also sued Wikipedia- unsuccessfully for 100milion USD
( see Quackwatch/recent). The reasons why the suit failed should be informative for the AAAAM.

Stopping aging usually implies death. So perhaps there is a grain of truth in woo.

Bob G.

charlatans who talk about running a car on water.

But what if the water is actually methane hydrate?

to MO'Brien:

I know you are kidding, but the subject of extracting methane from cage ice is interesting, so thanks for the link. I'm thinking about a different kind of magical thinking that I once came across:

I was the vice chair of a large pro-enviro group back in the 90s. We had a member who was the spittin' image of John Muir, including the dignified beard, and he spoke in a resonant baritone that sounded like the voice of heaven itself. One meeting, he got up and explained how he had been privileged to attend a meeting of some of the greatest cancer researchers in the world. He spoke of one (to borrow Orac's term here) brave maverick doctor who was using a remarkable new treatment. When I quietly asked him for details, he sent me some materials which described injecting something chemically related pretty closely to moth balls into the inguinal lymph nodes. We didn't have the term "woo" to use back then, but that's what it was.

He also mentioned some guy in Australia who had been running his car on water for the past year.

I mentioned to the group in passing that I am a scientist and rationalist, and I don't believe you can run a car on water. No more was said about it by anybody there.

That was probably New Zealand, not Australia.

http://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html

I mentioned to the group in passing that I am a scientist and rationalist, and I don’t believe you can run a car on water.

I suppose you could run a car by electrolysis of water to hydrogen and oxygen, using the mixture as fuel, but conservation of energy suggests you would get no more energy from this than the electrical energy you put in. That doesn't seem to stop people from trying.

There have been any number of devices that claim to boost truck engine performance by injecting "Brown's Gas", created by the electrolysis of water using a heavy duty alternator. The only credible write-up I saw that compared performance and mileage of the vehicle with and without the "Brown's Gas" device showed a net reduction in mileage, as conservation of energy would suggest.

I admit, though, to wondering when I was reading about that. The internal combustion engine is a complex device, and not a particularly simple heat engine. I could conceive of all kinds of reasons that engine efficiency might be improved even though energy is conserved. for instance, the addition of oxygen and hydrogen (without additional nitrogen) might conceivably have promoted more complete or more energetic combustion.

But that's neither here nor there.

M.O'B,

There have been any number of devices that claim to boost truck engine performance by injecting “Brown’s Gas”, created by the electrolysis of water using a heavy duty alternator. The only credible write-up I saw that compared performance and mileage of the vehicle with and without the “Brown’s Gas” device showed a net reduction in mileage, as conservation of energy would suggest.

The kind of bassackwards logic in play reminds me, tangentially, of a rather eccentric commenter here who promoted the bizarre hypothesis that epilepsy is caused by hypoglycemia, and that seizures occur to convert glycogen in the muscles into glucose, then lactic acid which is carried to the liver in the bloodstream where it is converted back to glucose, thus relieving the hypoglycemia.

Brown's Gas is one of my favorite pseudoscientific substances. It allegedly burns hot enough to melt stone, but cool enough to play over a person's skin without burning it (though it will burn their hair), and destroys radioactivity. A bit of casual Googling reveals that Browns' gas also allegedly produces water with amazing health benefits when combusted. I really shouldn't be surprised given what we know of crank magnetism.

Krebiozen @56 -- that Brown's Gas page is crank-tastic! All it lacks is a black background.

Also, M. O'B @55 -- Of course the efficiency of the internal combustion engine may be improvable. But thousands of brilliant engineers have pounded hard on this problem for many decades now, with all the resources of the big car companies to back them up. Contrary to conspiracy theorists, the auto companies would LOVE to improve mileage, largely because of the pressure of gov't fuel economy standards. The low-hanging fruit is likely to be all gone.

I remember a physicist friend who said that the incredibly strong Neodymium-Iron-Boron magnets were developed originally by GM -- the motivation being to find ways of making all those power window motors (etc) lighter, to lower the weight of the vehicle, in order (finally) to improve mileage. If their engineers are llooking that hard at such peripheral issues, they're certainly looking very, very hard at the power plant.

palindrom - And that, of course, shows how when one sees testimonials about something logically improbable (or at least unproven) one might wonder if there's something to it. The important thing, though, is to move on when one finds a preponderance of evidence that says there isn't.

"I mentioned to the group in passing that I am a scientist and rationalist"

A-ha! Cardinal signs of "intellectual sterility".

@Krebiozen,

Wow. That's such a combination of the obvious and the ridiculous. There are a number of statements that are just obvious - hey, if you take compressed gas and expand it, it becomes colder and you can use that to refrigerate your house! If you burn hydrogen and oxygen, you get no soot! Call the media!

There was actually a patent issued for a working hydrogen and oxygen powered automobile; I was a kid when I rode in the thing (it was a pickup truck with all the equipment in the truck bed) so I don't remember the details of how it worked, and wasn't particularly interested either. I have no idea whether the net energy expenditure to produce the compressed gasses in liquid form was positive or negative, let alone the carbon footprint. But it did run, and it left a trail of water wherever it went.

But it did run, and it left a trail of water wherever it went.

Yeah, I had a dog like that too.

No, seriously - if hydrogen and oxygen is a good enough fuel for NASA, it's good enough for for automobiles. The trick is finding a way to create hydrogen that doesn't cause a huge greenhouse gas load. Recent work at MIT may eventually lead to an answer.

I wonder how Amelia Saunders family will feel, should they see this film. Especially the part referred to that implies that the reason Amelia died, was because her family didn't follow the ANP treatment "to the letter" Doesn't bear thinking about.

M.O'B.,

The trick is finding a way to create hydrogen that doesn’t cause a huge greenhouse gas load.

Electrolysis of seawater using the right electrodes and solar, wave or wind generated electricity seems viable. I've been working, on and off, on an idea that would use this kind of technology to both recycle waste plastics and absorb CO2, but not getting very far.

I have to grudgingly admire DJT's ingenuity in signing up for a WordPress blog so that we are treated to occasional droppings like the above. On second thoughts, it's probably not deliberate at all. It's still mildly irritating though.

If conventional cancer treatments were all the marvel that you suggest, then there would not be room for so many quacks on the market. Would conventional treatment protocols hold up under the same scrutiny? What of women who contract secondary cancers as a result of the treatment: Of the four women I know who contracted breast cancer and had radiation and chemo., three are dead. Neither did they not even survive 5 years into the treatment, they died horrible deaths. I realize that this is not a statistical sampling, but it is enough for me to think twice about accepting conventional treatment for myself. Conventional treatment is very far from being a cure. It seems that you are protecting yourself from facing the reality of the seeming uselessness of conventional treatment by railing out at quacks, for whom I have no love either. Nevertheless, chemo and radiation are not sufficiently effective to make me want to use them.

@Chaya: How do you know they got "secondary cancers" directly because of the treatment, instead of the treatment just not being effective in controlling the cancer? Cancer sucks. Nobody denies that.

Orac is a bit more sympathetic than you might give credit for. Took some digging, but found a link to a phrase (paragraph, whatever) that still sticks with me:

And, to draw another analogy to medicine, when I’m quoting risks to patients I often say something like, “The risk of complication X is 10%, but if it happens to you it’s 100% for you.” Although somewhat nonsensical from a mathematical and statistical standpoint, I find that this really does get across to the patient that, even if the risk of a complication is low, I understand the severity if it happens to her.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/10/24/criminalizing-scientific-m…

We're human. We hate suffering. We hate dying. We hate dying worse when it involves children or young people. It all sucks. And despite all the progress we've made so far, it's going to be that way for a long time. Maybe our great-great-grandchildren will laugh at how stupid we were.

As for an adult accepting treatment with nothing but X and Y probabilites to go on, that's a whole other question.

Chaya,

The current standard of care in cancer therapy is no walk in the park. It is, however, backed by evidence that says that your odds of getting better with it are better than your odds of getting better without it. Or, if not, at least the odds and costs are known.

Conventional treatment CAN cure as opposed to unproven "cures".

I can't imagine wanting to use chemotherapy or radiation just for fun. On the other hand, I've known people (and I admit that this is not a statistical sampling either) who used them and were cured.

Chaya,

Of the four women I know who contracted breast cancer and had radiation and chemo., three are dead. Neither did they not even survive 5 years into the treatment, they died horrible deaths. I realize that this is not a statistical sampling, but it is enough for me to think twice about accepting conventional treatment for myself.

You need to compare conventional treatment with untreated breast cancer, or breast cancer treated with alternative medicine to see which is better. Dying despite conventional treatment may be horrible, but not as horrible as dying from untreated cancer, I can assure you. Most alternative cancer treatments are, for all intents and pusposed, no treatment at all.

Statistically speaking your experience is not representative. If breast cancer is found when it is still localized, which it usually is with the recommended self-examination and mammography, 5 year survival is better than 98%. Despite an increase in incidence since 1975, mortality has significantly fallen, which suggests treatment is becoming even more effective.

"pusposed"? I meant "purposes".

I know more than 4 people who have survived more than 5 years after receiving conventional cancer therapy. One of them is myself. So does my personal testimony trump her anecdote?

#70 Krebiozen

Is it an increase in incidence since 1975, or just an increase in detection due to mammograms and improving mammography technology and techniques? You can detect tiny tumors now...

Not trying to be a pedant, but people so often get this muddled in the case of autism that it caught my attention.

I've had conversations with my mother on this issue, and she claimed there were no kids in her school with autism that she recalled. I pointed out that they didn't mainstream kids that often back then (which would have excluded a big portion of the spectrum from schools), but she still didn't quite buy it.

Not half an hour later, she and her siblings were discussing the weird kid in their school who had some odd behaviors that seemed to resemble... guess what? Autism. Ding ding ding!

I wonder if the poor woman ever got diagnosed or if she just went on her merry ( albeit rather eccentric) way.

Khani,

Is it an increase in incidence since 1975, or just an increase in detection due to mammograms and improving mammography technology and techniques? You can detect tiny tumors now…

You're right, in the UK (where I am, and presumably elsewhere) both the apparent increase in incidence and fall in mortality are partly, but not entirely, due to better detection.

#75 Krebiozen

Goodness, I didn't know about the fat thing. That's quite interesting, and very depressing.

I have to grudgingly admire DJT’s ingenuity in signing up for a WordPress blog so that we are treated to occasional droppings like the above.

Not even a default WP setup (such as one almost has here, aside from the clumsy modifications) requires one to have trackbacks appear in the comments. Personally, I've always found them to have an S/N approaching zero regardless of the source.

I love how Diddums (in his pingback) is "refuting" my comment about UK children receiving cancer treatment free of charge rather than for £200,000, by reeling off links showing the cost of cancer treatment for uninsured Americans! That's much the same as countering "Their are no WMDs in Iraq" with "Pakistan has the bomb!"

Good job Diddums! Here's a little diddy-biscuit for being a good boy.

I don't think Mini-BDiddums even realises that there's a whole world outside US borders. Maybe he thinks there's just a dusty No Man's Land without Verona's fair walls.

Is it so hard to believe that the US healthcare system is derided the world over? So impossible to conceive of paediatric cancer being dealt with at leading centres of excellence dedicated entirely to the research and treatment of childhood cancers, without a single penny ever changing hands?

When my niece was being treated for a tumour (likely present from birth) that had obliterated her kidney, the treatment made her anorexic.

Her tiny body desperately needed solid food, and to tempt her to eat, the staff on that ward managed to produce anything she asked for, regardless of the time of day or the combination of ingredients required. Her care team played with her, consoled her, held film screenings for the children on the unit.

She received superb care, amazing follow-up including social work support, group therapy sessions for her and her mum, and is now a healthy seven year old with four official years of remission under her belt.

All for free. I feel sick thinking about the alternative. Luna, Amelia, hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt and heartbreak, served up by Count Scamula.

elburto, my brother's doctors at St. Jude did the same thing. They were so LOVING and great with those kids. And of course he got free followup until he was... 26, I think?... along with the free lifesaving care.

I was diagnosed with Glioblastoma Multiforme 12/31/2012. I
ve been through the standard of care, surgery, radiation, and chemo (temodar). I came through the rt & chemo with virtually no side affects other than fatigue, and by all accounts, I’m doing pretty well now.

I fully expect to have a recurrence at some point, and I’ll deal with that then. What I won’t do, no matter what, is go to the Houston Quack. I don’t believe that he can cure a hangnail, much less brain cancer. I certainly don’t want to die from this, and I’ll do everything possible to stave off that possibility (other than the foregoing), But if that is my destiny, at least I’ll go with my finances (and my kids & future grandchild’s inheritance intact. My misfortune is not going to enrich that unethical, dishonest bastard.

@ML -- Best wishes for total remission, or at least a long, long disease-free survival to enjoy your kids and future grandchildren.

@ ML: Best wishes to you as you progress through cancer treatment.

You might want to *hang out* here, because the late night comments by *some of us* can get pretty raucous...once old blinky box is in sleep mode. :-)

Another way to join the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients' campaign, plus: It is noticed that Stanislaw Burzynski has thrown information about his "clinical trials" down the ol' memory hole

oracknows — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:09:33 +0000

Another way to join the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients' campaign, plus: It is noticed that Stanislaw Burzynski has thrown information about his "clinical trials" down the ol' memory hole

While I'm using my blog as an announcement platform today, I would be remiss not to mention that tomorrow is Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's birthday, and the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients are still raising money for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in order to try to get Dr. Burzynski to do something good for cancer patients for a change. The beauty of it is that, even if Burzynski declines, as is likely, there'll still be a nice big donation to a real cancer center that does real good for children with cancer, which is in marked contrast to Burzynski. Harriet Hall has joined in the campaign and is auctioning off a beautiful, hand-knit afghan, knitted by the SkepDoc herself, the proceeds to go to the campaign. If you want to bid on it, it's on Ebay and can be found here. If you don't want an afghan (although why you wouldn't, I have no idea), you can donate to the campaign here.

While I'm mentioning Dr. Burzynski again, a reader named W. Kevin Vicklund pointed something very interesting out in the comments of this post. Basically, the Burzynski Clinic has updated its webpage on clinical trials, and the new language is quite different from the old language:

Here's a comparison of the old language vs. the new language on the Burzynski Clinical Trials page. [Items italicized and in square brackets] are removed, whilebolded items are new.
[Introduction to]What are Clinical Trials?

Clinical trials (also clinical research, clinical studies) are research studies to determine whether experimental treatments, or new ways of using known therapies, are safe and effective. Carefully conducted clinical trials are necessary to find treatments that work in people and ways to improve health.

There are four phases of clinical trials in cancer treatment:

Phase I trials: to determine the safety of a new treatment

Phase II trials: to determine whether a certain kind of cancer responds to a new treatment

Phase III trials: to verify whether a new treatment is better than standard treatment

Phase IV trials: to find more specific information about a new treatment that has been already approved for use in patients

[Antineoplastons - Subject of Clinical Trials

Antineoplaston treatment is an experimental therapy offered by the Burzynski Clinic, currently available only within clinical trials.

Currently, there is 1 open clinical trial on Antineoplastons (as of January 2012). The clinical trial is registered with the FDA and result of the trial is reported to the FDA on an annual basis.

Read more about Antineoplaston Therapy]

Quality Control

Clinical trials conducted in our Clinic are FDA approved protocols. A protocol determines what will be done in a clinical trial and why. It outlines how many patients will participate in a clinical trial, type and frequency of medical testing, treatment plan, monitoring requirements and the evaluation plan. [Our staff physicians strictly follow the protocol and submit periodical reports on the progress of the study for FDA evaluation.]

Enrollment in Clinical Trials

The clinical trials encompass a variety of brain tumors in both children and adults. [Over the last ten years more than 2,000 patients have participated in the clinical trials on Antineoplastons.] Only patients eligible to enroll in clinical trials may receive Antineoplaston treatment under the study. [Ineligible patients may receive approval to enroll, from the FDA on an individual basis.]

To find out if you qualify for enrollment in clinical trials, please contact our Cancer Information Specialist.

[The list of open clinical trials is available at Clinicaltrials.gov (the FDA official clinical trials data bank). For the most recent information please contact the Burzynski Clinic directly.

Reports/Statistics

The official reports on the progress of the clinical trials on Antineoplastons are presented regularly by Dr. Burzynski and his associates at various medical symposia and conferences. Mid-term reports from the clinical research are regularly published in peer-reviewed journals and subject-related scientific books.

View the most recent scientific publications.
Latest Developments

Clinical Trials: Antineoplastons in Treatment of Brainstem Glioma

Orphan Drug designation

In September 2004, the FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of Brainstem Glioma. The Orphan Drug designation has been extended to all Gliomas

The FDA's orphan drug program is intended to encourage research, development and approval of products for treatment of diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States per year and provide a significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.

Orphan drug designation enables the Burzynski Research Institute to apply for assistance from the Office of Orphan Product Development in guiding the drug through the regulatory approval process.

Phase III clinical trial - Brainstem Glioma

The protocol for the Phase III trials is ready. Phase III trials are expected to start in 2012.

Last Update: January 2012]

Rather interesting, don't you think? At least, I thought so, which is why I mentioned it and reproduced Kevin's comment in full. It looks as though in 2013 Burzynski has scrubbed mention of the infamous phase III clinical trial and the use of sodium phenylbutyrate, which, as I have pointed out, is what one antineoplaston is. Overall, the new Burzynski clinical trials page is much more stripped down, doesn't mention a list of open clinical trials (mainly because, as far as I can tell, few, if any, of the more than 60 clinical trials Burzynski has registered at ClinicalTrials.gov are currently open to accrual; certainly the phase III trial is not). One wonders whether this change in the Burzynski Clinic's clinical trials page means that the phase III trial is, as they say, kaput. Of course, I always suspected that it would never open anyway and was simply a way for Burzynski to make it look to patients as though the FDA has enough confidence in antineoplastons as cancer therapy to let him do a clinical trial. It all makes me wonder once again how Burzynski has gotten away with his shadow clinical trials game for around 20 years now and with administering a therapy with no convincing evidence of efficacy against the tumors he's treating for 35 years.

If ever there was a place that desperately needed some light shined into its dark recesses, it's the Burzynski Clinic.

oracknows Tue, 01/22/2013 - 03:09

Tags

Announcements

cancer

Clinical trials

complementary and alternative medicine

complementary and alternative medicine

Categories

Medicine

I wonder if Burzynski is finally giving up the pretense of researching antineoplastons. Perhaps there's been pressure exerted to either report results or quit pretending to run clinical trials.

I had earlier said there was a second page under the Clinical Trials heading. Using the wonders of the Internet Archive, I have confirmed my memory of what it was. He has completely eliminated the page on antineoplastons.

It looks like the increased scrutiny is having an effect! I guess Eric Merola's little propaganda clips aren't as convincing as he'd like to believe. Keep up the pressure Orac - the more attention Burzynski courts, the more opportunity there is to point out his many questionable claims and practices.

I think maybe the tide is turning against Dr Burypatients. Yesterday, on a web design forum that I belong to, somebody posted a link to the Burzynski film (the first one) asking "Anybody heard of this doctor?". About six of us weighed in, all with negative comments about Dr B (and I posted links); one added the experience of a friend who had been treated at the Burzynski clinic, which was the usual story of being sucked dry of money and dying anyway. Nobody even tried to defend him.
So, yes, I think people generally are starting to cotton on to his scam.

That was a very good catch, Kevin.

I wonder if I should sarcastically feign ignorance of the trial and point out how there's no mention on Burzynski's site if some altie troll tries to use it against me.

Burzynski's videos really need something equivalent to the viewer companions that came out to debunk 9/11 videos like Loose Change.

God. 2000 paying patients. No meaningful publication. What a waste.

I've already donated to the Burzynski Birthday St. Jude's Hospital Fundraiser, in memory of Amelia Saunders who died two weeks ago, after receiving *treatment* at Dr. B's clinic. St. Jude's is high on my list of charities that I always support.

Great work Kevin Vicklund! I nominate you for the first annual "Shut Burzynski Down Award".

It seems to me he's doing the same thing as Livestrong did. Do one thing for a while, surround yourself with buzzwords and acolytes, and then abruptly, switch directions- but don't disabuse anyone of the notion that you're still doing what you used to do (natural, non-toxic, not-chemo - not that any of that was true, either, but after being called out by the FDA on the advertising...)

(Livestrong hasn't, since 2005, contributed to cancer research, they switched the branding to "Cancer Awareness".)

Off topic: Does anyone have a good email address for ToddW? (Tweek75 on Twitter)
I'd like to exchange ideas and information with him instead of just Twitter notes. Thanks!

Happy Birthday Stan! I've never been a big fan of Burzynski. He needs peer-reviewed publications.

Best,

Jay

Off topic: Does anyone have a good email address for ToddW?

Perhaps you should take the obvious step of looking at his blog.

@ Jay Gordon: Todd W's blog link here..

http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/

So how about putting you money to work by donating to the Burzynski Birthday/St. Jude's Children's Hospital fundraiser?

God. 2000 paying patients. No meaningful publication. What a waste.

That's 2000 paying patients since the last time he managed to open a new trial. The old cancermed (precursor to clinicaltrials.gov) showed that he started 72(!) Phase II trials in the 1990s. As near as we can tell, he has not published the final results of any of those trials.

He needs more than that, Dr Gordon. He needs tar and feathers, IMHO. He's a modern-day equivalent of Dr Brinkley. (Okay, antineoplastons aren't as insane as implanting goat testicles into people, but much of his business practices are eerily similar.)

Methinks Jay is growing tired of my correcting his erroneous Twitter statements.

That is one fine looking afghan!

Did anybody watch the video Pete Cohen did with Burzynski's lawyer, Ric Jaffe? They are a slick bunch, that's for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAxsIAvivcI&list=UUGtA43ppE56XRwmWi6A6H-…

Jaffe says that Burzynski is an egomaniac who is absolutely convinced that he is right. He also says that he has other clients who also have huge egos and believe they are right--but Jaffe believes in Burzynski. In my opinion, he does not say this very convincingly.

@lilady:

Great work Kevin Vicklund! I nominate you for the first annual “Shut Burzynski Down Award”.

And let's hope there's no need for a second annual award...

Jaffe also represents another cancer quack, Dr. Revici. Does that mean he believes in Burzynski more than Revici? A weird thing for a lawyer to state publicly.

Sorry, I just posted this on the wrong thread. We have a wealth of Stan threads here! It's more relevant and was intended to be posted here:

I wonder how much this reverse-turn on Phase III will affect the Merola commercial. Isn’t that one of the centerpieces of the sales pitch? In the trailer, Merola’s own annoying, toneless, amateur voice says something like “no other mortal human, ever on the planet, has entered Phase III trials without any funding….” blah blah blah.

I agree we should now ask the Stanbois to “show us on his website where it says there’s a Phase III trial. Nope, sorry, you lose, it ain’t there…”

@ Mark: Jaffe also represents Hugh Fudenberg and a boatload of "nutrition" and chiropractic organizations, as well:

http://www.richardjaffe.com/jaffe/

Fudenberg had his medical license suspended for illegally obtain controlled substances, and is raking in big money for "consultations", now that he is retired:

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/01/135-hugh-fudenberg.html

@Calli - you forget to add being ridden out of town on a rail afterwards.

I wonder how much this letter from the FDA had to do with the significant chages to Burzynski's website?

lilady,

Jaffe's website is actually quite interesting: I looked at it yesterday. He posts mini-essays on several subjects, including, ironically enough, a relatively reasonable piece against homeopathy. (I guess it's competition to Burzynski's products...)

WKV,

Once again, you 'da man. That letter must have flown under the alt-world radar. I would imagine guys like Mercola and Adams would have jumped all over it with more spittle-inflected screeds like "Once again the FDA is after Stan...preventing him from making claims (I mean, lying) to prospective customers who decide on cancer treatments based on reading promotional websites for said treatments..."

The essay on Jaffe's site concerns naturopaths, not homeopathy (my error). Now that I reread it, I understand why it's there. Jaffe is advising against using devices like the Zapper and warns against naturopaths precisely because these appeal to the type of customer who would be investigating Burzynski. They are the competition.

I found this to be the ultimate irony at the end of Jaffe's essay on "unlicensed practitioners":

The absolute worst thing a naturopath, (or any unlicensed practitioner) can do is to tell a terminal cancer patient that the treatment will or could cure the patient, or make them live longer. Prosecutors hate this, and they will leave no stone unturned until the practitioner is out of business and/or in jail.

Ain't that just so cute coming from Burzynski's lawyer...?

Orac spent two days highlighting that letter back in November (7th and 8th)*. If they missed it, it's because they weren't paying attention.

*which is my subtle way of declining any credit for this info

It's also nice that Wikipedia continually updates (January 20, 2013), the Burzynski Clinic entry to include the latest warning letter from the FDA, with a link to Orac's blog:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Burzynski

Editing clinical trials info on Burzynski's website probably had nothing to do with OPDP. After all, the letter doesn't explicitly forbid posting information on imaginary pubs and trials.

@ Marc Stephens Is Insane:

I looked at Jaffe's website, including the book (!!!!!!)

Emanuel Revici was another cancer quack from Romania ( see Quackwatch's 'Questionable Cancer Therapies' page) : he died in 1998; I'm not sure if his clinic is still operational but like Dr B, he had *interesting ideas* about urine as well that have not been substantiated by research. He was struck off and has also attained a bit of cult status as a brave maverick ; he has the grand distinction of having initiated/ enabled the career of woo-meister, Gary Null, at the Institute of Applied Biology ( his own private woo-factory) in the 1970s. Null's so-called thesis( see Quackwatch) uses Revici's ideas about urine surface tension.

There's a website "About Dr Revici" that tells his story from a perspective quite different from that of Dr Barrett.

As an aside-

If you look very closely, you'll find clues for my belief that alt med is promulgated by a very small group of advocates who spread themselves around.

One lawyer- several awful clients. Said awful clients are closely linked to major woo spreaders. Similarly if you look at the anti-vax contingent or the hiv/aids denialists, you'll find small numbers who 'get around' and promote themselves as a larger group than they truly are. I've shown the overall and overlapping facebook numbers for several anti-vax groups,

Because of legal representaives, we see that alt med's brand of "science" often proceeds through litigation not through research. There is quite a web of lawyer specialists for alt med that is inter-twined and recursive.

And " Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise....." etc.

You know the Burzynski fanboy will be here soon whining that poor put-upon Burzynski couldn't run his Phase III trial because (*snivel*) no one would give him the money.

But really, why would anyone give money to fund a Phase III trial when there's no good Phase II trial suggesting the results might be positive? And why would anyone give money for a Phase III trial to a researcher who has started -- but never finished -- scores of trials over a period of thirty-five years? What reason is there for anyone to suppose that he'd finish the Phase III trial within three decades, even if it were funded?

From Wikipedia, using Scienceblogs (Gorski) as a source:
"The (FDA) letter requires cessation of noncompliant promotional activities, including use of testimonials and promotional interviews with Burzynski himself."

Will that make the Burzynski II movie actionable?

When did the Benevolent Scienceblog Overlords reintroduce comment numbering within comment threads?!

@HDB - I just saw that too - should make it easier.

@lilady "So how about putting you money to work by donating to the Burzynski Birthday/St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital fundraiser?"

Done! Thanks for the heads up.

Jay

My comments is in moderation, so here's a revision:

From Wikipedia:
“The (FDA) letter requires cessation of noncompliant promotional activities, including use of testimonials and promotional interviews with Burzynski himself.”

Will that make the Burzynski II movie actionable?

@jay - Damn, I'm actually proud of you.

Now, let's chat about the whole vaccine thing.......

@ Lawrence:

Oh Brian, if ONLY!

Yikes, it is like Denice noticed my spelling when I say "Oh, deer."

When did the Benevolent Scienceblog Overlords reintroduce comment numbering within comment threads?!

Sometime around 2100 UTC. Those octothorpes are going to cost a fortune.

(But at least they're enormous and in a color that distracts from the text.)

Thanks Dr. Jay for donating to this worthy cause.

BTW, how's that counseling of your patients' parents before they "opt out" of vaccine school entry requirements coming along? Tell the truth Dr. Jay...now that you and Dr. Sears lost your arguments against passage of California AB 2109...are you really counseling your patients' parents and informing them of them of the consequences of not vaccinating their children?

I sincerely hope that your "lactation specialist" who is handing out medical advice on your website is not doing the counseling.

@ Lawrence:

No need to derail the thread with that. Everybody knows full well where everybody stands on that.

Lilady--

You are so anonymous. (And consistent in your unpleasant attitude, too)

I have always counseled my patients about the risks of not vaccinating. To do otherwise would be unethical. You see, I am not anonymous.

Jay

Jay;

You have no need to be anonymous because the anti-vaccine bloggers and their groupies would never stalk you.

How do you counsel your patients about the MMR vaccine, Jay? (From your website)

Feb 23, 2010
MMR Vaccination, An Important Notice from February 2006

“I no longer give or recommend the MMR vaccine. I think that the risks exceed the benefits. Obviously, discuss this with your doctor but please know that the CDC declared rubella officially eradicated in the U.S. in 2005, measles remains a rare disease in America (30-40 cases/year) and mumps is also not very common.

Mumps can cause decreased fertility in teenage boys who get the illness and suffer testicular infection, but this is a very rare occurrence.

All three of these viruses continue to be associated with severe life-threatening complications in other countries, but the vaccine—including the “split” vaccines—enough risk to outweigh the benefit for healthy North American or European children.”

OK Gorski, I don't like you and you don't like me but I've got to convince someone to take this seriously.

The ebay auction is without a hint of sarcasm or a link to any page which explains what is going on. Everyone here knows what it is for, but anyone not already in on the gag will see that auction listing and assume that Burzinski is a respected doctor/researcher whom the skeptics would seriously ask to match their donation to a hospital.

This is the absolute best kind of promotion you can give to someone who is selling a lie. Refer to them in an apparently legitimate and casual way. Anyone who sees this auction before they are forced to dive into the world of cancer is going to have the concept of "Dr. Burzynski: cancer researcher" soaked into their brain. Furthermore, their memory of him being asked to donate money is at risk of morphing into "he donates money", even if he never actually does. Some people might be curious as to why a clinical trial costs money to attend, but even that sentence is worded as a standard fund-raising frame and not likely to raise any eyebrows ("We are trying to raise $200, the cost of feeding a dog for a year, and we are going to ask Purina to match it").

Harriet Hall doesn't seem too concerned (said she would "pass along" my comments), and the person who actually posted this auction says they didn't want to be too "scandalous".

This whole operation is an act of sarcasm, and they have removed all of the snark for the sake of being polite. So now what we have is just a straight up PR stunt in Burzynski's favor.

Lilady--

You have dug deep and found a seven-year-old note from my website. I certainly accept responsibility for not updating but I also must tell you that my basic thoughts about that triple-live-virus vaccine have not changed very much.

An update should include a mention that there were a couple years with spikes to 200 cases of measles and a year with a large spike in mumps cases. It would further include the information that I do give MMR vaccines to parents who request them but I'm consistent in my belief that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits for healthy children.

The paragraphs you've cited are pretty moderate and even balanced when compared to the "anti-vaccine bloggers and their groupies" rhetoric you find so abhorrent. That's not me Lilady.

I'd guess that no one would stalk you if you were honorable and civil in your discussions and if you were reachable via email or other non-public avenues.

Jay

@Narad, "(But at least they’re enormous and in a color that distracts from the text.)"

What color are they for you? They're just kind of dark blue for me.

Todd W.:

Methinks Jay is growing tired of my correcting his erroneous Twitter statements.

And he might want it to be a one way conversation if past history holds:

Just to let you know Dr. Gordon, I disinclined to reply back when I am asked to verify my email... not in a REPLY. I did post a real email address in your blog, I did not send you an initial email.. of course I only check this one every few days. (though I do understand why you would take a step like that. but NOT to a reply to an email you sent me!).

Though I remember when someone on the school's PTA sent me an email asking a question, and then had this thing where I had to verify my email in order to send my reply. I had her phone number, and used it to leave a message with both the answer to her question, and telling her it is annoying to send an email and expect the recipient to go through hoops to answer her!

What color are they for you? They’re just kind of dark blue for me.

It's just link-color, but I block Gravatar, so it's really distracting on my end. And I haven't found a way to spike them.

Jay...I didn't "dig deep" on your website to find your opinion about the MMR vaccine. And, thanks for confirming that you are still " consistent in (your) belief that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits for healthy children."

How have you counseled your patients' parents about the seasonal influenza vaccine, Jay? Have you been viewing the CDC Flu Surveillance website? You do know, don't you, that 9 additional pediatric influenza deaths are confirmed, bringing this year's seasonal flu pediatric deaths to 29?

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/summary.htm

You further state, "I’d guess that no one would stalk you if you were honorable and civil in your discussions and if you were reachable via email or other non-public avenues."

I've been excoriated for my "pro-vaccine" and pro science "beliefs" by comments on Age of Autism and other anti-vaccine blogs, so why would I ever be reachable by e-mail or other non-public avenues?

You, OTH, because of what YOU define as your "moderate and even balanced" stance regarding childhood vaccines and your status as Jenny McCarthy's child's pediatrician will never be the target of these vile stalking bloggers and their groupies.

I’m consistent in my belief that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits for healthy children.

Which is why you lose.

Look at that, they're link-color because they *are* links! Finally we can link to comments without having to search the page source.

Look at that, they’re link-color because they *are* links!

I know they're links. They're also self-referential. If the links are stable, then the numbers are superfluous.

@Chris

He's asked me to follow him on Twitter before, his intent being so that he can DM me. I am of the opinion that if he wishes to respond to some public comment I made, he can respond publicly. His stance is that he doesn't want his followers "exposed" to "incivility".

At any rate, we can continue to point out where Dr. Jay denies the scientific evidence in favor of the beliefs that make him feel better, but we'd be getting rather off topic from the post.

[Our staff physicians strictly follow the protocol and submit periodical reports on the progress of the study for FDA evaluation.]

So, does deleting this mean that their staff physicians do not strictly follow the protocol, etc.?

Way off topic but...Anything new on the so called MenAfriVac vaccine paralysis in Africa?

Kelly, I found this which is supposed to be from the Chad Health Ministry. I hope that it is a real communique and if so, they should send press releases to major news outlets...to shut down all the crank anti-vaccine, conspiracy blogs.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/22/chad-officials-no-link-between-me…

...gotten away with his shadow clinical trials game for around 20 years now and with administering a therapy with no convincing evidence of efficacy against the tumors he’s treating for 35 years.
Sure is a f'd/u country. There drugs that have convincing evidence of efficacy and still haven't made it into the US .

Ahem, fat fingered premature launch. "even 35 years after available with major, industrialized trade partners AND even have some advantages over current competitor patent medicines in the US."

prn,

What drugs, specifically? Can you give us a couple of examples? Even one? From what countries do these drugs come? I'm not in the US; maybe my country already has these drugs.

Tegafur from the 70s, long developed with modulation by uracil, NICE reviewed, and offered as UFToral in the UK. Multiple "soft" modulations like PSK, low dose LV - a form of vitamin B9, cimetidine, COX2 inhibitors, some quinones. Pleasantly skips over common side effects for a few dollars a day in some countries, even for multiple site mCRC but not standard practice.

A question - why is there a discussion about vaccination on this thread? This article is about Burzynski and his long history of failure to provide any proof of benefit for his "patented" antineoplaston piss therapy. I realise that crank magnetism is a strong force and that Orac has blogged many times about vaccination and the anti-vax cranks - please make comments on that subject on those blog pages.
A comment - it seems that the only mentions of the word "antineoplaston" on the Burzynski Clinic website is now on the "Publications" page (thanks to W. Kevin Vicklund for posting a link to the Wayback machine copy above). Is this RIP antineoplastons (1976 - 2013). You won't be mourned.

Well Paul, there's always Aminocare.

http://www.aminocare.com/

I just donated $74, one for each trial he has advertised but not published final results. There are 72 known Phase II trials (Wayback Machine archive of his old website cancermed) plus two Phase III trials that he has claimed to have received approval for the trial protocol (the first of which was memory-holed in 2009, the second was memory-holed a few days ago)

Happy Birthday, Stan!

The .pdf files were not picked up by the Wayback Machine. More's the pity.

Are there any cookies from Stan's party left over?

My suspicions is more that he's learning what other woomeisters learn: giving specifics will only cause you problems. Ambiguity will keep the customers coming in, and the critics out.

Frozen Warning tweeted about this video today: it's like an "equal time" video to counter Merola's infomercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFrR7TjbINQ&feature=youtu.be

Interesting articles re SRB:
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/third-court-of-appeals/1996/847.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/967/1063/464996

Ohhhhhhh ... I bet you're seeing "Amber" about this:

"A week before trial was scheduled to take place last April, administrative law judges (ALJ) dismissed most of the charges against the doctor. This forced the TMB to reevaluate, and it eventually agreed to dismiss the entire case. On November 19, judges from the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed the TMB’s case against Dr. Burzynski for novel off-label use of combination gene-targeted therapy.

Rick Jaffe, Dr. Burzynki’s attorney, pointed to an important recent change in Texas law. In the previous legislative session, the Texas legislature stripped the TMB of its ability to summarily overturn the findings of the ALJ, and Dr. Burzynki’s case was one of the first to come under this new statute. The Board was thus forced to abide by the ALJ’s ruling."

Are y'all a part, or affiliated with this group?
http://www.thefhf.org/2012/03/a-modern-day-witch-hunt/

If you read this I bet you had an Apocalyptic Fit !!!
http://www.rogercallahan.com/cancer.php

I love the sound of crickets chirping and the quacking of the ducks...

@MI Dawn - wasn't Whitaker the idiot with the graph that showed 120% of all children would be diagnosed with autism in 20 years?

Resources referencing SRB:

2012 - The Principles and Practice of Antiaging Medicine for the Clinical Physician, Vincent C. Giampapa, M.D., F.A.C.S., AND MIRYAM (Ed.) 2003;33-4. Page 280
The Methylation Control of Gene Activation and Silencing Theory According to Dr. Stanley Burzynski,
Maximizing Your DNA Function for Optimal Health and Longevity ...

2011 - Malignant Liver Tumors: Current and Emerging Therapies, Pierre-Alain Clavier

2011 - Defeat Cancer: One-On-One With 15 Cancer Doctors
Connie Strasheim
15 Doctors of Integrative and Naturopathic Medicine Tell You How
In this book, 15 cancer doctors
share the details of their treatment ...
Foreword by Richard Linchitz, MD Foreword by Robert Jay Rowen, MD
In my recently released book, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, of Houston, Texas, is renowned worldwide for his work with antineoplastons.
Antineoplastons for Controlling Cancer Cells · Dr. Burzynski's Treatment Outcomes & Success - What Causes Cancer?
Antineoplastons for Controlling Cancer Cells

2008 - Detox Outside The Box
Rita Ellithorpe, M.D., Robert Settineri, M.S. & Deborah Barwick

2006 - Gene silencing : new research
Grace W. Redberry (editor)
Age management treatments which target silenced genes / Stanislaw R. Burzynski.33. Ch. III. Gene Silincing in Tumors

2005 - Dr. Zeltzers
Brain Tumors-Leaving the Garden of Eden and Brain Tumors: --A Survival Guide to Diagnosis, Learning the Basics, ......

2005 - Surviving Mesothelioma and Other Cancers: A Patient's Guide, Paul Kraus, Page 129
www. survivingmesothelioma. com

2004 - Malignant Liver Tumors: Current and Emerging Therapies, Second Edition, Pierre-Alain Clavien
Pierre Clavien, MD, PhD, University Hospital - Zürich, Switzerland
Yuman Fong, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
H. Kim Lyerly, MD, Duke University Medical Center
Michael A. Morse, MD, Duke University Medical Center
Alan P. Venook, MD, University of California, San.Francisco, California
This classic reference has been completely revised and updated by a renowned team of editors to produce the most current, comprehensive, and authoritative book available on treating liver cancer. Clearly written, carefully edited, and impeccably referenced, ...
www. jblearning. com/catalog/9780763718572

2000 - Politics In Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine, Daniel (Dan) Haley, 481 page book,
Chapter One (6 of 6)
Author carefully documents 10 alternative cancer treatments ...
antineoplastin researcher Stanislaw Burzynski.
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski: Article #2.
The Fiercest Battle - Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski; A Matter of Life and Death
www. politicsinhealing. com

Antineoplastons - UCSD Cancer Center - UC San Diego
& Training · Researcher Directory
http:// cancer. ucsd. edu/treatments/cam/therapies/Pages/default.aspx

http:// cancer. ucsd. /treatments/cam/therapies/Pages/Antineoplastons.aspx

@ Lawrence...Dr. Julian Whitaker the doctor who was dumb enough to arrange for a debate with Dr. Novella:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/07/16/battling-antivaccinationis…

Whitaker is also involved in the scientology front group CCHR--the anti-psychiatry group that Mikey Adams also supports. Whitaker claims some bogus anti-aging board certification, which doesn't exist.

He's anti-vax, anti-psychiatry, defends scientology quackery, is one of Burzynski's ONLY supporters and invents board certifications. Another disgrace to real doctors. Burzysnki and Whitaker deserve each other.

I see that DJT is desperate for attention.

I've always suspected that Burzynski and Whitaker are some kind of back door business partners due to their common financial interest in the anti-aging scam. And since Whitaker is really Burzysnki's only major public defender, they have to have some connection that benefits both. Neither one strikes me as exactly altruistic.

As we know, Stan has started the ball rolling to set up clinics in Asia: I'm wildly speculating they will be a chain of anti-aging clinics run by both Stan and Whitaker.

I'm waiting for Pharyngula to rush on over to Wikipedia & correct them on the evolution of the coelacanth & that "goat sucking" Chupacabra !!!

@Narad: that's why I'm not commenting about anything DJT has to say. He's not worth the brain cells.

It's truly amazing what I can use MI Dawn for !!!

As I've posted before, some people get on here & post away without any fact-checking.
.
One was some post along the lines that Davorit Samid had no professional relationship with SRB.
.
Now that I have some time ... Oh, really???
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/Resea…

It's good to find out that Orac finally figured out what this was about: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformat…

Does anyone know what the FDA is?
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformat…

"CDA-2 had been approved as a first class new anti-cancer drug by the SFDA of mainland China in 2004 through the effort of both side of Taiwan Strait." http://share.cjfu.com/supersite/?uid-43-action-viewspace-itemid-21

"Phase I/II/III clinical trials of CDA-2 have been completed in China in 2003. In August 2004, the State Drug Administration (SDA) of China approved the use of CDA-2 as an anticancer drug in solid tumors." http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052…

It's so sadly ironic that the people most likely to throw around the epithet "sheeple" are exactly the same ones who determine their direction less by asking "what does the evidence indicate?" and more by asking "who do I want to follow?"

Burzynski has been touting the supposed virtues of antineoplastons for decades now, saying how great they are, and now suddenly he's decided they're not good enough to mention. Why would anyone remain confident that Stan is the Man with the Anti-Cancer Plan when he's just disavowed that plan??

But then again, these are people who can't figure out that blaring carhorns mean nothing about who's right. I suppose they believe "sheep are meek, sheeple are meek, I'm arrogant and vituperative, therefore I couldn't possibly be the sheeple here."

Orac spent two days highlighting that letter back in November (7th and 8th)*. If they missed it, it’s because they weren’t paying attention.

*which is my subtle way of declining any credit for this info

Because dumbass trolls still aren't paying attention...

I write in code
Because I have nothing relevant to say
Are my initials AF
Or WKV by the way?

That is the trouble with trolls, Kevin. They are too busy listening to the sound of their own voice.

Posts #101, 103, & 105: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-m…
.
Then returneth thee & commenteth about thy "sheeples.!!!"

The above link to Dianthus Medical is a great example of the opposite of DJT, or rather of a proper way to set out the claims of Burzyinski in a simple and easy to read manner. And it's pro-science. Worth a read if you're new to the topic and need a quick guide to the basic claims.

Skeptical About Skeptics

sciencepunk — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:48:08 +0000

Skeptical About Skeptics

This is an adaptation of the talk I gave at Westminster Skeptics in the Pub on Monday 2nd August. You can hear an audio transcript of the talk at the Pod Delusion website.
I was invited to stage the talk again at the Winchester SITP, a recording of which is here.

I'm very much a child of the skeptical community. I started writing about bad science in 2004, in a scissors-and-glue zine titled War On Error (a very droll play on words at the time, and a lot easier than coming up with a twist on Overseas Contingency Operation). Eventually this moved online, morphing into SciencePunk. Over the years, however, I've drifted away from this scene. I don't write about electrosensitivity scams like I used to, or dig up interesting stories of historical charlatans. I don't label myself a skeptic. I don't blog so frequently. Partly this is out of necessity, and partly because I don't want to be associated with a community whom I've found can be blinkered, confrontational, and self-aggrandising.

It's worth making a brief interjection here about who this nebulous group of skeptics I'm referring to are. Any attempt to mark out a precise constituency of who is, and who is not, part of the skeptic community is an impossible task, and one I don't believe there's any value in doing. Safe to say, if you promote an evidence-based approach and critical thinking in the areas of policy, media, and legal reform, you're probably part of it. For the purposes of this essay, I'll use terms like science blogger, skeptic community / movement / acitivist interchangeably; though they do not form a homogenous group, they do have prevalent attitudes and demographics like any self-assembling group of people.

I've watched the skeptic movement grow over the years, from a fringe grassroots collective to a body that has achieved remarkable successes in a short time. But it is still a young movement, and this means that it is not able to support the actions I might want to pursue. If I was interested in environmentalism, there are any number of groups that I could donate money to this very instant; by tomorrow I could be picking up litter along the nation's beaches or helping to survey wildlife in threatened ecosystems. To be a skeptic, things are not so simple. The physical, financial, professional, and organisational infrastructure is not yet in place. So instead, if I want to share a love of science and critical thinking, I'm forced to use the instutional bodies that already exist - most obviously TV, print and radio news and entertainment media.

But equally, if this infrastructure were to exist, I might nevertheless find myself steering clear of it, because the attitudes and the behaviour of many within the skeptic community I find dispiriting. More and more I feel we are limiting ourselves in who we choose to speak to, how we engage with them, and by who we make space for within our community.

There will be many for whom the skeptic community is exactly that, a group of like-minded people to share gripes and groans with about the latest nonsense to infiltrate schools or government, and a safe place to develop ideas and opinions on these matters. That's certainly how I used it in the early days. But a lot of people will eventually find they want to graduate from this by advancing their philosophies in the real world. This essay is really for that second group of people, who want to reach out and engage the wider public.

You talkin' to me?
As a writer, I think the most powerful thing I can do is change someone's mind. Giving someone an understanding of a particular set of facts is one thing, but being able to shape their opinion on those facts (for better or worse) is a God-like ability. Teachers certainly know this, and it's why they hold such a powerful position in society (why else do you think fundamentalist religious groups are so keen on forming their own schools?). If you can shape opinions, you don't need political power or money or physical force to advance your ideals - people will do that for you. Unfortunately a lot of skepticism I see focusses on proving the speaker is right, rather than changing the mind of the listener.

The internet is a wonderful thing, and has allowed groups of people to find one another and work collectively over huge distances, and is very much at the heart of the skeptic movement. But it has also lent an illusion that the online world is an accurate reproduction of the world at large, when it is something of a hall of mirrors. Even this blog is victim to that recursive effect. Writing in a particular style, on a particular subject, from a particular point of view, all this shapes my audience, in effect choosing like-minded individuals who are fairly likely to agree with me on a lot of points. This can create something of a confirmation bias - because unless I come into contact with contradictory views, from someone I respect, I'm unlikely to really be challenged on many of my views. And similarly, lazy or false views will thrive longer than they would in the harsh environment of the outside world.

But step back a moment and see the wider picture - who is actually on the internet? Allegedly seven million people in UK are illiterate, and might not be able to read my blog even if they wanted to. A further half million are not on the internet. Of those that are, who reads science blogs? People use the internet in different ways, and while there's a prevalent view amongst wired skeptics that if the answer can be found in a Google search, it should be obvious. It's not, and that's a particularly silly thing to believe. I could print this essay out and tack it to my front door, and technically it would be publicly available, but I wouldn't kid myself to think that it was accessible to everyone. Here, the inaccessiblility is a physical one, but we shouldn't consider behavioural inaccessibility any less influential. And yet, there's a prevalent attitude of "I blogged it, so it's a problem solved". Instead we should ask ourselves: what efforts have we made to reach the people concerned? Do all the people who get ripped off by homeopaths read science blogs? Do mums worried about MMR google the problem or are they more influenced by their relatives, family, friends? If you've written a post responding to something incorrect a journalist said, did you contact them and tell them? Did you get in touch with your local school to find out if you could help them write and distribute clear info on the risks of MMR?

The apogee of this insularity is the Facebook campaign, and its sibling the Twitter hashtag. So let me say this: a Facebook group is not a campaign. A Twitter hashtag is not a campaign. These are your friends agreeing with you. Now, that's not to say there isn't value in them - they are an excellent and efficient system for displaying a groundswell of support. And Dr Evan Harris made a good point after my talk that this in itself was a form of campaigning; but I don't feel these wildfires of synchonised cheering really change minds, which is what I'm focussing on today.

Whenever I'm not sure if something is important outside my immediate sphere, I think of my mum. She doesn't have a science degree, she didn't go to university. She is not a wired, white, yuppie boy like me. And so she's the perfect foil. If I have the choice to blog about the latest Gillian McKeith / Ben Goldacre dust up, or the cloned milk hysteria, I can ask: which is my mum more likely to know about? Which is she more likely to care about? Which would be a more useful topic for her to read what I had to say? A lot of people at my talk misunderstood this point, and thought I was discussing how I needed to simplify my blogging to make it accessible for an older, non-science woman. This is wrong. What I'm urging here is the consider someone completely unlike yourself and those around you, and ask yourself how your actions meet their needs. Sure, you could tailor your writing to your existing readers, but it's your existing non-readers who are always the bigger piece of pie. Why not aim for them?

"Evidence or STFU"
Time and again, I've been told that they've found skeptics' aggressive, bullying tone the biggest turn off. This is a strange thing, because we're constantly feting ourselves on how we use facts, not rhetoric, to support our positions; so why do we of any group seem to rely the most on this bluster?

Personally, I find this festishisation of facts both ineffective and cowardly. Firstly, facts don't speak for themselves - however much you might like to think otherwise. As humans, we respond to stories, emotional hooks. All the best campaigners from Greenpeace to the Republican party have cottoned onto this. Skeptics are still catching up. Perhaps it's because a lot of us come from a scientific background, where facts are used to resolve differences of opinion. That doesn't mean we should abandon them, but it does mean that we have to understand that in order to reach people, you need more than facts. It's often said "The plural of anecdote is not data", and that's true. The plural of anecdote is a convincing argument. If you're the kind of person who looks at the customer reviews before purchasing something on Amazon then you know this already.

What a lot of skeptics have a hard time grasping is that facts are only one small part of the decision-making process. Past experience, culture, emotion, values, morals, politics, philosophy, religion, family ties and a dozen other factors also play a part. So if you think that the only argument needed against homeopathy is to point out its chemical absurdity, you're ignoring all the other factors that play a role in a person's decision making. As one woman who wrote to me said:

"When mothers decide to not vaccinate their children, they are choosing to do so with only the very, very, very best intentions in the world. That they've been lead to believe not vaccinating is the best thing for them does not mean that they are stupid, evil, ill-intentioned, moronic. They've just been told a better story by 'the other side'."

Many of the people reading this article will regularly consume alcohol, or smoke cigarettes: we know the facts about why these habits are harmful (and even dangerous), but we continue nonetheless because our judgements come to rest on a lot more than the facts. In addition, by focussing on the facts, we fail to make any attempt to understand why people engage in these behaviours, and without that understanding it's very unlikely that we'll be able to bring those people round to our way of thinking.

Secondly, when you argue from facts, you're laying out the battleground in a way that will best suit you. You know that the facts are in your favour, you go into that argument with a resolute mind and that arrogance will show. As science-types we don't really like to argue about personal judgements, emotions, moral stances - uncertain footing where there's rarely a clear-cut answer. But that is the real world. And by concentrating solely on facts, we embrace a binary method of thinking where everyone is either right or wrong (usually the latter if they don't agree with us) and ignores the complexity of personal decision-making. This us-and-them mentality has come to infect large swaths of the skeptic community's mindset. Even Cllr John Dixon, present at my talk, had made me uncomfortable with his now-famous tweet "I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off". This idea that we are somehow tainted by associating with people whose views we find objectionable is I think an unhealthy one, not least because it homogenises the skeptic community. There are plenty of Christians and Muslims who oppose homeopathy, and plenty of chiropractic users who object to the use of libel laws to stifle debate. Skeptic tribalism drives them away.

Who wants to be in my gang?
Following on from this, who do we consciously or unconsciously exclude from our community? I've already described how a macho element drives away a lot of people. There's also the constant sneering against humanities graduates. There's the self-perpetuating majority of white, middle-class, middle-age men. The sheer number of women who've contacted me in the last week to share the condescending, combatative and downright offensive behaviours they've encountered at skeptic gatherings is nothing short of depressing. There's the venues we choose for discussion, whether they be online forums or pubs, that can be unwelcoming or innaccessible to a huge number of people (although, as David Allen Green pointed out, pubs are often the only affordable venues to run events in). I'd argue that even the lecture format of Skeptics in the Pub is flawed. With no provision to draw people into groups, it can be quite intimidating and unfriendly for a lone person to attend.
Although skeptics often insist that there is no creedo or manifesto to their club, certain groups are singled out for hostility. Here's an example:

"As a Green Party member, I've received a lot of abuse. I'm in the Green Party Science Policy Working Group, and we've spent about two years working on de-hippyifying our Science policy. I think we've come a long way, and our drugs policy is probably the most progressive of the parties. But whenever I mention that I'm in the Greens, I get dismissed immediately on the basis of our animal testing policy. And its usually pretty personal attacks: that my political views are stupid, that the Greens are the worst party in politics as a result. This doesn't seem to take in any other factors: I'd rather support a party I disagreed with on animal testing, than a party who condoned torture, or canned legal aid for asylum seekers"

We can't afford to labour under the delusion that the skeptic community is an all-welcoming and tolerant one. It is not. And it's only by considering who we speak to, and how we speak to them, that we'll come to understand why this is.

After my talk, several people complained that I was rudely attacking the skeptics community without giving any answers to the problems I'd identified. I don't want this to be perceived as an attack. This is a cry for help to improve the fantastic community that made me the person I am today. And the reason I haven't given answers to the problems is because I'm not sure what those solutions might be.

I've already heard from a huge number of people about their negative experiences within the skeptic community. But now it's time to be constructive. I'm opening this to the floor - how do you think we can make the skeptic community better, more welcoming, more enagaging? Is this something that will only happen when it incorporates into recognisable institutions such as a registered charity? Can a disparate collective of people be persuaded to adopt certain behaviours, and if so, how? And what might those guidelines be?

OTHER PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS:

Skeptical About Skeptics? | Purely a figment of your imagination
Skepticism - What Now? | Tom Morris
#WestSkep - How to Win An Argument With Joe Public | David Hartery
Yet Another Blog Post About WestSkep | The Thought Stash
Science Punk at Westskep (the aftermath) | The Thought Stash
SciencePunk - A Critique of Skepticism | James Streetly's Blog
And somewhat tangentially:
The role of the science blogging community in the advancement of science | JLVernonPhD

sciencepunk Sat, 08/07/2010 - 05:48

Tags

Categories

"I don't label myself a skeptic." (Frank Swain)

Nevertheless, Frank, you have proved by your behaviour and your attempt of "critique of scepticism" that you are just a skeptic... ;)

"First of all, there is no "skeptical community" in any organised sense. Its anarchic nature is, for me, one of its attraction." (David Colquhoun)

David exactly noticed. Anarchy! And it is fair to say that Frank's efforts to usurp the power in skeptic's anarchic crowds has failed... :P

Have you deleted my comment, Frank? ;)

Ha-ha-ha!

Your reaction proves that your are weak skeptic-crip :)
No. You will not a leader in this business. And don't dance a twist before David Colquhoun ;) It is useless. He will never cede his power to you. Yes, he says about "anarchy". But it is merely because HE is a leader among your skeptic crowd. And none of you (neither Ben Goldacre nor Alan Henness, neither Evan Harris nor Jack-of-Kent, neither you nor anybody else) will be a leader higher than David Colquhoun! :P

He is "Akela" in your pack of wolves... :) And you will wait loooooong when grey wolf will miss....

Thanks for writing this, Frank - it's good to finally have your voice in the debate that's sprung up around you as a result of the talk!

Important that you can clarify points that you may have been misquoted/misunderstood on etc. Such is the wonder of the blogosphere I guess.

Re: opening up skeptics events/reconsidering SitP format - I have thought sometimes that the talks can be a bit too long.

I always try to arrive quite early to talk to people (and get a decent seat) and usually end up staying later than I planned. That's because I go to see my friends and to make new ones, the talk is kind of a bonus.

Perhaps if the talk were a little bit shorter with a bit more time for discussion before questions, the whole event would be a bit more enticing for newbies.

I'd be interested to hear speakers' views on this - was it hard to squish what you wanted to say into the time slot, or would it be nicer to have a shorter 'presentation' maybe with longer 'group discussion' or time to mingle?

A lot of speakers get swamped after the talk and people from further afield have to rush for trains etc.

So I reckon there might be some merit in that, depending on what everyone else thinks :)

While appreciating some of your points, they seem to me to be greatly exaggerated

First of all, there is no "skeptical commumity" in any organised sense. Its anarchic nature is, for me, one of its attraction. There are no rules, no list of things which you must believe in order to join. Just a lot of free thinkers who may well have overlapping beliefs but who are all doing their own thing.

I find it hard to believe that meetings like Skeptics in the Pub are as daunting as you make out. Cerianly I have met a lot of people there, including women a third of my age, who are introduced, or who introduce themselves, and who seem quite happy to talk about matters of mutual interest. It is no more daunting than going into any other room where you don't know any of the people at the party. That can always be difficult if youi are shy.

I think that you also mistake the targets. My aim at least is to influence governmet ministers and vice-chancellors. It isn't to attack individual homeopaths or whatever (unless, of course, they are killing people) and it certainny isn't my intention (or that of anyone else that I know) to attack the customers who use homeopathy. The chances of ever converting a homeopath are negligible and the chances of converting their customers is even slimmer. On the other hand. vice-chancellors can be converted (though sadly public ridicule seems to be what works with them, rather than reasoned argument).

Although I may write about the topic in a fairly aggressive way, whenever an alternative medicine advocate leaves a comment on the blog, or writes to me (sometimes very abusively), I try to answer in a polite and conciliatory way, and I think most other people who write on the topic do the same.

I think your talk also showed some confision between skeptics on one hand, amd public engagement in science on the other. These are different aims, and they are done by different (if overlapping) groups of people. I agree with Goldacre that sometimes bad science can be a good way of explaining what good science is. A lecture on the importance of randomistaion is not going to get the public very excited, but explaing what can go wrong when you don't randomise may be much more engaging. Perhaps that is why Goldacre's column and blog have a very much greater readership than straight science sites, especially those that are run by government or by univsrities as a PR excercise for the institution.

I attended my first SITP meeting recently, I found them very welcoming.
I'm female and in my early 20s, it never crossed my mind that I would be meeting a bunch of middle aged men. I didn't, the numbers were near 50/50.

I did find the idea of going to a pub a bit daunting at first, but it was held in a lovely relaxing pub, without music blaring.

Although I do agree with the facts aren't everything argument, or the Dawkins approach to skepticism. You can explain the faults in homeopathy without being rude.

I guess I'm taking my own steps by changing my tactics when I do protest (such as the AVN lecture) and with the people I network with. Next year I hope to do a communications degree, focusing on a few science communication units. I'd suggest more people who are hoping to measure efficacy, et al, get in touch with people like Michael 'Tribal Scientist' McRae and Alom Shaha, and attend workshops or units in communication skills, sci comm or public speaking, which are available in a variety of forms.

All of us still have a lot to learn - particularly from those already in the system who have the same goals and have already 'been there' or are already running initiatives that we just don't know about. Often we assume too much in that regard:
'No one else is doing this, it's up to us!!!'
'Er, actually, there's a two-million dollar government campaign already funded and a team of publicists preparing a report in conjunction with the Health Department to reflect the issues and run it in a specially printed feature in the state newspaper, and a free seminar at the local hospital to directly target the audience who need it the most, in a non-judgmental fashion...'
'Oh, we should have someone from our out-of-state skeptical group on their hospital seminar to represent the skeptics!'
'...what makes you think they'd welcome that??'

"I think that you also mistake the targets. My aim at least is to influence governmet ministers and vice-chancellors."

That's nothing but hubris. Effecting public policy in a democracy is only as powerful as public support lets it be. You will never be able to counteract harmful practices such as homepathy when it has more public support than you. Those ministers and vice-chancellors still have to get elected, and unfortuntely (as you admit), reasoned arguments do not win them over as much as public outcry. So as much as you can turn your nose up at persuading Joe Public, they have to be engaged with in order to change things. That, I think, is the point.

I think that the post is reasonable, but i think that there has been an overly defensive attitude from many of the skeptic bloggers.. I don't think Frank is advocating a mass withdrawal from the idea of scientific skepticism. Just an examination and thoughfulness about the ways that we present said skepticism.

It is not enough to present a graph, come up with a hashtag or snicker at one another as we make fun of people. There has to be a thoughful approach taken to every argument. CAM merchants have framed the debate using a considered lexicon that skews arguments in the public sphere (choice, alternative, compimentary etc) that we cannot possibly address without adopting something similiar. Facts are not persuasive on their one. "The plural of anecdote is not data" - this is true, but they're not mutually exlusive. We need to keep the facts but add coherent and persuasive argumentation geared towards engaging those who are not already part of the "skeptic community".

If skepticism is to move beyond a twitter talking shop of scientists and rationalists, it has to start raising its' public profile. While I don't agree that #ten23 was a failure in this regard, I think that it did fetishise the idea that it is medically ineffective. Thats only persuasive to people who believe that its medical efficacy is something that can be proven. Richard Dawkins got such a high profile because he outlined the harm of the existence of religion within society at all. He bypassed the whole "you cant prove whether God exists or not argument" by simply stating the concrete harms to scientific progress and society of the existence of religion. I don't agree with Dawkins, but I think that a more nuanced approach to campaigning would benefit things like #ten23. It is possible to have more than one argument, and to use arguments that are not backed up by tables and graphs, in addition to the factual arguments. The best debaters can use a combination of fact and emotion.

As I've said previously (comments here), I agree with the generalities of Frank's argument, but dispute some of the specifics.

I think it would be interesting to extend this critical reflection into who it is you want to reach out too. To paraphrase Lincoln, you cannot please all of the people all of the time, so I think it is inevitable that any activity is going to alienate somebody. This is why, in my opinion, I would separate the unwelcomeness some feel from the skeptical community into two categories.

1. Those who hold a general skeptical outlook but feel unwelcome because skepticism traditionally operates outside of their cultural milieu, so that the prospect of boisterous alcohol fuelled discussion is unappealing. They may even hold views they know are unscientific, particularly with respect to religion and don't fancy the prospect of a tedious debate they've no doubt had many times before about the evidence for a god.

This group I think is excluded from much skeptical activity they might otherwise like to get involved with.

2. True Believers. This group are firm in their beliefs, and no amount of arguing, rational or emotional, is going to change their minds. If their mind does change then it is likely to be as a sudden Damascene conversion rather than persuasion.

It is this latter group who get upset the most in public by skeptical activity and are probably the target of most of the upsetting behaviour you have identified. I think it is unlikely that skepticism will ever manage to reach out to this group, and it probably wouldn't be skepticism if it ever did.

However, other communities may judge skeptics on how they respond to those that they oppose and this needs to be remembered, but I hate to say this, and it goes against what I generally believe, but nastiness and deceit can be very effective tools. Frank cites various political campaigning groups, whether formalised parties, or issue specific concerns, as examples of effective outreach, but these groups are notorious for lying, deceiving and/or dissembling in the name of their cause. They don't do this because they are evil, but because they have a belief, not just in the rightness of their cause, but that the ends justify the means and that inconvenient observations can be ignored.

This is something I believe the broad skeptical community (including those who would prefer to maintain a polite distance) generally don't do. The criticism, whether polite with tea and cake or ferocious with bile and expletive, tends to be offered from a position that the critic is willing to caveat and clarify.

Perhaps the reputation of skepticism can be increased by making this clear?

I must admit to being erm, skeptical about Frank's talk having only seen the Twitter feedback etc, having not been there on the night. I'm already quite uncomfortable with the idea that skepticism has to be "campaigning" at all, and so was a bit reluctant to be criticised for something I didn't want to do anyway. However after reading this essay I think he is basically correct in most of his assertions.

I do think the criticism of SiTP for being unwelcoming is well out of date though. It certainly used to be like that in the old days. I stopped attending for years after growing fed up of a room of "middle aged men" taking the piss out of speakers seemingly invited for this purpose. He'll be embarrassed at me saying so, but a huge amount of credit is due to Sid Rodrigues for turning SiTP into the welcoming and inclusive success it is today.

We should remember though that this is just an event in a pub set up by somebody. It isn't a skeptical party diktat. If somebody feels uncomfortable going to a pub meeting, then they should certainly set up a Skeptics in a coffee shop meeting, invite a speaker, and send out invites. I'd go along.

One other thing Frank. You mention a number of more effective campaigning organisations, some of whom think nothing of lying to further their message or aims. Is this really better?

I really think you're being too hard on facts. I have no interest in people's behaviours, as long as their choices are free and not ones born of delusion.

From left to right, this is like when Dawkins refuses to discuss the morality of evolution: he isn't "laying out the battleground in a way that will best suit [him]"; he's refusing to be sidetracked by irrelevant strawmen.

From right to left, if the goal of skeptical writing is to promote critical thinking then convincing someone not to use homeopathy using an anecdote is a loss. They're great emotional hooks, and it's wonderful if we have the power to change someone's mind about homeopathy, but we should be able to do it by discussing acupuncture.

It shouldn't be all about facts, but it should be about why facts are important, and specifically why they're more important than anecdote.

I also attended my first SITP meeting. It was a little hard to understand the structure in the first few minutes. But then I found a table with a nice couple and asked if I could sit. They were very friendly and we had the most excellent conversation.

Not everyone is quite so brazen as me, I know. So here's something simple I'd propose: set up a table for "newbies" or "flying solo" folks. A walmart-style greeter might have been nice.

@David Hartery

Please check your facts. It is not just hubris. All five honours BSc cousres in homeopathy were closed down after I revealed what nonsense they were teaching, and the VC of the Univerity of Central Lanacashire got a flea in his ear from the Information Tribunal after he tried, unsuccesfully, to conceal what they were teaching. By the time the battle to get the material was won, UCLAN had closed down not only its homeopathy degree but also all the rest of its degrees in junk science.

The fact is that blooging can get results in the real world, I wouldn't spend so much time on it if that were not the case. It may be surprising but the facts are their. I first realised the power of blogs when I ran some crude html pages in 2002, when Imperial tried to take over UCL. It took only five weeks to stop the whole daft idea, partly because of some big name supporters, but mainly because we could reveal things that the two VCs in question would have liked to keep secret

Thanks for writing about your talk, this is a perfect example of where blogging about something is useful - to share an idea to others that are interested or embarking on a similar thing.

I am looking at setting up a SiTP in my city, there's currently nothing like this and I thought it would be a good way of getting like minded people together and also a good way of meeting new people (I moved here quite recently and have struggled quite a bit to meet people outside work etc as there is a lack of events going on!).I want our Skeptics meetings to be inclusive and good fun! I also blog, mostly just to share ideas, I am new to this whole idea of skepticism and I recognise there are problems with it, but I think that sharing ideas is a good thing and if the skeptics platform is used properly (rather than just for name calling) it could be extremely useful.

"The fact is that blooging can get results in the real world, I wouldn't spend so much time on it if that were not the case. It may be surprising but the facts are their"

I have checked my facts. You can provide anecdotes, but where is large scale change? Where is an actuality of *any* political party living up to evidence based science, like they claimed in manifestos? Where is homeopathy funding on the NHS being cut? where is a reduction in the number of people trusting in CAM and other ineffective treatments?

Also, I didnt say blogs never did anything. Just feel that blogs are limited in what they can acheive.

Honestly. You can't change people's minds by force but that is what the current environment is. From my experience, the more a person has their own beliefs aggressively challenged the more they will want to keep them. Compromise in the form of trying to understand where the other side is coming from followed by efforts to meet them on their turf tends to help build the trust needed to them have meaningful discussion rather than shouting matches.

I'm probably a very touchy feely skeptic. I know that for individuals the gentle approach seems to make them more open to talking. Even in the classroom, the teachers you eat up every word from are the ones who are willing to come down to your level even though they have the authority to not need to. They want to engage you more than they explicitly want to make you see their point. They are also people who joyfully approach their subject matter--they love what they are doing and you cannot help but want to do it too.

and--crap I missed this when I was re-reading. I meant to say:
Compromise...tends to build the trust needed for them have meaningful discussion rather than shouting matches.

@David Hartery
They are not anecdotes. I suggest you search my blog for UCLAN, University of Salford, University of Westminster, Napier University etc etc

Politicians have proved harder than universities, but it is simply not true to say that homeopathic funding hasn't been cut. One homeopathic hospital has shut altogether, and finding has been reduced considerably for the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital. All this information is easily found on the web.

I think you are being far too pessimistic about what blogs can achieve, and that's a pity if it discourages people for trying for themselves.

Loved the podcast of your talk, Frank, although I think you could have been more persuasive with the addition of a few more supporting points from both a psychological and communications perspective.

I think one of the things many strident skeptics don't understand is that there's a difference between the marketers of homeopathy and alternative medicines and the consumers. The cynicism needs to be saved for the marketers. In order to win over the consumers, you have to get some insight into their mindset, which comprises at least two distinct elements: a mistrust of alleopathic medicine because of the aggressive and often unscrupulous marketing efforts of Big Pharma (think Thalidomide or any another drug that's been recalled after being touted as THE CURE) and a knowledge base that includes some actual information. Willow bark DOES contain ASA and if you boil up some of it and drink it as tea, your headache probably *will* go away. Then there's the leech cures, which have been in, out and back in favour again (although admittedly leeches aren't being used in the same ways they used to be as a general cure-all). The conclusion of many who haven't studied science at the post-secondary level is that doctors and pharmacologists don't really know it all, so why trust them implicitly when that nice lady you work with tells you HER arthritis was cured by ingesting shark cartilage?

On a psychological level though, many of the most strident skeptics seem to have forgotten the old axiom that the person who loses their temper or shouts first in any argument is ultimately the one who loses the argument - because it indicates you've abandoned any attempt to persuade and are seeking dominance.

@Ruth Seeley
Are there not some straw men in your argument? I have never seen a skeptic lose their temper. On the contrary, when talking to users and true-believers they have always been kind.

Marketers and vice-chancellors are a different matter, but even for them I have never seen a lost temper, nor any shouting, just a bit of well-deserved blunt speaking.

I suspect that many of Frank's criticisms are aimed at behaviour that I have never seen.

@David Colquhoun I think Frank covered that point when he discussed the term 'woo' - a clear expression of contempt (and frankly a little reminiscent to me of the way some gay men used to refer to heterosexual men as 'breeders.') And yes, I have seen and read many 'strident skeptic' rants on both blogs and Twitter, extremely hostile challenges that amount to attempts neither to persuade nor to engage but to intimidate and beat into intellectual submission.

@Ruth Seeley
Certainly some writing, including some of mine may be quite strongly worded. but, at least among the people I read, it is based on thorough reading of the evidence. I don't apologise for bringing up the matter of evidence, because that's what it's about. I disapprove strongly of PR ("Paid lying") in other contexts, and I'm not about to do it myself.

I think you are not being clear about the targets. At the risk of repeating myself, most of us are not aiming at homeopaths, still less are we aiming at their customers. We are aiming at the people with power to do something about it, and we are aiming at companies who make large amounts of money from lies. We are also trying to press those responsible for enforcing the law (like Trading Standards) to do the job they are paid for.

Partly it is a question of what works. Rational argument is, in my experience, impossible with people like homeopaths because they simply don't accept the usual rules. It's a waste of time and I don't even try it, though if challenged I always respond to them calmly and courteously (and frequently get abuse in return).

You'd imagine that rational argument might work with vice-chancellors, but sadly it doesn't (that's a commentary on how corrupt academia can be at times). They do, however, respond to public ridicule.

Finally, to say one shouldn't use words like 'woo' strikes me as political correctness gone mad. It is the sort of thing you might hear from your HR department (and one can't say much worse than that). That is exactly how woo managed to penetrate universities in the first place. I don't think there is the slightest analogy between 'woo' and 'gay'. One is irrational, often illegal and sometimes kills people, The other is a personal choice of lifestyle. They are utterly different.

@NO ONE [because these sub conversations regularly devolve into tit for tat point proving drivel, which I consider to be one of the negatives of forums/blogs] - I feel to reach out to the masses, like good politicians, one needs to be warm and reassuring. You can bash facts all you like, and you may win a few battles along the way, but ultimately most people want to feel safe and comforted by guidance - no matter how reliable the source.

@David Colquhoun Sorry to find you disapprove of my profession, of HR practitioners and of administrators. I won't dignify the implication that anyone could pay me to lie with a response - after all, I have my own prejudices - I'm not overfond of dermatologists for instance, or insurance salespeople.

The analogy was actually between use of the term 'woo' by strident skeptics and 'breeder' by gay men when referring to heterosexual men, David, and I think that was quite clear. Woo is clearly derogatory and is meant to be both dismissive and derogatory. As is the term breeder. Your suggestion that being gay is 'a personal choice of lifestyle' did provide me with an unexpected giggle today - thanks for that.

And @Reef, yes I agree with you. I left a comment to applaud Frank's courage in saying some of the things many of us who ARE actually both sceptics and firmly in the evidence-based camp think - and have said before - and have been attacked for saying. That's life in the global village, I guess.

@Ruth Seeley
Aha I suspected you might be HR, and I guess I should have checked. Just one thing though, it is PR that I described as paid lying, not HR.

I'm not sure what it is that amused you about 'personal lifestyle choice'. What would you prefer?

I fear, though, that when woo penetrates the better universities, it usually comes in via HR. I had a big piece about that in Times Higher Education, which might (or might not) interest you http://www.dcscience.net/?p=226

There was a good example recently at University of Leicester http://www.dcscience.net/?p=258
That did eventually work out but it took a lot of effort (see http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1170 ).

At the moment I'm working (rather slowly)on a big article on "wellbeing". I'm trying to sort out how much is (well-meaning) psychobabble (or worse) and how much, if any, might actually do some good. I'll be interested to hear your opinion if I ever finish it.

@David Colquhoun I'm a public relations practitioner, David, and a single click through on my name in posted comments would have told you that.

From the albeit very limited research I have done, one does not 'choose' to be gay, so for an eminent researcher to describe being gay as a 'personal lifestyle choice' is very funny to me.

I look forward to reading your article - if you'd like my opinion on it, feel free to email me @ ruth@nospinpr.com.

I think Frank's comments are long overdue and the proof is in some of the comments in this thread.
I've seen much worse though in the comments on "Bad Science", some of the stuff there I could only describe as bigotry. Lots of self-righteous macho posturing and hatred.
Regarding the "In the Pub" issue, many people will be turned off the idea of meeting in a pub due to the fact that alcohol is on sale there. Think carefully, there are several different reasons why this should be the case.
"Think carefully"... wasn't that a little bit arrogant?
Maybe it's an internet thing... I'm obviously a troll and should GET OFF THIS THREAD

I fully admit that I personally dislike a lot of people who call themselves "skeptics," but that's because I'm convinced that they do so for the same reasons a majority of Americans call themselves Christians: pretense. For skeptics, it's a pretense of intellectualism and superiority, and for American Christians, of spirituality and morality. In both cases, people just want to feel "special," and that's why we make groups. Groups BY NATURE are insular, and if you want to avoid that, you avoid getting too involved with groups.

On the other hand, I view skeptics all around as a breath of fresh air away from all of this accommodating, sterile, politically-correct bullshit, and I wouldn't change that for the world.

@Mary: I agree about the meet and greet. Some of us discussed that after the meeting and decided to self-appoint as newbie welcomers (it may or may not be significant that everyone who approached me after some comments I made during the discussion to suggest this was female). I've done what I can when I was on the door at the Penderels and now there's no door list at the Monarch I can loiter near the bar to try and spot lone newbies. They're not always easy to spot when a lot of people turn up but I did meet two new women last time and introduced them to a few regulars. Maybe we should have badges - meet skeptics now, ask me how (or is everyone here too young to remember that reference?).

There's another element that Frank didn't mention, which is choosing your battles. Is it really worth upsetting someone you don't know and possibly everyone else at a social event when they start talking about something factually or medically wrong, for example? Having a go at someone just for the sake of showing you know more is behaviour I've seen in some skeptics. It's important to be humane. Kicking away someone's crutch isn't very helpful or productive.

Another thing is that some skeptics don't have great social skills and don't realise they're doing anything wrong. Some of them think that arguing is a form of flirting.

In general, it might help if we all remembered when we were new and didn't know much. We all have weak spots where faith triumphs over evidence - even if it's looking in the mirror, sucking in your beer gut and thinking a black T shirt covers all sins. A little more empathy would make skepticism an easier sell. Does that sound too touchy feely? It doesn't detract from the message, just packages it differently and more palatably.

On the other hand, some people are just really really annoying in their smugness and wrongness and need a bit of a poke. In a caring way...

This article is a little condescending ("we need to be more persuasive when telling people how stupid and ignorant they are!") but basically, you're edging towards my critique.

"Are James Randi's followers a community of newbie-gankers?"

The communities of skeptics online are succumbing to animal impulses. They're addicted to frequent victories over weak opponents. They need easy prey.

@27 Jeremy

Sorry you think that's the case; in fact at the Westminster talk I specifically chided several people at the end who asked questions along those lines.

That was the point I was making when I said that people base their choices on more than facts and that we need to understand and respect those influences.

Heheh, typical nit picking to ensue after a skeptical related post :)

To the OP, never read your blog before but just came across this post, thanks for the interesting write up. I have recently lost almost all confidence in anyone who is a self proclaimed skeptic, or logical/critical thinker. I've watched my friends who were simply anti-religious turn into robotic arrogant jerks at times, just because they now have a safe haven for insecurities surrounding infinite possibilities, which is known to them as skepticism.
My views changed drastically after experiencing my first OBE, and I'm happy to say since then and other experiences, I'll gladly keep a calm and more open approach to peoples views. And in day to day routine I am getting much better at simply listening to others and helping them out, rather than putting them down with ego based arguments.

Great post and you made an enjoyable read for at least one individual :)

For people holding such importance to facts, I personally wouldn't hold them too close, whilst they are nice and seem concrete, as well as give us a grounds to base presumptions and further possibilities on, facts can often change.

Climate Change Deniers Being Led by...Climate Change Believer?

sastyk — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:41:33 +0000

Climate Change Deniers Being Led by...Climate Change Believer?

Mother Jones notes that in private interviews, Glenn Beck, fiery loon of the right, privately seems to believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Last week he mocked climate scientists for being "alarmists" who believe that "we're all going to die in a fiery flood." Not long ago he touted the global warming chapter of his An Inconvenient Book as "kryptonite against your Gore-worshipping psycho friends." And in May 2007 he hosted an hour-long television special, Exposed: The Climate of Fear, featuring an all-star lineup of climate change denialists and promising the "other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anywhere." Beck was also, of course, the driving force behind the successful right-wing push last year to bring down Obama's green jobs guru, Van Jones.

But an interview with Beck in USA Weekend revealed that his private views on climate are very different from those he espouses on his day job. In fact, Beck appears not only to be convinced that global warming is real, but that it's a genuine problem:

"You'd be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," he said. He also says there's a legit case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind.

The article also says that Beck has felt compelled to "buy a home with a 'green' design and using energy-saving products

I think this is more compelling evidence for the proposition that many of the people who are most invested in discrediting climate science are intellectually dishonest, doing it for political or economic gain, rather than out of sincere conviction. We've seen similar admissions made by energy company execs who are funding climate denial at the same time they accept the science.

I think most of the ordinary people who believe them are genuinely misled by the claims being made and confused by complext material. As I've written, I can sometimes get along better with someone who believes that we can't go on as we are but who doesn't believe in climate change than many people who accept climate change but believe the solutions are someone else's problems. But at the leadership level, I think the evidence for profound intellectual dishonesty is quite compelling - far more compelling than the grounds for criticizing climate science.

Sharon

sastyk Thu, 02/25/2010 - 03:41

Tags

NPR ran an interesting report recently about the social and psychological motivations for accepting or rejecting climate science: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124008307

Sharon,

I am *not* a Warmer. I do believe that the so-called science that posits global warming is suspect, and mostly bought and paid for, with results predictable according to the money spent. I do believe that massive deforestation, as happened when North America was "settled" - that is, stripped of transcontinental old growth forest - as Europe was, as Brazil has been doing for decades in the Amazon Basin and Asia is doing now, all contribute significantly to climate instability.

Because warmers ignore the vastly larger contributions of wetlands and natural fauna to green house gases, and ignore the unpredictable volcanic contributions, I am much less convinced about that part of the argument.

I understand both NASA and the Army released reports, not popular among Warmers, that other planets in the solar system have been warming - implying an extraterrestrial energy change impacting the Earth, that this instability might be an act of "nature" after all.

I recall that the International Geophysical Year (1957-58) labeled the 1950s the mildest decade on record. It makes sense that decades other than the 1950s be less mild, less stable. That, following WWII and some seriously profligate expenditures of fossil fuels.

I find damning the comparison a couple of years ago, between the modest and energy-efficient Texas home President George W. Bush lives in, vs. the energy-hungry edifice Al Gore enjoys - who actually believes what, as evidenced by their life choices? That is mostly politics, but does cast a shadow on everything Al "I invented the Internet, so believe what I say" Gore has to say.

I don't know if the climate is warming or not. I do observe that it is less stable; I do believe deforestation, and likely road building and urbanization, contribute to unhappy consequences. I doubt that the current body of science-for-pay results will ever convince me.

I don't have any trouble disbelieving Warming science, while still remaining unresolved about the premise. The snake oil salesman may state something true, but I still would be foolish to buy the product.

I recall that the concern over the hole in the Earth's ozone layer fell out of the news, when DuPont got the UN to enforce the world to change from the old, nasty, expiring-patent Freon to DuPont's newly patented replacement. Poof. New patent, no ozone hole issue. Problem solved. I see parallels between then and now, with the Ozone Hole issue and Warming, in the politics and cash flow, the agitation and angst.

Peak Oil, as I might have mentioned, does convince me. And I see many of the same concerns for mitigations that Warmers tout - except cap and tax - as serving either or both ends.

Sharon;

I appreciate your posts and thoughts. You have challenged my deep seated opinions a time or two.

Frankly, I do not know enough about global warming to know if it is real, imagined, natural, man-made, or if we can do anything about it anyway. But as a rule, I do not believe the sky is falling.

With that shaky basis as a soap box, I still have to remark that the benefits from recycling, becoming 'green'er, reducing oil usage, reducing our carbon footprint, and sustainability in general are laudable goals.

I would argue that a large part of the general population understands my frame of reference, in the sense that we, as a society, don't know what we are doing, where we are going, and we certainly do not have any easy answers.

So, I guess my question to the rest of us is: Why not?

If we clean up our act, where is the loss?

Thanks.

Think back fifty years ago, when practically everything out there said smoking cigarettes was good for you.

Ask yourself if the pro-smoking side were motivated by genuine conviction, or simple greed. And ask yourself why the anti-smoking message was so muted. You don't suspect the press of greed, do you? Certainly they would not put profit ahead of truth!

Brad,

There are serious problems with your claims.

"Because warmers ignore the vastly larger contributions of wetlands and natural fauna to green house gases, and ignore the unpredictable volcanic contributions, I am much less convinced about that part of the argument."

Climate scientists do not ignore natural emissions of greenhouse gases, nor do they ignore volcanic emissions.

Natural sources of CO2, for example, are larger than human sources of CO2. But this misses the point. During the current interglacial, before humans, natural sources and sinks were in relative balance, so that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were fairly stable. With the addition of fossil carbon by humans, net sources now outweigh net sinks: natural sinks absorb about 1/2 of what humans emit, leaving the other 1/2 to accumulate in the atmosphere. Even though the human emissions are still smaller than the total natural emissions, the net imbalance caused by humans is what is responsible for almost all of the ~35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.

As for volcanoes, they produce a temporary (~few year) cooling effect due to sulfate and dust aerosols, and this is well studied (e.g., Mt. Pinatubo). They produce negligible warming from greenhouse gases in comparison to human emissions.

"I understand both NASA and the Army released reports, not popular among Warmers, that other planets in the solar system have been warming - implying an extraterrestrial energy change impacting the Earth,"

I don't know about the Army, NASA never released any such report. Individual NASA scientists have published studies of climate change on other planets and moons. And those scientists, if you Google the studies, are careful to discuss the likely causes of those changes, which do not include "an extraterrestrial energy change impacting the Earth". For example, Martian climate changes are attributed by NASA scientists to changes in surface albedo from dust storms; Jupiter has had its equator warm but poles cool due to internal reorganization of its atmospheric circulation; Pluto has warmed because it is near its perihelion (cloest approach to the Sun). Not all planets and moons show warming, and of the ones that do, none of them are consistent in timing or magnitude with a common source, such as altered solar output. For that matter, we can observe solar output directly and through sunspot proxies, and its time series behavior is not compatible with the observed climate changes on Earth or other planets.

"I find damning the comparison a couple of years ago, [...]"

I shouldn't have to point out that Al Gore's life decisions have nothing to do with the scientific evidence for climate change.

"I doubt that the current body of science-for-pay results will ever convince me."

Ah, the good old "scientists are in it for the money, therefore I can automatically dismiss arbitrarily large amounts of evidence" cognitive filter. How convenient. I'm sure you similarly disbelieve all of, say, semiconductor physics, because they're all out to make a buck off of it.

The idea that because scientists are paid they are all corrupt is just silly - almost all scientists through all of human history, with a few exceptions, have been paid. By that reasoning, one wouldn't believe in the germ theory of disease.

Virtually none of the things you say are true, or they are misprisions - I don't think you understand the science at all, from the grounds you give for disbelief.

Sharon

I think some of the denial is based in fear. It's much easier to find reasons not to believe than it is to take action. Not to mention the fact that it's pretty scary stuff. Personally, I was working toward self sufficiency long before I had even heard about climate change, peak oil, etc. Living with less by choice probably made it easier for me to swallow. Here's the thing that gets me, even if climate change is not caused by humans, even if it is totally made up, you would have to be blind to not see that we are making the world unlivable...What? (cough) Smog is bad for you? (cough, cough) I thought they just put it there for dramatic affect;p! Everything we do is killing US, not just the cute cuddly animals. Seems a little silly to me.

Nice response, Ambitwistor. Additionally, the ozone hole does in fact still exist, and will for decades, both because we continue to produce pollution that destroys upper-atmosphere ozone and because the CFCs that we have already released will remain in the atmosphere for decades. The ozone hole gets no press now because (a) we believe that we have fixed the problem, which is not yet wholly true, and (b) we have other impending problems that we have as yet done nothing to remediate. There is very solid scientific evidence that CFCs destroy ozone, and that having an ozone layer is protective against solar radiation. Had the world assumed that the science was an evil anti-Amurrican hoax and continued to dump and dump and dump CFCs until influential people from latitudes with a high concentration of wealth noticed that they couldn't leave the house without sunscreen, the whole biosphere would have been pretty well hosed.

So, Brad K: do you still think Beck is telling it like it is, even though Beck himself doesn't think so?

While I agree with the general idea you are giving I think one ought be careful. After all one can believe in global warming while simultaneously believing that most of the popular arguments for it in the press or popular culture are alarmist or just plain bad. We mock denialists who appeal to the cold weather snap in the east as evidence against global warming. But a few years ago when there was hot weather there were lots of global warming believers raising that as evidence or raising particular hurricanes.

Likewise one can believe in global warming while simultaneously thinking that due to China and India there is no chance of stopping it and that attempts to do so by the United States are both doomed to failure and will also have a huge negative economic impact. So one can be consistent there.

What is more dangerous, intellectually, are those who accept global warming but also think attempts to control it are futile and counterproductive and who thus use denialist rhetoric as a Machivillian attempt to halt legislation.

Brad K:

I do believe that the so-called science that posits global warming is suspect, and mostly bought and paid for, with results predictable according to the money spent.

Rather than trying to pass off a vague conspiracy, why don't you tell us who, exactly, you think is getting rich off this stuff? Because it certainly isn't the climate scientists. In fact, they have been silenced by administration (under Bush Jr, for example) and lost funding due to publicizing politically inconvenient research.
The simple fact is there is more money and fame in it for any scientist who can disprove AGW. In science, you don't make a name for yourself by backing what everyone else already believes...

Because warmers ignore the vastly larger contributions of wetlands and natural fauna to green house gases

Nonsense. Carbon-based GHG contributions via plants and animals is 'fast cycle', the carbon they put into the atmosphere was taken out last year. It's called the food chain. The carbon we put into the atmosphere is 'slow cycle', it took millions of years to go into its sinks and once released it will be in the atmosphere for quite some time. Effectively, fast cycle carbon emissions are carbon-neutral while slow cycle emissions aren't.
And don't even try going for the 'water vapor is a greenhouse gas too' angle. Water vapor is a function of temperature, not the other way around. If there's too much water vapor in the air it rains, if there's too little it evaporates.
And this is all ignoring the fact that the amount of greenhouse warming due to the known amounts of GHG's pumped into the atmosphere by human activity is calculable by basic principles, and matches Earth's observed energy imbalance...

I understand both NASA and the Army released reports, not popular among Warmers, that other planets in the solar system have been warming - implying an extraterrestrial energy change impacting the Earth

More nonsense. Of the 60 or so bodies in the solar system, only a couple show warming, and they are known to be seasonal effects. The vast majority of bodies show no warming trend, and a few even show a cooling trend. This effectively rules out an extraterrestrial source because an extraterrestrial source would affect all bodies proportionally. Plus the only feasible extraterrestrial forcing is the Sun, and it's been monitored directly by the Max Planck Institute for some 40 years now to have steady irradience.

I recall that the International Geophysical Year (1957-58) labeled the 1950s the mildest decade on record. It makes sense that decades other than the 1950s be less mild, less stable.

This has almost nothing to do with a warming trend. The whole point of statistical analysis is to minimize the impact of statistical deviations.

I find damning the comparison a couple of years ago, between the modest and energy-efficient Texas home President George W. Bush lives in, vs. the energy-hungry edifice Al Gore enjoys - who actually believes what, as evidenced by their life choices? That is mostly politics, but does cast a shadow on everything Al "I invented the Internet, so believe what I say" Gore has to say.

Saying that it's just politics and that it's the 'most damning' thing you know of in the same breath is a level of cognitive dissonance I don't even know how to address.

I recall that the concern over the hole in the Earth's ozone layer fell out of the news, when DuPont got the UN to enforce the world to change from the old, nasty, expiring-patent Freon to DuPont's newly patented replacement. Poof. New patent, no ozone hole issue. Problem solved. I see parallels between then and now

Lol, you're quite confused, aren't you? The reason you don't hear any more about the ozone hole is because we phased out CFC's and fixed the problem. I mean, c'mon man, you said that yourself! But somehow you follow 'they said CFC's were messing up our ozone layer, so we stopped emitting so many CFC's, and now our ozone layer is okay' with 'therefore they were wrong and this all fits in my crazy conspiracy theory.' Yes, nobody talks about the ozone hole anymore. We cut out the CFC's. Problem solved. That was the idea.

clark:

Likewise one can believe in global warming while simultaneously thinking that due to China and India there is no chance of stopping it and that attempts to do so by the United States are both doomed to failure and will also have a huge negative economic impact. So one can be consistent there.

That's certainly a coherent view, but it's too defeatist to make sense to any but the worst nihilist. The 'negative economic impact' part is just a red herring, since, if you accept what the science is telling us, doing nothing will have a far worse impact. So this view basically comes down to 'fuck it, I'm not even gonna try.' At the risk of sounding sappy, you fail 100% of the time you don't try.

Additionally, I would argue that we have a moral imperative to try to do what we can even if we're totally sure it won't have any effect simply because it's the right thing to do.

slightly off topic but I hope you have some thoughts on this - given how crummy last summer was for us gardeners what with all the rain - and given that all that moisture is obviously still with us now (all this snow) - I suspect we can look forward to another wet summer. Have you any suggestions for summer growing in a wetter cooler climate than we usually have? I am thinking that root crops and the usual coolw eather crops like broccoli and cauliflower etc might deserve more space and successive plantings if we can anticipate the same sort of weather in the northeast this summer that we had lasty summer. Any thoughts?

I can't understand all the fuss. Yes we, and scientists, want a scientific proof of climate change but there will always be some scientists who dispute it. You just can't have a 100% scientific proof of something like this.

The proof we do have is empirical, the very obvious changes taking place all over. Melting icecaps, tundra and glaciers, droughts, floods, extreme weather etc.

Scientists just love arguing about the theory, its up to non-scientists to take action. I just wish they would get on with it.

Have you any suggestions for summer growing in a wetter cooler climate than we usually have?

Runner beans like plenty of rain - I had a truly absurd crop last year.

In Clive Hamilton's five-part series on climate change denial he argues quite convincingly that climate change denial is mostly a matter of political ideology. AGW has been successfully associated by PR campaigns with supposed left-wing elitist plots to take over the world. Now belief in AGW is just one of those things that will identify you as One of Them, instead of One of Us, like abortion or gay rights. It fully explains why Glenn Beck happily attacks climate science on his show, even if he may agree with it in private. It is expected of him to assert his loyalty to the group in this way.

@Sonrisa

I think some of the denial is based in fear.

In my experience, climate denialists tend to be free-market absolutists. After all, if climate change is real, and caused by humans, this would be one of the biggest failures of the free market ever. Much easier to just deny climate change than to change your entire world view.

You know, they also don't talk so much about smog in LA or dangerous levels of lead in our cities' air anymore. I wonder if Brad can figure those puzzlers for us.
I have to admit, there was so much nonsense in his comment that I was sure sure it was snark.

I was shocked to read this, too. But the article itself is meant to be contrarian. Perhaps the interviewer dragged this out of him after multiple lines of questioning. In any case, Beck's program is a huge source of disinformation and unnecessary animosity toward climate scientists.

He and Limbaugh have said many times they view themselves as entertainers rather than reporters. It is unfortunate they don't take themselves or their "journalistic" responsibility more seriously.

Aaron Huertas
Press Secretary
Union of Concerned Scientists

A pyromaniac in a field of straw man or a black hole of burning stupid incinerating every straw man in the universe? Mike Adams attacks skepticism

oracknows — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:00:05 +0000

A pyromaniac in a field of straw man or a black hole of burning stupid incinerating every straw man in the universe? Mike Adams attacks skepticism

Mike Adams is confused.

I know, I know. Such a statement is akin to saying that water is wet (and that it doesn't have memory, at least not the mystical magical memories ascribed to it by homeopaths), that the sun rises in the East, or that writing an NIH R01 grant is hard, but there you go. Speaking of writing an NIH R01, that's exactly what I'm doing now, hence the decreased blogorrhea over the last few days, but sometimes trying to cram a five year project into the 13 pages (one page for specific aims and twelve to describe the project) makes my head hurt so much that reading and responding to Mike Adams' idiocy actually looks somewhat pleasurable for a diversion.

I know, I know. I'm a glutton for punishment, but Adams wrote something that was so spectacularly idiotic even for him, that I fear it may rend the fabric of the space-time continuum. You'll see why in a minute. At best, in this post, Adams can be best described as a pyromaniac in a field of straw man. Alternatively, one could envision his post as a black hole made up of such a huge mass of straw men that it collapsed down upon itself. Or maybe it was simply the black hole of woo that is Mike Adams drawing all the straw in the universe into itself, adding to its size and increasing its event horizon, the better for it to suck the intelligence out of the universe.

Yes, Adams' latest is just that bad, so bad that I had to mix metaphors.

As you may recall, over the weekend, there was a hilarious blowup regarding the Shorty Awards, basically awards for Twittering. Mike Adams was in the lead for the Health Category, but then it was pointed out that a large percentage of his votes were coming from brand new Twitter accounts with only one Tweet. Clearly, they were accounts created for one purpose: To vote for Mike Adams. Such voting tactics are clearly against the rules for the Shorty Awards; and the powers that be behind those awards decided to boot Adams from the competition. Personally, I'm not sure that that wasn't overreacting, as it's not clear that these accounts were created at Adams' behest. It probably would have been better simply to invalidate all the illegal votes. Be that as it may, Adams went full mental jacket upon learning of this, claiming huge and dark conspiracies on the part of big pharma, vaccine manufacturers, and the government to "silence" him, all the while pouting that the awards "weren't important" but belying his dismissal of the Shorty Awards' importance by simultaneously threatening to sue its organizers. Truly, it was comedy gold!

But Adams wasn't satisfied with causing supporters of science-based medicine a huge chuckle. Oh, no. Adams is about nothing if not massive woo overkill. So, in response to his humiliation in the Shorty Awards, he decided to channel Deepak Chopra's misunderstanding of the nature of skepticism and skeptics and turning it up to 11 and beyond. Indeed, "pyromaniac in a field of straw men" doesn't even begin to describe the idiocy of Mike Adams' response to skeptics, entitled What 'skeptics' really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe. It's also the purest distillation of the principle of crank magnetism that I've seen in a very long time--maybe ever. Truly, calling it even a black hole of stupidity is inadequate; maybe it's an alternate parallel universe made up of nothing but stupid. I don't know. Feel free to weigh in...after my deconstruction.

Mike begins with a woo-ful whine:

In the world of medicine, "skeptics" claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist. Briefly stated, "skeptics" are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.

Strawman #1 (of more than I care to count): That skeptics claim to be the "sole protectors" of intellectual truth. I'd love to see Adams show a statement anywhere from a skeptic claiming that skeptics are the only protectors of intellectual truth. All we claim is that science is the best way to determine what does and does not work, and we do not accept claims without evidence to support them. In other words, we are the polar opposites of Mike Adams, which is why he doesn't understand us. Adams is correct, though, in that most skeptics are indeed in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. We are in favor of such things because we support science-based medicine, and science tells us that these things do work and delineates the situations when they work and do not work. It is also true that most of us do not support supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic (other than for aspects of it that resemble physical therapy), energy medicine, homeopathy, intercessory prayer, and therapeutic touch. (Note that Adams would be hard-pressed to find a skeptic who has a problem with massage therapy, except when it is infused with woo, which, unfortunately, a lot of massage therapy is.) The reason is, of course, because science does not support these modalities.

Adams also seems very unhappy with the observation that many skeptics are agnostics or atheists, ranting:

But there's much more that you need to know about "skeptics." As you'll see below, they themselves admit they have no consciousness and that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit or a higher power. There is no life after death. In fact, there's not much life in life when you're a skeptic.

I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what "skeptics" actually believe, so I did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites. What I found will make you crack up laughing so hard that your abs will be sore for a week. Take a look...

Well, I suppose we skeptics are just returning the favor. Many are the articles on NaturalNews.com that left me laughing so hard at Adams' ignorance, paranoia, and conspiracy theories that I should sue Adams for funds to pay for some NSAIDs to treat my aching chest wall and abdominal muscles. Maybe they'd throw in some chiropractic adjustments as well, as I fear that Adams' hilarious woo induced subluxations of each and every one of my thoracic vertebrae. It would be very interesting to know which skeptical websites and blogs Adams actually visited. If you have a skeptical website or blog, you should look for some accesses from Ecuador, which, if I recall correctly, is where Mike Adams currently resides. Maybe you were graced with a visit from the Woo-meister-in-Chief himself! Sadly, I couldn't find any such visits in my logs, but I only use the free version of Sitemeter; so only the last 100 visits are logged.

The sheer number of straw men to which Adams takes a flamethower (I know, I know, I can't make up my mind which metaphor I want to use) is so huge that it would be a colossal undertaking to respond to them all. Therefore, I'm going to pick and choose--dare I say, cherrypick--the ones that amused or enraged me the most. Others may be disappointed that I left their favorite ones out. Fear not! That's what the comments are for. Feel free to respond in the comments to any or all of this collection of misrepresentations and woo.

Let's get started. Adams divides his "commentary" into sections, starting out with "What Skeptics Really Believe." The very first one made me laugh out loud:

Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they've never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for your health."

Is there a more outrageous misrepresentation of the views of practitioners of science-based medicine that you can imagine? If it were true that skeptics believe that "all vaccines" are safe and effective, then why is there so much debate over which vaccines should be in the childhood immunization schedule? Why do we have a VAERS database and VSD to look out for adverse reactions to vaccines? In actuality, Adams completely misunderstands that what is being argued is not that "all" vaccines are safe and effective; rather we argue that the current pediatric vaccination schedule is safe in that the benefits of being vaccinated far outweigh the tiny risks that come from vaccination. The same is true for flu vaccination. As for Gardasil, there is quite a bit of controversy, but it's not so much over whether the vaccine is safe. It is. Rather, it's more about whether it should be part of the routine pediatric vaccination schedule. As for the utter idiocy of Adams' "no limit" nonsense, he's mischaracterizing an example that Paul Offit made that the human body is capable of responding to the antigens from thousands of vaccines at a time; he was not advocating giving hundreds of vaccines at a time.

Which brings us to this gem:

Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.

I'd really love to see Adams provide evidence that "skeptics" believe that the body has "no ability to defend itself." The truly hilarious thing about this bit is that Adams is too clueless to realize that the very principle upon which vaccines work depends upon the body's ability to defend itself from invading microorganisms. They don't work (or don't work as well) in patients who are immunosuppressed, whose immune systems don't work, for whatever reason. Truly, the cluelessness of Mike Adams knows no bounds.

Skeptics believe that all healing happens from the outside, from doctors and technical interventions. They do not believe that patients have any ability to heal themselves. Thus, they do not ascribe any responsibility for health to patients. Rather, they believe that doctors and technicians are responsible for your health. Anyone who dismisses doctors and takes charge of their own health is therefore acting "irresponsibly," they claim.

No, they do not. Note how Adams conflates "taking charge of one's own health" with using the forms of quackery that he likes. Nor do they believe that "all healing happens from the outside." Geez, Adams doesn't know many surgeons, does he? Our very profession depends upon the body's ability to heal. We routinely make big incisions in the body and count on the body's ability to heal the temporary injury resulting from our ministrations. As for "not ascribing any responsibility to patients," that's utter nonsense. The sad thing is that Adams probably really does believe this.

I like this one too:

Skeptics believe that Mother Nature is incapable of synthesizing medicines. Only drug companies can synthesize medicines, they claim. (So why do they copy molecules from nature, then?)

Nonsense again. Many science-based medicines are derived from natural products, either extracted from plants or other organisms or extracted and chemically modified. It's amazing to consider: Taxol (derived from the bark of the Pacific Yew), digoxin (foxglove plant); Vinca alkaloids (derived from Catharanthus roseus, a.k.a. periwinkle plant); and camptothecin, irinotecan, topotecan (derived from Camptotheca acuminata, a.k.a. Happy tree). There are many other examples, as well. Indeed, whole divisions of pharmaceutical companies are devoted to screening natural compounds for pharmacologica activity, and the NIH has a huge investment in biodiversity initiatives and similarly identifying natural products that might have value in human disease. In other words, Mike Adams is so wrong that he's not even wrong.

As usual, as he is with this:

Skeptics believe that you can take unlimited pharmaceuticals, be injected with an unlimited number of vaccines, expose yourself to unlimited medical imaging radiation, consume an unlimited quantity of chemicals in processed foods and expose yourself to an unlimited quantity of environmental chemical toxins with absolutely no health effects whatsoever!

Huh? I challenge Mike Adams right here, right now, to provide a link or links to a skeptical website or blog that says anything of the sort! Certainly, this isn't such a blog. Indeed, just recently, I wrote about the dangers of too much radiation from medical imaging. I've expressed skepticism about various science-based medical modalities for which I consider the evidence to be lacking, such as vertebroplasty. Skepticism means skepticism, not just towards "alternative" medicine but to all medical claims. Those that can stand up to scientific scrutiny become medicine; those that can't end up on Mike Adams' website to reside with other gems of woo like this:

Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

I love the primitive vitalism that permeates Mike Adams' beliefs. After all, unless we eat our vegetables right off of the vine or rip the beating hearts out of our enemies and eat them before they stop beating, our food is "dead."

Dead, dead, dead, dead, dead!

Meat is dead. Vegetables and fruit, unless they were just harvested, are dead, and certainly both meat and vegetables are dead by the time we've chewed them and send them into the acid baths that reside in our stomachs. Truly, Adams' statement is hilarious, just not in the way he thinks it is, just as his belief that skeptics are not "skeptical" about everything:

Skeptics aren't skeptical about the corruption and dishonesty in the pharmaceutical industry. They believe whatever the drug companies say, without asking a single intelligent question.

Skeptics aren't skeptical about medical journals. They believe whatever they read in those journals, even when much of it turns out to be complete science fraud.

Skeptics aren't skeptical about the profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry. They believe that drug companies are motivated by goodwill, not by profits.

Skeptics aren't skeptical about the motivations and loyalties of the FDA. They will swallow, inject or use any product that's FDA approved, without a single reasonable thought about the actual safety of those products.

Skeptics aren't skeptical about the safety of synthetic chemicals used in the food supply. They just swallow whatever poisons the food companies dump into the foods.

Skeptics aren't skeptical about the enormous dangers of ionizing radiation from mammograms and CT scans. They have somehow convinced themselves that "early detection saves live" when, in reality, "early radiation causes cancer."

Hmmm. I'm puzzled. Right here, at least, I've expressed skepticism about nearly of these things, including pharmaceutical company seeding trials, pharmaceutical company chicanery with respect to medical journals, and misconduct from medical journals themselves. Also, I've written extensively about mammography and the problems with mammographic screening, including overdiagnosis, the risk of breast cancer due to radiation, how screening mammography doesn't reduce deaths from breast cancer as much as many think, and how mammographic screening guidelines have changed. Does Mike Adams not pay attention to such things? Again, skepticism does not differentiate between "conventional" and "alternative" medicine. As the old joke goes: What do you call alternative medicine that has been scientifically shown to work?

Medicine.

Personally, I see this as a massive case of projection on Mike Adams' part and would rephrase a couple of them:

Mike Adams is not skeptical about the corruption and dishonesty in the supplement industry. He believes whatever supplement manufacturers claim, without asking a single intelligent question.
Mike Adams isn't skeptical about the profit motive of the the supplement industry, much of which is being bought up by pharmaceutical companies. He believes that supplement companies are motivated by goodwill, not by profits.

Translating others is left as an exercise for the reader, although if you really want to see just how uncritical Adams is, check this out:

Skeptics aren't skeptical about the demolition-style collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building on September 11, 2001 -- a building that was never hit by airplanes. This beautifully-orchestrated collapse of a hardened structure could only have been accomplished with precision explosives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok) Astonishingly, "skeptics" have little understanding of the laws of physics. Concrete-and-steel buildings don't magically collapse in a perfect vertical demolition just because of a fire on one floor...

Truly, this is crank magnetism at its finest! Who'd have thought it? Mike Adams is a 9/11 Truther! If you really don't need much more than this to know that Adams has zero credibility when it comes to critical thinking! After all, he still buys into one of the myths of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, namely that WTC 7 couldn't possibly have collapsed from the damage due to the collapse of the other buildings, a point that's been debunked time and time again, in particular in detail by Popular Mechanics. Specifically, not only was WTC 7 was more heavily damaged than initially thought but its design was unusual in that its floors held more load than most buildings. It turns out that removing the structural support of even one column could lead to collapse. Combine the fires that rages out of control with the structural damage from falling debris, and it's not surprising that WTC 7 collapsed several hours later. It's hard to believe that anyone believes the WTC 7 myth anymore, but Mike Adams does.

But, hey, that's just me. What do I know? According to Adams, I'm this:

Skeptics don't believe in a higher power of any kind: No God, no spirit, no angels, no guides, no creative force in the universe... nada. They think the universe is a cold, empty, lonely, stupid place full of soulless, mindless, zombie biological bodies who have no free will and no consciousness.

Gee, no wonder these skeptics are so misguided. They have the most pessimistic view possible. No wonder they seek to destroy themselves with chemicals -- they don't even think they're alive to begin with! Skeptics are bent on self destruction. And they believe that when you die, the lights just go out and you cease to exist. Nothing happens after that. You're just a mindless biological robot whose life has no meaning, no purpose, no higher self.

The only thing not alive in Mike Adams' little rant are his brain cells. I gave up counting the straw men after the "cold, empty, lonely, stupid place" bit.

Skeptics don't think they're alive? Of course they do! Moreover, Adams is conflating skepticism with a nihilistic form of atheism that even the most vocal and--dare I say?--militant atheists I know don't advocate. In fact, I can't recall any of them claiming any such thing or stating the universe is a "stupid place" full of zombie biological bodies with no free will and no consciousness! Do you know a person who thinks that way? Maybe such people exist (although I sincerely doubt it), but they aren't the people who are prominent in the skeptical movement. As for "no consciousness," I think that describes Adams as well. The argument is not over whether consciousness exists; the argument is dualism (the concept that consciousness derives from something other than the brain) versus the idea that consciousness derives from a biological source; i.e., the brain itself. Recent research in neuroscience definitely points towards the latter explanation of consciousness rather than the former, no matter how little Adams likes it.

But the piÃ¨ce de rÃ©sistance is yet to come in the conclusion, where Adams tries to dehumanize skeptics:

Realizing this, it makes it so much easier to debate with skeptics on any topic. Whatever they say, you just answer, "WHO is saying that? Are YOU, a conscious, free-thinking person with a mind and soul saying that, or are those words simply being automatically and robotically uttered from the mouth of a bag of bones and skin that has no mind and no soul?"

If they answer you honestly, they will have to admit that they believe they are nothing more than a robotic bag of bones and skin that is mindlessly uttering whatever nonsense happens to escape their mechanical lips. At that point, you've already won the debate because YOU have a soul, and THEY don't. You're arguing with a mindless robot.

Seriously. Think about this deeply. If you believe what the skeptics want you to believe (because they are always right, of course), then you must accept the fact that THEY have no consciousness. They are not really "alive." They are just robotic biological machines. They are drones, in other words. And drones are not equal to a being of energy with a consciousness and a soul, inhabiting a human body with purpose and awareness.

Never argue with drones. You only waste your time and annoy the drone.

Skeptics... zombies... drones... different words for the same thing. Soulless, mindless, lacking consciousness and free will, having no awareness of the value of life... these are the skeptics arguing for vaccines, mammograms and chemotherapy today. They are agents of death who can only find solace in an industry of death -- the industry of modern medicine.

And there, my friends, you have the black hole of burning stupid incinerating universes of straw men! (I know, I know, I'm mixing metaphors again. Just go with me on this; I'm on a roll.)

Seriously. Does dehumanization get any more blatant than this? Note how Adams turns the skeptic into the "other," an inhuman soulless automaton. Not believing in God or the existence of a soul does not demand that a belief that human beings are automatons, nor does believing in a biological basis of behavior, rather than a dualistic mechanism, to the point of doubting the existence of truly free will necessarily imply that humans are mindless and have no awareness of the meaning of life. None of this means that skeptics are "seeking death" because their lives have no meaning. The sheer number and volume of straw men here threaten to fill the known universe.

It's hard to know if Mike Adams truly believes the sheer volume of nonsense that he is laying down. Whatever the true case, there is no doubt that he is a master of making stuff up as he sees fit. At one point, he says that he is "not going to list those websites here because they don't deserve the search engine rankings, but you can find them yourself through Google, if you wish." So obviously intellectually lazy is this approach that even his acolytes criticized him for it, saying, "This article would have been 100% more effective and informative if after each notation, there would have been examples, names, etc. to give the statement more crediblity, convincing, more impressive."

No it wouldn't, because I'm quite sure that any examples that Adams might pick would actually not support his characterization of them. That's because, like Deepak Chopra's parody of skepticism as unrelenting negative cynicism, Mike Adams' parody is not based on reality. It is based on his projection of his credulity and paranoid distrust of science onto skeptics in order to portray them as mindless, credulous automatons who believe anything that fits within their world view and reject in a knee-jerk fashion anything that does not.

Funny, but Mike Adams' concept of a skeptic sounds a lot like Mike Adams himself. Or maybe it's not so funny. Scratch that. There's no "maybe" about it. Mike Adams' promotion of pure quackery is not funny at all, no matter how hilarious his rants against skeptics may be. He promotes quackery that can result in people foregoing effective care.

People can die when that happens.

ADDENDUM: Mike Adams continues the stupidity. It's late; I'm too tired to take it all on:

http://www.naturalnews.com/028019_skeptics_thinking.html

If there is one inexhaustible resource, it is Mike Adams' ignorance.

oracknows Sun, 01/24/2010 - 18:00

Categories

Brain and Behavior

I can see the glow on the horizon.

Has Mike Adams ever been to Burning Man?

Mike Adams has jumped the shark.

I preferred to look at the article as one big strawman as they blended so noxiously into each other it was difficult to see where one finished and another began.

As I write this, this just in on the Roid Ranger's facebook page:

NaturalNews.com: "The article I posted yesterday that exposed the true beliefs of "skeptics" made some major waves across the 'net. Entitled, What "skeptics" really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe (http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_s...), the article turned the tables on the skeptics and detailed their bizarre beliefs for the whole world to see."

As you noted above, Orac, guffaw at the comedy gold. He has jumped the shark forever.

I particularly liked PZ's description of live vs dead foods ... how thanks to chewing, it's ALL dead by the time it swims in the acid bath in the stomach.

Why WHY are there no enforceable laws against the likes of Mike Adams (and Mercola, and a hundred others)?

Why didn't Adams link to ANY of the skeptic sources he claims to have searched?

Because he knows that in no time a line up of skeptics would have him in an English libel court, taking advantage of the mechanisms that are being used against Simon Singh right now.

"cold, empty, lonely, stupid place"

I think that could become the default description for the skull cavities of Adams, inter alia.....

How do you know the risks of vaccination in young children are tiny? Adverse events to drugs are voluntarily self-reported by physicians. Only a small percentage of the true totals are reported to the CDC. For example, An acquaintance of mine's sister-in-law's very young child died within 48 hours of vaccination. The child's pediatriacian threatened the mother with a report of child abuse to the police if she dared report the death to VAERS. Since you're so busy with your grant application, maybe in your down time you can debate me. I'm waiting.

I'm so happy. Adams couldn't have footbulleted harder.

When I started pushing for votes for @DrRachie, I never in my wildest dreams expected that such glorious hissy fits would be on the horizon.

The woo-monger's tears of defeat and rage are like liquid gold to me.

"The child's pediatriacian threatened the mother with a report of child abuse to the police if she dared report the death to VAERS."

Serious accusations. I suppose you have some proof of this?

@ mary podlesak
Reactions are well documented. Please provide documentation for what you claim. I do not want anecdotal evidence. Please provide evidence that this child died because of a vaccination.

Mary Podlesak:

How do you know the risks of vaccination in young children are tiny?

With the several decades of real scientific research in the real medical literature.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. Due to the large number of people who get vaccinated per day, a small number will die shortly after the vaccine. A great majority will be for reasons completely unrelated to the vaccine (like being in a car accident, or having an unknown large cancerous tumor growing in their chest).

And now he's responded to the response to his straw legion, with a LOL-worthy display of his ignorance of basic chemistry. Apparently water is too magical because:

Water is made up of two gases, each of which is a combustible fuel on its own. Do I think water is magical? You bet I do!

What an idiot.

Mary, do you have any evidence other than the dubious story of "an acquaintance of mine's sister-in-law's very young child died within 48 hours of vaccination?"

Mary, if you want to report your story to the proper authorities you can go here https://vaers.hhs.gov/esub/step1 and fill out the for,.

The mother and her sister-in-law would have the proof. I don't have that myself. The sister-in-law relating her nephew's death was not a person given to exaggeration. The mother would have to do what I did when the police overstepped the bounds of the law, sign an affidavit attesting to the events as they occured.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

Police are not exactly those who can give a diagnosis. You heard a story, and made an unsubstantiated conclusion.

Does any of this have anything to do with Mike Adams and his website, NaturalNews? The answer is a simple "no."

In short, Ms. Podlesak, you really have nothing to add to the conversation.

You're just a mindless biological robot whose life has no meaning, no purpose, no higher self.

Yes, thinking critically about things is often conflated with acting mindlessly. Project much?

Chris, as I have said before, there is no such category as "anecdotal data" to anyone other than physicians who seek to denigrate the value of observational data for personal gain. To biostatisticians there is only data. Prove irrefutably that physiological reactions without manifestly circumstantial causes should not at least preliminarily be attributed to vaccination. Automatically dismissing such a relationship is not science but prejudication.

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain

People listen to this guy for medical advice? "...the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway)."

Um...how do you even begin to respond to that?

Man, is Adams afraid that science is right, or what? He's like a little kid throwing a tantrum with his ears plugged, his eyes shut tight, screaming "La La La La La I'm never gonna die, I'm never gonna die, I'm never gonna die!" The fear of mortality is strong in this one . . .

@16

Chris, as I have said before, there is no such category as "anecdotal data" to anyone other than physicians who seek to denigrate the value of observational data for personal gain.

In other words . . . "Data? We don't need no steenkin' Data!"

Come on Chris, let's face it, we'll never be able to understand her Earth Wisdomâ¢ because we're just cold, sciency robots and she has a Soulâ¢ . . . that, and anecdotes about her sister's best freind's neice-in-law's reiki practitioner's kid.

Ridicule is not argument. Biostatisticians do not recognize anecdotal data, just data. Don't believe me? Look it up genius. As I said before, you guys are nothing but the Borg, the Borg in a Potemkin Village, A fakery set up to promote drugs. Real men debate in public but you don't have real balls, just virtual balls. Why are you so afraid of one old, ugly broad like me?

To be fair, he only claimed that WTC 7 was not hit by an airplaneânot WTC 1 or 2. The Truther BS doesn't enter in until his claim that WTC 7 had to have been destroyed with the help of precision explosives.

Quick point: WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. This was the 30+ story building that had a few tiny fires inside and had received minor damage from the collapse of the twin towers. The most widely held interpretation is that the external damage, coupled from the heat of the fire, caused the collapse. I think there's good reason to be skeptical personally (not to the level of black helicopter conspiracy but just to the level of it being really weird). At the very least we're talking serious design flaws and a hefty lawsuit.

This doesn't, of course, mean that this crack pot is any less of a loon.

It looks to me like mary podlesak actually made a true statement! Biostatisticians do not, in fact, seem to recognize anecdotal data as valid. Because, you know, it's a legitimate field of science. I mean, come on, Mary, statisticians by definition work only with large numbers - you know, the opposite of anecdotes.

Sure, Mary, even if biostatisticians accept ALL possible data, they have a way of weighting their data for reliability. I mean, you can't just add "Some story I heard on the Internet" to "What that bloke in the pub said" and get something to base public health policy on.

Mary, while there is no reason to assume off-handedly that your story is not true, it does not, in and of itself, prove that all doctors are to be distrusted, or that the overall benefit of vaccines does not outweigh the risk. It is possible that the child you refer to had an allergic, or otherwise adverse, reaction to the vaccine recieved. Your doctor or public health authority will tell you that a small number of people may have an adverse reaction to any given vaccine. But the true indication of risk lies in the numbers, ie statistics. The number of people who do not have any adverse reaction to a given vaccine and benefit from the protection it helps the body to create is far, FAR greater than the number of people who have an adverse reaction. And the number of actual deaths (usually due to allergic reactions) is even smaller than the small number of adverse reactions. Even for people who have non-life threatening reactions (such as temporary swelling, fever, or discomfort of the injection site) the benefits still usually outweigh the risk of not being vaccinated, especially against life-threatening pandemics or epidemics. Doctors don't claim that no one EVER dies as a reaction to vaccines, or that there is no risk of adverse reaction. It's just that such occurances are VERY rare. When they do occur they are talked about, much more so than the many, many instances where vaccines do their job without any problems. So your story only proves that one child had an adverse reaction, and one doctor was an ass about it. That's if the story happened exactly as you tell it, because what you've given is third-party information. It happened to a relative of an aquaintance, not to YOU personally, so while I don't disbelieve you, it is not exactly verifiable information.

Would I be incorrect in assuming that, given the right crowd, Adams' tactics would possibly "win" a debate?

This whole thing has been quite entertaining, I'm eager to watch it play out throughout the week.

By the way, the Shorty's are just in the nomination phase. Nominations end on January 29th, after which the top 6 nominees get voted on again. After that, Dr Rachie will need our support to ensure quackaloon Mercola doesn't get the posh free trip to New York.

Correction.. top 5. 6 if there's a tie for 5th. And the invite probably doesn't come with hotel & air.. anyway. :)

Biostatisticians don't work with anecdotal evidence. It's NOT DATA and they work with DATA. Here's an equivalent to your story:
When my dad was 9 years old his 5 year old sister was killed in front of him, she was hit by a school bus when the driver was distracted. Right before they had gone outside they'd been listening to the song Last Kiss. Many years later he was listening to the cover version of Last Kiss done by Pearl Jam when he received a phone call that my brother had been injured being hit by a car.

I could conclude the song caused both accidents but that's nonsense, it was a coincidence and without more data there's no reason to think there was a connection. Same goes with your anecdote, except mine isn't potential grounds for a libel lawsuit.

Ooops, forgot to add. If you don't knwo the song it involves a car accident that kills the narrator's girlfriend.

Mare, Also, this one story does not prove that most vaccine-related deaths are not reported to the CDC. And I have a question for you: If this doctor threatened the mother with a child-abuse charge if she reported the incident, on what was he going to base that charge? A report of an adverse reaction to a vaccine should not have been a threat to the doctor's reputation or practice. It was an ADVERSE REACTION, having to do with the child's reaction to a vaccine, not the doctors methods or practice (for all the detail you have given us). So if his practice was not in danger he must have had some other reason to threaten a charge of child-abuse. Maybe he had reason to believe that the death was actually the result of abuse or negligence rather than an adverse reaction to vaccine? Alternately, if his practice WAS in danger then the death must have been related to something questionable that the doctor did or did not do rather than a reaction to the vaccine. So the fact that the threat was made in the first place indicates that either the doctor was an ass (as many people are, and doctors are people too) or the mother was an ass. If neither are true then there would have been no reason for the threat.

Speaking of strawmen... (sorry, but it fits, in this one case)

Orac says:

Note how he actually seems to believe in the "no plane" idea of how the World Trade Center towers were destroyed.

No, he doesn't seem to believe that at all. He was speaking about WTC 7, which did collapse and which wasn't hit by any aircraft. You quoted this.

Mike Adams said:

Skeptics aren't skeptical about the demolition-style collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building on September 11, 2001 -- a building that was never hit by airplanes. This beautifully-orchestrated collapse of a hardened structure could only have been accomplished with precision explosives.

There's a heap of burning stupid there, of course. The collapse of WTC 7 came about as result of massive damage from falling debris weakening the structure, and by the fires in the building that were started from that debris as well. There was indeed no aircraft impact on WTC 7.

Hence it is a strawman to say that Adams is proposing a no plane idea with respect to other impact, or that he is denying the impact of planes on the two main towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2, which collapsed first.

You need to fix this with an addendum and acknowledgement in your article. Please.

Mike Adams continues the stupidity.

It seems that he doesn't understand the difference between "condemnation" and "derision".

Has Adams ever seen a building being demolished with explosives? A building demolition is more or less an implosion, with the building falling in on itself and leaving other buildings only meters away untouched and unscathed. It does not cause the outward cloud of dust and debris that we witnessed in the video Adams linked to. And the explosives are set off from the bottom up, not randomly throughout the building. Even if the WTC7 building WAS brought down with explosives (which appears highly unlikely), it could hardly be called a true demolition job, or precise, or beautifully-orchestrated.

You criticize Mike Adams for attacking straw men, but you seem to use Mike Adams as your own straw man.

I would be interested in your opinions of the many qualified doctors and scientists who sometimes question the conventional wisdom.

People like Stephan Guyenet of wholehealthsource.blogspot.com, Doctor Art Ayers of coolinginflammation.blogspot.com, and Doctor T of nephropal.blogspot.com

Just asking ... not trying to argue, because I'm not sure Mike is credible enough to deserve all the attention from you.

The 50 Best Health Blogs

So now it seems that Mike Adams, seeing some of Mercola's followers appear to have been alienated by his low grade personal insults on Dr Rachie, has yet another horse in the race.

We want to help natural health advocates win this category. You can help by casting TWO votes right now (yes, you can legitimately vote for more than one candidate in the same category, according to Shorty Awards rules).
Vote for Dr. Joseph Mercola...
And vote for Kevin Gianni here...
You know Kevin Gianni. He's got a huge Twitter following, and he's all about health freedom. He's standing up for health freedom by joining the race. With your support, we could potentially help Dr. Mercola take first place, and Kevin Gianni could take second or third.

Automatically dismissing such a relationship is not science but prejudication.

Then why would automatically asserting such a relationship not be prejudice as well?

I just realised the above quote I posted follows the

Free registration is required to read the rest of this article...

And of course, behind the curtain there's this..

You can probably tell by now that these jackals are front-men for Big Pharma. I've seen this behavior enough to know exactly who is behind this: The drug companies and their P.R. hit men. They see natural health advocates as a threat to their business, and they will do anything to try to get you censored, banned, disqualified or otherwise shut down on the 'net. The one thing they absolutely cannot stand is for health freedom advocates to have a voice and tell people the truth about why they don't need pharmaceuticals, mammograms, vaccines and chemotherapy.

No doubt the best selling items merchandised by Mike Adams and Co. are those top of the range, 100% naturally formulated tin foil hats!

RE: WTC 7/No plane error

I changed the text to fix that faux pas; that's what I get for writing this when I had a lot of distractions going on, but that was the only time I had available over the weekend to do this piece. I fear that the concentrated burning stupid of Adams' article may have damaged my neurons. I can't think of another explanation for making a mistake like that. Oh, well...

Adams is still a 9/11 Truther.

Much better. And yes, he's a "truther". Weird.

The child's pediatriacian threatened the mother with a report of child abuse to the police if she dared report the death to VAERS.

VAERS is not exactly the first thing anyone, particularly the physician, would be concerned about in case of a child's death directly related to very recent medical treatment. Thus the story of a doctor who may have been involved in the death of a young child being concerned to the point of blackmail about VAERS reporting, as opposed to far more likely objects of anxiety such as a criminal investigation by the authorities, or a civil lawsuit from the child's family, makes it quite evident that this story is either completely fabricated or bowdlerized to the point of unrecognizability. I.e., it's made up, mostly or completely.

Brains... I went to Mike Adams' site, and I'm starving... no brainsssss...

Skeptics... zombies... drones... different words for the same thing. Soulless, mindless, lacking consciousness and free will, having no awareness of the value of life...

Zombies have feelings too! Oh, Mike Adams, is there no end to your oppression of the soul-deficient?!

What I don't understand is this: If Mike Adams is such a moron -- and it certainly appears that he is -- why repeat his nonsense, even if just to tear it apart? I mean, seriously -- how can you take him seriously? The guy is clearly an idiot.

One thing I have to admit tho, he is a good rapper. See his music videos on youtube (if you can get past the inanity of the lyrics that is).

"I won't bother linking them here because they don't deserve the views" to borrow from Adams himself.

Maybe he had reason to believe that the death was actually the result of abuse or negligence rather than an adverse reaction to vaccine?

If he suspected child abuse then he had a legal obligation to report it, regardless of what the mother threatened or did not threaten to do to him. However, given that this is a friend-of-a-friend story, I strongly suspect fact drift.

Water is made up of two gases, each of which is a combustible fuel on its own. Do I think water is magical? You bet I do!

Oh, man. There's so much wrong with those sentences, I'm going to have to unpick them manually.

Ok, first off: oxygen is not a fuel. By definition, a fuel is something which reacts exothermically with an oxidant SUCH AS OXYGEN.

Secondly: water is made from hydrogen and oxygen? Amazing! A compound is made from two different elements, which have somewhat different properties to the compound itself!

Thirdly: Table salt is made from an explosive metal and a hideously corrosive gas, yet is tasty and basically harmless[1]. Does that make it magical too? Maybe heshould try mixing it with water and selling it as a magical health supplement!

[1] Compared to, say, strontium fluoride, or hydrogen cyanide, or billions of other generally nasty compounds.

Jim Purdy: "You criticize Mike Adams for attacking straw men, but you seem to use Mike Adams as your own straw man."

Not at all.

Adams brings the crazy more consistently and entertainingly than some of his altie confederates, but a lot of his ideas are echoed and reinforced by seemingly more respectable allies (like Mary Podlesak, AgeofAutism warriorette, whose misconceptions about vaccines have been reproduced on Adams' NaturalNews website).

Mikey, in his petulant foot-stamping rage over being denied an Internet award, is an entertaining spectacle - but he's far from alone in spreading virulent nonsense about health issues.

Beyond the Health RangerLoon and his allies, if you check out the many articles here, lots deal with questions about "conventional" medical wisdom from actual thoughtful sources, and how the status quo stands up to changing evidence.

What I don't understand is this: If Mike Adams is such a moron -- and it certainly appears that he is -- why repeat his nonsense, even if just to tear it apart? I mean, seriously -- how can you take him seriously?

Does this post look like I'm taking him seriously? I'm not, at least not as far as what he writes and advocates. After all, this long post is nothing more than ridiculing his exceedingly ridicule-worthy rant. However, Adams does have a lot of readers, more than most reputable "conventional" medical sites. Consequently, for that reason alone we have little choice but to take him "seriously" enough to slap him down from time to time. The guy's website promotes more pseudsocience and quackery than nearly any other that I'm aware of.

I suspect some "food" might not be "dead". Food borne parasites can be very unpleasant.

@shawmutt, #17

People listen to this guy for medical advice? "...the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway)."

Um...how do you even begin to respond to that?

To that particular point, the response is that it's correct. Water is hydrogen oxide no matter its source, and for any practical purpose two samples of water having the same chemical composition are identical.

Incidentally, the water in your toilet, assuming a "normal" house plumbing, has precisely the same source and composition as the one you boil your vegetables in. Some even drink tap water. Tap water--the same stuff that go in the toiled! (Not to mention the astronauts on the ISS, who drink the water even after it goes out the toilet!)

Ridicule is not argument. Biostatisticians do not recognize anecdotal data, just data. Don't believe me? Look it up genius. As I said before, you guys are nothing but the Borg, the Borg in a Potemkin Village, A fakery set up to promote drugs. Real men debate in public but you don't have real balls, just virtual balls. Why are you so afraid of one old, ugly broad like me?

Science is not settled in public debates and your anecdotal story proves nothing other than you can type on a computer.

Just ask my girlfriend from Niagra Falls.

Mike Adams writes:

Skeptics believe that you can take unlimited pharmaceuticals... with absolutely no health effects whatsoever!

Anyone who has a chronic disease knows, a doctor will take months to find the right medication for said disease. Why? Because they are always looking for adverse reactions and/or interactions. Even if the patient gets impatient and wants the doctor to just 'fix it' already.

Not so with 'natural medicine', they will use multiple 'remedies' with hardly a thought of adverse effects. How many supplements have a patient information insert (I am, of course, not speaking of homeopathy, since that has no more adverse effects than water)?

They want more studies to prove the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals and vaccines when they have absolutely no documentation for their own crap.

When I searched naturalnews.com for "adverse reactions" this is what I found. Mostly mention of the danger of 'evil' medical interventions.

Of course, you do get this on every supplement: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. [This supplement] is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

These 'alt med' people are hypocritical swindlers of the highest 'quality'.

Sorry, messed up my blockquote. First sentence is a quote, the rest is mine.

Ups. The paragraph "Um...how do you even begin to respond to that?" should have been inside the blockquote.

I felt I should make that little observation, from a chemist's point of view, given that some people still think there's some essential difference among things coming from different immediate sources... Like tap vs. spring water, natural vs. synthetic vitamin C etc. What differs in water coming from different sources is the overall composition, not water itself. In a sense, all and every molecule of water we drink has been recycled (via the water cycle in nature).

Orac:

If the methods Adams advocates are good enough to use on Haitians, how can you object to them? www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4e601264cbdad356a9d677659aa5919c.5…

BC Grad Student at #22 writes:

The most widely held interpretation [re the collapse of WTC 7] is that the external damage, coupled from the heat of the fire, caused the collapse. I think there's good reason to be skeptical personally....

Err, no. I've been involved in fire litigation, and the way fire can weaken both metal and concrete structural members would surprise you. As soon as I saw the TV pictures of WTC #1 and #2 in the very early stages of the fires in those buildings, I voiced concern to my co-workers about the potential that both buildings might collapse.

I am not at all skeptical that fire coupled with external damage could have brought down WTC 7. If you are skeptical, of course skepticism is not a bad initial attitude, but you owe it to yourself to do some scientific and engineering research on the subject rather than applying "common sense" to an uncommon situation. (There has been analysis done on fireproofing of structural members in WTC 1 and WTC 2, and a quite good NOVA episode presenting some of it. I don't know whether the same fireproofing regime was used in WTC 7.)

It's all good fun ripping on Adams and I enjoyed every word of it, but in the interest of doing the most good for the average consumer, wouldn't it be better to spend some time taking down all these MD's (Weill, Hyman, Oz, Chopra, Northrup, those mentioned in comment #34, et al)? I know you spend time on this, I only mean to encourage it as there is so much of it out there that needs to be combatted.

By the way, Is Gary Null Mike Adams' twin?

I'm a meat robot, and I'm proud of it. So there.

Orac, you don't just mix metaphors, you have entire figurative episodes of "Will It Blend?". If you had some fancy paper umbrellas and a few maraschino cherries, your writing could be its own cocktail party.

It is also true that most of us do not support supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic (other than for aspects of it that resemble physical therapy), energy medicine, homeopathy, intercessory prayer, and therapeutic touch.

It depends on what you mean by energy medicine. I am about in favour of treating hypothermia by supplying heat energy, and hyperthermia by removing heat energy, as of anything else.

What I am continually amazed by is that woo-merchants can advertise something as a newly discovered form of energy, and get people lining up to buy it, despite the common knowledge that Marie Curie was killed by a new form of energy.

Jim Purdy wrote:

You criticize Mike Adams for attacking straw men, but you seem to use Mike Adams as your own straw man.

Are you suggesting that Mike Adams didn't write the quotations attributed to him (unlikely as they appear on his website), or merely that he isn't real?

How do you know the risks of vaccination in young children are tiny?

Well, for starters, we've been vaccinating kids by the millions for several decades now; and, relative to the numbr of kids vaccinated, the number of kids who have adverse reactions to said vaccines is...tiny.

And if you're going to base your whole case on anecdotes, here's two of my own:

1) I got quite a few shots when I was a child, and never had an adverse reaction to a single one of them.

2) I got a swine-flu jab last year, along with thousands of other people. No signs (or news) of a bad reaction anywhere.

So, mary...do my anecdotes beat yours? At least mine are PLURAL.

In fact, I can't recall any of them claiming any such thing or stating the universe is a "stupid place" full of zombie biological bodies with no free will and no consciousness! Do you know a person who thinks that way?

Of course not, but it has been my experience that some people whose perception of meaning and value are so inextricably tied to supernatural explanations do think this way about a hypothetical (in their minds) universe with nothing supernatural in it.

I don't think the word "free will" is particularly well-defined, so I suppose once could say I think there is no free will. And as you pointed out, the "no consciousness" thing is a misunderstanding of an anti-dualist position, and I do suspect that the way we perceive consciousness is very much illusory. But I'm totally okay with that, and I find meaning and value in my life regardless.

For someone married to this idea of a "soul" or "free will", however, they may feel that a universe without these ill-defined concepts would be a "stupid place" full of zombies. So in a sense, Mike Adams is sort of correct -- his perception of the universe I believe in is more or less accurately characterized by his foolish rant. (Except of course that "bent on self-destruction" nonsense. Yeesh)

Aww, the part 2 of the story requires free registration to continue.

And all I'd learned is that Mike Adams and Feynman apparently believe in magic. My level 12 wizard has something to say about this!

So what do you guys think? Should I sign up and subject the skeptics society email address to a plethora of natural news articles incoming?

Is it worth the pain for the gain in hilarity?

From Mike Adams' follow-up article:

I do think water is magical!
...
Think about it: Water expands when it freezes (almost everything else shrinks).

Wow. So... he thinks it's magic that's doing that?

Clearly, Mike Adams is not even qualified to receive a degree from the University of Google. None of those links mentions "magic"...

I have an ad hominem attack on Mike Adams I'd like to throw in the mix:

"If he were given a few more brains, he would still just be a half wit."

I know, I know...not the proper way to argue the skeptic's position, but I just wanted to use that joke today...

I can't recall any of them claiming any such thing or stating the universe is a "stupid place" full of zombie biological bodies with no free will and no consciousness! Do you know a person who thinks that way?

Not personally, but isn't that a trait of some psychopaths? That is, their lack of empathy is so severe, they don't recognize that other people are people?

Any serious discussion of WTC 7 has to include a fact that the conspiracy theorists like to gloss over: that was the mayor's "bunker," a.k.a. emergency command center, and for reasons best known to himself, he decided to store huge quantities of diesel fuel there. Above-ground "bunker", with a large supply of flammable materials (there's Giuliani for you). No, there was no jet fuel there: that's like arguing that a pile of wood can't burn because nobody added gasoline.

From another technical angle: if he wants to point at things without boosting their googlejuice, there's rel="nofollow". (Another blog I read encourages posters to use it when pointing to crap, spammers, etc.) So much for that excuse,

Given Adams's "they never talk about medical fraud" line, I wonder whether he has said anything about the fact that the studies saying "narcotics are no better than NSAIDs" turned out to be faked. On the one hand, it's a story of medical fraud and could be pitched as "pharma protecting its patented stuff," but on the other, he'd have to admit that nothing else is as good for some kinds of serious pain as narcotics. I can't quite see these folks advocating fentanyl patches for chronic pain patients, or heroin for people with cancer, and they're probably skeptical of the tylenol-and-codeine given out by dentists. (This goes with a whole culture of telling chronic pain patients to grin and bear it, which doctors are also vulnerable to, because they live in the same culture as the rest of us, and because they are often (reasonably) worried about being scammed by people looking for recreational drugs and/or investigated by the government. So there's a real desire to believe that nobody actually needs narcotics.)

Yes, that's a digression. Sorry.

So what do you guys think? Should I sign up and subject the skeptics society email address to a plethora of natural news articles incoming?

Is it worth the pain for the gain in hilarity?

I'm on the NaturalNews.com mailing list for the sheer amusement of it. It also from time to time provides me blogging material.

So, mary...do my anecdotes beat yours? At least mine are PLURAL.

I wanna play too, RagingBee.

Back in the day, my dad was in the Air Force, and was assigned to the Philippines. We went with him, so in addition to all the shots that were common to someone born in the mid-50s, we received the full course needed to go there, too.

Later, when I joined the AF, I was in a tactical mobile unit - we had to be ready to go anywhere at any time, so we were kept current on all shots. I've never counted, but I wouldn't be surprised if I've had 75 or more.

One shot that we only received when we needed it was GG... ever see a plane load of guys trying to sit on one cheek, because the other one was full of GG. The new formula is nothing compared to the old formula (yes, I've had them both, a few times).

When I got out of the Air Force, back in the mid-80s, I didn't keep my flu shots up to date every year - until I got the flu. I'd never realized how bad the flu can be... it hurts. I still travel a bit (not as much) and am current on everything but cholera at the moment.

One place we went was Senegal - a place so dirty that it was forbidden for us official visitors to go to the beach. Raw sewage was dumped right into the ocean.

In all my travels to Africa and Asia, I never was sick from anything we were vaccinated for - and we were in places that had these diseases circulating.

Yah, it's just an anecdote... but there aren't many people who have had more vaccines than I have, and if they caused problems, I should know, right Mary?

Mary Podlesak - 2 points for a successful troll. You're story is typical bullshit however "freind of a freinds uncles sisters neice blah blah blah...'

No matter how ugly or old you are I'd be more than happy to debate you on it in public.

@ Anthro: I don't think Mikey is Null's twin because of the age(and hair color**) difference,*however*, I *do* think that the former may have studied the latter's sales techniques and ranting style, and mimesis is the epitome of flattery....*par example*, if you look at their web sites(Gary Null.com;HealthRanger,NaturalNews), you see that both have their fingers in a lot of (presumably organic, vegan)pies- Null sells supplements,water filters,books,videos,"documentaries",courses,lectures,has a health food store,his Fla. "retreat"; Adams-(see "current projects" especially) sells supplements,ads,books, videos,vacations and land in Ecuador,software(Arial),media engine,etc. Both have "charities"( and often proclaim all the "good work they do); they quote each other frequently ( I listen to the Null-meister's noon radio show a few days a week as I do my "investment" chores for the past 10 years).Both are trying desperately to get mainstream media and social network attention; both do quasi- political and economic "education"(abysmally)- Null fancies himself to be a psychologist(!!!!); both are "spiritual","sustainable/
green", "non-commercial"(sic),and whatever is fashionable that week in "mass media"(which they despise)...Both are obsessed with their bodies( quote height, weight, blood values, etc.).....I found sales figures on Null but not Adams....yet. **(on that hair color, I saw Null live once and WOW.. it's scary!)

Yay Dr Rachie! She rules!

mary podlesak @ 16:

Chris, as I have said before, there is no such category as "anecdotal data" to anyone other than physicians who seek to denigrate the value of observational data for personal gain. To biostatisticians there is only data. Prove irrefutably that physiological reactions without manifestly circumstantial causes should not at least preliminarily be attributed to vaccination. Automatically dismissing such a relationship is not science but prejudication.

You are quite right that automatic dismissal is not science. The same is true of automatic acceptance. You have assumed, without evidence, that the vaccine was to blame for the death. Absent any information about how the poor child died, I don't see any reason to attribute it to the vaccine. All you've said is that the child died. Children do sometimes die, so we don't know whether this had anything to do with the vaccine. (It might have. As Orac pointed out right in the original post, no one here is claiming vaccines are perfect. We are claiming that for certain widely-recommended ones, the benefits outweigh the risks. It's a gamble, like everything in life. Like forgoing vaccination. There is no time when you are not taking a risk. It's more a question of which risks and when.)

There is no way to prove that any reaction should be preliminarily attributed to anything; if we're talking preliminary attributions, we're talking about a situation where proof is not available. And no reaction lacks causes -- if the cause is unknown, it just means nobody's found it yet. That doesn't justify giving up and picking an arbitrary suspect to find guilty. How do you pick the suspect in that case? If you don't know what caused a death, how do you decide which cause to pin it on? Vaccines? Flouridated water? The food from a new restaurant that the victim had never tried before? An undetected infection? Undetected cancer? Homicide? Accidental poisoning? Blood clot or stroke? If you really have no evidence at all, then it is utterly unreasonable to blame vaccines, when there are so many other possibilities, many of which are more likely.

So why assume vaccines caused this child's death? Really, if you are so concerned about science, why do you assume vaccines were the cause? You must have a reason, either something to do with the nature of the child's death, or a personal prejudice against vaccines. If it is the former, would you care to share it with us? Otherwise, we may be forced to conclude the latter is more likely, and you aren't really so concerned about science over "prejudication".

Jim Purdy @ 34:

You criticize Mike Adams for attacking straw men, but you seem to use Mike Adams as your own straw man.
...
Just asking ... not trying to argue, because I'm not sure Mike is credible enough to deserve all the attention from you.

Wander through old posts; Orac does address more reputable (and coherent) peddlers of woo as well. You may find the results very entertaining. I think he goes after Adams partly for the comedic value and also because it's easy and right now he's been very busy with grant applications. (In addition to being a doctor, Orac is an actual scientist.) You can usually tell when he's got a lot of paperwork in front of him, because he starts re-running classic Orac posts. (Which I greatly enjoy, BTW, and hope he will continue to do!)

Yo universe is so stupid, it ordered the sushi well done!

"I hope it's fairly obvious to you by now that skeptics are the most misinformed people on the planet. (emphasis in original)

They are the easiest people to fool. They're the easiest to hypnotize, too, because they lack independent thinking skillsâ¦"

Man, it's like he thinks we came to the opposite conclusion he did specifically by way of using the same thought processes he did.

Johnny @ 68 - GG? Translation please? (As you can imagine, the google search for that pulls up a lot of clearly irrelevant but amusing results. I'm at work so I don't want to dig much further!)

Natalie @75 -

I'll take a guess that Johnny @68 is referring to gamma globulin.

According to Mike Adams' reasoning, 'Data' from Star Trek would lose every argument automatically. That doesn't sound right.

The Trufer conspiracy about Building 7 was completely debunked. It was caused by massive chunks falling debris and ignition of heating oil spraying in the basement.

Poor Mike Adams. His pathetic rant shows his fury at a world that dismisses woo and ultimately dismisses him.

@77

The same for Mr. Spock. Yeah, I'm not buying it either.

Are there any root differences between Mike Adams' way of thinking, reasoning, explaining how things work and any other leader of a religious cult? He's not about 'health'....he's about being the leader of a following. There is no process to his "health ranger-ing", he cherry picks from work performed by scientists and repacks it into something he can sell (figuratively and literally).

Science is a process. Medicine is an application of science. He's selling a philosophy.

As for him claiming to help people...I'd say I'm skeptical, but then that delegates to me to those on that awful list he provided, and that is clearly bad, bad, bad!

When Adams talks about water being "magic," he's trying to slide between the more technical meaning of 'magic' -- the sympathetic impression of an intention into an object (as in homeopathy) -- and the more familiar meaning of 'magic' -- evoking a sense of wonder and awe (as in having a "magical evening.") This sloppy conflation of two superficially similar but completely different ideas is just another method they use to justify their belief that people who don't believe in magical woo must not have any positive emotional reactions.

Why do we continue to argue with people who should be wearing tin-foil hats? They are more than a burning pile of stupid, many of them are in fact insane! How else would you describe people for whom reality has no meaning?

You should join their facebook-group. Adams is getting a bit of a backlash from fans.

Nice one, Orac.
sometimes the proper reaction is to point and laugh.
Adams bears a famous name, too bad he doesn't bear the famous brain to go with.
couple of notes:
No. 7 World trade was not, as described by Adams, a "hardened structure." Far from it. it was a beam and girder glass box, not hardened at all, and built so that roughly 2/3 of the building's weight was distributed across two pillars or columns. Failure in one of those columns meant that the building had to fall in. Had to .. was going to whether we wanted it to or not.

Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

I expect this is a variation on "organic" food. Or perhaps he advocates swallowing small animals whole. You'd think vegetarians and animal-rights activists would have a problem with that.

I have considered the possibilities of inorganic food: made from all chemicals and minerals?

Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

I expect this is a variation on "organic" food. Or perhaps he advocates swallowing small animals whole. You'd think vegetarians and animal-rights activists would have a problem with that.

I have considered the possibilities of inorganic food: made from all chemicals and minerals?

Personally, I've never eaten any food that wasn't more than 99% composed of chemicals, nor drunk any water that wasn't chock-full of them.

It looks like Health Ranger is referring to my blog post, unless there's another that references magical water. That really makes me smile that he read the whole thing.

I love Dr Rachie! Listen, if the best you can do is talk about someone's weight, then you clearly have nothing of use to say. This is amazing, watching these wackjobbies completely implode on this. I love it!

To speak of Rachie in the manner of Hot Chicks with Douchebags (a paradigm which would certainly hold in our case), I would gladly translate Finnegan's Wake into Swahili just for the chance to be beaten up by someone who sat behind Rachie when they were in primary school.

In the discussion of medicines derived from natural substances, you neglected to point out a couple of major reasons for preferring synthetic versions or at least carefully isolated compounds: A guaranteed of purity and precise control of dosage. You don't get either of these from shoving powdered herbs into capsules. How many herbal supplements has the FDA found that didn't in fact contain what was on the label?

@Natalie and Jud -

Yah, gamma globulin is correct. Sorry for the shorthand, we always referred to it as GG, and it's easy to think that everybody knows what I know, especially on this board. I don't have a background in medicine or the biological sciences, and I come here to try to learn.

To get back a little more on topic, I'm going to disagree with Orac when he says "unless we eat our vegetables right off of the vine...our food is "dead"" and "vegetables are dead by the time we've chewed them and send them into the acid baths that reside in our stomachs".

I have heard (but never seen first hand) of tomatoes sprouting at the sewage treatment plants after the seeds survived all the way thru people *and* the sewers. Many seeds are spread in animal poo after being eaten. I've had potatoes and onions from the mega-mart sprout (and planted them, too). No doubt they were weeks off the vine, and still alive.

I've probably put away a cow or two in my life, and if there is a species on the menu that I haven't had, that's what I'm ordering. All the animals were well dead by the time I ate them (however not always cooked). But live vegetables are yummy.

If you listen close, you can hear them scream when you bite down.

...I was in a tactical mobile unit...

Off-topic humor: When I first read this, I saw "tactical mobile suit" and thought humorously, "Wait, we have Gundams and no one told me?!" Probably didn't help that I was reworking my Armored Core in the game's garage at the time.

Of course, my second thought was some sort of terminology for equipment and uniforms specialized for keeping on the move. And finally, I reread the sentence correctly.

I wonder if I can cash in my Big Pharma Shill Brownie Points for a humongous mecha.

@92 Bronze Dog

Big Pharma would probably be more likely to have Evas, to fight off the "angels" of alternative medicine.

@johnny,

I had the same thoughts on seeds and potatoes, but didn't get back in here to post them. I've grown a few potato plants and had that problem with onions as well.

I think there are also quite a few intestinal parasites, whose life cycle depends on making it all the way through and out and back again.

That's why I'm a bit squirmy about eating raw fish and would probably order the sushi well done anyway. Especially if I saw it being prepared by the guy I saw the other day who was serving up the sushi with his bare hands right to the customer. If I see him again, I think I'll shoot some video and call the health inspector, but I don't get in there very often.

@johnny: that's the point of seeds. A seed is the dormant genetic material of the plant, waiting until it finds a place suitable to grow. If that means the fleshy fruit needs to be consumed to make that happen, so be it. The animal eats the fruit, travels a bit, poops out the seed. That's how the fruiting plant survives.

The fleshy fruit part, however? Once it's removed from the vine, away from water and nutrition, it's good and dead.

Oh, and garlic sprouts if left too long.

To further belabor the water thing - water is burned (oxidized) hydrogen - is Adams so ignorant of chemistry that he doesn't understand that and is astounded that the product of combining to "highly reactive" substances could be stable. This is as bad as when his buddy Mercola referred to aluminium as a "heavy metal+.

Tip - do not hit refresh when you get the "Bad response from server" message - Don't ask me how I know this.

@mary podlesak

to qoute Dr. Harriet Hall on SBM:

In the first place, stories like these are notoriously unreliable. They are laymanâs testimonials that amount to nothing but hearsay. How can we know they were not invented, exaggerated, misunderstood, or otherwise misrepresented? They fall far short of the kind of case reports that are published in medical journals with x-ray, lab and other documentation and the opportunity for peer review.

In other words your example of a friend of a friend is Bullshit and should be treated as such.

Regarding live/dead food....

There was an episode of the Red Green Show where the boys of Possum Lake had come into the possession of a live cow. There were some major hurt feelings involved in the situation, so the cow's new owner (Junior, one of the unseen characters) decided to promptly butcher and eat it. Harold was horrified to learn this, and, while chewing on an apple, said so.

"What, you're going to go out and do the whole Texas Chainsaw Massacre on that poor defenseless milk-maker?"
"Well, at least we're doing the humane thing and killing it first. You're eating that apple *alive*."

:-D

"Real men debate in public but you don't have real balls, just virtual balls. Why are you so afraid of one old, ugly broad like me?"

So you've assumed everyone here is a man, posited a lazy essentialist notion of masculinity and made me chuckle with your talk of 'virtual balls'. : )

Real men debate in public but you don't have real balls, just virtual balls. Why are you so afraid of one old, ugly broad like me?

Of course Orac only has virtual balls. He is a Plexiglas box full of blinking lights after all. Sheesh - what a maroon.

Squirrelelite--Hygiene is important, but bare hands versus gloves can be misleading. I would rather have someone wash their hands thoroughly and make me sushi with clean hands, than put on a pair of latex gloves and leave them on for hours, even through answering the telephone, handling money, or touching someone else's unwashed hands. It's too easy to assume that the gloved hands are clean, and that the ungloved ones aren't. (I'm not saying medical staff shouldn't wear gloves. Part of the reason for those gloves is to protect the medical staff: the phlebotomist with a small, exposed cut on their hand is at risk of contamination if a patient's blood spills. Conversely, a nurse or other medical person who insists "my hands are clean, see, I'm wearing gloves" but walked into the room already gloved may be risking your health, if not their own.)

I got kicked off! I left a perfectly respectful comment on naturalnews.com and had the comment deleted. Not only that, but I was banned from ever commenting again. What is this guy afraid of? My comment contained no swearing, ad hominem arguments, or excessive sarcasm whatsoever. I merely pointed out the disingenuousness of bragging about all the new email subscribers when the site forces one to become an email subscriber to read the entire post. Orac doesn't do that. I also pointed out that his descriptions of "real skeptics" would have a lot more credibility if he sourced them. Orac does do that. This site is embarrassing to even most woomeisters. Pathetic.

@ Zaxter:People who battle HIV/AIDS denialism find that that's exactly what happens to their comments on sites maintained by the denialists.Similar with anti-vaxxer sites. There might be a few ways around this: see if the offender posts videos on YouTube,comments on social media,including Huffington Post(as well as their articles),sometimes "smaller" sites(found through Google) write about them and don't censor(as they want more comments).

@Denice Walter

Huffington Post censors and/or moderates comments. Particularly the pro-disease bloggers.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader? Not Mike Adams. His comments are so ridiculous, childish and uninformed...I find it difficult to see why anyone would actually spend so much time tearing him apart. Sure, I understand that this is a great exercise in evaluating statements and understanding what's wrong with them...but dealing with Mike Adams seems to be like picking on the kid that rode the short bus to school. Actually, with his level of intelligence...I struggle to believe he can tie his own shoes (Velcro, perhaps?)

Particularly the pro-disease bloggers.

Pro-disease?

Pro-disease??,blockquote> The new designation for the antivax.

pro-disease gets kicked around here at times. I like considering comments made by Jenny McCarthy and her boyfriend about measles coming back and killing people and our own Sid Offit who was pretty blase about vaccine-preventable disease when it occurred in africa.

crap! blockquote fail

Got it. thanks

His comments are so ridiculous, childish and uninformed...I find it difficult to see why anyone would actually spend so much time tearing him apart.

I can't speak for Orac's reasoning, but IMO it's worthwhile because, despite his foolishness, he's highly influential in a certain segment of society. Attempting to limit that influence is a desirable goal.

If Adams didn't have so many people listening to him, you might have a point.

Real men debate in public but you don't have real balls, just virtual balls. Why are you so afraid of one old, ugly broad like me?

Wait, you mean real men prefer media with numerous opportunities to be disruptive, no easy method of citing sources for all to see, and the biggest hiding place of all: The clock?

These "real men" sound like craven cowards. I'm the sort of person who prefers those who have something to say be held accountable for it. The internet, with the Streisand Effect, leave no room to hide.

@ John V: Don't write off Huff Po 100%(maybe 90%), although there is moderation, they *occasionally* will let a sane comment through, unlike Adams' sites, the anti-vaxxers,HIV/AIDS denialists.

Awww, Mary stopped posting. I was enjoying reading her assertions strung up by their entrails.

She might come back. She seems to come around very late in the evening to early morning. Perhaps after she has put all the kids to bed and has been sipping the cooking sherry.

I don't drink, wait, I take that back, I do drimk but in extreme moderation, I had breast cancer and believe it prudent to do so. Besides, I never was very fond of alcohol.

I don't have much time. In partial response, Professional scientific conferences mimic a mini debate, but they do not have hundreds in the audience. All the elements are there of a debate. The scientific presenter lays out his/her research, citations, explanations, conclusions, proposals. Then other scientists critcize, analyze, provoke, respond. I believe a debate on the autism-vaccine connection should model a good paper presentation at a scientific conference with the caveat that hundreds would be allowed to watch. I would like to see them in school auditoriums or town hall opera houses, etc., that is, large public venues. Maybe you young whipersnappers haven't expierenced the rather strident give and take of an authentic scientific paper presentation.

"I believe a debate on the autism-vaccine connection should model a good paper presentation at a scientific conference with the caveat that hundreds would be allowed to watch. I would like to see them in school auditoriums or town hall opera houses, etc., that is, large public venues."

So a pseudo-scientific plebiscite, with evidence vs ignorance and a baying mob. Yeah, good one.

"Maybe you young whipersnappers haven't expierenced the rather strident give and take of an authentic scientific paper presentation"

Maybe you old fossils haven't experienced the rather strident scientific process. I'm just sayin...

When your handlers at Scienceblogs and Seed magazine get serious about an autism-vaccine debate instead of hurling insults and ad hominum attacks it will be entirely possible to present verifiable evidence in a respectful dignified setting. They need to come up with the money for this. It is entirely possible to put such a debate together and a very good public relations move on their part. This can generate good will for the CDC, NIH, FDA, the medical profession and the pharmacuetical firms. If you can't debate an old ugly mother like me, you can't debate anyone.

What better place than here where your claims can be verified mary?

Go ahead and lay out your evidence now?

"If you can't debate an old ugly mother like me, you can't debate anyone."

You might be confusing "can't" with "have better things to do than" or "won't stoop to the level of".

Scientific conferences are put together for the purpose of presenting organized data evidence and written and verbal arguments in a personal setting where peers can review and criticize. It is not possible to do that solely on the internet. If that were the case there would be no need for scientific conferences as they would all be held online. I see a debate on the autism-vaccine connection as a type of this scientific presentation.

Fine. Make a powerpoint presentation. Put it on microsoft office live (or your preferred file repository) and post a link here for us.

#123
"It is not possible to do that solely on the internet"

Sure it is. You just post references to all the peer-reviewed articles that support your claims. I mean, you do have them, right?
After all, if you don't, what exactly did you want to present at this conference you're proposing? No, you must have bucket-loads of serious research lying around.

Let's make it even easier. How about if you post just one? One single article? That would be a big step for you and then we might have something real to discuss.

Scientific conferences are put together for the purpose of presenting organized data evidence and written and verbal arguments in a personal setting where peers can review and criticize. It is not possible to do that solely on the internet. If that were the case there would be no need for scientific conferences as they would all be held online. I see a debate on the autism-vaccine connection as a type of this scientific presentation.

Peer Review â scientific conference

Sounds like you would like to set up a debate because debates are perfect for grandiose displays of the tugging of heartstrings combined with your version of the Gish Gallop. Public debates do not settle science.

When your handlers at Scienceblogs and Seed magazine get serious about an autism-vaccine debate instead of hurling insults and ad hominum attacks it will be entirely possible to present verifiable evidence in a respectful dignified setting.

Been done. The trouble is, only one side HAS any verifiable evidence, and the other side therefore resorts to screaming, lies, and Gish Gallops.

Scientific conferences are put together for the purpose of presenting organized data evidence and written and verbal arguments in a personal setting where peers can review and criticize.

The only thing I would say different is that it allows "other conference attendees" to review and criticize, which may or may not be peers. However, with that minor modification, I have no problem with this.

Although I should say, I don't know exactly what you mean "in a personal setting." Do you mean, "in person"?

It is not possible to do that solely on the internet.

Why not? Aside from doing it "in person," all those things are possible.

The only advantage of the "in person" part of the conference presentation is that it allows for rapid feedback and exchange. However, that is absolutely possible on the internet.

If that were the case there would be no need for scientific conferences as they would all be held online.

Yes, they can be, IF you can get a sufficiently large group of people with the appropriate level of expertise that can provide insightful comments on each other's work, so that the information can be used to improve the quality of what ultimately gets published.

The nature of the internet makes that difficult. However, there are absolutely places where these types of interactions go on on the internet. You can find "special interests groups" for an awful lot of topics, where people will present their research findings for discussion. OTOH, people still like conferences, but science could progress without them.

Lastly, I think you are under a very bad misconception. Any presentation that can be made at a conference can also be presented in written format (especially electronically, because even then, the fanciest of graphics, like animations and movies can be included). I have given many, many dozens of talks at conferences and all over, and could always, if I wanted to, provide a written contribution if I wanted. The science would still be there. The only thing missing would be my charisma and charm that makes it more entertaining.

Mary, your complaints don't hold up.

When your handlers at Scienceblogs and Seed magazine get serious about an autism-vaccine debate instead of hurling insults and ad hominum attacks it will be entirely possible to present verifiable evidence in a respectful dignified setting.

Mary - the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) is going to be held in Philadelphia in May. Why don't you go and participate? Then you can debate all you want in an apparently sufficiently dignified setting.

Unfortunately, the deadline for submission of papers has passed, but you could submit something for next year.

What I'm saying is that the "debate" venue you keep clamoring for already exists. So if you are REALLY serious about it, you have the opportunity to do something.

I'm sure those men, old scientists won't let her participate. They'd probably make her jump through all sorts of hoops, like showing credentials and presenting evidence. You know, completely unreasonable demands.

Of course, they're just scared of the TRUTHâ¢

My last comment didn't make it to the blog. The reason for a PUBLIC debate is to inform the PUBLIC. I'm not interested in convincing bureaucrats from NIH, CDC and FDA, nor medical bureaucrats, nor pharmacuetical bureaucrats of the merits of my arguments. Even if G-d Himself presented irrefutable data evidence of the autism-vaccine link, these clowns wouldn't acknowledge the truth of my arguments, because acknowledging the truth could interfere with the cash flow from the vaccine business.

SEED, Scienceblogs and their corporate partners surely can afford to fund such debates and if they cannot, then our government should, because as I have said, it's good PR. They gain good will among the public which is directly effected by vaccination. If they can't debate this old ugly broad, they can't debate Albert Einstein.

Here are a few posts where I point out why debating with people like Mary is almost always a waste of time:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/just_how_stupid_do_they_think…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/homeopathy_debate_at_the_univ…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/arthur_allendavid_kirby_debat…

The reason for a PUBLIC debate is to inform the PUBLIC. I'm not interested in convincing bureaucrats from NIH, CDC and FDA, nor medical bureaucrats, nor pharmacuetical bureaucrats of the merits of my arguments.

And the reason public debates aren't good for that very reason is because they are not about facts and "truth" but about who can either win over the audience of filibuster sufficiently to obscure their opponent.

If you have the science that supports your position, please bring it forth in the scientific channels and win the real debate based on facts and empiricism.

"of" should be "or"

My last comment didn't make it to the blog. The reason for a PUBLIC debate is to inform the PUBLIC. I'm not interested in convincing bureaucrats from NIH, CDC and FDA, nor medical bureaucrats, nor pharmacuetical bureaucrats of the merits of my arguments.

WHAT???????

Holy smokes, Mary, you can't be serious.

I've said this before, if you really want to inform the PUBLIC, start with convincing the people who have influence. You want to convince the doctors, because they are the ones who will advise their patients. In order to convince them, you need to influence their sources of information, which include primary scientific literature, but also the recommendations they get from the NIH, CDC, and FDA.

Seriously, what is the better way of informing the PUBLIC: a) spend two hours in a dog and pony show in a public "debate" with Orac in front of 100 people, most of whom are already sympathetic to your case, or
b) convince Orac by whatever means and have him argue your case for you to the SBM community?

Good gravy, if you were able to convince the CDC to pronounce vaccines dangerous, that would change the world as we know it. Why in the world would you not want to do that? I thought that is what you wanted?

If you actually had the goods, you should relish the opportunity to go after them.

If you actually had the goods, you should relish the opportunity to go after them.

But then that would take away the chance for some public pearl clutching.

Mary,

Congratulations on *your* shorty award.

http://shortyawards.com/marypodlesak

Do not feed the sock puppet.

Mary, if you can't bring yourself to present what "facts" you have to us ancient, ugly, hideously deformed and satanic skeptics, what more can we say to you?

Dear Borg,
With good case-control studies, good epidemiological studies using vaccinated vs. never vaccinated individuals, neither the CDC, nor NIH, nor FDA nor medical professionals, nor pharamacuetical companies could be convinced of the autism-vaccine connection. It doesn't matter how good the science is, and it could be done very well, to convince all sane human beings that vaccines cause more harm than good. MONEY is the god of our age and Rothschild is it's prophet. Vaccination is the sacrament of the church of our government and the medical profession acts as it's priests dispensing "immunity to disease" to the faithful. The money that flows from this gusher can't be stopped even by good scientific studies. Only a series of honest public debates can do that.

I am by training a statistician, economist and an engineer, not a journalist and a two-bit surgeon like you with pretensions to scientific expertise but in reality a mere polemecist. Your excuses for not debatting are ridiculous. You're afraid you can't match their arguments?? The opposing argument might make you or your arguments look bad?? What the hell is that but professional cowardice? I've heard extremely heated arguments at scientific conferences. The public should be aware of these arguments and allowed to participate in this debate, not be high handedly told what to do with their bodies and those of their children by those with a vested financial interest in vaccination.

If all the above is the case then you should be able to produce the actual science that shows that vaccinations do more harm than good.

It should be easy and you can do that here.

No one is holding you back from doing that.

What the CDC or NIH or scary Big Pharma has to say doesn't have a thing to you with YOU producing the science that supposedly has this undeniable link between vaccines and the damage you claim they do.

You are the one who refuses to put it up.

Go ahead and put it up.

If you won't it's obvious you can't.

Your excuses for not debatting are ridiculous. You're afraid you can't match their arguments?? The opposing argument might make you or your arguments look bad??

Nice strawman, no one is saying that. What we have told you over and over is that people like you intentionally practice a form of public debate that is not about examining data and research honestly, it's about hyperbolic stage antics designed to win over the crowd not to show the validity of real empirical based medicine or science.

Winning a debate proves nothing other than the debaters ability to wow the audience and in many cased to fill the discussion with as much factual nonsense that it can't be addressed in the debate format.

The evidence should stand on it's own without the need to a popularity vote.

Science isn't about popularity its about producing reliable and repeatable results.

The public should be aware of these arguments and allowed to participate in this debate, not be high handedly told what to do with their bodies and those of their children by those with a vested financial interest in vaccination.

So you think Joe Sixpack is just as reliable a source of scientific knowledge and opinion as someone who is educated and trained in the specific science at hand?

Are you really this dense?

Do think we should let Billy Bob the Subway Sandwich technician give his input on matters of Air safety and engineering?

@mary podlesak

Present, here, what you feel are the best studies (pick, say, the top 3-5) supporting your position. You say it's out there, so let's see it.

I find it interesting, though, that you suggest Orac (and others here) is lacking in scientific expertise, while at the same time asking the public (a group largely lacking in scientific expertise) to weigh in on the question. Here's something, I am a member of the public. I have no ties to any pharmaceutical company, no vested financial interests in any vaccine, no potential, at all, for monetary benefit from maintaining the current vaccination policies. So, hit me with your science. Convince me.

Mary,

Don't lie. You have no interest in an HONEST debate. An HONEST debate is limited to facts on both sides. And when limited to facts instead of lies, fraud, and wild speculation, you would have absolutely nothing to say.

It's absurd to compare me to David Kirby or Cassey Cohen or any of these other people who wanted to debate you. I'm not a professional journalist. I don't have that kind of savoir-faire. My arguments would revolve around science. I'm not going to put on some great show. As I've said in another post, I will have to resort to nuclear warfare to get the scientific-government-medical-corporate establishment to pay attention and indeed I will do that.

Here's something, I am a member of the public.

I meant to mention this. How in the world is the PUBLIC being shut of the debate? We are trying to have it right here, in this public forum! Mary just refuses to debate in _this_ public forum, and keeps insisting that we do it by her rules. That's not "shutting out the public," that is trying to manipulate the conditions in her favor.

My arguments would revolve around science.

You mean the science that provides no support whatsoever for your arguments? The science that firmly, as near conclusively as science gets, says you're completely wrong?

No, I suspect your idea of "science" is fraudulent data manufactured at the behest of trial lawyers, and unsupported lies that the Amish don't vaccinate and don't have autistic children, and the like.

what happened to my last post? If you Borg weren't afraid of the PUBLIC you wouldn't be afraid of debate. If your arguments are irrefutable and so superior then whatever I have, whether it's personal "anecdotal evidence" or studies should be of no consequence, your irrefutable studies should trump them. As I said before, I'm not a professional journalist, but I have a serious argument and I expect it to be addressed by our scientific-governmental-medical-pharmacuetical collective. If SEED and Scienceblogs won't do so, then I'll have to resort to nuclear warfare. Have a nice day!

Good grief you are dense. How many times do you need to be told this?

Science is not settled in public debate. What the crowd thinks or not doesn't have anything to do with what you can actually support scientifically.

Your science should be able to stand on it's own without your appeals to the crowd.

The fact you think you need a debate to show your side hints at how weak it must be.

I expect it to be addressed by our scientific-governmental-medical-pharmacuetical collective. If SEED and Scienceblogs won't do so

THEN SHOW YOUR FUCKING WORK RIGHT HERE. It's really very simple. This is SEED. This is Science Blogs. Show it here so that your actual science can be addressed outside of any appeals to emotion or popularity that work in the public debate form.

See this is exactly why debates on these issues are typically bullshit. You want to show the science you claim you have but only if you can do so in a format where the use of phrases like

I'll have to resort to nuclear warfare

have any sway. Namely public debates in front of crowds not as concerned with the science as with the appeals to emotion.

Your little stunt here exposed you Mary.

You are the reason public debates are bullshit on matters that are settled with science.

@Mary (146): if your last post actually contains links to research, then it might be caught in the spam filter and Orac will release it when he has time (he IS a surgeon and researcher and DOES have a life outside this blog, you know). Otherwise, I can't see that any posts are missing.

You don't have a serious argument. You keep repeating you have proof but never show any. You keep asking for unethical studies to be performed.

We are not afraid of debate. We are carrying one on, now, but you keep running away from the debate. We ARE the public.

You claim to be a statistician, but you never give any statistics, research, or data. You keep claiming you want a debate, but you never give any proof. Why should we debate you when you have no evidence for us to debate against? All you want is to do a Gish Gallop, whip up an audience for the Warrier Mothers, and get attention without showing any real proof. YOU HAVE NO PROOF OR YOU WOULD SHOW IT TO US. Now put up or shut up.

I have a serious argument and I expect it to be addressed by our scientific-governmental-medical-pharmacuetical collective

So that's why you want to debate Orac?

I'm missing a step here.

I've already provided information about the IMFAR. Serious autism researchers, those that have the ear of the scientific-governmental-medical-pharmaceutical collective, are going to be there. If you want to make that difference, talk to them. If you have a serious argument, talk to people who can do something about it. Why grandstand against a oncological-surgeon-who-blogs-in-his-freetime?

It is true science is not settled by public debate. I never made the claim that it was! My bitch is that the science produced by good scientific studies will not be accepted by "scientists" if it conflicts with their economic and financial objectives. Money talks in science. Money is the god of our age and Rothschild is it's prophet. The purpose of public debates is to air both sides of the debate to the PUBLIC, both sides of the scientific debate. Both sides air the science, not polemics, insults, ad hominum attacks, obfuscation, etc.

Mary Podlesak:

I am by training a statistician, economist and an engineer, not a journalist and a two-bit surgeon like you with pretensions to scientific expertise but in reality a mere polemecist.

If that is true, you have shown absolutely no evidence that you even remember the basics. There could be many reasons why you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the basics of statistics. One could be that you are sock puppet of the real Mary Podlesak, another could be that you have suffered from some kind of neural injury from a stroke, head injury or something else.

Until you have shown you understand basics like sampling size, randomization and the reasons why anecdotes are not data: you are a troll to be ignored.

@MikeAdamsSockPuppet(mary):

If your links are being caught up in spam filters, then at least give us the names of three authors and describe their studies. You know, the ones that allegedly prove your case.

Repeating nonsense about vaccination being the sacred church of Rothschild-Lindbergh's baby or the evil tool of the canon of the Freemasons will not cut it.

My bitch is that the science produced by good scientific studies will not be accepted by "scientists" if it conflicts with their economic and financial objectives.

But the doctor who diagnosed your daughter with dystonia and then "cured" her is in it for the goodness of his heart, right?

Then again, I thought you had a "serious argument"? In the end, it is nothing but a PharmaShill gambit?

I'm so disappointed.

Epidemiological studies involving vaccinated vs. never vaccinated are NOT unethical. The only reason they haven't been done is because you're afraid of the results. You put up or shut up.

...and Rothschild is it's (sic) prophet

And here we go...

My bitch is that the science produced by good scientific studies will not be accepted by "scientists" if it conflicts with their economic and financial objectives.

Sigh. While sure there are going to be examples of unscrupulous people that are only concerned about money you're going to have to do a lot better claiming the entire medical profession is involved in a giant conspiracy to suppress this amazing evidence you claim to have (but refuse to show).

Money is the god of our age and Rothschild is it's prophet.

Yes you've repeated that a few times and it doesn't have any more connection to this now than it did then. Here's a hint, when you are trying to not sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, repeating phrases like the above is a not going to help.

The purpose of public debates is to air both sides of the debate to the PUBLIC, both sides of the scientific debate. Both sides air the science, not polemics, insults, ad hominum attacks, obfuscation, etc.

Again this is a stupid argument. Publish a damn book. Start a magazine. Write your paper. There, you've aired it publicly. But that still doesn't absolve you of providing the actual science that shows the direct unquestionable link between vaccines and the damage you claim they do.

Now where is it? Where is your science? A public debate does not have the format that allows for a good airing of the science. A book or a scientifically paper showing repeatable verifiable results does.

NOW WHERE IS IT?

Mary begins a post with "Dear Borg" and expects to be taken seriously as an adult? Even Trekkie fanboys are more mature than that.

Oh, and Mary? I gave you TWO anecdotes that counter yours (#60); both of them indicate that vaccines are safe and effective. Are you going to respond to either of them? Of course not -- you can't even win an argument on your own terms, let alone ours.

You have PLENTY of opportunity to present your side of the debate to "the PUBLIC" right here on this not-exactly-unknown blog (and quite a few others like it); and you refuse to even try to present anything of substance. You're a joke and a fraud, you have nothing to offer, and you're not even smart enough to stop bluffing after we've called your bluff.

Mary--

So, you believe it's ethical to deliberately deny people the best known care, in the interests of research?

The only way a study like that could be ethical is if the researchers had reason to believe that each treatment was as good as the other. People who have seen the lives saved by vaccines aren't going to do that study because it violates basic human decency and the Nuremberg Principles.

Conversely, if you genuinely believe vaccines are harmful, how do you justify a study that involves vaccinating large numbers of children?

Bear in mind that, to be useful, a study has to match the participants on other axes: age, gender, general state of health, socioeconomic status, etc. So you can't just say "okay, these poor kids didn't get vaccinated until they started school and were forced to, because they didn't have regular doctor visits, and these other kids had better health care, including well baby visits, a doctor if they got fevers, and so on, and by the way they're better fed and didn't have to sleep in unheated rooms on some winter nights." That's not a matched study. (It's also unethical in other ways.)

It's not as simple as announcing "That's not unethical," when just about everyone, atheist, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, or Discordian, disagrees with you. At the least you need to provide an argument in favor of your assertion.

I think it was on this blog where I pointed out one possible way to do such a study: look at Christian Scientists. What are the autism rates in that community? What are the rates of serious infectious diseases?

@mary podlesak

Epidemiological studies involving vaccinated vs. never vaccinated are NOT unethical.

Go read the Nuremburg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, the ICH and FDA guidelines on human research protection and take a course on human research ethics, then come back and tell us that, again. Now, a retrospective study would be fine, but a prospective, RCT would, most certainly, be unethical.

Mary, you can do what you want, but it is rude of you to expect your views to be given equal value or equal time, just because you have them.

By all means, carry on throwing a strop and carry on this facade pretending that you want both sides (i.e. yours and why you think the other side is wrong) to be equally heard, but dont for one minute kid yourself that there has been anywhere near equal effort put into 'your side'.

You have no right to demand to be taken seriously if you are not willing to put in serious work.

Coem to think of it, that's probably why you want a public debate.

"I am by training a statistician, economist and an engineer, not a journalist and a two-bit surgeon like you with pretensions to scientific expertise but in reality a mere polemecist."

Hey look guys, an engineer making proclamations about a scientific field in which they have no knowledge. This is an exciting new development in the world of biology. And as for "pretensions to scientific expertise" at least several participants on this blog come from the scientific side of things. For example, I'm a microbiologist. I would be a very poor surgeon.

"Epidemiological studies involving vaccinated vs. never vaccinated are NOT unethical. "

Purposefully leaving individuals susceptible to potentially deadly (amongst other bad outcomes) infections is unethical. They haven't been done because no one with a conscious will engage in them. If you do the trial as a double blind study, you're putting people at risk of death or worse without their knowledge. If you don't do the trial as a double blind then you're making it quite open to significant manipulation (by both the pro-vaccine and pro-disease side). If you are purposefully leaving 1 group of people susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases, you risk the health of all other individuals they come in contact with, vaccinated or not.

Why again do you think its ethical? Like an actual reason not "OMG YUR SCARED HURR HURR". That's not a reason.

Yes, Mary, it is. Period. Full stop. End of story. For reasons why, I point you to these two arguments why:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/its_so_cute_when_anti-vaxers_…

http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154

What I fear are a lot of kids having bad outcomes from not being vaccinated including death, deafness, sterility, and paralysis. That is what scares me. I'm saddened that it does scare you.

Even a retro vac vs. non-vac has not been done. I asked Cochrane Collaboration and they can't find one. All the other shit you've put up is beside the point. Any one of these studies can be gamed if they are done by the vaccine companies or if they have a hand in it. It is terribly easy to bias a study.

Money is the god of our age and Rothschild is it's prophet.

So now Mary reveals herself to be a bigot and a Jewish-conspiracy buff. Seriously, the above sentence could have come straight from Nazi propaganda of the early twentieth century. There's really no point in arguing with her -- she's clueless and unhinged, and won't be presenting any evidence to support her belief any time soon. And since she's already hiding behind a conspiracy theory, it's a pretty safe bet that any evidence refuting her beliefs will simply be written off as proof of the conspiracy.

Oh, and Mary? Bragging about your "expertise" in economics and statistics won't impress me. My mother is an economist (now comfortably retired), and has a good grasp of statistics; and you have proven you have NONE of the understanding she shows in casual dinner-table shop-talk.

"All the other shit you've put up is beside the point."

So what you're saying is you have no explanation for how a vaccinated-unvaccinated study can be ethical? Noted.

Also, your responses here are a good representation of why no one wants to waste their time with a "public debate" with you people.

Others have already noted it, and I've asked for it myself, but let it be said again: when asked to produce the science that supports her view, Mary Podlesak has continually refused to present anything and instead complained about how unfair scientists, the CDC, FDA, etc. are and how they will never be convinced. She has refused to engage the public (e.g., me) in debate or let the public participate in a meaningful fashion.

I, for one, am done with Mary. I encourage others to just ignore her, as well, unless and until she actually produces some science to discuss.

Money is the god of our age and Rothschild is it's prophet, spoken by Heinrich Heine, early 1800's German Jew and poet, as it is very likely I am likewise.

All the other shit you've put up is beside the point.

As I predicted, Mary will simply find one excuse after another to ignore every bit of information she doesn't want to hear.

It is terribly easy to bias a study.

So pick out one or more studies, show us how they're biased, explain who could have "biased" it/them without getting caught (by anyone other than you), and explain how you and you alone managed to catch the bias.

Money is the god of our age and Rothschild is it's prophet, spoken by Heinrich Heine, early 1800's German Jew and poet, as it is very likely I am likewise.

You are likewise an early 1800's German Jew and poet?
Wow, when you said you were an old woman, you weren't kidding!

thank you you caught me, i should be on to my next task. Nuclear Warfare!

#139

With good case-control studies, good epidemiological studies using vaccinated vs. never vaccinated individuals, neither the CDC, nor NIH, nor FDA nor medical professionals, nor pharamacuetical companies could be convinced of the autism-vaccine connection

and yet

#154

Epidemiological studies involving vaccinated vs. never vaccinated are NOT unethical. The only reason they haven't been done is because you're afraid of the results

So, they don't actually exist. Interesting, considering this

#150

My bitch is that the science produced by good scientific studies will not be accepted by "scientists" if it conflicts with their economic and financial objectives.

How do you know, when it's never been done?
Don't you think it's dishonest to talk about the results of studies that have never been done? How do you know whether people would accept the results when the studies have never been performed? And, since you're the one making the claim, isn't it your responsibility to conduct those studies?

#139

You're afraid you can't match their arguments??

Not really. I think the general sentiment (see #126 & 127) is that you won't bring real arguments, but rely on the same methods that creationists do, i.e. lies, exaggerations, distortions and general bullshittery.
It won't convince anyone who knows what they're talking about, but it might convince the public, who will then vote for equally stupid politicians.

This is what we're afraid of; fraud, not truth.

#143

My arguments would revolve around science

Prove it. Here's your chance. Present us with one of your magnificent arguments. You have the floor; use it.

#146

If your arguments are irrefutable and so superior then whatever I have, whether it's personal "anecdotal evidence" or studies should be of no consequence, your irrefutable studies should trump them

Nice attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Looking more and more like a creationist.

As I said before, I'm not a professional journalist, but I have a serious argument and I expect it to be addressed by our scientific-governmental-medical-pharmacuetical collective

Fine, present it, please. Your continual whining about lost posts are starting to sound a bit like a conspiracy theory.

How about this; click on my name, it'll take you to my blog. There, you can post your evidence and I swear on my name that I will
a) not delete it, and
b) attempt, to the best of my ability, to repost it here.

Bring it on.

The purpose of public debates is to air both sides of the debate to the PUBLIC, both sides of the scientific debate. Both sides air the science, not polemics, insults, ad hominum attacks, obfuscation, etc.

And yet, public debate are incredibly well suited for polemics, insults, ad hominem attacks, obfuscation, etc.
What a conundrum.

Money is the god of our age and Rothschild is it's prophet, spoken by Heinrich Heine, early 1800's German Jew and poet, as it is very likely I am likewise.

And you repeating that quote, regardless of who said it and what their cultural background or profession was still makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

And there is a reason for that, because you are one.

Holy f...ing sh..! http://shortyawards.com/category/health Mercola has pulled way ahead!!!

@Joe

I took a look at a couple of the twitter accounts that recently voted for mercola and saw that they have a very small number of followers and have 1 tweet. I hope that the organizers take a good look at the votes and remove those that violate the rules.

I'm not a twit myself, but maybe there's some way to alert them to this?

Mary Podlesak:

Epidemiological studies involving vaccinated vs. never vaccinated are NOT unethical. The only reason they haven't been done is because you're afraid of the results

You are either lying, have put blinders on to studies that do not have the conclusion that you want them to have, or (the most possible) you move the goalposts further and further away. The football stadium in my community is actually on a peninsula separating two lakes, the way the anti-vax folks have moved goalposts they are figuratively completely under water!

There is a list of studies in the free online paper Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses. There are explanations of the studies, with tables that summarize the results. It is missing these two, which are papers showing that autism still increased when Japan stopped using their own version of hte MMR (and several dozen people subsequently died from measles):
MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan
Authors: Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Inaba Y
Source: J Autism Dev Disord, February 2007; 37(2):210-217
and
No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.

Cut and pastes of the tables, I did not bother to fix the formatting since they are included in the link above.

Table 1.
Studies that fail to support an association between measlesâmumpsârubella vaccine and autism.
Source Study design Study location
Taylor et al., 1999 [5] Ecological United Kingdom
Farrington et al., 2001 [6] Ecological United Kingdom
Kaye et al., 2001 [7] Ecological United Kingdom
Dales et al., 2001 [8] Ecological United States
Fombonne et al., 2006 [9] Ecological Canada
Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 [10] Ecological United Kingdom
Taylor et al., 2002 [11] Ecological United Kingdom
DeWilde et al., 2001 [12] Caseâcontrol United Kingdom
Makela et al., 2002 [13] Retrospective cohort Finland
Madsen et al., 2002 [14] Retrospective cohort Denmark
DeStefano et al., 2004 [15] Caseâcontrol United States
Peltola et al., 1998 [16] Prospective cohort Finland
Patja et al., 2000 [17] Prospective cohort Finland

and:
Table 2.
Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism.
Source Study design Location
StehrâGreen et al., 2003 [22] Ecological Sweden and Denmark
Madsen et al., 2003 [23] Ecological Denmark
Fombonne et al., 2006 [9] Ecological Canada
Hviid et al., 2003 [24] Retrospective cohort Denmark
Verstraeten et al., 2003 [25] Retrospective cohort United States
Heron and Golding, 2004 [26] Prospective cohort United Kingdom
Andrews et al., 2004 [27] Retrospective cohort United Kingdom

Now, Ms. Podlesak, your evidence is what again? Oh, wait, absolutely nothing but a couple of anecdotes. Do try to work on that please.

Here is the conclusion of the paper I linked to above:

Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism. These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufficient to detect even rare associations. These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a childâs immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on moreâpromising leads.

The more frequently I comment, the more trouble i seem to have in getting posted. Ok,
1) Were any of these studies of vaccinated vs. never vaccinated individuals?
2) How many of the recorded measles cases were among those previously vaccinated against measles?
3) What determined whether individuals were dropped from these studies, and became "missing values"
4) Was there oversight of the conduct of these studies, other than pharacuetical, medical or governmental bodies responsible for their production?

What determines biological implausibility? How can that be determined before a study is done? Wouldn't it be more ethical to record ALL adverse events following drug intake, whether of a vaccine or any other and then sort out and attribute causes after multiple studies, and multiple replications?

@Mary: and WHO would you like to PAY for these studies, if you won't accept "...pharaceutical (sic), medical or governmental bodies..."? No researcher works for free, any more than you work for free at your place of employment. All studies involving humans must pass an IRB, which is the oversight (at least in the USA, I am not familiar with other countries). An IRB usually consists of people not involved with the research...scientists, medical people and laypeople. In fact, for an IRB to be made of people involved in the research, their family and friends, is considered invalid (For example, the "IRB" which approved the Geiers "study")

Again, Orac has, in previous posts, addressed the configurations of IRBs, whom they consist of, and what they will and will not approve. Do a little research! (In fact, IIRC, one of his linked posts in the comments above address an IRB makeup).

I have tried to be patient with you. Since I don't know you in real life, I can't tell you in person that you are REALLY being stupid (like I did with a coworker this week, who is uncertain about the vaccines/autism link...but at least he is amenable to doing a little reading into the issue and not accepting only anecdotes).

My understanding is that many of these studies are of partially vaccinated individuals vs. other partially vaccinated individuals. If there are common long term vaccine reactions, they would show up in both groups and could lead to a conclusion of no advderse effect of the vaccine. I understand that in some studies the vaccine without the attenuated virus is given as the control. If the contents of the vaccine without the virus are not neutral biologically and have not been determined to be so, how can the conclusion be made of no effect? Sorry, just some random musings...

Mary Podlesak (showing she has not bothered to even click the link):

) Were any of these studies of vaccinated vs. never vaccinated individuals?

From the paper, emphasis added:

No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.

Mary Podlesak (who keeps running with those goalposts, I believe she has now left the lake and is now in the foothills of the a mountain range!):

Was there oversight of the conduct of these studies, other than pharacuetical, medical or governmental bodies responsible for their production?

Dare I ask who is left with the relevant expertise? How is Fombonne disqualified? Why is the study from those in the Unit of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, Department of Community-Based Medical Sciences, University of Bristol" disqualified? What about the ones written by folk at "Trent Center for Bioethics, Humanities, and History of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Box 3040, Duke University Medical Center" or "Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland"? Explain very carefully.

Oh, and also present your evidence. Did you lose it? It is hiding somewhere because it is too shy to come out and play?

I'm sure I am unfamiliar with the makeup and configurations of IRB's. You can denigrate and condescend to me all you want. I don't give a rat's ass. If you want a fair fight, I'll debate you.

You can configure IRB's as ethically as you and some medical/governmental/corporate bureaucracy chooses. That however, does not automatically eliminate bias in studies. The appearance of ethics and it's actual practice and reality are two different things. The jack boot tactics reenforcing dogmatic conformity in the medical profession are the reason why I did not continue in health care industrial engineering. That group think agenda alone can bias the conduct of medical studies, which should be the incentive for a greater use of statisticians in such groups. Are you wondering why the medical profession is losing credibility? Put more independent statisticians on your IRB's. You need independent responsible adults running these studies.

My sympathies are extended to your coworker.

Mary Podlesak (still running with those goalposts, I believe she is past the foothills and now starting to climb a major slope):

My understanding is that many of these studies are of partially vaccinated individuals vs. other partially vaccinated individuals.

This is what happens when children are not immunized:
Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children.

Mary continued (and without any of that gosh darn good science she claims she has!):

You can configure IRB's as ethically as you and some medical/governmental/corporate bureaucracy chooses. That however, does not automatically eliminate bias in studies.
Have you heard of the Geiers? Their IRB consisted of (quoting the linked article):
Notice how conveniently every single member of this IRB is either one of the Geiers, an anti-thimerosal activist, a Geier associate, or a lawyer suing on behalf of "vaccine-injured" clients. Anyone want to make a bet about how closely they adhere to the guidelines for human research listed above? It almost doesn't matter anyway because, as Kathleen points out, besides the fact that none of the members of this IRB has any expertise in endocrinology, Mark and David Geier would not be eligible to debate or vote on their own protocols anyway; Anne Geier wouldn't be eligible to vote because of her relationship to Mark and David; and Lisa Sykes wouldn't be eligible to vote if her child is to be a subject in the research protocol being reviewed. And does anyone really think that any of the other members of this particular IRB has research subject protection as his or her overriding concern?

Is that evidence of yours still being shy? Have you tried coaxing it out of its hidey spot with a stevia sweetened gluten-free dairy-free treat?

It is YOU who must come up with the evidence, not me. Look in the mirror genius. Anyone who makes positive claims for a drug has an moral obligation to demonstrate it's safety and effectiveness, NOT THE POPULATION OF RECEIPIENTS! These are healthy individuals receiving these vaccines, even one adverse event is one too many. It's not my obligation to demonstrate this, it is yours!

I've heard the crap about it being unethical to study unvaccinated individuals in a prospective case-control study. That is prejudification again, based on gamed statistics given out by government. Where are your independent statisticians?? without financial ties to big Pharma, government and medicine??? I know my fellow travelers in this field are afraid to lose their day jobs. Financial insecurity makes cowards of us all.

To reiterate, the bureaucratic oversight of IRB's is irrelevant to the subject of bias in research studies. The system was setup by the medical profession and the government in order to control the conduct of research, not to produce honest studies. Whether the study of the Geiers' is unbiased is a separate issue and could be determined by looking at it's conduct from initial assumptions, hpothoses, to data, methodology, analysis and conclusions. The presence of family members alone should not determine it's validity. The problem with so many of these vaccine studies, is that the people who financially benefit, are themselves conducting the studies, or have oversight and control of outcomes or writeup. That is why there was a major article on the subject of research fraud in the New York Times business section recently. Conclusions were arrived at before the commencement of the studies and corporate sponsors were having the papers ghostwritten.

Mary Podlesak:

It is YOU who must come up with the evidence, not me.

Actually, I did. You just choose to ignore it, or put on a bunch of silly conditions. I believe you have reached the summit of the mountain range and are heading towards the Pacific Ocean with those goalposts.

Here is my version of a Gish Gallop again. Now take each and every one and tell us what exactly is wrong with. You will not be complete until you have read each study and told us what all the specific flaws are, something you were asked to do the last time I dumped it here. So until you come up with a real argument, Put up or Shut up!:

Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
Hornig M et al.
PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
*Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)

Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Baird G et al.
Arch Dis Child 2008; 93(10):832-7.
Subjects: 98 vaccinated children aged 10-12 years in the UK with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); two control groups of similar age: 52 children with special educational needs but no ASD and 90 children in the typically developing group

MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
Uchiyama T et al.
J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7
*Subjects: 904 children with autism spectrum disorder
(Note: MMR was used in Japan only between 1989 and 1993.)

No Evidence of Persisting Measles Virus in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
DâSouza Y et al.
Pediatrics 2006; 118(4):1664-75
*Subjects: 54 children with autism spectrum disorder and 34 developmentally normal children

Immunizations and Autism: A Review of the Literature.
Doja A, Roberts W.
Can J Neurol Sci. 2006; 33(4):341-6
*Literature review

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links with Immunizations.
Fombonne E et al.
Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):e139-50
*Subjects: 27,749 children born from 1987 to 1998 attending 55 schools

Relationship between MMR Vaccine and Autism.
Klein KC, Diehl EB.
Ann Pharmacother. 2004; 38(7-8):1297-300
*Literature review of 10 studies

Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. Institute of Medicine.
The National Academies Press: 2004
(w w w . nap.edu/books/030909237X/html) *Literature review

MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study.
Smeeth L et al.
Lancet 2004; 364(9438):963-9
*Subjects: 1294 cases and 4469 controls

Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta.
DeStefano F et al. Pediatrics 2004; 113(2): 259-66
*Subjects: 624 children with autism and 1,824 controls

Prevalence of Autism and Parentally Reported Triggers in a North East London Population.
Lingam R et al.
Arch Dis Child 2003; 88(8):666-70
*Subjects: 567 children with autistic spectrum disorder

Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
Makela A et al.
Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
*Subjects: 535,544 children vaccinated between November 1982 and June 1986 in Finland

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism.
Madsen KM et al.
N Engl J Med 2002; 347(19):1477-82
*Subjects: All 537,303 children born 1/91â12/98 in Denmark

Relation of Childhood Gastrointestinal Disorders to Autism: Nested Case Control Study Using Data from the UK General Practice Research Database.
Black C et al.
BMJ 2002; 325:419-21
*Subjects: 96 children diagnosed with autism and 449 controls

Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
Taylor B et al.
BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
*Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism

No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.
Fombonne E et al.
Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58
*Subjects: 262 autistic children (pre- and post-MMR samples)

Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines Do Not Increase the Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
Davis RL et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155(3):354-9
*Subjects: 155 persons with IBD with up to 5 controls each

Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California.
Dales L et al.
JAMA 2001; 285(9):1183-5
*Subjects: Children born in 1980-94 who were enrolled in California kindergartens (survey samples of 600â1,900 children each year)

Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.
Kaye JA et al.
BMJ 2001; 322:460-63
*Subjects: 305 children with autism

Further Evidence of the Absence of Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Full Thickness Intestinal Specimens from Patients with Crohnâs Disease.
Afzal MA, et al.
J Med Virol 2000; 62(3):377-82
*Subjects: Specimens from patients with Crohnâs disease

Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
Taylor B et al.
Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
*Subjects: 498 children with autism

Absence of Detectable Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Tissues and Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes.
Afzal MA et al.
J Med Virol 1998; 55(3):243-9
*Subjects: 93 colonoscopic biopsies and 31 peripheral blood lymphocyte preparations

No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study.
Peltola H et al.
Lancet 1998; 351:1327-8
*Subjects: 3,000,000 doses of MMR vaccine

Exposure to Measles in Utero and Crohnâs Disease: Danish Register Study.
Nielsen LL et al.
BMJ 1998; 316(7126):196-7
*Subjects: 472 women with measles

Immunocytochemical Evidence of Listeria, Escherichia coli, and Streptococcus Antigens in Crohnâs Disease.
Liu Y et al.
Gastroenterology 1995; 108(5):1396-1404
*Subjects: Intestines and mesenteric lymph node specimens from 21 persons from families with a high frequency of Crohnâs disease

Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
Tozzi AE, Bisiacchi P, Tarantino V, De Mei B, D'Elia L, Chiarotti F, Salmaso S.
Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82

Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants after Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
Pichichero ME, Gentile A, Giglio N, et al
Pediatrics, February 2008; 121(2) e208-214

Mercury, Vaccines, And Autism: One Controversy, Three Histories
Baker JP
American Journal of Public Health, February 2008;98(2): 244-253

Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California's Developmental Services System: Mercury in Retrograde
Schechter R, Grether JK
Arch Gen Psychiatry, January 2008; 65(1):19-24

Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years
Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team
N Engl J Med, Sep 27, 2007; 357(13):1281-1292

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links with Immunizations
Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D
Pediatrics, July 2006, Vol. 118(1):e139-e150

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies
Goodman MJ, Nordin J
Pediatrics, February 2006, Vol. 117(2):387-390

MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan
Authors: Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Inaba Y
Source: J Autism Dev Disord, February 2007; 37(2):210-217

No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.

Thimerosal in Vaccines: Balancing the Risk of Adverse Effects with the Risk of Vaccine-Preventable Disease
Bigham M, Copes R
Drug Safety, 2005, Vol. 28(2):89-101

Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal
Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Grant KS, Cernichiari E, Clarkson T
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, April 21, 2005

Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
Heron J, Golding J, ALSPAC Study Team
Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):577-583

Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B
Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):584-591

Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original Data
Parker SK, Schwartz B, Todd J, Pickering LK
Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):793-804

The Evidence for the Safety of Thimerosal in Newborn and Infant Vaccines
Clements CJ
Vaccine, May 7, 2004, Vol. 22(15-16):1854-1861

Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases
Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al
Pediatrics, November 2003, Vol. 112(5):1039-1048

The Toxicology of Mercury--Current Exposures and Clinical Manifestations
Clarkson TW, Magos L, Myers GJ
New England Journal of Medicine, October 30, 2003, Vol. 349(18):1731-7

Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism
Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M
Journal of the American Medical Association, October 1, 2003, Vol. 290(13):1763-6

Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data
Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, et al
Pediatrics, Sept. 2003, Vol. 112(3 Pt 1):604-606

Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines. Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association
Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, Simpson D
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, August 2003, Vol. 25(2):101-6

Impact of the Thimerosal Controversy on Hepatitis B Vaccine Coverage of Infants Born to Women of Unknown Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Status in Michigan
Biroscak BJ, Fiore AE, Fasano N, Fineis P, Collins MP, Stoltman G
Pediatrics, June 2003, Vol. 111(6):e645-9

Vaccine Safety Policy Analysis in Three European Countries: The Case of Thimerosal
Freed GL, Andreae MC, Cowan AE, et al
Health Policy, December 2002, Vol. 62(3):291-307

Mercury Concentrations and Metabolism in Infants Receiving Vaccines Containing Thimerosal: A Descriptive Study
Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, Treanor J
The Lancet, November 30, 2002, Vol. 360:1737-1741

An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines
Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD
Pediatrics, May 2001, Vol. 107(5):1147-1154

Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001
Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML, Yusuf HR, Shefer A, Chu SY, Rodewald L, Harpaz R.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.

An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis.
Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV.
Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):653-61.

Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:302-309.

Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.
DeStefano F, Mullooly JP, Okoro CA, Chen RT, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Vadheim CM, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Davis RL, Bohlke K; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112.

Mary Podlesak:

Whether the study of the Geiers' is unbiased is a separate issue and could be determined by looking at it's conduct from initial assumptions, hpothoses, to data, methodology, analysis and conclusions.

Well, we now have full evidence that you do not read the references given, and that you just parrot what AoA says. Do you actually think that chemical castration of children is a good thing?

Who is part of the hive mind?

Being sucked into the Borg controlled by Handley does explain why you have totally forgotten all of your statistics education. It is either that, or you should really see a neurologist about that stroke you forgot about.

O hai guise. What's going on in this thread?

Actually, I think, from Mary's last few comments, she has proven that she doesn't give a damn about children. The fact that she can think the Geiers' activities are OK (!!!) makes me ill. She wants a perfect world, when nothing ever goes wrong (one child injured from vaccines is too many).

Well, Mary, are you also going to put for a ban on cars, planes, sidewalks, bathtubs, stoves, dressers, cribs, etc etc etc? They kill/injure many more children every year than vaccines do. Let me know when you find Utopia. I'm staying here in reality.

Mary, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone's got one. Yours just happens to be shitty.

It is YOU who must come up with the evidence, not me.

And here we have Mary fully removing the goalposts and throwing them in the lake while shifting the teetering truckload of shit so that is deposits on this blog's front porch.

All this time Mary you have been claiming to have evidence of the link between vaccines and whatever damage you people are claiming this week.

Where

Your

Evidence?

Mary when you hear hoofbeats do you think of Unicorns first?

Just a quick note on IRBs. They are volunteer jobs. 21 CFR 56.107 outlines who needs to be on the IRB:

(a) Each IRB shall have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution. The IRB shall be sufficiently qualified through the experience and expertise of its members, and the diversity of the members, including consideration of race, gender, cultural backgrounds, and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. In addition to possessing the professional competence necessary to review the specific research activities, the IRB shall be able to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research in terms of institutional commitments and regulations, applicable law, and standards or professional conduct and practice. The IRB shall therefore include persons knowledgeable in these areas. If an IRB regularly reviews research that involves a vulnerable category of subjects, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, or handicapped or mentally disabled persons, consideration shall be given to the inclusion of one or more individuals who are knowledgeable about and experienced in working with those subjects.

(b) Every nondiscriminatory effort will be made to ensure that no IRB consists entirely of men or entirely of women, including the instituton's consideration of qualified persons of both sexes, so long as no selection is made to the IRB on the basis of gender. No IRB may consist entirely of members of one profession.

(c) Each IRB shall include at least one member whose primary concerns are in the scientific area and at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas.

(d) Each IRB shall include at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.

(e) No IRB may have a member participate in the IRB's initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide information requested by the IRB.

(f) An IRB may, in its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of complex issues which require expertise beyond or in addition to that available on the IRB. These individuals may not vote with the IRB.

In addition, there are conflict of interest laws banning IRB members from even commenting on any protocol where they have a financial or personal interest. When considering a protocol, they also consider not only the safety of the individuals involved, but the appropriateness of the methods used and a review of the COIs of the investigator(s).

Study protocols must be reviewed before the study commences, as well as annual reviews to continue. The annual reviews include all results up to that point. If there are any safety concerns, the IRB can shut the study down.

Then there are Data Safety Monitoring Boards, but that's another topic altogether.

So, again, before making excuses about IRBs, read the documents I listed previously.

@mary

Do you see yet why no one wants to debate you?

1) You are stupid.
2) You are too stupid to understand what you are saying.
3) You are asking people to prove that they're not part of a conspiracy, essentially.

"Anyone who makes positive claims for a drug has an moral obligation to demonstrate it's safety and effectiveness,"

Ok that's easy. Look at infection numbers for a disease before and after the introduction of its vaccine. Hey look much fewer cases. Ok, effectiveness demonstrated.

Now lets think hard for a minute. You're making the positive claim that vaccines do awful things. And yet you still refuse to show any proof. Instead you blurt out repeated bits of idiocy about conspiracy. You have no proof and I suspect you might be too stupid to even understand what is going on.

This is why no one wants to debate you people.

"These are healthy individuals receiving these vaccines, even one adverse event is one too many."

And this is why you people are called pro-disease. Do you hold anything else up to this standard? Did you know that every day people injure themselves using computers? QUICK turn off you computer and never turn it on again.

@JohnV

I'm wondering if mary is going to put this much effort against automobiles, particularly with the recently damning evidence of gas pedal issues in Toyotas. Toyotas have a potentially dangerous problem, therefore all cars should be eliminated until they have zero risk. Right?

I wonder if today is the day that Mary makes us all eat our hats and shows this amazing evidence she has?

Nah. Rabid evidence-free conspiracy theory ranting is so much easier to produce than actual support for one's claims, after all.

I wonder if today is the day that Mary makes us all eat our hats and shows this amazing evidence she has?

Well, better to eat my hat than hers. That tin foil makes my fillings hurt.

Well, better to eat my hat than hers. That tin foil makes my fillings hurt.

No. Mary doesn't have a tin foil hat. If she did, she wouldn't hear the voices that tell her 'vaccines are evil'.

She's probably having trouble recording the voices - that's why no evidence to back up her claims. She probably figures if we all get in a room with her for a live debate, we'd hear the voices, too, and become believers in her silly fantasy.

So this is Mary "explaining" why she is entitled to ignore the fact that all the studies which have been done looking for a vaccine-autism connection have found none:

"My bitch is that the science produced by good scientific studies will not be accepted by "scientists" if it conflicts with their economic and financial objectives."

And here's Mary just eight hours later, defending the Geiers, whose experimentation on human beings was supposed to be overseen by an impartial IRB but instead was rubber-stamped by an "IRB" of which each and every member stood to benefit financially from giving the Geiers' work a facade of respectability:

"... the bureaucratic oversight of IRB's is irrelevant to the subject of bias in research studies. The system was setup by the medical profession and the government in order to control the conduct of research, not to produce honest studies. Whether the study of the Geiers' is unbiased is a separate issue and could be determined by looking at it's conduct from initial assumptions, hpothoses, to data, methodology, analysis and conclusions. The presence of family members alone should not determine it's validity."

My, my, my... is that a little old double standard peekin' its nose out of the bushes? Why, I do believe it is! It's the exact same issue, scientific truth being subordinated 'economic and financial objectives' -- but where Mary is convicting of this offense any scientist past, present, or future who does not find a vaccine-autism connection, all without a shred of evidence against those scientists, she's going to lengths to ignore the evidence of the Geiers committing that very offense!

Just another reason, as if we needed any more, to disregard Mary.

Antaeus Felspar:

Just another reason, as if we needed any more, to disregard Mary.

She will most likely defend the recently sanctioned Wakefield's invasive lawyer paid tests on a dozen children (including one whose colon was punctured several times!), because in her world he was doing "good science" (even if it was only to feed his ego and bank account).

In the future, please respond to Mary with just these five words: Put up or shut up!

Thank you.

@ Chris (202): Hear, Hear! At this point, that's all I am looking for Mary to do, too. (And wanna bet, it ain't happening?)

@Antaeus Feldspar

Let's not forget that in addition to the unethical makeup of the Geiers' IRB, it was also formed after the study was already under way. Another ethical no-no.

"unless we ... rip the beating hearts out of our enemies and eat them before they stop beating, our food is "dead."

Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorence on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I tell you, people do that all the time.

Dear lord! I am gone for three days and I miss all this fun.

Just had something additional for Mary:

1) Were any of these studies of vaccinated vs. never vaccinated individuals?

Are you suggesting studying the children who are not being vaccinated because their parents are listening to the anti-vax idiots? Should these children be studied and compared to the children who are properly vaccinated?

Although I am definitly not an expert on the matter my understanding is:

This wouldn't work. Because the two groups studied are not chosen randomly. The parents who tend to not vaccinate are middle class to wealthy caucasion people, these children would be compared to children who are not equally matched in socioeconomic status and access to health care. Or do you not care if the poor and minority groups are not represented (in the non-vaccinated group) in your hypothetical study? Or would you suggest that some of these minority children be denied vaccination because of your inane theories?

"unless we ... rip the beating hearts out of our enemies and eat them before they stop beating, our food is "dead."

Sounds like my divorce...

This wonderful and wondrously long discussion has brilliantly displayed the power and the weakness of the Internet. Mary has come here, defending her (factually indefensible) position. She has been demolished repeatedly, she has ducked every challenge to actually back up her statements, her (two -- people missed the first one) "Rothschild" comments certainly showed the possibility of her bigotry. The whole discussion became much more powerful as Mary vainly -- in both senses -- put forth her case and it was shown just how weak it was.

But there was thing that was lacking, sadly, the same thing that was lacking in the well over 10,000 comments on the Prop H8 Trial tracker site -- where I ran into several familiar faces. Okay, I only read about half of them, but neither there nor here did I read a comment that went something like this:

"Hey, guys, I used to be sorta on the fence about vaccination (or same-sex marriage). I mean I'm not an expert or anything, but I'd heard the arguments that people like Mary put forth, and they sounded kinda reasonable, so I was being cautious, keeping an open mind. But you guys have really convinced me, and I've come over fully to your side."

I never read comments like this. Maybe there are lurkers out there who do get their minds changed -- ideally from anti- to pro- but I'd settle for neutral to pro. If so, will at least one of you tell us so.

Because I am getting scared -- and getting a reputation as a 'dotty old man whose getting paranoid anout paranoids' -- that we are spending so much time 'convincing people who were already convinced' that all our skeptical writing is in reality doing no good at all. We are making each other feel good, we are making very valuable points, but we seem to be staying in a niche of our own, and making no difference in an outside world where the forces of anti-vaxxers, global warming denialists, 'Christian nation' arguers, birthers, End Time preachers, 'comuunist-fascist dictator Obama' declarers and others are busy swapping paranoias like I used to swap baseball cards.

(Yes, there are quite a few HuffPost anti-vaxxers -- and I condemn them for their stupidity, but they might be reachable by this sort of discussion -- but take a look at someone like Jane Burgermeister -- or Janet Folger Porter of Faith2Action who has had Burgermeister on her show. Or the WND. These are the real crazies out there, the ones evidence can't touch, the ones who combine all the evidence-free rantings.

(And of course there is the 'rodeo clown' filling his tv slot with much of the same.)

Sadly, they are reaching the uncommitted (I'm tempted to call them the ones who are and need to be committed). It's easy to dismiss them as 'just a handful of nuts' and a couple of years ago they were. But now they are getting stronger, taking over one party, and I'm damned if I know what to do about it.

So will someone out there please calm me down and just tell me, honestly, that all our rationality and solid ecidence-based reasoning, our demonstrations of the absurdity of people like Mary and Mike Adams actually worked? Please!

Prup, once in a long while I will see someone posting who had first been sucked into not vaccinating (often a new parent who has wandered into the sMothering Commune forum), but then they come here and elsewhere and actually change their mind.

Also, I know at least one blogger (Kev at LeftBrainRightBrain) who at first blamed a vaccine for his daughter's autism. But with additional information he changed his mind.

Prup -

I didn't go from anti to pro vax, or even neutral to pro. I know they work. But, with all the ink the antivaxers get, I wanted to *know*.

My background isn't in medicine, I don't work in health care in any way. Y'all break these ideas down and make things clear enough that I'm able to understand. From the links and words posted here, I can now spot a quack, and even say *why* they're a quack.

With what I've learned here, I've even been able to help guide a few fence-sitters I know away from the dark side. It ripples out.

The person who posts as NotMercury recounted that s/he was convinced vaccines caused her older children's autism until his/her youngest (unvaccinated) child was diagnosed, though I guess that's more a victory for simple rationality than for sceptical blogging. James Sweet has said that he was amenable to spacing out immunization to prevent autism or some nebulous other harm, until he researched the issue, whereupon he became strongly pro-vax.

for sceptical blogging

Prup,

I used to be all into the anti-mainstream medicine. I never was anti-vaccine because my mother lost (most) of her hearing when she contracted mumps. But I did have my third-born at home after two c-sections. I was all into 'natural' supplements and alternative medicine (being from Colorado, this was the norm).

When I moved to [redacted] I asked my pediatrician about 'mercury' in vaccines and all the other woo I believed in. He just happened to be a skeptic and gave me all sorts of information that just made sense. So much so that I decided to deliver my fourth child in a hospital (by c-section, no less).

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a skeptic, because I am just learning, but I admire the author of this blog and so many others that are fighting for rationality.

Prup, Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy posted a link to just such a story only days ago. Hope it will lift your spirits ;)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/28/why-one-paren…

Thanks to all of you for giving these examples. And I know that Orac knows I meant no disrespect to him -- his was literally the first blog I read, and I have never stopped admiring his work. It's just the tide of irrationality I see growing daily. mostly in the political world, and the misunderstanding of the type of thinking that ties a Palin to a Mike Adams, teabaggers to global warming denialists, creationists to the type of health care reform fighters that talk about FEMA concentration camps. All so led by the Glenn Becks, the Farahs and the Folgers. but also by the ministers of a new and very scary type of Christianity that calls itself the New Apostolic Reformation, and that has very little to do with what most of us think of as Christianity -- whether we like it or hate it or simply consider it a mild delusion.

When I see a candidate for Governor -- of Alabama, true, but not some 'backwoods hick,' but a man whose family has been prominent in the state since before statehood. who's been a lawyer for 25 years, who was in charge of the state's two-year college system -- merely state that 'not all the words of the Bible are to be taken literally' (nd he was referring to the great ages of the Patriarchs, not the myths of the opening of Genesis) -- and be forced to recant his words, I get scared. When I see not just one, but all of the candidates for President of a major party approve the teaching of creationism in schools (as happened in 2008, though only a few declared themselves to be creationists), I get visions of Nehemiah Scudder.

And when I see political commenters on 'my' side of the spectrum -- and I spend more time in the political blogosphere -- regretably -- than in the Skeptisphere dismissing these folks as 'too absurd to pay attention to' or see their real -- if delusional -- beliefs as either 'fronts for racism' or the result (from the dinestore Marxists) of corporate manipulation, or refer to the 'obscenely rich puppeteers, I want to drag every one of them over to the Skeptical blogosphere to give them lessons in the type of thinking they are fighting against.

And then I think of the Scopes trial, and how, despite every showing of Inherit the Wind the result was, in fact victory for the creationists, if a mild one. (Other laws against evolution teaching remained in place and, to quote a very solid Wikipedia article -- that is supported by other cites I know "The immediate effects of the trial are evident in the high school biology texts used in the second half of the 1920âs and the early 1930âs. Of the most widely used textbooks, there is only one which lists evolution in the index and in the wake of the trial, under the pressures of fundamentalist groups, the entry is countered with biblical quotations."

And I see, after growing up in a time and place where creationism was laughable, today that polls still show a near majority of America supporting it. My GP (80 years old and no altie) tells me of a friend who is "Professor of Alternate Medicine" at Harvard.

And that's when I wonder if even we know how to fight the tide of irrationality, when I become 'paranoid about paranoids' when I write the type of comment I wrote above. And when I need and am grateful for the responses it received.

Prup,

I can at least tell you this: I used to be on the fence about creationism (though I leaned heavily towards it due to my Christian upbringing). I also used to beleive in UFOs being alien spacecraft, alien abductions, and I was very sympathetic to various paranormal claims. I was convinced of most conspiracy theories involving the JFK assassination and also convinced of all sorts of "ancient astronaut" stories. I also had a tendency to believe certain things about health that sound now eerily similar to the alternative medicine quackery that Orac debunks here regularly (though I was sort of indifferent to that, being an 'invincible' teenager who cared little for my well-being).

I liked to think that I was one of the few rational voices in the world and that so many of the scientists and other people were not quite as imaginative as they should be, blinded by the institutional learning they went through (or something along those lines).

Now, in college I had begun to move away from such beliefs. However, I still liked to believe in paranormal claims, in creationism, etc. But, one day, after watching a show on moon-landing conspiracy theories, I went to google to find out more. I found Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" site. And from a link there, I found Orac's old blogspot blog. For a couple years, I read this blog daily. And I also began reading other skeptical blogs regularly.

Well, this is just anecdotal evidence, so make of it what you will, but for me, the skeptics on the internet have really changed my life for the better. I have become a much more consistent critical thinker since that time, and have been turned away from all sorts of crackpottery, woo, crankdom, and more that I may have been attracted to were it not for the wonderful bloggers/commenters who introduced me to a skepticism as something more than the pejorative hurled by UFO nuts and psychics. So here's at least one person who's changed her mind, and would probably otherwise be a 9/11 truther today.

WE ARE BORG. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

(Sorry, but I just couldn't believe that someone didn't do that one straight away.)

I can't believe (figure of speech) that I've never seen this site before. Keep up the great work!

Nina Burleigh Talks About Biblical Forgery TONIGHT in NYC

grrlscientist — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:59:02 +0000

Nina Burleigh Talks About Biblical Forgery TONIGHT in NYC

Who: journalist and author, Nina Burleigh
What: free public presentation, "Biblical Forgery"
Where: SLC Conference Center, 352 7th avenue (between 29th and 30th streets), 16th floor, room D4
When: Thursday, 4 June 700-830pm

Join CFI and the Secular Humanist Society of New York to meet journalist and author Nina Burleigh, who wrote the recently published book, Unholy Business: A True Tale of Faith, Greed, & Forgery in the Holy Land. Her book tells the story of the unraveling of a Bible relic forgery scheme in Israel, and gives a glimpse into the intriguing world of biblical archaeology and relic collectors. Burleigh will talk about her book and the con-men, archaeologists, secular scholars, religious believers, hype-masters, billionaire collectors, and eccentrics she encountered while researching it.

grrlscientist Thu, 06/04/2009 - 05:59

Tags

Categories

Nina Burleigh Talks About Biblical Forgery Tomorrow in NYC

grrlscientist — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:31:05 +0000

Nina Burleigh Talks About Biblical Forgery Tomorrow in NYC

Who: journalist and author, Nina Burleigh
What: free public presentation, Biblical Forgery
Where: SLC Conference Center, 352 7th avenue (between 29th and 30th streets), 16th floor, room D4
When: Thursday, 4 June 700-830pm

grrlscientist Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:31

Tags

Categories

Collecting billionaires must be a very expensive hobby.

Wish I could attend! I just finished reading that book last week & its amazing that the truth about biblical forgeries is just ignored by the MSM.

Making Lemonade

illconsidered — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:03:10 +0000

Making Lemonade

I poke into Jennifer Marohasy's blog from time to time, though I am no longer a regular commenter. I gave that up a couple of years ago but still take any special cases as opportunities to chime in again. She's one of those standard types of sceptics, the "scientist" from another discipline just "honestly" investigating an important issue about which she has no preconceptions.

Well, a recent post prompted Deltoid's Tim Lambert to shake his head in consternation as Jennifer gives a soapbox to yet another crackpot pseudo-science post where we are told that the concept of radiative equilibrium is "only a rather archaic and untested supposition found in climatology textbooks alone" and in fact you can feed energy into a closed system forever and it will never acheive a temperature higher than X given some input in Watts Y.

Though it left Tim speechless, it has prompted a very long and rather enertaining thread. Let's take a look and see if we can't make some lemonade out of Marohasy's lemons and actually learn something.

The first thing we learn is that Marohasy is not an intellectually honest player in the climate change debate. This is clear from the fact that she is intelligent enough to know this is total bunk yet she lends it her reasonably large soapbox. It is not the first crackpottery she has allowed to be trumpeted from her site. Here is a post claiming humans are not causing the current rise in CO2. The evidence is as overwhelming as it is common sense. This post makes the usual vapid claims that the "religion of global warming", is convenient to politicians. But global warming is no hoax and the politicians really show all the signs of working for the oil industry. She trumpets a study showing increased erosion in rivers upstream of Bangledesh is adding land area as some kind of refutation of predicted sea level rise. (BTW, I saw that one coming!). She has even posted that the Greenhouse Effect itself is a myth! I guess she has never heard of Venus.

Her bias is also crystal clear in other kinds of posts, like one trying to claim that because this year's sea ice melt did not surpass last year's dramatic record breaker that the scientists are again shown to be exagerating alarmists. I suppose she wants her readers to think it is not melting at all. Oh, and by the way, it is not over yet and is already way below the 1979-2000 mean. Bias is clear in posting so many "what evidence" posts that simply deny the existence of years and mountains of scientific work:

there does not appear to be a body of work establishing the basic criteria for a claimed causal relationship between the purported pollutant, anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and the claimed effect, global warming; atleast not outside of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. In particular there does not appear to be a body of work published in reputable scientific journals.

(Wait a minute! The entire IPCC report is based on work published in reputable journals!)

But I think for me the most damning evidence of all is in the fact that she promotes, and even espouses herself, arguments that she has openly admitted are not sound. I am speaking of the standard talking point that global warming stopped in 1998. You see, some time ago, when I was still trying to charitably take Marohasy at her word (you know, the "who me? I'm just asking..." posture) I spent some time presenting reason and data to correct her misinformation and distortions. In the course of one such long exchange, I said:

So how about either a defense of Bob Carter's "warming stopped" argument, refuting the lengthy rebuttal I gave or an acknowledgment that it is not a reasonable point?

(see the comment "Posted by: coby at April 26, 2006 02:11 PM")

to which she replies:

I disagree with Bob on the issue of warming. I see a general and continual increase in temperature in the global and Australian data - and I have also noted that James Hansen's predictions are more-or-less on track.

(see the comment "Posted by: jennifer at April 26, 2006 02:54 PM")

So, she promotes and speaks on radio and TV ideas that she herself knows are not correct (this would include her attacks on Hansen's predictions). That is pretty damning evidence that the smell over there really was bull manure and not just poor hygiene.

Some other interesting things in that thread include Chris Crawford's heroically patient and careful refutations of endless non-sensical arguments from the post's author and other commenters supporting him against 100 years of well established physics. Here is one of my favorites from "cohenite"

the idiocy is that AGW is built on a similar analogy to your's; you confuse a shield with storage, and a constant supply of energy with an increasing rate of supply; as a thought experiment there's no doubt the concept needs some further information, such as; is the surround a non-quantum unit of space; is it in a non-vacuum; if so then it becomes similar to, but not identical with a greenhouse, because the photons cannot escape; heating of the space will be subject to entropy with that forming a balance with the constant rate of energy coming in; since the energy supply is constant, as is the enthropic response, per unit of planck time there cannot be an overall increase in accessible microstates, and therefore temperature.

This line was worth the price of admission!

I just totally disagree with the AGW model of forcing for the absorption which occurs; and I probably disagree with the AGW mechanism of absorption, including the capacity, whatever that is; and I disagree with the EG theory of positive feedbacks, whatever they are. Got it?

Yeah, got it. Whatever they say, you will disagree. Nice chatting with you!

Michael Tobis popped in to demonstrate another fascinating phenomenon, everything can be taken as evidence of anything when you try hard enough! Specifically, he pointed out that NASA has a satellite designed, built and sitting in a box that is meant to empirically test the prediction that more radiation is entering the earth-atmosphere system than is leaving it, which would be Really Convincing(tm) evidence that the globe is in fact gaining energy. This was jumped on as evidence NASA is delibrately covering its own eyes to avoid facing the "fact" that AGW is not real. Sorry, sign error! The Bushies killed that one, and they are trying to cover all of our eyes, not just their own.

Anyway, the fun may be over for now, but thanks to the internets we can relive it whenever we want! [-choke-]

illconsidered Wed, 08/20/2008 - 02:03

Tags

Categories

"She has even posted that the Greenhouse Effect itself is a myth! I guess she has never heard of Venus."

Or, for that matter, of greenhouses.

"per unit of planck time there cannot be an overall increase in accessible microstates"

Why planck time? If this is true, will it not also apply on the scale of - say - seconds? Why then mention Max at all? Becauyse the author is name-dropping, that's why.

That is pretty damning evidence that the smell over there really was bull manure and not just poor hygiene.

That elicited from me what I believe is called a "ROFL". Possibly with a bit of "MAO".

Thanks for the kind comment. I finally gave up over there -- despite my best efforts, it seemed that everybody was determined to be nasty. I seek out places where I can have a constructive disagreement with others, because you never learn from those who agree with you. I also continue in my naive belief that, if you maintain a civil tongue and concentrate on the issues, you can get through to people. I keep disproving it to myself, waiting a few weeks, then telling myself, "Gee, maybe if I were a little more tactful..." and off I go again, on another futile exercise.

Keep it up! It needs to be there for the record and for the lurkers, the ones who don't say anything but do read. You also admirably demostrated the required tactic of sticking to the point. These arguments get completely fruitless when all kinds of irrelevant tangents are introduced, drowning out any hope of real discourse.

Chris, I second Coby's comments - it's for the lurkers trying to figure out the truth, and also for posterity, that we should not drop off the radar...

It's a scary thought, but some people do enter the fray through the S&E portal. Also, even though they may not concede on Marohasy's blog that they have been exposed as incapable of scientific analysis in public, I like to nurture deep down a thought that maybe the humiliation of rebuttal might keep them from spreading their rubbish to too many other fora on the intertubes.

And I think that I have detected a strain in the denialist timbre, so don't give up entirely. From my own corner, I'm waiting for some more HIV comspiracy theory to be trotted out, but I think that Robertson et al have realised that they were sinking through the very thin ice on this one.

At the very least, having to suffer the repeated corrections results in Marohasy having to wear a severe reduction of her already tenuous credibility. And it is Marohasy who is the biggest turkey on this manure heap, so there is a worthy reason to connect head with brick wall.

Keep up the good work!

As to the merits of continuing the struggle, let me point out a few tidbits discovered from Google: here are the number of page hits for various phrases:

"global warming hoax": 227,000
"global warming alarmists": 80,200
"global warming lies": 50,400
"global warming conspiracy": 11,100
"global warming" + lies: 4,980,000 (would you believe there's a www.globalwarminglies.com?
"global warming" + hoax: 1,320,000

We've had this huge movement spring up dedicated to proving that AGW is a hoax; Ms. Marohasy's site is just one in a huge pile. This leads me to wonder, why are these people so exercised about AGW? I suspect that it is, in some ways, a right-wing version of the old left-wing attitude towards nuclear power in the 1970s. I've long felt that the antagonism towards nuclear power back then arose from the symbolism of it. The left has always been rightly suspicious of the concentration of power in the hands of a few big institutions, and in nuclear power we had the perfect confluence of big government, big corporations, and big technology. It was an overwhelmingly powerful symbol. In much the same way, I think that the right wing sees climate change as the confluence of three forces that it is deeply opposed to: environmentalism, internationalism ("the IPCC is a UN front!"), and intellectuals.

The other thing that really surprises me about the movement is its faux-scientific approach. These guys have really delved deeply into the material, and they can spout acronyms and scientific terminology like a pro -- except that they seldom understand how science actually works. There's sort of an "idiot savant" aspect to their writings: they put forth some pretty sophisticated arguments, and then forget that energy is conserved.

I still don't know what to make of it.

I too have been an occasional commenter on Marohasy's blog, and although I attempe to point out the illogic in their arguments rather than their errors in science, I am now nearing the point where I consider it a futile exercise. Much has been stated in threads about the site being a place for discussion and debate, but little debate of genuinely raised points ever occurs and it generally devolves into tub-thumping of the most monotonous kind.

About engaging at places like Marohasy's blog, consider this: these guys continuously assert that there is a debate on the merits of AGW theory. We quite rightly point out that there is no real debate, and then wade into the local comment debates that break out in the blog comments hoping to correct fairly egregious science mis-statements. To a 3rd party observer with no background in the science this probably looks like a debate on the science. I think it may not matter particularly if you win the argument, by engaging in debate you may have indirectly supported the general denialist position in helping create the illusion of a debate on the science.

Chris, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm belittling your efforts; that's not my intent. But I do think we all need to consider where our efforts are best directed (In my case, definitely towards completing my PhD, and I think my committee would agree, haha).

Like Chris I find the denialist movement genuinely interesting. It seems to me that they adopted much of the tactics of the creationist movement; they've co-opted the language of science and prominently use the opinions of a few educated people (who should know better) to give their opinions an air of authority. At least in the case of the creationists I think I understand the motivation driving the whole thing, in the case of the AGW denialists it's not so easy to understand.

There also has to be as complete and varied record as possible of the idiot arguments. These may need to be used in 20 to 30 years to help keep her and her ilk out of the bunkers we've had to make to retreat into because these idiots kept us from cutting emissions.

To engage or not to engage, that is the question! I think the answer hinges on how you engage those debates. I have no doubt that Chris' tactics (patience, civility, focus) make it a useful exercise. It is only when it devolves into the typical "partisan" bickering that the denialists win. That kind of discourse will only further entrench people on whichever side they are already leaning.

As for understanding where this comes from:

1) Chapter 18 of Bill Ruddiman's "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum" is very good, as he describes encountering the "alternate universe" whose physics are different.

2) Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" is very useful, bu one might also want to read Jeff Goodell's "Big Coal".

3) In two of Naomi Oreskes' talk, the last 30 minutes of each covers organized denialist efforts, specifically:

The American denial of Global Warming, on George C. Marshall Institute, i.e., for ideology.

You CAN argue with the facts, Western Fuels Association, i.e., economic interests.

SO, we have: PROFESSIONAL ($$)
a) Ideology, often from free-market extremes

b) Obvious economics, from (a) coal, (b) oil, and maybe others, all

c) Less obvious, especially where a) and b) combine in large family foundations who end up funding a lot of efforts, i.e., Scaife, etc. As best as I can tell, there's more $$ from that direction than from ExxonMobil.

d) Political, with funding: Marc Morano, EPW.

4) Then one has: SEMIPROFESSIONAL

a) Scientists at end of careers discovering new ones.
Ex: William Shockley, Linus Pauling

b) Not-particularly-successful ones getting press.
(many)

c) Non-scientists getting press by becoming climate experts.
David Evans, etc.

d) Scientists in love with an idea and persisting with it long after the evidence is overpoweringly against it. One thinks of Halton Arp or Fred Hoyle, for example. For AGW, Svensmark might fit.

5) And then, the AMATEUR side:

a) It's hard work to understand science, and it's hard on some egos to realize how much there is to learn. It is much more fulfilling to be part of that small band of stalwarts who show that mainstream science is all wrong, and support each other well. I.e., ClimateAudit is nice, RealClimate is "snarly", so the former carries more weight.

Lest one think this unimportant, consider:
- astrology
- homeopathy
- belief in paranormal abilities
- UFO abductions
- cerealogists, some of whom persisted even after "Doug and Dave" spilled the beans on crop circles

b) Some people are pretty good at ambiguity-tolerance and dealing with uncertainty. Those who lean towards "all-or-none" behaviors are not, and such often have a strong need to be "sure".

John, thanks for the detailed explanation of where these people come from; I'm definitely going to follow up on some of your suggestions.

BAllenJ, I have long wondered, what's going to happen when climate change becomes undeniable? Right now these people leap upon every weather item that they can find. The melting of the Arctic sea ice is a particularly good example. They are hopping up and down, proclaiming victory, because so far the Arctic sea ice will likely not retreat as far as it did last year. The fact that it's still retreating far past historical norms is lost on them. Will they continue to engage in this kind of deception? Will they EVER admit that climate change is real? And if they do, will they accept responsibility for slowing down the response to it? I doubt it. Of course, would I be willing to accept responsibility for wasting a lot of money if climate change turns out to be nothing? Yes, I definitely would.

MarkG, I flip and flop on the issue of engaging them. On the one hand, I have *never* had a gentlemanly discussion on a denier board; these people *always* spew venom, no matter how courteous you are. It really is tiresome putting up with all that crap. On the other hand, there might be some value in terms of convincing lurkers.

Here's a really crazy idea that just popped into my head: what if I did a reverse Turing Test? This is really preposterous, but it just might work with these fools. That is, what if I pretended to be a spider that randomly visits denialist websites and corrects scientific fallacies? I would use a standard format for all answers, and never engage in any kind of personal comment. Act as if I'm some sort of expert system about physics and climatology. Perhaps the pose would deter the slime throwers and put them all off guard. I don't know, this is a really kooky idea...

Chris, that's what I originally wrote http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic… for, just as a repository of material to cut and paste as required, with minimal revisions to fit it in a dialogue. It actually does work pretty well, especially if you remain focused on one issue at a time. It needs updating... :( Writing a webbot to do that would be quite a fabulous thing, easier than pretending to be one (er..easier after it has been written!)

As for what they will do when it becomes undeniable (as if it is not at the moment) they will seamlessly and simultaneously slip into "we can't stop it" and "it is not so bad" modes, something we already see now.

But I personally detect a bit of desperation in the nature and tone of their arguments over the last year or so, I think we are making progress. I just hope it will lead to timely enough action.

You wrote "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic"? Well, shut mah mouf! I've been using that for quite some time for a variety of purposes. The topic "They predicted global cooling in the 1970s" has been especially useful.

Maybe that could become the database for use by the 1/Turing spider... very interesting. If only I had the time... I'll take some time to go over it, and if I see anything I can add to, I'll let you know.

Thanks for writing that!

Chris, don't give up, you're not alone :)

By the way, these blogs clearly have educational value on another level: they are perfect examples to explain to internet newbies that trolling is not the same as disagreeing with the blog owner.

The people commenting on Marohasy's blog who agree with the OP are the ones showing all the troll tactics. Most obvious: the change of subject. Whatever the topic is about, they'll start discussing CO2. They'll bring up their favorite papers. Sooner or later Hansen will come up.

Of course, conspiracy theories are rampant too: it's all socialist propaganda, Wikipedia is biased because of the liberals, the UN is in on it, etc. etc.

It's a bit of an odd experience when for the first time you follow a blog where the OPs appear to be trolling along.

That is, what if I pretended to be a spider that randomly visits denialist websites and corrects scientific fallacies? I would use a standard format for all answers, and never engage in any kind of personal comment. Act as if I'm some sort of expert system about physics and climatology. Perhaps the pose would deter the slime throwers and put them all off guard.

I think the trolls will just respond by cutting-and-pasting newspaper articles. And after a while, the blog owners (Marohasy, Watts, etc.) will simply delete^H^H^H^H^H^Hfreedom-away your comments. And that'll be it.

And the folks will still have the temerity to complain about "Censorship" by the "Warmist Inquisition".

I still remember how I quickly got banned from Free Republic just for posting facts. w00t!

- - -

Also... much has been written and said on climate inactivist tactics: e.g. John Mashey just linked above to Oreskes's talks. Is there any reason why we can't use this knowledge, and have to resort to armchair speculation on how inactivists will respond to various things we say?

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

From Eighties to Noughties anthropogenic climate change has transitioned from a scientific possibility to being termed unequivocal. Throughout the quarter of century development, weather services, UN agencies and, most importantly, the worlds media have sought for balance giving a voice to greenhouse dissenters. Early in evolution this was very valuable e.g. IPCC dealing with negative feedback possibilities from (i) high tropospheric water vapour (Lindzen) and (ii) the apparently decreasing upper tropospheric temperatures sensed from satellites. More recently, challenges such as solar variability as a prime cause of warming (The Great Global Warming Swindle) has been less useful but helped hone the science case. But, throughout this 25 years, while greenhouse non-believers have been given public and scientific platforms there has been vigorous refusal to allow air time to people offering greenhouse fervent believers.
As the IPCC has become mainstream, it has scrupulously refrained from policy prescription and rigorously enforced consensus. Allowing, often even encouraging, dissenters while denying precautionary principles based warnings is equivalent to upholding freedom of speech for all neo-conservatives at the same time as denying expression of views of seriously wet liberals.
There are MANY tough decisions ahead relating to climate changes to come why not let some people pay more to consume solar-based super vehicles surely we can discuss this. Try thinking in triage terms- save, leave to manage or allow to die - ActonClimate How do we (can you?) get scientists hwo think the climate change issue is now about TRIAGE air time please?
Cheers
John

We had some snow (quite unusual) in the Adelaide Hills a couple of nights ago. I'm just waiting for the usual crowd to start the idiot chorus of "See! Global Warming has stopped!!!!1!"

As an aside, the fact that this winter has been colder than last has enabled me to brew (and keg) well over 100 l of lager.

Chris, I only saw your arguments at Marohasy`s on the Caspar Ammann post (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003324.html), but it seemed to me that you effectively silenced them.

You might think of going back through those posts and summarizing a number of points on your blog. I for one would love to see them without having to wade hip-deep through all the mud at Jennifer`s.

FWIW, it also seems to me that much of the opposition on science is fuelled by opposition to big government, just like the over-reaction by enviros on nuclear power. You might consider whether this presents more strategic ground on which to engage the false skeptics.

As I noted at the end of that comment thread:

"But of course the warning from science doesn't dictate what our policies should be, and I agree that it is really interesting that so many prefer to fight a battle over science rather than one over policy."

Another interesting aspect of the focus on the science (and on the motives of scientists and the evil enviro-nazi manhaters and koolaid drinkers - but ignoring business, etc.) is that conservatives and libertarians all understand that while markets are wealth-creation engines with respect to resources that are clearly owned and protected, we end up with serious degradation of resources that are NOT owned, are difficult to defend or are "owned" but poorly managed by governments. As a result any market capitalist worth his salt can see the writing on the wall - and the need for some type of property rights and/or regulation - with respect to significant environmental issues like ocean fisheries, tropical forests and the atmosphere. They may have very good arguments about the costs of creating property rights or regulatory systems, but they know that at some point, the discounted long-term costs of doing nothing will merit the present costs of action.

"These folks also know that politicians are very good at using government to take resources from citizens (more or less widely) and bestowing favors on insider friends - that's one of the main reasons that they're chary of giving governments authority to regulate GHGs. But they also can't deny that the fossil fuel industries have been very effective at buying favors - in the form of inaction - from government, while GHGs create risks for everyone."

Regards,

Tom

Argh, that blog needs a warning label:

"SIWOTI syndrome warning: this blog may cause deep frustration for people with SIWOTI syndrome. Visiting this blog may lead to spending inordinate amounts of time correcting all the basic science mistakes of the regulars."

Even more kudos for Chris Crawford for keeping it up for so long.

Good thing I'm going on vacation soon. I need it.

"there does not appear to be a body of work establishing the basic criteria for a claimed causal relationship between the purported pollutant, anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and the claimed effect, global warming; atleast not outside of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. In particular there does not appear to be a body of work published in reputable scientific journals."

You fingers are typing cheques that your brain cannot cash Coby.

Lets have one study that successfully makes the link on a global level. Actual empirical evidence. GO!!!!!

You must know that Michael Duffy had a $1000 reward. What would have been your entry. One study. Lets have it.

The rest of you too. Coby reckons he's in a position to rubbish the Doctors quote. So lets have that evidence.

"She has even posted that the Greenhouse Effect itself is a myth! I guess she has never heard of Venus."

No she hasn't Coby. You are lying. That is someone elses post.

Bright Scientists, Dim Notions

illconsidered — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:57:53 +0000

Bright Scientists, Dim Notions

"Bright Scientists, Dim Notions" is the title of a NYT article from a few days ago prompted by the recent controversy over scientifically unfounded and racist remarks made by James Watson about the supposedly inherently inferior intelligence of the African race as compared to Caucasians.

The article is an interesting review of a few other notable examples of scientific crack-pottery in one field coming from the mouths of scientists who have in fact achieved brilliance in there own fields. There is also some speculation as to why this happens and why it is different when a famous scientist does it as opposed to some other genre of celebrity. It is worth the read (and hat tip to Michael Tobis for that).

There are a few such "gone emeritus" characters in the climate change debate, though perhaps they would have been mercifully unnoticed (merciful for them as much as for the reality based community) if it were not in the interests of people with money to promote them. Tim Ball is one such character, well covered by Deltoid, and Bill Gray. Bill Gray is very well covered at Logical Science on this well source and written page, worth a careful reading.

From that page I got to an exchage between Gray and Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist from Texas A&M (who also blogs for Gristmill):

He gave his standard stump speech in which he claims that the water vapor feedback is negative. I followed up on this with him and it became quite clear to me that he is unfamiliar with all of the peer-reviewed literature on this subject that has been published in the last five years. This makes sense. Reading the literature is a difficult and full-time job, and emeritus faculty simply don't need to do that. ......

But the story goes on. After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it. After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange

(from here)

This really says everything that needs to be said about Bill Gray and those like him who substitute their reputations for intelligent thought

illconsidered Wed, 10/31/2007 - 06:57

Tags

My impression is that Reid Bryson is also one of those characters. He often mentioned as a 'respected' scientist doubting AGW.