Cancer rise in Fallujah

[FireGarden]

This is a separate problem which we covered earlier. We don't know that, since the study was so poorly conducted.

You've not established that at all.

It's corroborating evidence, though I doubt it is much better than anecdotal evidence we had before.

Your doubts are neither here nor there.
Cite an expert. The study has been peer-reviewed and published. It has been available for some time.

 

[WildCat]

Which question?

"Could DU be the cause?"

If there's no or insignificant amounts of DU, we can rule it out, yes?

So why wasn't the soil tested? Why the leap to judgement without any evidence?

 

[McHrozni]

You've not established that at all.

Yes, I have.

Cite an expert. The study has been peer-reviewed and published. It has been available for some time.

The study has been published in a vanity journal with an impact factor of approximately zero. It has been published within two months of initial submission. While this is better than a forum post it doesn't pass any reasonable minimal standard for an appeal to authority.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

"Could DU be the cause?"

If there's no or insignificant amounts of DU, we can rule it out, yes?

Yes, of course.

So why wasn't the soil tested? Why the leap to judgement without any evidence?

Who has leaped to the judgement that it was DU? Before explaining a phenomena, it is good practice to make sure there is something to explain. This is the step A which you think should be missed out in favour of testing the soil to remove one suspected cause.

Yes, I have.

No you've not. The only reasonable question you've raised is the timing of the increase in the cancer rate. That isn't established as being 2004, even by the study, but it is higher than people would expect. Does the study itself claim that the cancer increase is entirely down to what happened in 2004? I don't think so. Their claim is that the rates are higher than in Egypt/Jordan, they don't say when they became higher. In fact, they say:

These results for cancer also support the idea that there has been exposure to some mutagenic agent at some time in the past. Could this have been around 2004 when the fighting occurred? The answer depends upon whether it is plausible to accept such a short time lag between exposure and clinical expression of the cancer, leukaemia or lymphoma. It is commonly believed that the lag between initiation and expression of cancer is a significant period: for exposure to acute external low LET radiation the onset of leukaemia is stated to be about 5 to 7 years, and for breast cancer and solid tumours as high as 15 to 20 years.

[They go on to a 'However...' with some examples, but don't reach a conclusion other than:] [...]

The origin and time of introduction of the carcinogenic agent causing the effects found here will be the subject of a separate report. However it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that the causes of the infant deaths and the cancer increases are one and the same.

The sex-ratio did change in 2004, that is confirmed by the ages of the children. So 'something' happened in 2004. You may argue, as the study leaves open, that 'something' isn't the only thing responsible for the cancer increase. But you can't deny that something happened in 2004 without appealing to fraud on the part of the study or those surveyed. You have no proof of either.

The study has been published in a vanity journal with an impact factor of approximately zero. It has been published within two months of initial submission. While this is better than a forum post it doesn't pass any reasonable minimal standard for an appeal to authority.

McHrozni

So are you claiming it wasn't peer-reviewed? Or do you have something to say about the standards of the journal? If not, then you are just mud slinging.

 

[McHrozni]

No you've not. The only reasonable question you've raised is the timing of the increase in the cancer rate.

And the self-selecting sample, small sample and no attempt to verify the accuracy of the report in a city where it is quite reasonable to expect 5% of population will lie to make US forces look bad. If you don't accept these as problematic at least we can't talk further.

So are you claiming it wasn't peer-reviewed? Or do you have something to say about the standards of the journal? If not, then you are just mud slinging.

I'll say the same as can be said about a certain article in Bentham open chemical physics journal: there is peer review and there is competent peer review. I doubt this particular report would pass competent peer review in a regular, mainstream scientific journal for problems I outlined before which you sternly refuse to acknowledge.

I'm willing to consider you're right, however, if you come up with a plausible explanation as to why the authors paid to have the study published instead of getting a better deal at no cost to them.

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

Who has leaped to the judgement that it was DU?

DU isn't mentioned in the report?

 

[WildCat]

I'm willing to consider you're right, however, if you come up with a plausible explanation as to why the authors paid to have the study published instead of getting a better deal at no cost to them.

McHrozni

This was a pay-to-publish article?

Holy crap!

 

[FireGarden]

And the self-selecting sample, small sample and no attempt to verify the accuracy of the report in a city where it is quite reasonable to expect 5% of population will lie to make US forces look bad. If you don't accept these as problematic at least we can't talk further.

No I don't accept those. Amen to not talking further.

I can't imagine what is going on in your head if you think the people of Fallujah got together and decided: "I know, we'll say we have more daughters than sons. That will show how evil the Americans are!"

I'll say the same as can be said about a certain article in Bentham open chemical physics journal: there is peer review and there is competent peer review. I doubt this particular report would pass competent peer review in a regular, mainstream scientific journal for problems I outlined before which you sternly refuse to acknowledge.

I'm willing to consider you're right, however, if you come up with a plausible explanation as to why the authors paid to have the study published instead of getting a better deal at no cost to them.

McHrozni

So you have no data to discredit the journal nor its ability to organise and carry out peer-review.

DU isn't mentioned in the report?

Not as a conclusion, as you would know if you had read it -- or even the quote from a few posts back.

 

[WildCat]

Not as a conclusion, as you would know if you had read it -- or even the quote from a few posts back.

It doesn't matter. It's irresponsible to include such speculation in the report without any evidence whatsoever.

An actual peer-reviewed journal would have rejected this load of crapola, no wonder they went the pay-to-publish route instead.

 

[McHrozni]

This was a pay-to-publish article?

Holy crap!

Yes. I pointed this out to Matt before, but in a typical twoofer fashion, he ignored it.

From their site:

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health - Open Access Journal
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601; CODEN: IJERGQ), an interdisciplinary Open Access journal, published by MDPI online monthly.

* Open Access - free for readers, with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions
* High visibility: indexed by the Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), PubMed and other databases. Full-text available in PubMed Central.
* Rapid publication: accepted papers are immediately published online.

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

No I don't accept those.

As I said, typical twoofer fashion. Ignore all evidence and arguments that contradict your theory and refuse to debate them.

So you have no data to discredit the journal nor its ability to organise and carry out peer-review.

I have plenty in this article alone, but you didn't accept it and claimed the information was correct, for no other reason than a pay-to-publish journal said it's reasonable (but not necessarily correct, by the way). Apparently information you disagree with doesn't count. Hardly a way to debate, really.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

As I said, typical twoofer fashion. Ignore all evidence and arguments that contradict your theory and refuse to debate them.



I have plenty in this article alone, but you didn't accept it and claimed the information was correct, for no other reason than a pay-to-publish journal said it's reasonable (but not necessarily correct, by the way). Apparently information you disagree with doesn't count. Hardly a way to debate, really.

McHrozni

You don't see the circularity in condemning the study because it is published in a journal you condemn for publishing the study? I especially love your implication that I should be swayed by information I don't agree with. Or, if I'm not swayed by it, then I must not have considered it at all. I think you should perhaps back up your infomation with more than your say so.

If not agreeing to that is 'twoofer', then count me in. I don't generally have an emotional reaction to people misrepresenting me. Or to name calling.

 

[McHrozni]

You don't see the circularity in condemning the study because it is published in a journal you condemn for publishing the study?

No. Primarily because that's not what I did.

If not agreeing to that is 'twoofer', then count me in. I don't generally have an emotional reaction to people misrepresenting me. Or to name calling.

It's not name calling, it's a fact. You refuse to acknowledge the validity of perfectly reasonable criticism of a study, with the sole reason it must be correct, because it was peer-reviewed. Never mind that there are glaring problems with the study, and it was a vanity journal.

Come up with a reasonable explanation as to why the author would choose a vanity publication instead of one where he could get a better service for free, rather than having to pay for it I'll have a reason to explore further.

As far as I see it, there are only two possible reasons to post in such journal: either you want to publish something so obscure or irrelevant no other journal will carry it, or you want to avoid proper peer review, because of the flaws in the article. Heightened child mortality and birth defects definitely do not fall in the first category, so you're left with the second. Do you have a third option? Remember, your only reason as to why that information should be regarded as reliable is the allegedly flawless peer review process of this particular journal.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

No. Primarily because that's not what I did.

Really?
You condemned the paper on the grounds it was published in a "vanity journal".

I asked "do you have something to say about the standards of the journal?" You dodged the question.

I pointed out: "you have no data to discredit the journal nor its ability to organise and carry out peer-review." You said: "I have plenty in this article alone,..."

So what is the sequence of events?
Paper bad because in bad journal
Journal bad because has bad paper


You also imply that the journal is dishonest because it would publish papers that aren't worth publishing just to get the money. (Something a subscription journal perhaps wouldn't do, is the other implication.) You are accusing the journal of dishonesty. But you have no data to back that claim without either a circular argument or an appeal to the inherent dishonesty of those who get their money from authors rather than readers.

It's not name calling, it's a fact. You refuse to acknowledge the validity of perfectly reasonable criticism of a study, with the sole reason it must be correct, because it was peer-reviewed. Never mind that there are glaring problems with the study, and it was a vanity journal.

Your claims that the people of Fallujah selected themselves and/or lied are not convincing. As I said:

I can't imagine what is going on in your head if you think the people of Fallujah got together and decided: "I know, we'll say we have more daughters than sons. That will show how evil the Americans are!"

Perhaps those with daughters are more likely to be selected.

Do you really find those arguments convincing?

Come up with a reasonable explanation as to why the author would choose a vanity publication instead of one where he could get a better service for free, rather than having to pay for it I'll have a reason to explore further.

So people don't have to pay to read it.

As far as I see it, there are only two possible reasons to post in such journal: either you want to publish something so obscure or irrelevant no other journal will carry it, or you want to avoid proper peer review, because of the flaws in the article. Heightened child mortality and birth defects definitely do not fall in the first category, so you're left with the second. Do you have a third option? Remember, your only reason as to why that information should be regarded as reliable is the allegedly flawless peer review process of this particular journal.

McHrozni

A peer-review process you have not been able to impune. You have nothing against the journal other than it gets its money from authors instead of readers and that it published this study.

Added to that, the study is not obscure. Plenty of people have seen it by now. Who is the most qualified critic who has come forward? Have they all ignored it?

 

[McHrozni]

Really?
You condemned the paper on the grounds it was published in a "vanity journal".

Only when you claimed the papers' peer process was worth something. It's not.

So what is the sequence of events?
Paper bad because in bad journal
Journal bad because has bad paper

Paper is bad because it has major systemic flaws in it. Journal is bad because it published this paper.

I really don't see any circular logic here, but you're free to enlighten me if you do.

Something a subscription journal perhaps wouldn't do, is the other implication.

Well, duh. A subscription journal sells it's published articles it has to spend money on to publish. A vanity journal sells it's (web) space, and quality of it's articles is relatively unimportant.

Your claims that the people of Fallujah selected themselves and/or lied are not convincing.

There is no corroboration of any sort. None. It's entirely plausible that 5% of those interviewed lied. That's less than 25 "houses", in all that would support insurgents or just dislike the Americans to the point of being prepared to do a minor and a completely safe lie for them. This would account for all discrepancies between the "expected" and "observed".

I can't imagine what is going on in your head if you think the people of Fallujah got together and decided: "I know, we'll say we have more daughters than sons. That will show how evil the Americans are!"

We're talking about 25 "houses" in all, or about 25 people. And you're being disingenuous in that I did state I considered the sex ratio at birth to be the only valid indication of something being wrong - this is unlikely to attract lies, but birth defects are not.

Perhaps those with daughters are more likely to be selected.

Given how poor the rest of the study is, I don't find it impossible. I choose to believe the authors didn't deliberately skew the results in this manner, though.

So people don't have to pay to read it.

So they instead elect to give their own money instead and you still claim they were being impartial. Brilliant logic. Perhaps you didn't read the sentence correctly.
Come up with a reasonable explanation as to why the author would choose a vanity publication instead of one where he could get a better service for free, rather than having to pay for it

A peer-review process you have not been able to impune. You have nothing against the journal other than it gets its money from authors instead of readers and that it published this study.

That's plenty as far as I'm concerned.

Added to that, the study is not obscure.

At least we agree on something. You agree then that the only reasonable explanation is that the study is so severely flawed it wouldn't pass a regular peer-review?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Just so you know, these are some other articles published in this same journal:

Housing and Health in Ghana: The Psychosocial Impacts of Renting a Home
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/2/528/

How Do I Look? Body Image Perceptions among University Students from England and Denmark
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/2/583/

Text and Structural Data Mining of Influenza Mentions in Web and Social Media
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/2/596/

Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Processes for Environmental Health Issues in Canadian Aboriginal Communities
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/2/651/

An Exploratory Approach to Analyzing Alcohol Control Policy Opinions Held by Ontario Adults
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/827/

Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a Note on Beauty
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1047/

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Only when you claimed the papers' peer process was worth something. It's not.

But you have no data to back that claim without either a circular argument or an appeal to the inherent dishonesty of those who get their money from authors rather than readers.

Paper is bad because it has major systemic flaws in it. Journal is bad because it published this paper.

I really don't see any circular logic here, but you're free to enlighten me if you do.

The circularity comes in when you try to sling mud at the peer review process of the journal.

You see, you have more than one argument against the paper. The one I called circular is the one where you condemned the study for being in the journal you condemned for publishing the study.

Your other arguments were addressed seperately and not reffered to as circular.

Well, duh. A subscription journal sells it's published articles it has to spend money on to publish. A vanity journal sells it's (web) space, and quality of it's articles is relatively unimportant.

And so you appeal to the inherent dishonesty of those who get their money from authors rather than readers.

There is no corroboration of any sort. None. It's entirely plausible that 5% of those interviewed lied. That's less than 25 "houses", in all that would support insurgents or just dislike the Americans to the point of being prepared to do a minor and a completely safe lie for them. This would account for all discrepancies between the "expected" and "observed".

We're talking about 25 "houses" in all, or about 25 people. And you're being disingenuous in that I did state I considered the sex ratio at birth to be the only valid indication of something being wrong - this is unlikely to attract lies, but birth defects are not.

But the sex ratio is one of the indications of genetic damage. As explained in the OP article, boys are less likely to survive genetic damage to their X-chromosome because they don't have a second. So it corroborates the claims of birth defects.

Do you have an explanation for how the sex ratio changed without genetic damage which would lead to birth defects and/or cancer?

Even if we were to take your cigarettes explanation... Remember that? Do you think people could smoke enough to change the sex ratio of their children without increasing their risk of cancer?

So they instead elect to give their own money instead and you still claim they were being impartial. Brilliant logic.

So...
If they're not biased towards saving money, they must be biased towards what?
I mean this is really strange.

A peer-review process you have not been able to impune. You have nothing against the journal other than it gets its money from authors instead of readers and that it published this study.

That's plenty as far as I'm concerned.

Which is plenty? Is it the appeal to the inherent dishonesty of those who get their money from authors rather than readers? Or that the journal published a study you disagree with but can't find an authority who agrees with the points you've raised? (And also condemn the study for being in the journal you condemn for publishing the study).

At least we agree on something. You agree then that the only reasonable explanation is that the study is so severely flawed it wouldn't pass a regular peer-review?

McHrozni

How do you get that from "the study is not obscure"?

 

[McHrozni]

But you have no data to back that claim without either a circular argument or an appeal to the inherent dishonesty of those who get their money from authors rather than readers.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately arguments that show you're wrong don't count for some reason.

You see, you have more than one argument against the paper. The one I called circular is the one where you condemn the study for being in the journal you condemn for publishing the study.

The paper is crap without that argument. The journal is crap for posting this paper, because of these mistakes. Where does the circular logic come into play, exactly?

But the sex ratio is one of the indications of genetic damage.

Sex ratio is one of the possible indications of genetic damage. There are other possibilities - contamination with hormone analogues for one, endocrine disruptors (such as some pesticides), female malnutrition and high temperature at conception all produce abnormal sex ratios in favor of females. I consider the first two plausible explanations for Fallujah, while the third is just given as an example of how wrong the authors are.

Abnormal sex ratio indicates genetic damage is possible, perhaps even plausible in some cases, but it does not prove it. Therefore there is no corroboration.

Do you have an explanation for how the sex ratio changed without genetic damage which would lead to birth defects and/or cancer?

Yes, I do. See above. There is no evidence at all that abnormal sex ratio and increased rates of cancers and birth defects are linked, and there is no evidence the latter two are even true, so I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to speculate further.

Even if we were to take your cigarettes explanation... Remember that? Do you think people could smoke enough to change the sex ratio of their children without increasing their risk of cancer?

No, but if the smoking example is used, it would also explain both the allegedly observed increase in birth defects and cancers. It is genetic damage, though.

If they're not biased towards saving money, they must be biased towards what?
I mean this is really strange.

No, it's not strange at all. They wanted their study to be published pretty much as is. They paid money to get it done. It doesn't strike me as a particularly strange ulterior motive.

How do you get that from "the study is not obscure"?

The same way you got to "the study is not obscure" in the first place I suppose.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Yes, I do. Unfortunately arguments that show you're wrong don't count for some reason.

They would indeed count.

Sex ratio is one of the possible indications of genetic damage. There are other possibilities - contamination with hormone analogues for one, endocrine disruptors (such as some pesticides), female malnutrition and high temperature at conception all produce abnormal sex ratios in favor of females. I consider the first two plausible explanations for Fallujah, while the third is just given as an example of how wrong the authors are.

Abnormal sex ratio indicates genetic damage is possible, perhaps even plausible in some cases, but it does not prove it. Therefore there is no corroboration.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corroborate
Corroborate: To strengthen or support with other evidence;

Does not mean prove.
So the sex ratio does indeed corroborate the data given for cancer and birth defects. You'd expect to see a change in the sex ratio in such circumstances, and there was such a change.

I guess you think that's a happy coincidence for all those who you claimed lied about cancer and birth defects.

And what level of exposure to pesticides/hormone analogues would be required? What would be the cancer risk for those levels?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide#Health_effects
mentions both cancer and birth defects for pesticides.

The same way you got to "the study is not obscure" in the first place I suppose.

McHrozni

I got "the study is not obscure" on the grounds that it's been reported in newspapers. I don't see how you followed the same path.

 

[McHrozni]

T
So the sex ratio does indeed corroborate the data given for cancer and birth defects. You'd expect to see a change in the sex ratio in such circumstances, and there was such a change.

Only if the increased rate of cancer and birth defects was a result of genetic damage, which is not always the case. Cancer rates soar among immunodeficient people, for instance, while birth defects have many causes which are not a result of genetic damage, or indeed any damage to mother at all.

I guess you think that's a happy coincidence for all those who you claimed lied about cancer and birth defects.

Except that I didn't claim they were. It's one possibility which can not be discounted. Unless it is, however, the study can not be relied upon. It might be correct. It might not be. It doesn't tell us anything useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide#Health_effects
mentions both cancer and birth defects for pesticides.

See? It's not so hard. Taking your standard of corroboration as benchmark, there is evidence that pesticide use was to blame, rather than genetic damage from any source. In fact there is significantly more evidence of pretty widespread exposure to organophosphate pesticides than there is for DU. The study only tries to link it to DU, which is a good reason to criticize the study.

And what level of exposure to pesticides/hormone analogues would be required?

This depends mainly on a specific pesticide / hormone used, but if you want to support the DU hypothesis this will just hurt your case, as the amounts would be ridiculously huge, whereas they will be realistic for many pesticides for instance.

What would be the cancer risk for those levels?

Same as above. Since there is no evidence at all that the two are linked or that either of them exists I see no need to divulge further.

I got "the study is not obscure" on the grounds that it's been reported in newspapers. I don't see how you followed the same path.

And how did you come to the idea of saying "study is not obscure" as a response to what you quoted?

McHrozni