Cancer rise in Fallujah

[FireGarden]

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.

Maybe it isn't genetic damage.
But I'm asking you to support your claim that people lied about cancer and birth defects. You accept the sex ratio change, so you need to explain how that changed without an increase in cancer and birth defects.

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.

Is there direct evidence of pesticide exposure in Fallujah? Can you link to it?

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.



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.

So you are unable/unwilling to support your claim that the study is right about sex ratios but there was no increase in cancer or birth defects.

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

McHrozni

Cute. I like that!
I wasn't refering to your use of obscure. I was asking why you can't find a qualified critic to a paper many people will have talked about.

 

[McHrozni]

Maybe it isn't genetic damage.

Oh, how nice. The study only focuses on genetic damage, and only names genetic damage as a possible cause for the observed effects. This is one of the major points of criticism of the paper. Do you therefore agree with this particular point?

But I'm asking you to support your claim that people lied about cancer and birth defects. You accept the sex ratio change, so you need to explain how that changed without an increase in cancer and birth defects.

Endocrine disruptors could cause just that, as would some pesticides that don't cause genetic damage (e.g. DDT, which is both an endocrine disruptor and a pesticide). Moving on into more implausible waters, so could migrations and sex-selective abortion just to name a few.
Please remember, though that I didn't say the reports on cancer are necessarily wrong. They're as unproven as they were before.

Is there direct evidence of pesticide exposure in Fallujah? Can you link to it?

Probably. But seeing as there is no direct evidence of DU exposure in Fallujah and you're quite happy with it nonetheless, I really don't see why I would need to.

So you are unable/unwilling to support your claim that the study is right about sex ratios but there was no increase in cancer or birth defects.

I never made that claim. It's one of the possible scenarios.

I wasn't refering to your use of obscure. I was asking why you can't find a qualified critic to a paper many people will have talked about.

Because I'm not looking. I'm not looking because I don't have to. The paper has had very dubious review and there are substantial errors in it. I don't need to make an appeal to authority to show that. I'm quite happy with showing the errors and shedding the light on just how weak your appeal to authority of the peer reviewers is.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Oh, how nice. The study only focuses on genetic damage, and only names genetic damage as a possible cause for the observed effects. This is one of the major points of criticism of the paper. Do you therefore agree with this particular point?

I can agree that the authors of the study were wrong to discuss DU in such detail while knowing that they were not going to reach a conclusion on the cause of the effects the found. Doing so has distracted from the effects they found and they should have limited themselves to discussing the data leading to the conclusions they were actually going to make.

Endocrine disruptors could cause just that, as would some pesticides that don't cause genetic damage (e.g. DDT, which is both an endocrine disruptor and a pesticide). Moving on into more implausible waters, so could migrations and sex-selective abortion just to name a few.
Please remember, though that I didn't say the reports on cancer are necessarily wrong. They're as unproven as they were before.

This came up in google right away:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/727244
DDT Exposure Linked to Testicular Cancer

Other cancers are also mentioned in other links returned by google.

Searching for DDt and sex ratio:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/473213_3
"The greatest number of congenital malformations was observed in pregnancies occurring after the father's occupational exposure to DDT began." Also... "Exposures to other pesticides (lindane, temephos, and malathion) were also associated with increased risk of birth defects in this bivariate analysis. "

So you seem to be wrong about DDT not being linked to cancer/birth defects.

I think you do need to explain how the sex ratio changed without changing the cancer rate and/or the rate of birth defects. Your attempts to do so (while clearly not having the data to do so) indicate you are not being intellectually honest.

Probably. But seeing as there is no direct evidence of DU exposure in Fallujah and you're quite happy with it nonetheless, I really don't see why I would need to.

I've not ruled out pesticides. You said "there is significantly more evidence of pretty widespread exposure to organophosphate pesticides than there is for DU". Now, if that doesn't apply to Fallujah in particular, then why bother to say it?

I never made that claim. It's one of the possible scenarios.

Lying about cancer is one of the reasons you put forth for ignoring the study. If you can't back up that reason, then find others to explain how you accept the sex-ratio changed but don't accept that rates of cancer/birth defects increased.

 

[McHrozni]

I can agree that the authors of the study were wrong to discuss DU in such detail while knowing that they were not going to reach a conclusion on the cause of the effects the found. Doing so has distracted from the effects they found and they should have limited themselves to discussing the data leading to the conclusions they were actually going to make.

I'm glad you agree on this point. Do you also agree this opens serious questions about the quality of the peer review of the paper?

You also ignored the point where the authors only focused on genetic damage as a possible cause. There are many other possibilities, and even you were able to find them.

This came up in google right away:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/727244
DDT Exposure Linked to Testicular Cancer

Other cancers are also mentioned in other links returned by google.

Sorry, I'm not subscribed to medscape and can't get the article. As far as I know it's not yet been proven that DDT causes cancer. There are indications that it might, and it's classified as either "probable" or "possible" cancerogen. Naturally you'll find some articles that suggest it is, otherwise it wouldn't have the classification. That said, it's not the only option, and was just used as an example.

So you seem to be wrong about DDT not being linked to cancer/birth defects.

Same as above. It's quite possible it causes the said defects, but that hasn't been proven. You seem to take unproven claims for granted on a regular basis, but only when you can use it to further your claims - and then accuse me of intellectual dishonesty on top of it all.

I've not ruled out pesticides.

Funny that you say that as the study hasn't even mentioned that possibility. You're defending that, remember? Can you please explain why study still has scientific merit?

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

I'm glad you agree on this point. Do you also agree this opens serious questions about the quality of the peer review of the paper?

You also ignored the point where the authors only focused on genetic damage as a possible cause. There are many other possibilities, and even you were able to find them.

Even I? O wow.
I have been open to other causes all along, as you might remember from post 96 (my second on this thread, I think).

DU or something else, the cause is exposure to something in 2004.

...to which you responded: "No. Really"

It's amazing how stating the obvious allows people to think you believe the opposite. And your conduct following, throughout the thread, indicates how correct I was to state the obvious. If you don't believe I'm open to believing causes other than DU even after I state the obvious... Then what can I do?

Sorry, I'm not subscribed to medscape and can't get the article. As far as I know it's not yet been proven that DDT causes cancer. There are indications that it might, and it's classified as either "probable" or "possible" cancerogen. Naturally you'll find some articles that suggest it is, otherwise it wouldn't have the classification. That said, it's not the only option, and was just used as an example.

Well, that's strange. Clicking the link I provided gets me to a login page. But googling 'DDT cancer' then clicking on the link with the title I gave gets me a lot more. Including this sentence:

"Barbara Cohn, PhD, and colleagues from the Child Health and Development Studies (CHDS) in Berkeley, California, found that maternal serum levels of DDT-related compounds, which were measured in the early postpartum period, were associated with the offspring's risk for testicular cancer."

Perhaps you can try google and confirm, because the address bar has exactly what I put in the link.

The same for the article I linked on sex-ratio/birth defects. Going to medscape from JREF gets you the log in page, but googling the quote I gave will get you a link from google to medscape which provides that part of the article.

Same as above. It's quite possible it causes the said defects, but that hasn't been proven. You seem to take unproven claims for granted on a regular basis, but only when you can use it to further your claims - and then accuse me of intellectual dishonesty on top of it all.

No. I take evidence provided in peer-reviewed articles as meaning something. You ignore what doesn't fit your argument. What did you call such people?

And I stand by my accusation of your intellectual dishonesty. You imply that you know it is possible for the sex ratio to be changed without an increase in cancer/birth defects, but you do not have the data to back it up.

Whether you eventually find a candidate or not won't change your level of intellectual honesty. I will of course still accept that candidate's existence, when you name it. But you do not currently know it while acting as if you do. That is why I make my accusation.

Funny that you say that as the study hasn't even mentioned that possibility. You're defending that, remember? Can you please explain why study still has scientific merit?

McHrozni

As I've said, I think they were wrong to focus on one cause when they weren't going to reach a conclusion regarding cause.

But that doesn't erase the data they have supporting a belief in the increase in cancer etc.

 

[McHrozni]

I have been open to other causes all along, as you might remember from post 96 (my second on this thread, I think).

And yet you refuse to admit the study is rather abhorrent? Why?

No. I take evidence provided in peer-reviewed articles as meaning something.

It could mean that DDT indeed causes cancer. Infinitely more likely, it means that DDT causes certain defects within a fetus, which make it more susceptible to cancer.
Before you start jumping up and down and screaming "birth defect", let me point out to you that this sort of novel birth defect would most likely go unnoticed, as the article speaks of otherwise healthy babies.

As I've said, I think they were wrong to focus on one cause when they weren't going to reach a conclusion regarding cause.

They were wrong on multiple issues, this being one of them.

And I stand by my accusation of your intellectual dishonesty. You imply that you know it is possible for the sex ratio to be changed without an increase in cancer/birth defects, but you do not have the data to back it up.

Whether you eventually find a candidate or not won't change your level of intellectual honesty. I will of course still accept that candidate's existence, when you name it. But you do not currently know it while acting as if you do. That is why I make my accusation.

In that case all I can say is that you should learn to read. I pointed out two less likely candidates earlier on: maternal nutrition and temperature at conception. The latter probably wasn't a factor, but it is conceivable that nutrition got worse in war-ravaged Fallujah. We are only talking about a small portion of population, after all. Such issues as sex-selective abortion are also possible, though implausible. Immigration due to fear of reprisals (male children being targeted more) is plausible. Exposure to certain hormone analogues is another possibility. Poor sampling data can't be excluded either.

But that doesn't erase the data they have supporting a belief in the increase in cancer etc.

No, but it doesn't make their data correct, either.

There is another possibility that we missed: that there was an increase in the rate of cancers, but it was nowhere as severe as they claim it was. This would fit quite well with several possibilities, including the pesticides mentioned earlier.
The study wouldn't be this useless if it tried to differentiate between different cancers a bit more. That would make it possible to narrow down the causes somewhat. But it didn't, and I stand by the claim it's almost completely useless.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

And yet you refuse to admit the study is rather abhorrent? Why?

Because it isn't abhorrent to discuss concerns that are raised, such as DU. I just think they could have done it some place other than the paper itself.

It could mean that DDT indeed causes cancer. Infinitely more likely, it means that DDT causes certain defects within a fetus, which make it more susceptible to cancer.
Before you start jumping up and down and screaming "birth defect", let me point out to you that this sort of novel birth defect would most likely go unnoticed, as the article speaks of otherwise healthy babies.

So DDT is linked to cancer and the other paper specifically links it to birth defects. You have nothing to support your claim other than ignoring the available data.

Data you seem to be ignorant of while acting like an authority.

In that case all I can say is that you should learn to read. I pointed out two less likely candidates earlier on: maternal nutrition and temperature at conception. The latter probably wasn't a factor, but it is conceivable that nutrition got worse in war-ravaged Fallujah. We are only talking about a small portion of population, after all. Such issues as sex-selective abortion are also possible, though implausible. Immigration due to fear of reprisals (male children being targeted more) is plausible. Exposure to certain hormone analogues is another possibility. Poor sampling data can't be excluded either.

So I should ignore your claims about pesticides, even though I have found data which indicates you are wrong? I don't think so. You yourself have said the above are less likely. And regarding maternal malnutrition... for how long would this have gone on in Fallujah without being reported?

here's a google result on malnutrition and sex ratio:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9825599

I can only get the abstract in this case:

The low male/female ratio at birth in African populations has been attributed to a variety of genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors. A low sex ratio at birth has been associated with maternal malnutrition in mammals, but this issue has not been studied in humans. In this study we analyzed the relation between maternal nutritional status and sex ratio at birth in 3282 children born to 684 women from a rural African society. Short maternal stature and obesity were independently related to a low sex ratio at birth. These results are consistent with animal experiments that indicate an adverse effect of maternal malnutrition on male fetuses. The results warrant further research in this area.

They study malnutrition by looking at women with short stature and obesity. If short stature is being used as a sign of malnutrtion, then over what period of time do you think the mother was malnourished?

Or do you have a source linking short-term adult/teenage malnutrition to a change in the sex ratio?

And I think it is entirely natural for me to focus on the causes you yourself prioritised as most likely. You do not seem to be an authority on pesticides and their effects. I suspect you are not an authority on malnutrition and its effects. But you are making claims without backing them up with data.

Come up with something concrete, like you did by naming DDT. And try googling it alongside cancer or birth defects -- just to save me some time. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you merely read the wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

And... speaking of malnutrition leading to a sex ratio change without effecting the rate of birth defects... could you please comment on the effects of, for instance, folic acid deficiency?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_tube_defects#Causes

Alternatively, just go on pretending you know what you're talking about and that your dismissal of the report is based on your sound knowledge of what causes sex ratio changes without causing cancer or birth defects. (Sound... except for the errors I seem to keep finding).

 

[DC]

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.



.....
McHrozni

what kind of lies? what is the basis for your assumption? how do you come up with those 5%?

 

[McHrozni]

Because it isn't abhorrent to discuss concerns that are raised, such as DU. I just think they could have done it some place other than the paper itself.

Making a study alleging major health issues in Fallujah, pointing out one possible cause and paying to give it a thin veil of legitimacy is abhorrent, however.

So DDT is linked to cancer

Being linked to cancer is not a binary variable. We are talking about an alleged 10-fold increase in rate of cancers, which, if true, would indeed be a major cause for concern. But again, if the increase in cancer prevalence was small and the study is wrong on that point, just about all chemicals, including DDT, remain a possibility with the study being just as wrong as it was before.

You seem to be focused on the fact that if a chemical is linked to cancer, it could cause the alledgedly observed effects. That is false.

They study malnutrition by looking at women with short stature and obesity. If short stature is being used as a sign of malnutrtion, then over what period of time do you think the mother was malnourished?

What you don't seem to understand is that the abstract apparently speaks of two different groups of women: short stature, meaning malnutrition, and obesity.

Sound... except for the errors I seem to keep finding.

The main cause of alleged errors is your lack of understanding of the issues at hand, from possible causative agents to the fact there are many major problems with the study, what the problems with the study could be, to the fact the journal it was posted in has obviously very low standards.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Making a study alleging major health issues in Fallujah, pointing out one possible cause and paying to give it a thin veil of legitimacy is abhorrent, however.



Being linked to cancer is not a binary variable. We are talking about an alleged 10-fold increase in rate of cancers, which, if true, would indeed be a major cause for concern. But again, if the increase in cancer prevalence was small and the study is wrong on that point, just about all chemicals, including DDT, remain a possibility with the study being just as wrong as it was before.

You seem to be focused on the fact that if a chemical is linked to cancer, it could cause the alledgedly observed effects. That is false.



What you don't seem to understand is that the abstract apparently speaks of two different groups of women: short stature, meaning malnutrition, and obesity.



The main cause of alleged errors is your lack of understanding of the issues at hand, from possible causative agents to the fact there are many major problems with the study, what the problems with the study could be, to the fact the journal it was posted in has obviously very low standards.

McHrozni

I see you want to carry on being an expert while discounting evidence which doesn't agree with your position. (What did you call such people?)

You didn't answer any of my questions, including the one about folic acid deficiency -- which is a problem known by many people in the west who have been pregnant or had a pregnant wife/friend. Your ignorance is too exposed to deny anymore. You tried to pass off malnutrition as a cause of sex ratio change which wouldn't cause birth defects. You are wrong.

All you did to get your list is read wiki. That doesn't make you an expert.

What you don't seem to understand is that the abstract apparently speaks of two different groups of women: short stature, meaning malnutrition, and obesity.

I asked you a question which illustrates I came to the same understanding as you regarding what "short stature" meant. You quoted it. Here it is again:

If short stature is being used as a sign of malnutrtion, then over what period of time do you think the mother was malnourished?

 

[Lamafarmer]

I was told that "FireGarden is currently making entertaining mincemeat of McHrozni and WildCat on this thread". Well what do you know. LoL.

 

[McHrozni]

You didn't answer any of my questions, including the one about folic acid deficiency -- which is a problem known by many people in the west who have been pregnant or had a pregnant wife/friend.

I don't see the need to. I'm not making a study or inquiry as to what caused observed effects. I'm trying to show a study which alleged the said effects was flawed to the point of being useless. To that end I see no need to go beyond showing the study contains procedural errors that render it's results useless. It reported an abnormal sex ratio among 0-4 year olds, alleging it is representative of sex ratio at birth. I consider that a good reason to inquire further.
The study also reported a huge increase in the rate of cancer, and you somehow took "this claim is unfounded" and turned it into "this claim is unfounded, cancer rate did not change", a straw man argument if I ever saw one. This was pointed out to you before.

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

I was told that "FireGarden is currently making entertaining mincemeat of McHrozni and WildCat on this thread". Well what do you know. LoL.

That's wht Stndie was banned here, he was destroying Gravy with his 9/11 truth! Just ask him!

 

[Lamafarmer]

FireGarden better watch out then, can't be too long the Zionist mods will purge the forums of this truth-sayer and destroyer!

 

[FireGarden]

I don't see the need to. I'm not making a study or inquiry as to what caused observed effects.

You accepted a change in the sex ratio. Then you attempted to find a way of continuing that acceptance while denying an increase in the rates of cancer/birth defects (you even went to the extent of quantifying how many people may have lied). When accepting one effect and denying the others proved too difficult for you, you folded. Well done. That's an honest thing to do.

I'm trying to show a study which alleged the said effects was flawed to the point of being useless. To that end I see no need to go beyond showing the study contains procedural errors that render it's results useless. It reported an abnormal sex ratio among 0-4 year olds, alleging it is representative of sex ratio at birth. I consider that a good reason to inquire further.
The study also reported a huge increase in the rate of cancer, and you somehow took "this claim is unfounded" and turned it into "this claim is unfounded, cancer rate did not change", a straw man argument if I ever saw one. This was pointed out to you before.

McHrozni

See, it's progress.
You accept an increase in cancer rates. As long as it's not too big. How you decide what is too big is a bit of a mystery. I assume the same applies to birth defects.

And let's gloss over your attempts to argue that DDT isn't linked to cancer or birth defects even after I linked articles with evidence of such a link.


I think I've gotten everything I need out of this conversation: you agree there was a change in sex ratio (as the study found) and now refuse to deny their was an increase in cancer/birth defects (which the study also found). We also both agree that DU is not given as the cause and that the study was wrong to focus on it as a suspect when it had no intention of actually making a conclusion about the cause.

Yes, you still deny the extent of the increase in cancer. But I don't invisage us ever agreeing on the time of day to the extent we now agree on this study. Wow. That was actually productive.

 

[McHrozni]

You accept an increase in cancer rates.

As a possibility which I never denied. Straw man.

You know, I red this back a bit and found just how silly I was on several occasions. Instead of immediately calling out your ridiculous demands of essentially proving the study could be right, I tried to entertain your questions hoping to find an honest reply. Instead I got another lesson as to why lawyers are the scum of the Earth.

Ah well. At least I learned something useful: do not comply with unreasonable demands

By the way, I stand by everything I have said about the study thus far. It's almost completely useless and it tries very hard to pin the blame on radiation and DU.

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

Firegarden, it's not just that there's an increase in cancer rates (and the methodology used leaves much to be desired) it's the attribution to US military activity without any evidence whatsoever.

There's spikes in the cancer/birth defect rate in many locales all over the world all the time, and in 99.9% of those places the US never fought a battle. Many are right in the USA. Yet you attribute this one to US military activity, and DU in paticular? Do you see the problem here?

This is a board for critical thinking Firegarden, if you're going to make a claim then you need to back up your claim with evidence. So far, you have presented no evidence save for a paper published in a vanity journal.

You'll need to do much better. After all, if an article in a vanity journal was all the evidence you need then thermite was found in the World Trade Center after 9/11...

 

[FireGarden]

Firegarden, it's not just that there's an increase in cancer rates (and the methodology used leaves much to be desired) it's the attribution to US military activity without any evidence whatsoever.

There's spikes in the cancer/birth defect rate in many locales all over the world all the time, and in 99.9% of those places the US never fought a battle. Many are right in the USA. Yet you attribute this one to US military activity, and DU in paticular? Do you see the problem here?

You've not read this thread very carefully, have you? I have not attributed the effects to DU, and have agreed to criticism of the study for focusing on DU as a cause when they weren't going to come to a conclusion as to what the cause was.

And I've previously backed Travis' idea regarding an industrial chemical from a factory as the source. Not too long ago I agreed that pesticides could be a source, but that's really the same thing on the grounds that maybe they were made in Fallujah. I do admit to dismissing an increase in smoking, but please forgive that..., I just don't see it as likely.

I also do not, at this stage, dismiss DU as a possible suspect. But that is not the same as insisting that it is the only possibility or even the most likely possibility.

 

[WildCat]

You've not read this thread very carefully, have you? I have not attributed the effects to DU, and have agreed to criticism of the study for focusing on DU as a cause when they weren't going to come to a conclusion as to what the cause was.

And I've previously backed Travis' idea regarding an industrial chemical from a factory as the source. Not too long ago I agreed that pesticides could be a source, but that's really the same thing on the grounds that maybe they were made in Fallujah. I do admit to dismissing an increase in smoking, but please forgive that..., I just don't see it as likely.

I also do not, at this stage, dismiss DU as a possible suspect. But that is not the same as insisting that it is the only possibility or even the most likely possibility.

Dude, the first thing you quoted has the line "The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".

That's some serious well poisoning there, don't you think? The agenda is obvious, and the flaws in this "study" have been pointed out to you. And no doubt the authors are well aware of these flaws, otherwise they'd have submitted it to a real peer-reviewed journal rather than a pay-to-publish vanity rag.

This isn't a thread about cancer, this thread is about nothing but politics. You concede as much by posting it in the politics section, rather than in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section.

But please, don't pretend this is about science.

 

[FireGarden]

Dude, the first thing you quoted has the line "The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".

That's some serious well poisoning there, don't you think? The agenda is obvious, and the flaws in this "study" have been pointed out to you. And no doubt the authors are well aware of these flaws, otherwise they'd have submitted it to a real peer-reviewed journal rather than a pay-to-publish vanity rag.

This isn't a thread about cancer, this thread is about nothing but politics. You concede as much by posting it in the politics section, rather than in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section.

But please, don't pretend this is about science.

Yes, I do think this should be important in political debate. But your answer shows you didn't even bother to comprehend the post you responded to. Please rephrase this sentence in your own words: "I have not attributed the effects to DU, and have agreed to criticism of the study for focusing on DU as a cause when they weren't going to come to a conclusion as to what the cause was."

You'll also notice I put it in the non-USA political forum. Because the main import of the report affects Iraqis. Maybe you don't care about Iraqis and only care about US issues.





On a seperate note, I've just been reading the report again and realise I've misrepresented part of it. I've said they claim the sex ratio changed in 2004, while they actually only claim the change happened after that. Indeed, they record it for the age group 0-4. They also say: "The remarkable reduction in the sex ratio in the cohort born one year after the fighting in 2004 identifies that year as the time of the environmental contamination."