Some Activist Groups Exibit a "Pathological Scientific" Stance

[CBL4]

Interesting editorial by Harold I. Miller:
http://www.genengnews.com/current/article.aspx?cat=Point Of View&id=323

Here is his conclusion:

Pathological science may confuse not only the public but also policy makers, who may themselves be scientifically challenged. Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science, president emeritus of Stanford University, and former FDA commissioner, chides bureaucrats: Frequently decision-makers give up the difficult task of finding out where the weight of scientific opinion lies, and instead attach equal value to each side in an effort to approximate fairness. In this way extraordinary opinions are promoted to a form of respectability that approaches equal status.

This kind of undeserved moral equivalence frequently compromises governmental decision-making and has given rise to unscientific and inconsistent regulation of pesticides, biotechnology applied to agriculture, silicone breast implants, herbal dietary supplements, and innumerable other products and technologies.

Here are two examples he shows:

MMR and Autism
In 1998, British researchers published a study that suggested an association, but not causation, between the administration of MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and an increased risk of autism. In spite of the fact that that initial study was based on only 12 children, its results were widely publicized, causing some parents and hospitals to stop or delay vaccinations for newborns and children.

Subsequent studies of much larger groups of children have not confirmed such an association, however, and the overwhelming consensus among scientists and physicians is that no such link exists. Nevertheless, this incident inflicted incalculable damage on the publics confidence in vaccination, and on individual children deprived of protection from life-threatening diseases.
...
Environmental Working Group
In 2003, a nebulous entity called the Environmental Working Group (EWG) claimed to have evidence that the farm-raised salmon eaten regularly by millions of Americans contains high levels of PCBs. PCBs were identified in the press coverage as a toxin, probable human carcinogen, or a cause of cancer and nervous system damage.

These reports were grossly misleading. At levels of environmental exposure, PCBs have not been shown to cause cancer or any other disease in humans. The study, which was based on a sample of only ten fish, was condemned by genuine experts at a variety of institutions, including the Harvard School of Public Health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the highly respected American Council on Science and Health.

He also talks about Rhine's ESP tests, Electromagnetic Radiation and Genetic Modification.

CBL

 

[davefoc]

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting article.

Although he didn't make the tie-in, I think there is something to the idea here that the human characteristics that drive these various groups to promote their agendas with poor quality or manufactured evidence are the same human characteristics that drive the establishment of religion.

One of my little areas of interest is how the Christian church got going and I happened to be reading about the archeological evidence that Peter was buried under St. Peters Basilica in Rome. Initially, it seemed like the case was strong until I read further and discovered what lengths people had gone to "prove" that the tomb of St. Peter had been discovered. It seems like the propagators of these kind of hoaxes feel like they "know" the truth and a little chicanery along the way in providing more evidence of their "truth" is perfectly justified. In the case of religion, what they may not realize is that their "truth" is based on the evidence provided by generations of people who were just as willing as they were to shade the truth to promote the "truth".

 

[CBL4]

I think the blame is shared. The media's ignorance (or intentional desire to sell itself) gets the ball rolling. Legislatures react more to the public than to scientists. The public gets worked up over scare stories and lobbies for changes without doing research.

Although he didn't make the tie-in, I think there is something to the idea here that the human characteristics that drive these various groups to promote their agendas with poor quality or manufactured evidence are the same human characteristics that drive the establishment of religion.

My first reaction was that you were wrong but all my counter-arguments vanished under more thought.

The common characteristics are:
Ridiculous credulity.
Need for self aggrandizement.
Refusal to change mind.
Unwavering belief in their cause.

CBL

 

[a_unique_person]

You could add the anthropogenic greenhouse warming deniers to the list.

 

[materia3]

This article is particularly interesting now given the fact that just within the last few weeks government has allowed 3 previously banned (based on scientrific evidence) products back on the market:


Ephedra containing over the counter supplements
The contraceptive sponge
Silicone breast implants

And did we hear Vioxx, Celebrex and other cox-2 pain killers will also be allowed back?

Our government also has for several years now been protecting and facilitating the growing, processing and exporting of a painkiller from Aghanistan. In fact, thanks to the government, Afghanistan is now the largest exporter of heroin in the world.

 

[Rob Lister]

This article is particularly interesting now given the fact that just within the last few weeks government has allowed 3 previously banned (based on scientrific evidence) products back on the market:


Ephedra containing over the counter supplements
The contraceptive sponge
Silicone breast implants

And did we hear Vioxx, Celebrex and other cox-2 pain killers will also be allowed back?

I did hear that a federal judge struck down the FDA's ban on ephedra, but only because the FDA failed to demonstrate the science behind the initial ban. IOW, it wasn't banned because of "scientific evidence" but suspicion.

The contraceptive sponge was never banned in the technical sense. The manufactoring of it was shut down because of safety/health issues. So again, "scientific evidence" was not the cause of the 'ban'.

Silicone breast implants were banned because of poorly constructed/improperly promoted scientific evidence. The cause of the ban was always in dispute. They found subtle corrolation but no causation.

I didn't hear that cox-2 pain relievers were returning. I wouldn't doubt it. It's a risk/benifit thing so it just needs to be more tightly controlled/perscribed.

 

[materia3]

I did hear that a federal judge struck down the FDA's ban on ephedra, but only because the FDA failed to demonstrate the science behind the initial ban. IOW, it wasn't banned because of "scientific evidence" but suspicion.

The contraceptive sponge was never banned in the technical sense. The manufactoring of it was shut down because of safety/health issues. So again, "scientific evidence" was not the cause of the 'ban'.

Silicone breast implants were banned because of poorly constructed/improperly promoted scientific evidence. The cause of the ban was always in dispute. They found subtle corrolation but no causation.

I didn't hear that cox-2 pain relievers were returning. I wouldn't doubt it. It's a risk/benifit thing so it just needs to be more tightly controlled/perscribed.

Re ephedra. Correct. Judges without scientific or medical training sitting in judgement over scientific data. That judge should visit the cemetary where there are young dead ephedra users/abusers. Maybe he could understand that graphic.

Ditto for sponge users. If it weren't technically recalled, then why is it being allowed to return without new studies? Search toxic shock syndrome. Unfortunately with this category, what will happen with #4 below, er, won't happen. Nor will it happen with #1 above's users.

There are tens of thousands of women and a few "men" BTW who have suffered the consequences of leaky silicone breast implants. While I am skeptical of any claim that any such implant or insertion is absolutely foolproof over a lifetime, where's the studies?

I agree ... Cox-2 users should be carefully selected and the risk benefit not only weighed by medical experts but also explained, verbally and in writing to patients. Its called informed consent.

Such consent is not routinely obtained everytime a doctor writes a prescription but if it were it would help keep those hungry hordes of lawyers at bay.

 

[materia3]

Since you missed the news on cox-2 inhibitors, here it is:

Thursday, April 21, 2005 Commentary

FDA panel concludes Vioxx safe enough to return to market

A FDA advisory panel voted 17-15 that the arthritis painkiller Vioxx is safe enough to be prescribed to patients, as long as they are warned of the risks. Pharmaceutical giant Merck pulled the popular drug off the market last September, when an internal study showed that patients taking the drug for 18 or more months had double the risk of stroke or heart attack that those taking a placebo.

http://www.newstarget.com/005033.html

I am sure you can find more extensive coverage as well at other sources such as the AP account of Feb 18 at MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6992099/

 

[Bob Klase]

Judges without scientific or medical training sitting in judgement over scientific data. That judge should visit the cemetary where there are young dead ephedra users/abusers.

And that would be scientific? I'll bet every one of those young dead ephedra users also ate food and drank water- therefore we now have evidence that food and water should be banned.

And I wouldn't consider abuse of anything as evidence that it should be banned. Practically every drug every made, along with alcohol and even water can harm or kill you if abused enough.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re ephedra. Correct. Judges without scientific or medical training sitting in judgement over scientific data. That judge should visit the cemetary where there are young dead ephedra users/abusers. Maybe he could understand that graphic.

Ditto for sponge users. If it weren't technically recalled, then why is it being allowed to return without new studies? Search toxic shock syndrome. Unfortunately with this category, what will happen with #4 below, er, won't happen. Nor will it happen with #1 above's users.

There are tens of thousands of women and a few "men" BTW who have suffered the consequences of leaky silicone breast implants. While I am skeptical of any claim that any such implant or insertion is absolutely foolproof over a lifetime, where's the studies?

I agree ... Cox-2 users should be carefully selected and the risk benefit not only weighed by medical experts but also explained, verbally and in writing to patients. Its called informed consent.

Such consent is not routinely obtained everytime a doctor writes a prescription but if it were it would help keep those hungry hordes of lawyers at bay.

I don't know what to think of your response. You appear, at first, second, and third read to be very confused as to what is and is not scientific evidence. I could be very mistaken. Please link to any peer-reviewed studies that suggest that ephedra, sponges, silicon-implants are demonstratable dangerous.

 

[materia3]

I don't know what to think of your response. You appear, at first, second, and third read to be very confused as to what is and is not scientific evidence. I could be very mistaken. Please link to any peer-reviewed studies that suggest that ephedra, sponges, silicon-implants are demonstratable dangerous.

My friend you are missing the point. It doesn't make any difference what you, me or the next guy considers scientific evidence, it matters only to the trained professionals to weigh that evidence and what this is about is that judges, courts and government agencies are sitting in judgement over such evidence or lack of it as the case may be, instead of people qualified to do so. If you want to trust a judge to review the merits of a drug study that's your problem.

If you consider the scientific evidence for the safety of ephedra to be so overwhelming by all means swallow the stuff and recommend it to all your friends. After all a Federal court judge in Utah said so. What more could you ask for? If you think the scientific evidence for the safety of the sponge is okay by all means encourage your signfiicant other to use it. There is a bigger picture here and that's the many members of the public who are not qualified to judge the evidence and rely on a judge to do it for them. Judges are swayed by aguments from both sides of the aisle, often over the same evidence. Common sense tells us they both can't be right so the guy judges. I realize that in this forum there is a lot of judgementalness going on by both qualified and unqualified people but in the end, as you have proven above, it is an argument that is being used to sway the result. And that's wrong.

For me, so called herbal supplements taken OTC by public which contain ephedra will always be dangerous. I have seen the effects of this drug first hand. I will never advise anyone to have a silicone breast implant because we don't have a 40, 50 or 60 year record of testing it against break down, leak, or rupture. But I have seen woman who have died from the consequences of such "accidents." A physician should carefully select a patient for a COX 2 enzyme inhibitor if it was felt it were their only option and the benefits FAR outweigh the risks but it would be an informed decision involving the patient.

Its not my job here to open up this forum to the thousands of pages of scientific and epidemiological studies on implants, ephedra, COX2 inhibitors and contraceptive sponges previously linked to toxic shock syndrome. My interest is to debate whether government committees and judges and lawyers should be the ones deciding what's ok and what's not. You know where I stand.

 

[materia3]

And that would be scientific? I'll bet every one of those young dead ephedra users also ate food and drank water- therefore we now have evidence that food and water should be banned.

And I wouldn't consider abuse of anything as evidence that it should be banned. Practically every drug every made, along with alcohol and even water can harm or kill you if abused enough.

Every dead cancer patient, everyone hit by a car and everyone who ever died of anything ate food and drank water. This is a ridiculous analogy.

The point is alarmist groups, groups with agendas proposing themselvces as defenders of the public inerest are making spurious scientific claims based on anecdotal evidence and worse, taking their cases to court where judges/lawyers make the decisions whether something is yea or nay. Sometimes reason prevails, sometimes it don't.

The herbal lobby got back their ephedra, the silicone boob people now don't have to settle for safer saline implants and men who dont want to use condoms in having sex with women who don't want to take the pill can now take their chances with the new improved sponge.

 

[Rob Lister]

My friend you are missing the point...

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Please point to the peer review studies I originally asked for.

 

[materia3]

If you wish to research these subjects because your wife or girlfriend are going to consider the sponge or a boob job, please do your own homework. I am not here for that.

Perhaps.... yes. Peer reviewed studies are not the direct subject matter, what society does with them is: alarmist groups, groups with agendas and, of course, groups with a financial interest in them repped by lawyers seeking sympatico judges and courts are.

If I had a peer reviewed study on what or how our health, well being and decisions are being made for "us" in the land of the dueling "peers" ... e.g. the courtorom, legislatures and government committee rooms, I'd be happy to share it.

But unfortunately while the above cited author knows this is happening, as we all should, the matter has not been studied to my satisfaction.

In the meantime enjoy retro month ....probably more to come before we turn full circle again based on the "latest reports."
Maybe they'll put back the coke in coca cola next. It was never proven to be harmful. And lets put back morphine in OTC cough syrup.


In the meantime I will discourage jumping on the sponge and
silicone based wagons. Do you own stock in or work for Dow or Dupont?