The Dangers Of Junk Science

Duendy

I don't think any group that conducts a hunger strike could be called credible in any way. Their actions impeach themselves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ohhhhhhhh))))))))))givemestrength
When people are faced with a multibillion £$ mega power base in the face, that not only wont listen, but continues to oppress people in severe debilitatingly evil ways, and noone else is listening, ESPEscially your fave--(BushW ho is getting a huge WAd from em),,,,,,,,, OFTENtimes they can be driven to such extremes! ...i know it's hard Brutus, but try to grasp this ...huh?

good afternoooon

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The worst example of Junk Science was the banning of DDT. Millions of lives have been lost needlessly do to malaria. The claims in the book Silent Spring have never been backed up by science. Now we have another case of mass hysteria that makes the deaths of malaria seem miniscule in comparison. It is the resistance to genetically modified food. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that links any health problems with GM foods. In fact the opposite is true. Foods have been made more nutritious by them. They are more environmentally friendly because they require fewer pesticides and they produce more yields with less land. Yet with all these benefits the purveyors of junk science have convinced many governments and peoples of the world that they are unsafe. Millions who are starving to death especially in Africa could be saved but for the ignorance of people who should know better. What is the agenda behind the Anti GM food movement? Could it be a back handed way of controlling certain populations? Even if that is not their spoken agenda it is the end result all the same.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The left wants to destroy private enterprise. They don't go for appropiate compensation for injury. They go for destruction.

 

The left and the right are viturally the same. There are about 4 issues they really disagree on, and that's it.

 

Brutus, I think its ironic that you created a thread to discuss "junk science," but are succumbing to the very fallacy that "junk" science is made of. That is to say, your opinions regarding the validity of the claims are heavily influenced by bias and not objective realism.

I agree with you about DDT not having been studied appropriately enough for Rachel Carson to conclude in the 1960s that it was a cancer-causing agent. But it has been clearly demonstrated to be a significant cause of liver cancer in animal test subjects and her contention that the chemical thinned the shells of bird eggs was, I believe, validated (though I'm going off of a memory of data rather than accessing the primary source at the moment).

So there were significant deleterious problems associated with the chemical to warrant restriction, particularly since it was apparent that the insect species that were targeted developed resistance to the chemical and more efficient pesticides were available. Moreover, DDT was only banned in developed nations of the world and even this ban had exceptions for public health and certain agricultural uses. Indeed, in the malaria afflicted nations of the world, DDT was not banned. So your rant about the injustices of banning DDT would appear unfounded and conservatively biased propaganda.

Indeed, this is a trend I've noticed with Steven Milloy's JunkScience.com website and one of the problems I've noted with it.

But perhaps it would be best to define Junk Science. By all accounts, it is a subset of pseudoscience, an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions; a "false" science.

Milloy (who is also a writer for Fox News), defines Junk science as: "bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the "food police," environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune."

I have to agree with his List of Characteristics for identifying junk science, but I disagree with his initial definition (listed on the same page I linked). Science strives to remain objective and the devices of ridicule and hyperbole he employs makes his bias very clear. That's why the JunkScience.com website is, ironically, a "junk science" site.

I agree that there is much to learn from his site and that he and Barry Hearn offer valid points and questions, but there is a distinct bias that speaks of avoiding objective reality, which science strives for. Not that science, as an entity, is perfect at achieving objective reality, but it makes the effort. Moreover, Milloy's affiliation with affiliation with the Cato Institute and FoxNews underscores JunkScience.com's bias.

In the end, I think its better to judge pseudoscience as pseudoscience and not attempt to apply labels such as "junk" science. The former is more accurate and inclusive and doesn't have the bias edge to it that JunkScience.com and Milloy create. Their anti-environmentalist theme is clearly biased and unobjective, but perhaps not surprisingly considering the corporate/governmental quid pro quo that goes on with the Cato Inst. and Rupert Murdoch. There is undoubtedly some level of "chicken-little" mentality going on with the environmental community, but there is far too much data that is suggestive to not be concerned about environmental issues enough to encourage as much investigation as possible.

But then perhaps I'm only influenced by the fact that it was above 80 today when last year this time I was in a winter freeze.

But to bring up another pseudoscience topic that the government is responsible for: the Bush administration, last year, pledged $15 billion to fight Aids in Africa, but it has insisted that a third of the money be used for sexual abstinence and monogamy programmes. Since the 1996 passage of the welfare reform act, the federal government has spent over $800 million on “abstinence-only” education, most of it under the Bush administration. According to a study ordered by Rep. Henry Waxman, eleven of the thirteen most widely used abstinence-only curricula funded by the federal abstinence initiative contain scientifically false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.

It's clear that abstinence-only programs have not been proven to reduce sexual activity, pregnancy, or STDs (whereas comprehensive programs have), nor have abstinence-only programs been reviewed for accuracy by the federal government.

Condom use, however, has been demonstrated by both the CDC and the World Health Organization to be effective in reducing HIV/AIDS, STDs, and unwanted pregnancy.

 

Thus demonstrating that you can't overturn a billion years of successful bonking with a good PR program. On the other hand if you have told 'them' not to do, but 'they' still go ahead, when 'they' become ill you can safely say 'It is your own fault. We warned you. Now we wash our hands of you.'
Its not the Christianity that I grew up with.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm left wing. I also devote the greater part of my waking time to advancing the progress of a 1/2 billion dollar a year service company in the oil sector. Care to re-think your stereotypes?

 

Brutus...this world can be confusing...the media, the this that shouting at you 'take this' 'dont take thaT; 'if you do this you'll get that' 'if you dON't...this' i am sure you get the pic

but i have a solution that may help me

write a book. just write a book with everything you agree with. and then I will know what NOt agree with. a deal? it will make my life simpler

 

No, an utter lie. What you'll find is that by the time DDT was banned in many western countries, it was unnecessary because teh mosquitos had been eradicated. Or, in the case of Sri Lanka, where various hacks are saying that malaria has made a come back due to no DDT, its not used there because the mosquitoes had evolved to become immune to it. Now they use parathion. And in parts of Africa, DDT spraying is still carried out in houses, I think once a year, because it is so effective. What matters is that it is not indiscriminately sprayed everywhere, thus reducing birds populations and causing increased resistance amongst mosquitos.

http://www.info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm


As for GM foods they are too expensive for the average farmer in developing countries. They are great for large companys who can afford them and the inputs needed for them, but the ultimate example of GM propaganda stupidity was the claim aout Vitamin A enhanced rice.

 

Brutus said:

Yeah, like that loser Ghandi. What did he ever accomplish?

 

This is interesting, I read an article in WebMD that flu shots may be pretty well worthless. The study states "There is no correlation between an increase in flu vaccine coverage over the past two decades and a decrease in influenza-related deaths". So in other words the entire flu shot scare last fall was just a lot of hype. A lot of elderly people were needlessly worried that they were at an increased risk if they did not get the shot. Also, those who did get the shot are now under a false sence of security. Another example how junk science can cause mass hysteria and not only leave people more vulnerable but lighter in the wallat as well.

WebMD link to study of flu vaccines.

http://www.webmdhealth.com/nl/nl.aspx?id=30027894&s=186&p=men022305

 

That is more than possible Brutus; since influenza does mutate, a vaccine that was made months ago for a specific series of strains in Asia will not necessarily do you any good at all. (Virologists cannot predict the future any better than anyone else...)

When it comes to the flu shot, the political angle may be more salient. It is not imperative for the government to do anything, but it is imperative that they be seen to be doing something. If hospitals will buy into reflexology because "it makes people happy", then a useless flu vaccine that everyone believes is effective is just perfect for them.

 

No! That's complete bunk! Recently there was a <I><B>single</B></I> paper published that claimed that flu vax is not effective. 99% of all the other published studies over the years on the efficacy of flu shots says they are effective. So, on the basis on this single study, anyone claiming that....

....is exhibiting (as the thread title says) the "dangers of junk science".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

<P>

 

Brutus, may we take the absence of a riposte to mean you accept Hercules's point?

 

I think we can take an absence of response to your question about absence of riposte to mean he realizes he got in over his head. Perhaps there are some who do best with topics in which empiricism isn't a factor.... i.e. religion.

 

If no one minds me interrupting the bickering, I'll go back the original post about the "one study" causing drugs to be pulled off the market based on "junk science". I don't understand what you mean by "junk science". For example, the studies linking Fen Phen to an increased risk of heart attack etc, were done by educated scientists, published in peer-reviewed journals, and verified by further clinical studies. In what way is this junk science? The same is true of the studies linking Vioxx to increased risk of coronary disease. Not only were these studies performed by respected scientists, their findings were essentially back-up by leaked internal information from Merck on their own drug! The findings are scientifically indisputable. Again, is this junk science? Although in the case of Fen Phen the risk of using a non-regulated, non-FDA approved "drug" did not outweight the benefits of weight-loss, this is not the case with VIOXX and the COX-2 inhibitors in general. Do people with chronic and often debilitating pain have the right to choose to take a drug with proven efficacy at the slight risk of dying earlier than they would? Now that the truth about the Vioxx has come to light, this is surely a risk they should be allowed to choose to take. After all, we allow people to choose to smoke, even though the risks of dying from smoking are probably a million times greater than from taking Vioxx.

It is important to consider what constitutes "junk science". For example, a single study finding no link between rises in flu vaccine and decreases in deaths from influenza is not junk science simply because it contradicts the prevailing scientific wisdom. Science, after all, is not a collection of knowledge and facts where the true facts are "good science" and the false facts are "junk science". Science is a method of collecting facts: the "junkness" of the facts stems from the manner in which they were collected. If the study on flu vaccines was done with all the rigor of the scientific method, then it is "good" science.

An series of essays on the topic of what constitutes junk science and the reason some junk ideas remain persistens has been appearing in Angewandte Chemie for anyone that access to that excellent journal. I think the 2nd part is in the newest issue.

 

im pretty sure the pharm companies, and companies in general, dont give one shit about anyhting besides profit. if corporations were more concerned about saving lives and improving the quality of life then making money there wouldn't be an fda.

 

Why I think science is useless when any potential for bias is involved:

Suppose you have a scientific study and the people running it want the results to come out a certain way. There are many ways they can manipulate the results, some of them more subtle and hard to detect. Then there is always the possibility that they can just outright lie about something in order to bias the experiment and still have it look scientific. Who's going to question it? It costs money to verify. Anyways without even outright lying they can do things like:

1) They find some factor, any factor other than the drug, which causes the same result that they want the drug to be shown to.

2) They find a way to get more of these people affected by this factor in the experiment, but not in the control group. They are supposed to appear to select the population randomly, however its easy to create this illusion while still purposely allowing the factor in question to alter the results. For instance, if there is a statistical correlation between people who drink starbucks and people who have the factor in question because it makes people like bitter tastes more or something they can put a guy outside starbucks to collect subjects for the experiment. Then the next day send a guy across the street instead to collect subjects for the experiment. Then stealthily keep track of which subjects came from which gathering and put the subjects collected the second day in the control group.
If someone was to look at results, at most all they could see was that some of the subjects were collected 5 feet away from the others.

 

That's why the power of peer-review is such a great force in keeping scientists honest. There is always a potential for bias, but a researcher will go into a project knowing that this bias exists and can be problematic and will look for it. In fact, most researchers will seek out unbiased opinions of their work prior to publication.

So your criticism of science is unfounded for two reasons: 1) bias is a problem for all scientific research, and to dismiss science as "useless" is irrational... particularly when we are conversing through a product of science. 2) the peer-review process is the best check and balance for bias.

The problem of "bad science" arises when pseudo-researchers intentionally skirt the peer-review process with an agenda in mind (this happens with corporate agenda as well as political/religious ones). It's also problematic for drug companies bent on maintianing secrecy regarding products, since the peer-review process gets butchered in the process... often they act as their own "peers," which I see as a clear conflict of interest. But the dillema is that if they conduct trials and publish publically in journals, then rival drug companies can get a handle on their research and begin developing their own, competing drugs. This could be good for consumers in the short term, providing ample, well-tested drugs for medical problems, but bad in the long term. This is because the competition could eliminate the smaller companies that couldn't keep up financially, creating a situation where the larger, fewer companies survived.