Slashdot Mirror

So you have nothing more then an argument from emotions? where as there is tons of scientific evidence to show you are wrong.

In short, you got nothing. It's pa fantastic preventative measure fro all kinds of disease and cancers.
But lets let people DIE for your pet belief

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-for-neonatal-circumcision/#more-3310
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-kindest-cut/#more-431

So you have nothing more then an argument from emotions? where as there is tons of scientific evidence to show you are wrong.

In short, you got nothing. It's pa fantastic preventative measure fro all kinds of disease and cancers.
But lets let people DIE for your pet belief

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-for-neonatal-circumcision/#more-3310
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-kindest-cut/#more-431

"Doctors pay dues to the AAP"
A) It's not even most doctors. You don't need to be a member to be a pediatrician. So your premise is based on ignorance.
B) Dr.s don't make a lot of money from it.
C) So what? that in know way means the procedure is unnecessary.
What are you going to trot out next? the more babies die from it lie? It caused issues in adult life lie?

You're post is yet another system of critical thinking and science dying in America.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-for-neonatal-circumcision/#more-3310
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-kindest-cut/#more-431

"Doctors pay dues to the AAP"
A) It's not even most doctors. You don't need to be a member to be a pediatrician. So your premise is based on ignorance.
B) Dr.s don't make a lot of money from it.
C) So what? that in know way means the procedure is unnecessary.
What are you going to trot out next? the more babies die from it lie? It caused issues in adult life lie?

You're post is yet another system of critical thinking and science dying in America.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-for-neonatal-circumcision/#more-3310
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-kindest-cut/#more-431

If people did their own research they could decide for themselves.

If people were capable of doing their own research properly there wouldn't be a need for Let me Google that for you .

Even *WITH* solid research people still institutionally do stupid things Homeopathy shouldn't get NHS funding (n.b. the first line of that article links to the proper source, but the article I linked is a bit more readable) and yet it's STILL sort of covered by the NHS.

Sorry, but the reason we have professional researchers who get paid to it is because most people can't.

no.

This is what happen at ad companies... with ANY product.

"The whole practice of science, private and public is essentially profit driven."
only for an extremely liberal definition of 'profit'.

"Until we start rewarding scientists for negative results as well as we do positive results,"
science does something even better. It rewards people for finding provable fault in others work.

"we're going to see a lot of faulty positive data published"
of course. IT's to be expected. It would surprise you if you bothered to understand that the first real peer review happens post publication. It's really the most logical way to do it. You get to the most experts in the field, quickly, evenly and cheaply.

Pre publication peer review, for the most part, is about seeing glaring errors.

Also, not all publications are equal. The ;problem is that the media and the general populace don't understand that and thing publishjing a paper equals proven and fact. some groups love to abuse that ignorance:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/foolishness-or-fraud-bogus-science-at-nccam/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/reporting-preliminary-findings/

no.

This is what happen at ad companies... with ANY product.

"The whole practice of science, private and public is essentially profit driven."
only for an extremely liberal definition of 'profit'.

"Until we start rewarding scientists for negative results as well as we do positive results,"
science does something even better. It rewards people for finding provable fault in others work.

"we're going to see a lot of faulty positive data published"
of course. IT's to be expected. It would surprise you if you bothered to understand that the first real peer review happens post publication. It's really the most logical way to do it. You get to the most experts in the field, quickly, evenly and cheaply.

Pre publication peer review, for the most part, is about seeing glaring errors.

Also, not all publications are equal. The ;problem is that the media and the general populace don't understand that and thing publishjing a paper equals proven and fact. some groups love to abuse that ignorance:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/foolishness-or-fraud-bogus-science-at-nccam/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/reporting-preliminary-findings/

Anne Coulter said that radiation is good for you. The rest of the bat-shit crazy Republican mediasphere echo chamber repeated this claim.
There is no evidence for this statement.
Here is a cogent science-based article about this craziness. I don't expect you to read it or understand it but someone else might be interested.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/ann-coulter-says-radiation-is-good-for-you-2/

It was for your own good. After all, we all know that Radiation is good for you.

Forgot to add

Hollistic medicine can cure diseases.

Apparently I am not the most eloquent bloviator on the internet. So I'll refer you to http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ for all the right reasons that both of these alternative medicine fields are based on ideas that indeed fall into the category of "bat-shit insane".

For a shortcut to the answer as to "why" for homeopathy, focus on the centesimal (C) dilution scale. a 6C homeopathic solution has the active ingredients diluted at one part in a thousand billion. Most homeopathic solutions are 10C or even 20C. Random googling turns up this explanation of a homeopathic HGH supplement. Money quote from this site:With a 10C dilution of homeopathic HGH you are over 1 Trillion times more likely to win the lottery than find a molecule of HGH in the solution.

Chiropractic is more complicated - but the core premise of chiropractic is that subluxations of the spine impinge on the flow of "life force" and thereby cause disease - so check their articles on subluxations. The fact that in blinded controlled tests chiropractors reading a slate of identical X-rays failed to identify the same "subluxations" should give pause as to the existence of any such malady in their patients. The fact that studies of similar panels of chiropractic patients by radiologists and spinal surgeons failed to identify any "subluxations" in these patients at all should give further pause. The fact that the only maladies that have been shown to be helped by chiropractic in blinded, controlled studies are those with "soft endpoints" (such as back pain) should give further pause. These are similar to the maladies that are helped by things like acupuncture, sham acupuncture and placebo. The core premise of chiropractic (that subluxations impinge on the flow of "life force" and cause all of the maladies of the body) is certainly bat-shit insane. The best of chiropractic may have arguably moved beyond this notion - but it is far from a slam dunk that even the best are anything more than quacks.

Your claim is not scientifically sound:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

"child mortality rate goes up in proportion to number of vaccinations per country."

No it doesn't:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

False claim, debunked by critical thinker:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

No it doesn't:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

No, they aren't:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

Your own search link includes a proper analysis of why the claim is at best specious and more accurately a flat out lie:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

Correlation is not causation.

Other studies indicate...

The infant mortality rate for non-Hispanic black women was 2.4 times the rate for non-Hispanic white women. Rates were also elevated for Puerto Rican and American Indian or Alaska Native women.
Increases in preterm birth and preterm-related infant mortality account for much of the lack of decline in the United States infant mortality rate from 2000 to 2005.

Seems to me that it's related to lack of access to healthcare than anything like vaccines. If I were to be generous, maybe it's giving vaccines to pre-term infants on the full-term infant schedule (perhaps we should be relying on herd immunity intially and delay vaccines for pre-term babies to match with their gestational age instead)... However who knows, unles syou do a study...

However, if you want to hear a rant about this topic, you can look here. I guess you can find anything on the internet these days (pro and con)....

Hmm.. let's see what sites are on this search:

• Natural News
• Healthy Home Economist
• National Vaccine Information Center
• "Vactruth"
• Think Twice: The Global Vaccine Institute
• "Health is a Choice"

Notice a pattern?

Amusingly, you seem to have missed this link in your search (it's 6th on the list), where it proceeds to rip the "study" apart. (Short answer: it's the same correlation that connects ice-cream sales and swimming pool deaths; hence, ice-cream causes drowning.)

The link you should be look at (past all the anti-vaxxer dribble) is this one - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/.

An analysis of the paper.

An anti-vax funded paper by a known anti-vax (and HIV denying) researcher uses a handful of data points from a weak source, massages the data (such as considering MMR to b 3 shots) and then finds a weak correlation.

Stop the presses!

Or at least the nonsense.

The only searches which come up are almost exclusively from anti-vaccination sites and groups. Hardly a credible sampling there.

There is, however, this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

From your own search query debunking your radical claim

An item you linked to:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

Your link does not support your conclusions.

And the article countering this "study":
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

This claim was debunked a while back. You're misreading the data and playing with faulty IMRs.

Please stop spreading bullshit.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/fecal-transplants-getting-to-the-bottom-of-the-matter/

I don't think Mercola is a valid source.


SMB on Mercola

Oh gee, didn't see that one coming. No one's ever accused me of being an industry apologist. /sarcasm So, have you ever worked with GMOs? I have. Have you ever been in a molecular biology lab? I have. Have you ever even talked with a plant biologist? I have, quite frequently. Or are you just playing the same tired canard that every quack, crank, and denialist plays when they have no evidence to back their unscientific point yet refuse to consider that maybe they're wrong? Have you ever considered that maybe the reason I'm handwaving is because all the science is only on one side, and all the other side has is sloppy studies, non falsifiable musing, and a conspiracy, which you so nicely demonstrate with your shill gambit. Everything I've said is basic information that just about any plant biologist will tell you, not controversial at all among relevant experts. I hardly went into the details. And if you'd actually read what I wrote you'd see I covered that several times. Funny thing about stupid conspiracies is, they always attack some big company or something with over the top misinformation, so whenever you correct those lies for the sake of accuracy, you are then accused of working for them and dismissed. A great strategy for appealing to the scientifically illiterate.

But hey, if actually knowing what you're talking about makes one a manipulator, no wonder the world is in the state it's in. It's people like you who assume anyone who actually has education and experience is part of teh ebil conspiracy. Am I condescending? Maybe a little, and you know why? Because education won't work, people like you won't read the easily available texts on the subject, you won't listen to petty little things like facts and reason, or even basic logic. Cracking a damn science book is so hard for some people that I don't see many other options besides mockery. It worked for science based medicine, maybe it will work for science based agriculture, and speaking of which, people like you are the reason kids still die of measles.

Yes, it is. I don't think you know what Placebo means.
You have been completely hoodwinked by people who want your money, don't know what the term 'energy' means, and don't understand confirmation bias. AS well as a host of other issue.

Listen to this:
http://www.pusware.com/quackcast/quackcast10.mp3

Read this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6839

in fact, you should probably read everything here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=4

If you know how to read studies, seriously most eople don't, then do research here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

If you don't understand what makes a proper study, who to use the, how to properly understand p value and apply the results then freaking learn. As a bonus learn to apply the finding in a Bayesian way.

Oh, and be sure to read this. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend you read this first:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

There is no effect above a placebo effect for any Chiropractic 'treatment'.

Part of the placebo effect is the person doing the test, or treatment. So Yes, chiropractors would claim there was an effect because they are inferring an effect where there is none.

"What placebo effect? I've read this many times and have never seen documented evidence for it in relation to Chiropractic! "

Clearly you haven't looked. There are volumes of good* data showing it has no effect above Placebo.

The site I list usually, if not always, have citation you can follow up on, as well as asked questions.

*Good as in well done. Double blinded, proper controls, and so on. Which is all In care about in a study.

Yes, it is. I don't think you know what Placebo means.
You have been completely hoodwinked by people who want your money, don't know what the term 'energy' means, and don't understand confirmation bias. AS well as a host of other issue.

Listen to this:
http://www.pusware.com/quackcast/quackcast10.mp3

Read this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6839

in fact, you should probably read everything here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=4

If you know how to read studies, seriously most eople don't, then do research here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

If you don't understand what makes a proper study, who to use the, how to properly understand p value and apply the results then freaking learn. As a bonus learn to apply the finding in a Bayesian way.

Oh, and be sure to read this. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend you read this first:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

There is no effect above a placebo effect for any Chiropractic 'treatment'.

Part of the placebo effect is the person doing the test, or treatment. So Yes, chiropractors would claim there was an effect because they are inferring an effect where there is none.

"What placebo effect? I've read this many times and have never seen documented evidence for it in relation to Chiropractic! "

Clearly you haven't looked. There are volumes of good* data showing it has no effect above Placebo.

The site I list usually, if not always, have citation you can follow up on, as well as asked questions.

*Good as in well done. Double blinded, proper controls, and so on. Which is all In care about in a study.

You should.

We must continue to try and get theses 'shruggies'* to understand the scientific system. Their ignorance kills people. People who may not have another choice. From the child you dies because the parents believed the Oprah and Jenny McCarthy lies about vaccines, to the politician who create an agency with a 10 million budget to 'look into' varies CAM claims

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=238

*a horrible title.

Dr. David Gorski, a surgical oncologist, warns against making a conclusion that radiation hormesis is a real effect phenomenon. There just isn't enough data to call it one way or another. The conservative approach is to assume radiation hormesis does not exist until enough evidence demonstrates otherwise.

That's fine, as the motivation there is to prevent people from intentionally irradiating themselves in the belief that radiation is good for you.

On the other hand, the Japanese bomb data clearly shows beyond a statistical doubt that much larger radiation doses than most would have believed are harmless or slightly beneficial over the long term. That is unexpected, and reassuring in the nuclear age.

It might also have good implications for manned space travel.

Dr. David Gorski, a surgical oncologist, warns against making a conclusion that radiation hormesis is a real effect phenomenon. There just isn't enough data to call it one way or another. The conservative approach is to assume radiation hormesis does not exist until enough evidence demonstrates otherwise.

oh dear god. Mercury isn't some magic devil. If one breaks, just have her leave the room. To be honest, she could clean it up and not be at risk either, but obviously you want to be overly cautious.

She will breath far more mercury from the atmosphere.

For comparison a home thermostat my use 500 milligrams, where a CFL as between 1-5 milligrams.

SO the worst of them have mercury that's about the size of the tip of a ball point pen.

You are a father, you will be inundated with bad thinking that will get into your thinking pattern by leveraging your emotions.

You must think, you must evaluate. Otherwise you're going to fall for ever piece of crap someone utters at you because it 'feels' right, and tugs at your instinct to protect your children.

I suggest the following podcasts:
Skeptics guide to the universe
Radio Lab
Parenting with reason
Skeptiod
and
quackcast.

And this blog:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

You think I'm being weird, but trust me, everywhere you go someone will be using FUD to sell you stuff for your kid, and it will work.

Just look at any ad for baby products.

They either make it seem your child is in peril, or that your a horrible parent if you don't get there product. Hell, if you don't buy the right tires, you kids will not be safe. Are you a bad parent? no? then you better buy are tire for your childs safety.

Yes, some will be good information, most wont.

"In a way, doctors are trained to ignore teh science. They start with someone who already has a problem, and treat the symptoms as best they can. Science has determined many of the causes, but they are not profitable for the oligarchy, so they train our doctors to sell us pills for the symptoms"

that is completely false. While may Dr.s are not scientists, they still prefer to cure someone. It's a lie perpetrated by people whose own 'belief' aren't born out scientifically. Since they are so attached to them they invoke conspiracy that are nonsense.

"The Lipid Peroxidation [wikipedia.org] chain reaction is a large part of what causes the diabetes, hypertension and [oxidized] cholesterol problems.":
That is complete nonsense.

speaking of doctors and science:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

And don't forget that the supposed Autism epidemic may be nothing more than a consequence of changes in how autism is diagnosed, and an increase in the number of autistic people who actually receive treatment.

Because it's still going on.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9552

There is a lot of good info here:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9552

For people that listen to podcast I highly recommend quackcast.

No, it's called regression to the mean. Did you even read the examples they gave?

A better breakdon is here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=8987

"When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

BULLSHIT.

read this, it's a better response then I can put together right now:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=8987

'digital magazine' even mean? How is ti different then a topic focused website or blog?

Would http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ be considered a 'digital magazine'?

No, this is what they're talking about: wired, adobe collaboration on a digital magazine It's basically what it sounds like, a digital version of a magazine format.

'digital magazine' even mean? How is ti different then a topic focused website or blog?

Would http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ be considered a 'digital magazine'?

No, sucrose is split immediately into glucose and fructose, which from that point is metabolized exactly the same as that in HFCS. There is reasonable evidence that fructose may be bad for you, but you get about the same amount of fructose from typically used HFCS as you do from sucrose. HFCS contains slightly more fructose relative to glucose than does sucrose, but it is also sweeter, so less of it is used. It ends up being pretty much a wash. Details and references to primary scientific literature can be found here.

It was a point mutation in the gene for the 16S ribosomal RNA (T2387C) according to http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=66 . Unknown in this case means unknown at the time of vaccination, not unknown currently.

Again, that study was seriously flawed.

I didn't link to any specific study, but the whole Acupuncture section of sciencebasedmedicine, which mentions quite a few more studies. They also have a bit to say about the BMJ Acupuncture magazine.

Please take a look at the Acupuncture in Medicine Journal (BMJ Group Publishers).

How good are the chances that a magazine that is out there to promote acupuncture will comes to the conclusion that it doesn't work and thus destroy itself? Rather slim I say. This to me looks like an rather obvious case of bias.

As said before, science is not just about looking for confirmation of your theory, but also about pocking holes into it or throwing it out of the window when it doesn't work. A magazine with the premise "It works, lets find out how" isn't the right way to look for evidence if it works at all.

Actually, in human trials spanning hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of subjects, it's been shown to be effective.

The plural of anecdote is not data. To show the efficacy you need proper controlled test, not just random people feeling better after having a treatment, as that is easily attributed to the placebo effect unless you have proper controls. And when it comes to acupuncture the studies that come out positive tend to be badly designed while those that are well designed come out negative.

If that's not science, I don't know what is.

The point of science isn't just searching for evidence that confirms your theory, but also searching for evidence that destroys your theory. And for acupuncture there have been well designed studied that showed it is no more effective then sham acupuncture (untrained people sticking needles in random places). So even if you don't want to give up hope on that sticking needles in your body can help, the whole teaching around acupuncture is basically made up nonsense, that not only lacks evidence, but also fails at basic plausibility.

If particle physicists can use "charm" and "strangeness" I don't see why there's such a problem with "yin" and "yang".

The former was shown in experiments, the later wasn't.

or not.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1828

This is not medicine. I'm a huge proponent of embryonic stem cell research - that is not what these places are. Even in the linked pages, they don't call themselves real medicine - more like 1950's utopian therapy centers, complete with watercolor art and messages of "the promise of eternal life." I've seen cryonics center websites that are far, far more ethical and honest about the product they provide. The second website even puts its own title in quotes ('"the clinic"') to avoid being as actionable about their claims.

These sites are all about offering dubiously vague claims about what folks are saying about stem cells, then offering even more dubious treatments while standing behind the mystique of being a persecuted 'forbidden' super-technique. That would be fine if they were specific about what they were attempting, and if they could point to legitimate and active partners they were involved with in order to advance the science - but they're just namedropping the science to get the flim-flam magic appeal.

There's an endless series of variants of this style of bullshit. Take a look at these sites for just the tip of the iceburg in terms of keeping an eye on it:

Science Based Medicine

The JREF Website ($1 million verifiable reward for any evidence of the paranormal.)

Ryan Fenton

based upon one study

It's not "one study" in the sense that we have only one study showing no conclusive evidence. It is merely "one study" in the context of the article (i.e. that they are referring to "not two or more" studies) - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5207#more-5207

No, you don't "move on" because of one study or maybe even ten studies.

Without any bounding condition (which if you have one, you don't state). You could make the selfsame statement for ten studies, one hundred studies or a million studies.

I could go on and show how you're kind of off-base on the medical cases you're citing too but I doubt you're worth it.