Slashdot Mirror

Journalists tend to have a limited pallet of story themes from which they choose, and then they conform the story to the chosen theme. Stories always need to be about something, such as corporate greed or government malfeasance, so that is the story that is told – regardless of the pesky facts.

Bad science journalism works that way also. That is why we can joke about common cliches, such as “Missing Link Discovered,” “Scientists Baffled,” and “It turns out everything we thought we knew was wrong.”

If acupuncture's the benchmark here, then chiropractors are in trouble...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Does chiropractic manipulation also work on rubber limbs?

http://theness.com/neurologica...

The stories about Monsanto suing innocent farmers are myths or more complicated than some narratives portray them. Popular Monsanto myths have been debunked over and over, yet they keep being brought up:

http://theness.com/neurologica...
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
https://geneticliteracyproject...
https://skeptics.stackexchange...

I would at least recommend an excerpt from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast about Monsanto myths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is clearly a case for application of anti-SLAPP laws. My understanding is that California already has pretty good options in this area, but many other states and the federal system do not. A good anti-SLAPP law allow the defendants in these cases to request dismissal of the case prior to the very expensive discovery phase AND allow for recovery of legal fees.

Is nitrogen used because it is cheaper than oxygen?

This is not exactly a joke, at least not directly. It is a reference to a blogger called The Food Babe who has offered up some laughable ideas - in this case opining on the health effects of airline travel. She famously complains that : "The air you are breathing on an airplane is recycled from directly outside of your window. That means you are breathing everything that the airplanes gives off and is flying through it’s mixed with nitrogen, sometimes almost at 50%"

For those who don't get the laugh-out-loud moment, it isn't the bit about how the cabin pressurization works, or even the bit about mixing the air with nitrogen.... yes, those are crazy goofy, but if you still are in the dark, give a quick google for the percentage of nitrogen in the atmosphere around you.

Let me know when fossils of this creature turn up. There's someone I really want to show it to.

http://theness.com/neurologica...

http://theness.com/neurologica...

I see you have bought into the lies hook line and sinker.
http://theness.com/neurologica...

Organic farming produces less yields, is more harmful to the environment used more pesticides and herbicides, but it gets a free pass becasue of the word 'Natural'. The fruit is no more or less nutritional then science based farming,

And of course Organic farming uses more pesticides, and is far more harmful to the environment, and has no gain over modern science based farming.

http://theness.com/neurologica...

"The brain isn't just a random mass of interconnected neurons"
no shit? herp derp.

We have simulated 'large' number of neurons, and you know what happens? it begins to act like a brain. Granted we are talkaing some pretty basic signalling

Expanding beyond that is pricey, power intensive, and take a lot of power. Did I mention the power?

we will not understand the brain, and then build a simulator. We will build it up a bit at a time and use the brain as a model.

http://theness.com/neurologica...

The problem isn't that the idea of including groups for sexes is questionable - it is the subdividing of small groups into even smaller groups based on numerous criteria. This is commonly done in small pilot studies that turn up marginal results which are later shown to be erroneous. Normally this is a non-issue. It is part of the scientific process - look for phenomena and then follow up with further study.

But when the study becomes the basis for stories in the media - watch out. We see this over and over. A small study of (insert food, chemical product, alternative treatment here) that checks a bunch of different variables shows a significant change in one or two. The media runs with the story and people begin to act as if the study is "scientific truth". When the follow up studies show that the whole thing was nonsense, it is too late. The idea has already entered the public consciousness as fact.

Here is a nice article about the effect of these sorts of preliminary results on the practice of medicine. It has some nice links to other sources on things like publication bias and researcher degrees of freedom that lead to the publication of false positives.

I agree that it must be the paint chips then. I'm just not sure which of us is affected. :-) The author of that article is trying to explain why the lead-crime relationship is pretty much bunk. The stuff you quoted even says that, in a more nuanced way.

NOTE: I found the article you referred to here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lead-and-crime/. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the article they used as a reference: http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/45/2/214.full.pdf Maybe I'll pay the $32 for it just so I can put this to bed.

If we accept the 20% figure (crime that is lead related), which seems plausible, then this indicates a significant role for lead, but lead is certainly not the only important factor.

Is that plausible? Why do we think that 20% of crime is related to lead? The commentator bases that figure on an article that he quotes as saying:

“as much as 20%” of crime is “lead related.”

Wait! So not 20%... less than 20%. Then he goes on to say in his comments section:

I don’t know how reliable the 20% figure is... taking all this at face value.

So does this idea really have merit? Well, lets read the entire article. It explains how at first, the lead-crime figure was 90% (Mother Jones article) then it was revised to 50% (after criticism)... then it was <20% (the linked PDF). So really... for real... what percentage of crime is caused by lead?

ANSWER: We don't know!

The sensationalistic article that Slashdot linked to is trying to say: poor people commit crimes... and poor people have less healthcare access... so they are more likely to have lead poisoning... so therefore, lead poisoning must be the cause of their crimes. By juxtaposing that with the statement that the NRA is pro-lead, the submitter is implying that the NRA is evil. That is hyperbole, and editorializing, and it shouldn't be in the Slashdot summary. Lead in bullets is not part of the discussion about crime.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/iq-and-motivation/

So what the guy is really saying is that Chrome users are obsessive compulsives and I.E. users are normal.

Einstein's theory stands or falls with the speed of light being constant.

Yeah, and so far our experiments have confirmed that over and over again. That doesn't mean that the theory is right, in fact we know that it is very likely wrong, as it doesn't play nice with quantum mechanics, but science isn't about right or wrong or finding absolute truth, it's about finding the best theory to explain and predict our observations and so far the theory is the best we got. If our experiments get more detailed and unexplainable reproducible errors show up, then we might need to update the theory, but that hasn't happened yet.

Take the Pioneer anomaly, for example.

This one?

Most recent developments point towards the mundane cause of thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft.

What you are doing is Anomaly Hunting, one tiny unreproducible glitch in the data doesn't mean that we have to through all our working theories out of the window, it means that we have to either explain the glitch or look for a way to reproduce it.

But no, the notion that consciousness doesn't exist because we can't explain it scientifically seems to be a rather contradictory one, because we all (presumably) are experiencing it right now as we read this.

I think you mean't haven't explained it, not can't Also, Dennett's "Multiple Drafts" hypothesis isn't the only game in town. There's the Global Workspace theory for a start.

Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.

A quick google brought me to a paper that said the chance of the shot being random noise was 0.037 or in other worlds 1:27. That's not much, but far away from a solid irrefutable proof that it was a real gunshot, especially considering that other evidence seems to be missing (shooter, bullet, bullethole, ...). Which would leave me to conclude that there is no solid evidence for more then three shots and that this is simply a case of anomaly hunting, i.e. when you search long enough, you are guaranteed to find something that is unlikely to have happened.

Here is a link to a review of the study, it will clear up most things peopel seemed confused about
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1130#more-1130

Here is a nice article on what a placebo effect is, may people here don't seem to understand the term.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1248

If you know of an accupuncture study that showed positive results that hasn't been discredited, please give me a URL. But if you had one, you would have, wouldn't you? But you didn't. If you do, I'll forward it to people who review such things, and get back to you on what's wrong with it (as a scientific experiment).

Yes, every single one. Mostly, on the basis that it's not double-blind and randomized (because, as I noted, and as you ignored, this is very difficult to do with accupuncture). And if it's not double-blind and randomized, it's not valid research. That's how science works.

Speaking of red flags, you raised several. Attacking me and not my point, for instance, by calling me names rather than offering evidence to support your claim that there are studies that haven't been discredited. Retreating behind "you can never prove anything" BS is another, ignoring - and it's deliberate, I suspect - that there are infinite shades of gray, but some of them are pretty damned dark.

As I said, you should take a look at Steve Novella's blog on the subject at http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/ But you won't, because you know better than to wave your faith at folks like him. He's simply more credible than you are, being a doctor, and well within his field, and he'll tear you a new asshole with your BS hysteria tactics, as he has many others just like you.

Didn't read the book but acupuncture has a body of clinical studies related to actual, verifiable physical changes in body chemistry.

No, actually, it doesn't. Every single study that shows positive results have been discredited, and a number showing no, or even negative, results have not. Acupuncture is notoriously difficult to do real science on, because real science requires double blind, randomized testing. How do you administer accupuncture with a fake needle, in such a way that neither the patient nor the "doctor" knows which is real and which is fake? Only one study has been attempted (using an automated shield that covers the needle), and it actually showed that accupunture made things worse (though weakly).

If you're interested in real medical science, read Steve Novella's blog (which includes a lot of discussion of accupunture research) at http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/

He's more qualified than either of us, being an actual doctor.

Nope, the true measure of intelligence is cortical surface area.

Steven Novella deconstructs this nonsense with his usual thoroughness. The executive summary is that Jones got a lot of facts wrong, and that mutation is overrated as a factor in evolution anyway.

If you are interested in neuroscience, skepticism, pseudoscience exposures etc., neurologica blog by Steven Novella is a good place. http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/

Another good source is http://scienceblogs.com/ On specific ones, I also really like http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php It shifts away from the main author's professional background in neurology fairly often, but that also makes it a lot of fun.

don't let yourself be trapped inside the "real world" of yet another conspiracy theory. you might want read this and at least be open minded to the possibility that you are being misled by people who mean well, but are totally deluded.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=124

also this podcast has a good segment on it http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=113

>Cuban medicine has shown for years that mother nature provides all kinds of wonderful molecules for free. They even have a >bio-version of Viagra. Problem is these things are not patentable. So a large medicinal company has to spend tons of money on >trials and FDA approval, and the very next day half a dozen competitors can throw a "me too" version on the market without >incurring those costs. Sorry for you if you have cancer, but don't hold your breath 'cause it ain't gonna happen. What you're saying simply isn't true. What Cuban medicine are you referring to by the way? I find it very hard to believe it isn't used in other countries if there is evidence it works. This is from the blog of a neuroscientist, who typically replies to pseudoscientific claims from alternative medicine advocates, with regard to your grossly simplified claims about cancer medicine. Summary: you can patent modified unpatentable products, the university/government carries out this research all the time (as shown by the article you replied to!), unpatentable products can be marketed in most countries with no research needed. http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=101 "It is true that substances that can be obtained from nature without alteration cannot be patented you cannot patent a plant and that this reduces their profitability. But despite this, there are many studies into herbs and other widely used unpatentable products. Such studies are carried out by university based or government funded research...Further, regulations in the US and most other countries are such that unpatentable products can be marketed without requiring pre-market research. This is a huge advantage in the marketplace. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting the supplement industry has exploded to a multi-billion dollar industry. Also, there is no longer a distinction between the pharmaceutical industry and the supplement industry, and big pharma has learned there is money to be made in supplements. So it is not plausible to cry boo hoo about the poor oppressed natural product industry, when they are doing just fine, making billions, and even tempting the pharmaceutical industry to get in on the action. " http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=28 "Yesterday Jeff asked, I just read a story about a new drug that apparently cures most types of cancers. The problem is that it is not patented so no drug company will pay for the trials. It just sounds too good to be true. Here is the link.... The bottom line is that if the science is solid and the potential very promising, the research will likely get done. Careers can be made from such research, universities could fund cancer centers and raise their prestige and profile, and there could also be a great deal of money to be made from such a treatment (even if it is not as much as from a patentable drug). There persists a nonsensical and very cynical myth that the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical industry already has a cure for cancer, but are suppressing it in order to protect their profits from treating (rather than curing) cancer. This episode shows, in my opinion, how silly that myth is. Researchers are doing university-based research to show the potential of a substance that cannot be patented as a cancer treatment. The research has been published and so is available to the public, and the media are spreading the word far and wide. No conspiracy has prevented this research from happening or knowledge of it from spreading."

>Cuban medicine has shown for years that mother nature provides all kinds of wonderful molecules for free. They even have a >bio-version of Viagra. Problem is these things are not patentable. So a large medicinal company has to spend tons of money on >trials and FDA approval, and the very next day half a dozen competitors can throw a "me too" version on the market without >incurring those costs. Sorry for you if you have cancer, but don't hold your breath 'cause it ain't gonna happen. What you're saying simply isn't true. What Cuban medicine are you referring to by the way? I find it very hard to believe it isn't used in other countries if there is evidence it works. This is from the blog of a neuroscientist, who typically replies to pseudoscientific claims from alternative medicine advocates, with regard to your grossly simplified claims about cancer medicine. Summary: you can patent modified unpatentable products, the university/government carries out this research all the time (as shown by the article you replied to!), unpatentable products can be marketed in most countries with no research needed. http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=101 "It is true that substances that can be obtained from nature without alteration cannot be patented you cannot patent a plant and that this reduces their profitability. But despite this, there are many studies into herbs and other widely used unpatentable products. Such studies are carried out by university based or government funded research...Further, regulations in the US and most other countries are such that unpatentable products can be marketed without requiring pre-market research. This is a huge advantage in the marketplace. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting the supplement industry has exploded to a multi-billion dollar industry. Also, there is no longer a distinction between the pharmaceutical industry and the supplement industry, and big pharma has learned there is money to be made in supplements. So it is not plausible to cry boo hoo about the poor oppressed natural product industry, when they are doing just fine, making billions, and even tempting the pharmaceutical industry to get in on the action. " http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=28 "Yesterday Jeff asked, I just read a story about a new drug that apparently cures most types of cancers. The problem is that it is not patented so no drug company will pay for the trials. It just sounds too good to be true. Here is the link.... The bottom line is that if the science is solid and the potential very promising, the research will likely get done. Careers can be made from such research, universities could fund cancer centers and raise their prestige and profile, and there could also be a great deal of money to be made from such a treatment (even if it is not as much as from a patentable drug). There persists a nonsensical and very cynical myth that the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical industry already has a cure for cancer, but are suppressing it in order to protect their profits from treating (rather than curing) cancer. This episode shows, in my opinion, how silly that myth is. Researchers are doing university-based research to show the potential of a substance that cannot be patented as a cancer treatment. The research has been published and so is available to the public, and the media are spreading the word far and wide. No conspiracy has prevented this research from happening or knowledge of it from spreading."

Dr. Steven Novella discusses this drug on his blog.

From: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp ?Display=28

There has been a media flurry surrounding this new study by lead author Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, in which he found that dichloroacetate (DCA) can selectively kill a wide range of cancer cells.

Basically, in most cancers the mitochondria are turned off. Mitochondria are the little energy factories inside every cell. They also are responsible for triggering apoptosis - programmed cell death. Cancer cells make their energy outside the mitochrondria, their mitochondria turn off, they lose the ability to trigger apoptosis, and they become immortal. Being immortal is part of what makes them cancer. DCA turns mitochondria back on, which in Dr. Michelakis's study caused the cancer cells to immediately die, while having no affect on healthy cells.

This is an exciting discovery that is sound in principle and likely to have implications for future cancer research and treatments. And Dr. Michelakis's study is very hopeful. But (here comes the skepticism) his study was carried out in vitro - on cells in test tubes. Before we get too excited we need to carry out clinical trials in humans with cancer. Experience has shown that it is difficult to predict how a drug will act inside the body based solely on in vitro studies. Even animal data - although very useful - has its limits. We need to prove that the drug will get to cancer tissue in sufficiently high concentrations to kill the cancer cells, and that it won't just suppress the tumor for a while. We also need to make sure there are no unforeseen negative consequences.

Historically there have been frequent laboratory discoveries that seem to show a promising new treatment for cancer, but when studied in humans the promise is not realized, or the effect is much more modest than was hoped. Cancer research has slowly ground forward, and we have made steady progress, but the "magic bullet" has never been found, despite frequent false alarms heralded in the press. So at this point in time the rational outlook to have is one of cautious optimism. Certainly this is a promising discovery, and it deserves to be studied clinically. We can also hold out reasonable hope that this will turn out to be more than an incremental improvement and will actually be deserving of the moniker "breakthrough." Let's do the research and cross our fingers.

There is another very interesting aspect to this story, mentioned in Jeff's question. DCA has been around for awhile, so no pharmaceutical company can patent it (it is already in the public domain). This means that it is unlikely a pharmaceutical company will pay the millions of dollars needed to fund the research for a drug it cannot own the patent on. I don't think it's impossible, just unlikely. As an advantage, the drug is already well studied and so many of the preliminary hurdles have already been overcome. Therefore the cost of research would be much less than if a company had to start from scratch with a new drug.

But let's assume that the bean counters at all the pharmaceutical companies calculate that the return on investment would not be sufficient to justify the research. And let's further assume that the PR value of "curing cancer" is not deemed sufficient either. That does not mean that DCA will not be researched.

There are other ways to fund research. Universities fund research programs, programs that also support their infrastructure with money they get from doing pharmaceutical company funded research. So university researchers can use their own resources to do the studies necessary - as Dr. Michelakis a

Dr. Steven Novella discusses this drug on his blog.

From: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp ?Display=28

There has been a media flurry surrounding this new study by lead author Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, in which he found that dichloroacetate (DCA) can selectively kill a wide range of cancer cells.

Basically, in most cancers the mitochondria are turned off. Mitochondria are the little energy factories inside every cell. They also are responsible for triggering apoptosis - programmed cell death. Cancer cells make their energy outside the mitochrondria, their mitochondria turn off, they lose the ability to trigger apoptosis, and they become immortal. Being immortal is part of what makes them cancer. DCA turns mitochondria back on, which in Dr. Michelakis's study caused the cancer cells to immediately die, while having no affect on healthy cells.

This is an exciting discovery that is sound in principle and likely to have implications for future cancer research and treatments. And Dr. Michelakis's study is very hopeful. But (here comes the skepticism) his study was carried out in vitro - on cells in test tubes. Before we get too excited we need to carry out clinical trials in humans with cancer. Experience has shown that it is difficult to predict how a drug will act inside the body based solely on in vitro studies. Even animal data - although very useful - has its limits. We need to prove that the drug will get to cancer tissue in sufficiently high concentrations to kill the cancer cells, and that it won't just suppress the tumor for a while. We also need to make sure there are no unforeseen negative consequences.

Historically there have been frequent laboratory discoveries that seem to show a promising new treatment for cancer, but when studied in humans the promise is not realized, or the effect is much more modest than was hoped. Cancer research has slowly ground forward, and we have made steady progress, but the "magic bullet" has never been found, despite frequent false alarms heralded in the press. So at this point in time the rational outlook to have is one of cautious optimism. Certainly this is a promising discovery, and it deserves to be studied clinically. We can also hold out reasonable hope that this will turn out to be more than an incremental improvement and will actually be deserving of the moniker "breakthrough." Let's do the research and cross our fingers.

There is another very interesting aspect to this story, mentioned in Jeff's question. DCA has been around for awhile, so no pharmaceutical company can patent it (it is already in the public domain). This means that it is unlikely a pharmaceutical company will pay the millions of dollars needed to fund the research for a drug it cannot own the patent on. I don't think it's impossible, just unlikely. As an advantage, the drug is already well studied and so many of the preliminary hurdles have already been overcome. Therefore the cost of research would be much less than if a company had to start from scratch with a new drug.

But let's assume that the bean counters at all the pharmaceutical companies calculate that the return on investment would not be sufficient to justify the research. And let's further assume that the PR value of "curing cancer" is not deemed sufficient either. That does not mean that DCA will not be researched.

There are other ways to fund research. Universities fund research programs, programs that also support their infrastructure with money they get from doing pharmaceutical company funded research. So university researchers can use their own resources to do the studies necessary - as Dr. Michelakis a

Dr. Steven Novella discusses this drug on his blog.

From: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp ?Display=28

There has been a media flurry surrounding this new study by lead author Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, in which he found that dichloroacetate (DCA) can selectively kill a wide range of cancer cells.

Basically, in most cancers the mitochondria are turned off. Mitochondria are the little energy factories inside every cell. They also are responsible for triggering apoptosis - programmed cell death. Cancer cells make their energy outside the mitochrondria, their mitochondria turn off, they lose the ability to trigger apoptosis, and they become immortal. Being immortal is part of what makes them cancer. DCA turns mitochondria back on, which in Dr. Michelakis's study caused the cancer cells to immediately die, while having no affect on healthy cells.

This is an exciting discovery that is sound in principle and likely to have implications for future cancer research and treatments. And Dr. Michelakis's study is very hopeful. But (here comes the skepticism) his study was carried out in vitro - on cells in test tubes. Before we get too excited we need to carry out clinical trials in humans with cancer. Experience has shown that it is difficult to predict how a drug will act inside the body based solely on in vitro studies. Even animal data - although very useful - has its limits. We need to prove that the drug will get to cancer tissue in sufficiently high concentrations to kill the cancer cells, and that it won't just suppress the tumor for a while. We also need to make sure there are no unforeseen negative consequences.

Historically there have been frequent laboratory discoveries that seem to show a promising new treatment for cancer, but when studied in humans the promise is not realized, or the effect is much more modest than was hoped. Cancer research has slowly ground forward, and we have made steady progress, but the "magic bullet" has never been found, despite frequent false alarms heralded in the press. So at this point in time the rational outlook to have is one of cautious optimism. Certainly this is a promising discovery, and it deserves to be studied clinically. We can also hold out reasonable hope that this will turn out to be more than an incremental improvement and will actually be deserving of the moniker "breakthrough." Let's do the research and cross our fingers.

There is another very interesting aspect to this story, mentioned in Jeff's question. DCA has been around for awhile, so no pharmaceutical company can patent it (it is already in the public domain). This means that it is unlikely a pharmaceutical company will pay the millions of dollars needed to fund the research for a drug it cannot own the patent on. I don't think it's impossible, just unlikely. As an advantage, the drug is already well studied and so many of the preliminary hurdles have already been overcome. Therefore the cost of research would be much less than if a company had to start from scratch with a new drug.

But let's assume that the bean counters at all the pharmaceutical companies calculate that the return on investment would not be sufficient to justify the research. And let's further assume that the PR value of "curing cancer" is not deemed sufficient either. That does not mean that DCA will not be researched.

There are other ways to fund research. Universities fund research programs, programs that also support their infrastructure with money they get from doing pharmaceutical company funded research. So university researchers can use their own resources to do the studies necessary - as Dr. Michelakis a

Since we use a small fraction of our brain (the amount various depending on what source you ask, some say less than 10 some say less than 30, I say less than 10 is less than 30 but 10 is probably only counting conscious usage, 30 is probably counting all brain activity), it may only cause you to use some of it that isn't normally used at all, while the rest of us go without.