This weekend a woman named Tammy Worth wrote an article in the LA Times titled “Alternative medicine a prickly subject.” Let’s ignore the fact that this fragment is so lacking in verbs that it becomes little more than gobbledee-gook. The subject of headlines is just too easy, what’s more, we’ve covered it before. Plus, it would just distract us from all the stuff Ms. Worth actually writes.
Though she never steps forward and clearly states an argument, Ms. Worth is complaining in her article about how difficult it can be to get your insurance provider to cover your alternative medical cure. It starts out strange when she says this (emphasis mine):
This week the NYTimes reported on the tragic results of a randomized drug trial, but it isn’t tragic in the way that you think. The problem wasn’t that the new drug was dangerous, or had unpredicted side-effects, or was ineffecective, but actually that it was very effective. In the Times story, two cousins, both suffering from melanoma, entered a clinical trial to test a robust new treatment. The trial was testing the efficacy of this drug compared to regular chemo-therapy. One cousin was randomized to receive the drug and his tumors stopped growing; his cousin was randomized to chemo-therapy which did not stop the advance of cancer in his body.
The Times reported that these types of trials are criticized by some members of the medical community:
But critics of the trials argue that the new science behind the drugs has eclipsed the old rules — and ethics — of testing them. They say that in some cases, drugs under development, PLX4032 among them, may be so much more effective than their predecessors that putting half the potential beneficiaries into a control group, and delaying access to the drug to thousands of other patients, causes needless suffering. … continue reading this entry.
Western science may say arsenic is a poison. I say it's natural.
There are some things that scare me.
Big rocks coming down from the sky, I’ve mentioned before. Of course, I think my logic is strong enough to tell me that even though that’s one of those inevitable things to happen to the earth, the chance of the human race being destroyed in my lifetime is thankfully slim. Nuclear proliferation scares me a bit. Mostly because despite the faith I’ve attempted to gain in humanity, I recognize that we’re still a bunch of primates with poor impulse control who’ve managed to harness the most powerful of the four universal forces. Still, it’s not a big concern for me. Do you know what does scare me though? Canada has just awarded a group of naturopathic physicians the right to prescribe medicine. … continue reading this entry.
If you believe something that no one else does, you may be a spiritual descendant of this Renaissance gentleman! Or you could be nuttier than peanut butter...
When arguing with those who preach non-scientific views on subjects where my education is limited, I tend to invoke the consensus of scientific opinion. I believe my reasoning for this is sound. I tend to trust in the process of science. I know that it is in the interests of scientists to be able to prove conclusively why something is or is not true, and that it’s in the interests of their colleagues to disprove what the initial scientist is saying. Using the process of science, ideas are stringently vetted through the entire community, and if a new idea manages to make its way through that process, we can be reasonably certain that idea is an accurate reflection of reality. The counter I receive tends to be the Galileo Principle, that Galileo was hounded on all sides by those who believed his ideas on cosmology were wrong, even though he was eventually vindicated for his heliocentric cosmos. How do we reconcile the appeal to scientific consensus with the possibility of Galileos? … continue reading this entry.
I was at Drinking Skeptically on Wednesday, trying to talk to people about how they should write for the Gotham Skeptic, because frankly, I get tired sometimes and I’d like to share that terrifying “it’s Wednesday/Sunday at 9:00 and I still don’t know what I’m going to write about” feeling that has become such a regular part of my week. I was talking with Mitch, who if you’re a regular member of the NYC Skeptics, you probably know, and he’s telling me about this story he’d like to write all about “what if Intelligent Design was real.” I’m not going to go into it too much because that’s his thing, but I had a question on it, he encouraged me to write about it here, and that’s what’s been done and what I’m doing. … continue reading this entry.
The Nature Publishing Group has a new online initiative called SCITABLE. Trying not to hold the name against them, I checked out the bells and whistles of the site. Their mission is that:
SCITABLE brings together a library of scientific overviews with a worldwide community of scientists, researchers, teachers, and students. Use SCITABLE to:
Learn about a range of scientific subjects
Collaborate online with other students and teachers
About a week ago a noted scientist, Marc Hauser of Harvard University, was given temporary leave pending an investigation of scientific misconduct. Hauser is not some small time author. He has written hundreds of articles in respected scientific publications as well as several well selling books on cognitive psychology, evolution, language, and morality. His work has been frequently cited, one article he coauthored with Noam Chomsky on the formation of language has been cited 60 times according to PubMed. He has received numerous awards from various scientific organizations and has established himself as a scientist able to speak to the media. As a powerful figure in his field, it is undoubted that Hauser’s possible disgrace will have an impact in the greater scientific community. … continue reading this entry.
In the grand tradition that Americans have adopted in using “–gate” as a suffix on anything controversial, ScienceBlogs brought us “Pepsigate” last month. This issue is resolved at this point, or maybe just dead in the water, but I think there are lessons that the skeptical community might take from this.
To summarize what Pepsigate is: ScienceBlogs is a commune of scientists and various scientist-like experts who blog. It was created by the shiny popular science magazine Seed who saw that in the blog boom there was also a growing market of science blogs as well as a growing readership for that type of material. Seed gathered together many of the more successful nascent science bloggers, talked a few people into starting up a blog with them, and Voila! created a one-stop shopping site for personal opinions about science and academia and whatever, delivered in a conversational manner by experts. Instant cache. As Seed is a for-profit magazine, they also created advertising opportunities on the site, and it has been a successful branch of their company for several years. Then last month, ScienceBlogs had a new arrival: Food Frontiers, a blog whose focus would be “on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy.” But before you click that link and are confused by the result, trouble arose when readers and bloggers at ScienceBlogs read the fine print: … continue reading this entry.
From Charles Darwin's 1859 book "On the Origin of Species "
In spite of (or perhaps because of) the prolific amount of posts PZ Myer’s pens for his blog Pharyngula over at Scienceblogs, I have trouble being a frequent reader. He focuses on a wide variety of topics, many of them uninteresting to me, but one that I find him to be a terrific source of entertainment: evolution. In an uncharacteristically long post over the weekend, PZ delved into an easily digestible essay on just a few of the more complex and frequently misunderstood aspects of evolutionary theory. Given the attention that TQM paid yesterday to a journalist’s misunderstanding of Intelligent Design, I thought it was worth continuing the conversation.
PZ is correct that evolutionary theory is now a rich field of study that is commonly distilled down to an inadequate sound-bite for mass consumption. … continue reading this entry.
This week the NYTimes reported 
About a week ago a noted scientist, 
In the grand tradition that Americans have adopted in using “–gate” as a suffix on anything controversial, ScienceBlogs brought us “Pepsigate” last month. This issue is resolved at this point, or maybe just dead in the water, but I think there are lessons that the skeptical community might take from this.