Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and fraud

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Miss_Faucie_Fishtits » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:53 am

Typhoon wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.


There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.



The background noise keeps going up as people live longer. Expectations of longevity and quality of life have to recognise an ultimate death rate of 100% no matter how you cut it. The cumulative consequences of 100+ year of life is complex, chaotic, and trying to unravel them approaches the limits of absurdity........
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:59 pm

Typhoon wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.


There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4032
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:26 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.


There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.


Would you elaborate?
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:53 pm

Typhoon wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.


There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.


Would you elaborate?

"Cancer" is definitively not a specific physical entity. There are many pathologies called cancer which are not related. Breast cancer for example, has numerous different pathologies.

"Incidence", however defined, is a crude a variable as one can imagine. What seems to be needed is exploratory studies of primate brains exposed to cell phone frequencies.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4032
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:49 am

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.


There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.


Would you elaborate?

"Cancer" is definitively not a specific physical entity. There are many pathologies called cancer which are not related. Breast cancer for example, has numerous different pathologies.


Yes, however, what all the pathologies grouped as cancer have in common is the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells in the body.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:"Incidence", however defined, is a crude a variable as one can imagine.


Incidence refers to a definitive diagnosis of some form of cancer. The process of diagnosising for a specific of cancer is well established now. Nothing crude about it.

On the other hand, one could well argue that treatment is still crude.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:What seems to be needed is exploratory studies of primate brains exposed to cell phone frequencies.


Perhaps. However, should there not first be evidence of a problem?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022599

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022599

Recall that the frequency of cell phone EM radiation is below that of ionizing radiation.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:48 pm

Typhoon wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
What I am going to say is a digression, it is not the same topic, but still relevant: Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that any new drug must undergo very rigorous testing until it is marketed, to prove that its toxicity is within acceptable limits. These specific toxicity limits are determined by the government.

Similarly, as science becomes more advanced, much more exotic materials will be invented, and already many of the electronic components are very toxic if they are broken down and mixed with drinking water. Some of the solar panels contain arsenic, but the company says that these toxic materials are properly sealed and won't leak even if there is rain on the roof...

So far there is only very little brain cancer caused by cell phones, but in the future much more exotic electromagnetic devices will be invented, and more scrutiny will be needed. For instance, there are already plans to develop new technologies for transmitting electricity to electric cars on highways, without using wires, but nobody knows how this will affect people.


There is no evidence that cell phones cause brain tumours. People have been living near high voltage power lines for nearly century with no increase in the incidence of cancer.

Speaking of junk science, incidence of cancer seems to be a loosely defined and insensitive dependent variable.


Would you elaborate?

"Cancer" is definitively not a specific physical entity. There are many pathologies called cancer which are not related. Breast cancer for example, has numerous different pathologies.


Yes, however, what all the pathologies grouped as cancer have in common is the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells in the body.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:"Incidence", however defined, is a crude a variable as one can imagine.


Incidence refers to a definitive diagnosis of some form of cancer. The process of diagnosising for a specific of cancer is well established now. Nothing crude about it.

On the other hand, one could well argue that treatment is still crude.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:What seems to be needed is exploratory studies of primate brains exposed to cell phone frequencies.


Perhaps. However, should there not first be evidence of a problem?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022599

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022599

Recall that the frequency of cell phone EM radiation is below that of ionizing radiation.

I'm not a scientist, but I have participated in the design of a fair number of graduate level studies in physiological psychology. One key to getting results is to have a dependent variable that is sensitive. Not an +/- response, but one that gives a range of measurable response. That is why incidence is such a crude measurement - you have one degree of freedom. Confirming the null hypothesis is almost assured.

And I think there is evidence of a possible problem. There are many good reasons for asking a question, and if people worry about it that is evidence enough to justify a proper study.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4032
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Azrael » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:57 pm

Nobel Prize in Quack-Pottery -- "If you have just popped in for the first time to read this little series, let me review the prize rules. First, similar to the Nobel Prize, this award is limited to still-breathing scientists. Additionally, they must have already won the Nobel Prize in a scientific field and they must openly embrace some form of anti-scientific or pseudoscientific quackery. This fantasy award consists of a gold-plated duck penis and the presentation of this award is accompanied by 42 quacks from an outraged duck."
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Marcus » Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:00 am

Azrael wrote:Nobel Prize in Quack-Pottery -- "If you have just popped in for the first time to read this little series, let me review the prize rules. First, similar to the Nobel Prize, this award is limited to still-breathing scientists. Additionally, they must have already won the Nobel Prize in a scientific field and they must openly embrace some form of anti-scientific or pseudoscientific quackery. This fantasy award consists of a gold-plated duck penis and the presentation of this award is accompanied by 42 quacks from an outraged duck."


:lol: . . :lol: . . :lol:
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
 
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:17 am

Azrael wrote:Nobel Prize in Quack-Pottery -- "If you have just popped in for the first time to read this little series, let me review the prize rules. First, similar to the Nobel Prize, this award is limited to still-breathing scientists. Additionally, they must have already won the Nobel Prize in a scientific field and they must openly embrace some form of anti-scientific or pseudoscientific quackery. This fantasy award consists of a gold-plated duck penis and the presentation of this award is accompanied by 42 quacks from an outraged duck."


The best example is probably Brian Josephson who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his prediction of the condensed matter phenomenon that bears his name:

the Josephson effect.

After being awarded the prize, and being one of the youngest recipients to-date, he promptly went off to spend the rest of his life in the fields of parapsychology and the paranormal.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:00 am

All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Miss_Faucie_Fishtits » Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:18 am

very good.........
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:33 pm

The social psychologist who fooled almost everyone

It’s now known that Diederik Stapel, the Dutch social psychologist who was suspended by Tilburg University in September, faked dozens of studies and managed not to get caught for years despite his outrageous fabrications. But how, exactly, did he do it?

That question won’t be fully answered for a while—the investigation into the vast fraud is continuing. But a just-released English version of Tilburg’s interim report on Stapel’s deception begins to fill in some of the details of how he manipulated those who worked with him.


. . .

From the report: “The committee concludes that the six young whistle-blowers showed more courage, vigilance, and inquisitiveness than incumbent full professors. ”


. . .

While it is becoming clearer how Stapel committed his fraud, the larger question is why. In separate statements, he explained that “I was not able to withstand the pressure to score points, to publish, to always have to be better,” and that he felt “a sense of dismay and shame” but that he was “sincerely committed to the field of social psychology, young researchers, and other colleagues.”

Apparently, he saw no contradiction between that commitment and systematically manufacturing results for years, harming his graduate students and co-authors along the way, and staring down anyone who would dare question him.


The one person he did successfully fool is himself.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Simple Minded » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:08 pm

Typhoon wrote:The social psychologist who fooled almost everyone

It’s now known that Diederik Stapel, the Dutch social psychologist who was suspended by Tilburg University in September, faked dozens of studies and managed not to get caught for years despite his outrageous fabrications. But how, exactly, did he do it?

That question won’t be fully answered for a while—the investigation into the vast fraud is continuing. But a just-released English version of Tilburg’s interim report on Stapel’s deception begins to fill in some of the details of how he manipulated those who worked with him.



This question has been answered long ago, many times....

"No man was ever so much deceived by another, as by himself."
Lord Greville

"We often mistake all that we know for all that exists."

"Deceiving someone for their own good is a responsibility that should be shouldered only by the Gods."

As you have posted, it is tough to get someone to see reality when their paycheck depends upon them deluding themselves.

Typhoon wrote:The one person he did successfully fool is himself.


The best salesman always believe their own lies. The belief gives them enthusiasm and energy!
"the greatest artist is the simplifier."

"everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler."
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6526
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

He Believes!

Postby Farcus » Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:45 am

I don't get it? If he believed, how could anyone say his datasets aren't valid?
Farcus
 

Re: He Believes!

Postby Simple Minded » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:13 am

Farcus wrote:I don't get it? If he believed, how could anyone say his datasets aren't valid?


Some people believe that 2 + 2 = 5, or 2 + 2 = 3, depending upon which is in their favor du jour. Doesn't make either statement valid.
"the greatest artist is the simplifier."

"everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler."
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6526
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:58 pm

Vermont | Anti-vaccine activists derailed a bill that could have blunted the whooping cough epidemic.

“These young parents were born in the vaccine era and have not seen devastating diseases,” he says. Till says these parents are “picking and choosing which vaccines they give to their children.” One of the vaccines these parents are most often choosing not to give their children is against polio.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Azrael » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:37 am

Typhoon wrote:Vermont | Anti-vaccine activists derailed a bill that could have blunted the whooping cough epidemic.

“These young parents were born in the vaccine era and have not seen devastating diseases,” he says. Till says these parents are “picking and choosing which vaccines they give to their children.” One of the vaccines these parents are most often choosing not to give their children is against polio.

Zut alors! Yuppies can be so stupid.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:40 am

Typhoon wrote:Vermont | Anti-vaccine activists derailed a bill that could have blunted the whooping cough epidemic.

“These young parents were born in the vaccine era and have not seen devastating diseases,” he says. Till says these parents are “picking and choosing which vaccines they give to their children.” One of the vaccines these parents are most often choosing not to give their children is against polio.

I think the proper response would be improving the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, but I don't see the political will for that in the US. Parents have good reasons to not trust the vaccine industry, and they overreact when their justifiable concerns are disregarded.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4032
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:28 am

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Vermont | Anti-vaccine activists derailed a bill that could have blunted the whooping cough epidemic.

“These young parents were born in the vaccine era and have not seen devastating diseases,” he says. Till says these parents are “picking and choosing which vaccines they give to their children.” One of the vaccines these parents are most often choosing not to give their children is against polio.

I think the proper response would be improving the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, but I don't see the political will for that in the US. Parents have good reasons to not trust the vaccine industry, and they overreact when their justifiable concerns are disregarded.


How so?

Would you elaborate?
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:51 pm

All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Chairman Mao Invented Traditional Chinese Medicine

Postby Huxley » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:19 pm

...but knew it was nonsense!

Alan Levinovitz, "Chairman Mao Invented Traditional Chinese Medicine"
Slate | Oct 22, 2013

Alan Levinovitz wrote:In case you missed it, Oct. 7–13 was designated Naturopathic Medicine Week, according to a Senate resolution sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski and passed by the Senate with unanimous consent. Among the reasons the Senate cited:

Naturopathic physicians can help address the shortage of primary care providers in the United States.
The profession of naturopathic medicine is dedicated to providing health care to underserved populations.
Naturopathic medicine provides consumers in the United States with more choice in health care.


Mikulski and the rest of the Senate may be surprised to learn that they were repeating 60-year-old justifications of Chinese medicine put forward by Chairman Mao. Unlike Mikulski, however, Mao was under no illusion that Chinese medicine—a key component of naturopathic education—actually worked. ...

... But exporting Chinese medicine presented a formidable task, not least because there was no such thing as “Chinese medicine.” For thousands of years, healing practices in China had been highly idiosyncratic. Attempts at institutionalizing medical education were largely unsuccessful, and most practitioners drew at will on a mixture of demonology, astrology, yin-yang five phases theory, classic texts, folk wisdom, and personal experience.

Mao knew such medicine would be unappealing to empirically minded Westerners. He knew this because it was also unappealing to empirically minded Chinese people. ...

... First, inconsistent texts and idiosyncratic practices had to be standardized. Textbooks were written that portrayed Chinese medicine as a theoretical and practical whole, and they were taught in newly founded academies of so-called “traditional Chinese medicine,” a term that first appeared in English, not Chinese. ...

... The reason so many people take Chinese medicine seriously, at least in part, is that it was reinvented by one of the most powerful propaganda machines of all time and then consciously marketed to a West disillusioned by its own spiritual traditions. ...
Huxley
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Typhoon » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:45 pm

Anecdotally, I know of a case wherein the elderly female patient was prescribed a "traditional Chinese medicine" despite having one functioning kidney.

The action was that of a diuretic leading to very low blood sodium - hyponatremia.

This caused her brain to swell leading to similar symptoms to a stroke.

Fortunately the attending physician was familiar with the situation and knew that her blood sodium level must be raised back slowly to avoid additional damage and death.

However, she did lose mobility, she is no longer able to walk.

The sad part was that there was no reason for her to take this "medicine".
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15005
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:50 pm

I use the traditional Chinese medicine Yunnan Pai Yo as an coagulant for wounds. Works great even for deep cuts with no scarring. I'm not sure what the herb is, but am informed it is not obscure.

It comes with a red pill in the lid meant to be used for internal bleeding for males only. Never tried that.

Ref. for a promising traditional Chinese anti-cancer agent : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-17/drug-from-chinese-thunder-god-vine-slays-tumors-in-mice.html

Again, proper N=1 testing is the first step. The cost / benefit ratio of a pharmaceutical company funding a longitudinal study, or even a group test for an unpatentable herb has an asymptote approaching 0.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4032
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Hoosiernorm » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:34 pm

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... undraising

According to the ACSH documents, from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012, 58 percent of donations to the council came from corporations and large private foundations. ACSH's donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who's-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations. ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald's ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.
Been busy doing stuff
Hoosiernorm
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Junk Science: Unintentional errors and outright fraud

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:34 pm

Typhoon wrote:Anecdotally, I know of a case wherein the elderly female patient was prescribed a "traditional Chinese medicine" despite having one functioning kidney.

The action was that of a diuretic leading to very low blood sodium - hyponatremia.

This caused her brain to swell leading to similar symptoms to a stroke.

Fortunately the attending physician was familiar with the situation and knew that her blood sodium level must be raised back slowly to avoid additional damage and death.

However, she did lose mobility, she is no longer able to walk.

The sad part was that there was no reason for her to take this "medicine".

Inaccurate prescribing is not limited to Chinese medicine. No need to put medicine in finger quotes - it obviously was a strong diuretic.

Public universities are ideal places to research and train physicians in unpatentable or low market potential medicines, but instead we get a concentration of industry funded research on patentable, high market potential trivialities. Universities are more interested in producing results big pharma wants to buy, and they don't report negative results of tests as required. Money has corrupted much of the system.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4032
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science + Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest