Skepticism about science and medicine

In search of disinterested science

Archive for the ‘resistance to discovery’ Category

Climate-change orthodoxy: alternative facts, uncertainty equals certainty, projections are not predictions, and other absurdities of the “scientific consensus”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/05/10

G. K. Chesterton once suggested that the best argument for accepting the Christian faith lies in the reasons offered by atheists and skeptics against doing so. That interesting slant sprang to mind as I was trying to summarize the reasons for not believing the “scientific consensus” that blames carbon dioxide for climate change.

Of course the very best reason for not believing that CO2 causes climate change are the data, as summarized in an earlier post

–>      Global temperatures have often been high while CO2 levels were low, and vice versa

–>     CO2 levels rise or fall after temperatures have risen or fallen

–>     Temperatures decreased between the 1940s and 1970s, and since about 1998 there has been a pause in warming, perhaps even cooling, while CO2 levels have risen steadily.

But disbelieving the official propaganda becomes much easier when one recognizes the sheer absurdities and illogicalities and self-contradictions committed unceasingly by defenders of the mainstream view.

1940s-1970s cooling
Mainstream official climate science is centered on models: computer programs that strive to simulate real-world phenomena. Any reasonably detailed description of such models soon reveals that there are far too many variables and interactions to make that feasible; and moreover that a host of assumptions are incorporated in all the models (1). In any case, the official models do not simulate the cooling trend of these three decades.
“Dr. James Hansen suspects the relatively sudden, massive output of aerosols from industries and power plants contributed to the global cooling trend from 1940-1970” (2).
But the models do not take aerosols into account; they are so flawed that they are unable to simulate a thirty-year period in which carbon emissions were increasing and temperatures decreasing. An obvious conclusion is that no forecast based on those models deserves to be given any credence.

One of the innumerable science-groupie web-sites expands on the aerosol speculation:
“40’s to 70’s cooling, CO2 rising?
This is a fascinating denialist argument. If CO2 is rising, as it was in the 40’s through the 70’s, why would there be cooling?
It’s important to understand that the climate has warmed and cooled naturally without human influence in the past. Natural cycle, or natural variability need to be understood if you wish to understand what modern climate forcing means. In other words modern or current forcing is caused by human industrial output to the atmosphere. This human-induced forcing is both positive (greenhouse gases) and negative (sulfates and aerosols).”

Fair enough; but the models fail to take account of natural cycles.

Rewriting history
The Soviet Union had an official encyclopedia that was revised as needed, for example by rewriting history to delete or insert people and events to correspond with a given day’s political correctness. Some climate-change enthusiasts also try to rewrite history: “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then” (3). Compare that with a host of reproductions and citations of headlines from those cold times when media alarms were set off by what the “scientific consensus” indeed then was (4). And the cooling itself was, of course, real, as is universally acknowledged nowadays.

The media faithfully report what officialdom disseminates. Routinely, any “extreme” weather event is ascribed to climate change — anything worth featuring as “breaking news”, say tsunamis, hurricanes, bushfires in Australia and elsewhere. But the actual data reveal no increase in extreme events in recent decades: not Atlantic storms, nor Australian cyclones, nor US tornadoes, nor “global tropical cyclone accumulated energy”, nor extremely dry periods in the USA, in the last 150 years during which atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 40% (pp. 46-51 in (1)). Nor have sea levels been rising in any unusual manner (Chapter 6 in (1)).

Defenders of climate-change dogma tie themselves in knots about whether carbon dioxide has already affected climate, whether its influence is to be seen in short-term changes or only over the long term. For instance, the attempt to explain 1940s-70s cooling presupposes that CO2 is only to be indicted for changes over much longer time-scales than mere decades. Perhaps the ultimate demonstration of wanting to have it both ways — only long-term, but also short-term — is illustrated by a pamphlet issued jointly by the Royal Society of London and the National Academy of Science of the USA (5, 6).

No warming since about 1998
Some official sources deny that there has been any cessation of warming in the new century or millennium. Others admit it indirectly by attempting to explain it away or dismiss it as irrelevant, for instance “slowdowns and accelerations in warming lasting a decade or more will continue to occur. However, long- term climate change over many decades will depend mainly on the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human   activities” (p. 2 in (5)); “shorter-term variations are mostly due to natural causes, and do not contradict our fundamental understanding that the long-term warming trend is primarily due to human-induced changes in the atmospheric levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases” (p. 11 in (5)).

Obfuscating and misdirecting
The Met Office, the UK’s National Meteorological Service, is very deceptive about the recent lack of warming:

“Should climate models have predicted the pause?
Media coverage … of the launch of the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC has again said that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and that the pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.

[No one disputes the reality of long-term global warming — the issue is whether natural forces are responsible as opposed to human-generated carbon dioxide]

… some commentators have criticised climate models for not predicting the pause. …
We should not confuse climate prediction with climate change projection. Climate prediction is about saying what the state of the climate will be in the next few years, and it depends absolutely on knowing what the state of the climate is today. And that requires a vast number of high quality observations, of the atmosphere and especially of the ocean.
On the other hand, climate change projections are concerned with the long view; the impact of the large and powerful influences on our climate, such as greenhouse gases.

[Implying sneakily and without warrant that natural forces are not “large and powerful”. That is quite wrong and it is misdirection, the technique used by magicians to divert attention from what is really going on. By far the most powerful force affecting climate is the energy coming from the sun.]

Projections capture the role of these overwhelming influences on climate and its variability, rather than predict the current state of the variability itself.
The IPCC model simulations are projections and not predictions; in other words the models do not start from the state of the climate system today or even 10 years ago. There is no mileage in a story about models being ‘flawed’ because they did not predict the pause; it’s merely a misunderstanding of the science and the difference between a prediction and a projection.
[Misdirection again. The IPCC models failed to project or predict the lack of warming since 1998, and also the cooling of three decades after 1940. The point is that the models are inadequate, so neither predictions nor projections should be believed.]

… the deep ocean is likely a key player in the current pause, effectively ‘hiding’ heat from the surface. Climate model projections simulate such pauses, a few every hundred years lasting a decade or more; and they replicate the influence of the modes of natural climate variability, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that we think is at the centre of the current pause.
[Here is perhaps the worst instance of misleading. The “Climate model projections” that are claimed to “simulate such pauses, a few every hundred years lasting a decade or more” are not made with the models that project alarming human-caused global warming, they are ad hoc models that explore the possible effects of variables not taken into account in the overall climate models.]”

The projections — which the media (as well as people familiar with the English language) fail to distinguish from predictions — that indict carbon dioxide as cause of climate change are based on models that do not incorporate possible effects of deep-ocean “hidden heat” or such natural cycles as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Those and other such factors as aerosols are considered only in trying to explain why the climate models are wrong, which is the crux of the matter. The climate models are wrong.

Asserting that uncertainty equals certainty
The popular media disseminated faithfully and uncritically from the most recent official report that “Scientists are 95% certain that human are responsible for the ‘unprecedented’ warming experienced by the Earth over the last few decades

Leave aside that the warming cannot be known to be “unprecedented” — global temperatures have been much higher in the past, and historical data are not fine-grained enough to compare rates of warming over such short time-spans as mere decades or centuries.

There is no such thing as “95% certainty”.
Certainty means 100%; anything else is a probability, not a certainty.
A probability of 95% may seem very impressive — until it is translated into its corollary: 5% probability of being wrong; and 5% is 1 in 20. I wouldn’t bet on anything that’s really important to me if there’s 1 chance in 20 of losing the bet.
So too with the frequent mantra that 97% or 98% of scientists, or some other superficially impressive percentage, support the “consensus” that global warming is owing to carbon dioxide (7):

 

“Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.”

In other words, 3% (“on average”) of “publishing climate scientists” disagree. And the history of science teaches unequivocally that even a 100% scientific consensus has in the past been wrong, most notably on the most consequential matters, those that advanced science spectacularly in what are often called “scientific revolutions” (8).
Furthermore, “publishing climate scientists” biases the scales a great deal, because peer review ensures that dissenting evidence and claims do not easily get published. In any case, those percentages are based on surveys incorporating inevitable flaws (sampling bias as with peer review, for instance). The central question is, “How convinced are you that most recent and near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes”? On that, the “consensus” was only between 33% and 39%, showing that “the science is NOT settled” (9; emphasis in original).

Science groupies — unquestioning accepters of “the consensus”
The media and countless individuals treat the climate-change consensus dogma as Gospel Truth, leading to such extraordinary proposals as that by Professor of Law, Philippe Sands, QC, that “False claims from climate sceptics that humans are not responsible for global warming and that sea level is not rising should be scotched by an international court ruling”.

I would love to see any court take up the issue, which would allow us to make defenders of the orthodox view attempt to explain away all the data which demonstrate that global warming and climate change are not driven primarily by carbon dioxide.

The central point

Official alarms and established scientific institutions rely not on empirical data, established facts about temperature and CO2, but on computer models that are demonstrably wrong.

Those of us who believe that science should be empirical, that it should follow the data and change theories accordingly, become speechless in the face of climate-change dogma defended in the manner described above. It would be screamingly funny, if only those who do it were not our own “experts” and official representatives (10). Even the Gods are helpless in the face of such determined ignoring of reality (11).

___________________________________

(1)    For example, chapter 10 in Howard Thomas Brady, Mirrors and Mazes, 2016; ISBN 978-1522814689. For a more general argument that models are incapable of accurately simulating complex natural processes, see, O. H. Pilkey & L. Pilkey-Jarvis, Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future, Columbia University Press, 2007
(2)    “40’s to 70’s cooling, CO2 rising?”
(3)    Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley & John Fleck, “The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 2008, 1325-37
(4)    “History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 – 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being ‘erased’”; 1970s Global Cooling Scare; 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
(5)    Climate Change: Evidence & Causes—An Overview from the Royal   Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press; ISBN 978-0-309-30199-2
(6)    Relevant bits of (e) are cited in a review, Henry H. Bauer, “Climate-change science or climate-change propaganda?”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 29 (2015) 621-36
(7)    The 97% consensus on global warming
(8) Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970; Bernard Barber, “Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery”, Science, 134 (1961) 596–602. Gunther Stent, “Prematurity and uniqueness in   scientific discovery”, Scientific American, December 1972, pp. 84-93. Hook, Ernest B. (ed), Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On Resistance and Neglect, University of California Press, 2002
(9)    Dennis Bray, “The scientific consensus of climate change revisited”, Environmental Science & Policy, 13 (2010) 340 –50; see also “The myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’”, Wall Street Journal, 27 May 2014, p. A.13, by Joseph Bast & Roy Spencer
(10) My mother’s frequent repetitions engraved in my mind the German folk-saying, “Wenn der Narr nicht mein wär’, lacht’ ich mit”. Google found it in the Deutsches sprichwörter-lexikon edited by Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wander (#997, p. 922)
(11)  “Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens”; Friedrich Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans.

 

Advertisements

Posted in consensus, denialism, global warming, media flaws, peer review, resistance to discovery, science is not truth, science policy, scientism, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

Climate-change facts: Temperature is not determined by carbon dioxide

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/05/02

The mainstream claims about carbon dioxide , global warming, and climate change, parroted by most media and accepted by most of the world’s governments, are rather straightforward: carbon dioxide released in the burning of “fossil fuels” (chiefly coal and oil) drives global warming because CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”, absorbing heat that would otherwise radiate harmlessly out into space. Since the mid-19th century, when the Industrial Revolution set off this promiscuous releasing of CO2, the Earth has been getting hotter at an unprecedented pace.

The trouble with these claims is that actual data demonstrate that global temperature is not determined by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

For example, during the past 500 million years, CO2 levels have often been much higher than now, including times when global temperatures were lower (1):

“The gray bars at the top … correspond to the periods when the global climate was cool; the intervening white space corresponds to the warm modes … no correspondence between pCO2 and climate is evident …. Superficially, this observation would seem to imply that pCO2 does not exert dominant control on Earth’s climate …. A wealth of evidence, however, suggests that pCO2 exerts at least some control …. [but this Figure] … shows that the ‘null hypothesis’ that pCO2 and climate are unrelated cannot be rejected on the basis of this evidence alone.” [To clarify convoluted double negative: All the evidence cited in support of mainstream claims is insufficient to over-rule what the above Figure shows, that CO2 does not determine global temperatures (the “null hypothesis”).]

Again, with temperature levels in quantitative detail (2):

Towards the end of the Precambrian Era, CO2 levels (purple curve) were very much higher than now while temperatures (blue curve) were if anything lower. Over most of the more recent times, CO2 levels have been very much lower while temperatures most of the time were considerably higher.

Moreover, the historical range of temperature fluctuations makes a mockery of contemporary mainstream ambitions to prevent global temperatures rising by as much as 2°C; for most of Earth’s history, temperatures have been about 6°C higher than at present.

Cause precedes effect

The data just cited do not clearly demonstrate whether rising CO2 brings about subsequent rises in temperature — or vice versa. However, ice-core data back as far as 420,000 years do show which comes first: temperature changes are followed by CO2 changes (3):

On average, CO2 rises lag about 800 years behind temperature rises; and CO2 levels also decline slowly after temperatures have fallen.

Since the Industrial Revolution

Over the last 150 years, global temperatures have risen, and levels of CO2 have risen. This period is minuscule by comparison to the historical data summarized above. Crucially, what has happened in this recent sliver of time cannot be compared directly to the past because the historical data are not fine-grained enough to discern changes over such short periods of time. What is undisputed, however, is that CO2 and temperature have not increased in tandem in this recent era, just as over geological time-spans. From the 1940s until the 1970s, global temperatures were falling, and mainstream experts were telling the mass media that an Ice Age was threatening (4) — at the same time as CO2 levels were continuing their merry rise with fossil fuels being burnt at an ever-increasing rate (5):

1945 to 1977 cool period with soaring CO2 emissions. Global temperatures began to cool in the mid–1940’s at the point when CO2 emissions began to soar … . Global temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped about 0.5°C (0.9° F)
from the mid-1940s until 1977 and temperatures globally
cooled about 0.2°C (0.4° F) …. Many of the world’s glaciers advanced during this time and recovered a good deal
of the ice lost during the 1915–1945 warm period”.

Furthermore (5):

Global cooling from 1999 to 2009. No global warming has occurred above the 1998 level. In 1998, the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] was in its warm mode. In 1999, the PDO flipped from its warm mode into its cool mode and satellite imagery confirms that the cool mode has become firmly entrenched since then and global cooling has deepened significantly in the past few years.”

In short:
–>       Global temperatures have often been high
while CO2 levels were low, and vice versa
–>        CO2 levels rise or fall after temperatures have risen or fallen
–>         CO2 levels have risen steadily but temperatures decreased
between the 1940s and 1970s, and since about 1998
there has been a pause in warming, perhaps even cooling

Quite clearly, CO2 is not the prime driver of global temperature. Data, facts, about temperature and CO2 demonstrate that something else has far outweighed the influence of CO2 levels in determining temperatures throughout Earth’s history, including since the Industrial Revolution. “Something else” can only be natural forces. And indeed there are a number of known natural forces that affect Earth’s temperature; and many of those forces vary cyclically over time. The amount of energy radiated to Earth by the Sun varies in correlation with the 11-year periodic cycle of sun-spots, which is fairly widely known; but there are many other cycles known only to specialists, say the 9-year Lunisolar Precession cycle; and these natural forces have periodically warmed and cooled the Earth in cycles of glaciation and warmth at intervals of roughly 100,000 – 120,000 years (the Milankovitch Cycles), with a number of other cycles superposed on those (6).

So the contemporary mainstream view, the so-called “scientific consensus”, is at odds with the evidence, the facts.

That will seem incredible to many people, who might well ask how that could be possible. How could “science” be so wrong?

In brief: because of facts about science that are not much known outside the ranks of historians and philosophers and sociologists of science (7): that the scientific consensus at any given time on any given matter has been wrong quite often over the years and centuries (8); and that science nowadays has become quite different from our traditional view of it (9).

____________________________________

(1)    Daniel H. Rothman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99 (2002) 4167-71, doi: 10.1073/pnas.022055499
(2)    Nahle Nasif, “Cycles of Global Climate Change”, Biology Cabinet Journal Online, #295 (2007); primary sources of data are listed there
(3)    The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed; primary sources are cited there
(4)    History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 – 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being “erased”;
 1970s Global Cooling Scare;
 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism 
(5)    Don Easterbrook,
 “Global warming and CO2 during the past century”
(6)    David Dilley, Natural Climate Pulse, January 2012;
(7)    For example:
What everyone knows is usually wrong (about science, say)
Scientific literacy in one easy lesson
The culture and the cult of science
(8)    For example:
Bernard Barber, “Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery”,
Science, 134 (1961) 596–602.
Gunther Stent, “Prematurity and uniqueness in
scientific discovery”, Scientific American,
December 1972, pp. 84-93.
Hook, Ernest B. (ed), Prematurity in Scientific Discovery:
On Resistance and Neglect,
                                          University of California Press, 2002.
Science: A Danger for Public Policy?!
(9)   For example:
How Science Has Changed — notably since World War II
The Science Bubble
The business of for-profit “science”
From Dawn to Decadence: The Three Ages of Modern Science

Posted in consensus, global warming, resistance to discovery, science is not truth, science policy, scientific culture, the scientific method, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

Anti-psychotic drugs: initial benefit, long-term harm

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/08/03

Recently (Trust medical science at your peril (2): What is the evidence, especially in psychiatry? ) I recommended the newsletter of Mad in America  for disseminating reliable information about psychiatric matters. A recent issue of the Newsletter has links to a very thorough examination of the evidence that anti-psychotic drugs make things worse if used long-term: “The case against antipsychotics — A review of their long-term effects”, by Robert Whitaker (July 2016).

There is considerable support for the hypothesis that psychotic episodes are associated with heightened sensitivity to dopamine. Anti-psychotics ameliorate such episodes by blocking dopamine receptors. These drugs appear to be beneficial immediately, and for perhaps as long as a couple of years. However, once exposed to the drugs, withdrawal almost always has severe bad effects.

It appears that the brain tries to overcome the blocking of the dopamine receptors by increasing the number of these receptors. That takes appreciably long time, apparently many months if not years, so the consequences become significantly important only eventually. That explains why withdrawal brings even worse symptoms than the original ones were, and why long-term treatment is more harmful than beneficial. The drugs must be used forever, and their cumulating “side” effects are very debilitating.

Non-drug treatment of schizophrenia and other psychoses, sometimes teamed with short-term drug use, has much better long-term outcomes than does continual medication; better outcomes in terms of better all-around functioning and fewer relapses.

 

Posted in medical practices, prescription drugs, resistance to discovery, science is not truth | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

“Cold fusion” never disproved, lives on under other names

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/29

“Cold fusion” began in 1989 as a claim that fusion of deuterium could be accomplished at room temperatures in electrochemical cells using palladium electrodes. The claim was quickly dismissed after quick and dirty attempts at replication, but hundreds of researchers have continued to look into that and similar systems, including activation by sound energy or lasers. Further claims of nuclear transformations followed, and the field is now being pursued under other names: ‘condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS)’;  ‘low energy nuclear reactions (LENR)’; ‘chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR)’; ‘lattice assisted nuclear reactions (LANR)’.

There is a dedicated professional society, the International Society for Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science (www.iscmns.org) and journal, the Electronic Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (http://iscmns.org/CMNS/publications.htm).

For an up-to-date review of the field, see Current Science 108 #4, pp. 491-659, freely available at http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/toc.php?vol=108&issue=04.

 

Posted in funding research, resistance to discovery | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Loch Ness Monsters

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/03/13

A book about “the Loch Ness Monster” by a man (Tim Dinsdale) who had filmed the back of a large creature swimming in Loch Ness had aroused my interest in 1961: Could the Loch Ness Monster be a real animal after all?

I was disappointed that I could find no authoritative discussion of the possibility in the popular or scientific literature. Encyclopedias had no more than a paragraph or two. On the other hand, Dinsdale’s book cited several earlier works, by Rupert Gould and by Constance Whyte, both of whom had quite impressive credentials. Why would science have nothing to say about a topic of such wide public interest?

That curiosity led me eventually to change my academic field from chemistry to science studies, with interest especially in scientific unorthodoxies. But I’ve kept my interest in Loch Ness, which remains an unexplained mystery. I’ve detailed elsewhere what my “belief” about Nessies actually is (Henry Bauer and the Loch Ness monsters).

Some of the most objective and compelling evidence for the existence of these creatures comes from sonar (“The Case for the Loch Ness Monster: The Scientific Evidence”Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16(2): 225–246 [2002]) and a few underwater photos taken simultaneously with sonar echoes, but such technical stuff is less subjectively convincing than “seeing with one’s own eyes”. For the latter, there is no substitute for the film taken by Tim Dinsdale in 1960. Recently Tim’s son Angus published a book, The Man Who Filmed Ness: Tim Dinsdale and the Enigma of Loch Ness, whose website  contains a link  that enables anyone to see the film itself on-line. Grainy as the film is, small as the Nessie’s back may seem at the range of a mile, you need to know only one thing to judge its significance:

The most determined debunkers, of whom there have been quite a few, have been able to suggest only one alternative explanation to this being a film of a large unidentified creature, of a species far larger than anything know to be in Loch Ness: That what seems to be a black hump, curved in cross-section and length, which submerges but continues to throw up a massive wake, is actually a boat with an outboard motor. Several magnified and computer-enhanced frames of the massive wake on my website show quite clearly that nothing material is visible above the wake after the hump has submerged.

If the most dedicated “skeptics” can offer no better explanation than this, then I feel justified in believing that Dinsdale filmed a genuine Nessie.
It reminds me of the Christian apologist, I think probably G. K. Chesterton or Malcolm Muggeridge, who remarked that the best argument for the truth of Christianity is the attempts by disbelievers to discredit it.
If there is one thing that the hump filmed by Dinsdale is certainly NOT, it’s a boat with an outboard motor.

Posted in resistance to discovery, science is not truth, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Public (lack of) sound knowledge about medical matters

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/10/27

This is a scientific age, and medicine (among other things) is now based on science. And science, of course, is self-correcting.

At least that’s what the conventional wisdom is, the Zeitgeist, the common shibboleths, and what the slew of public pundits keeps repeating.

The truth, of course, is quite otherwise. We’re in a Science Bubble [1] in which conflicts of interest, commercial interests, and bureaucracy throughout official institutions and “grass-roots” organizations make it less and less likely that genuine scientific knowledge influences our policies and practices.

The media do not do their job as a Fourth Estate that might help to keep the other Estates honest, they are simply mouthpieces helping to inflate and sustain the Science Bubble.

Evidence for these assertions:
Over the last few decades, and especially the last one, there has been a spate of informed criticism of present-day drug-besotted medical practice, in dozens of books and many more articles, from prominent insiders and from competent and well informed observers [2].
But the public media have failed to bring awareness of these critiques to the general public. And when they do make some reference to bits of it, they fail to emphasize the conclusions or to draw attention to the wider context of the Big Picture.

Case in point:
For years, informed insiders and observers have pointed out that much routine “screening” has done far more harm than good, by leading to unnecessary and damaging “preventive” “treatment” for people who did not need it.
Shannon Brownlee pointed this out at least 5 years ago in relation to mammography screening against breast cancer [3]; and Brownlee practices what she preaches:
“I don’t get mammograms. I don’t do mammograms. Now, I may do a mammogram or two in my 60s when it looks like the benefit is greatest, but I don’t do mammograms. And it’s . . . because I am more worried about being harmed by unnecessary treatment. I’m very worried about being harmed by unnecessary treatment by overdiagnosis.” [4]
Peter Gøtzsche published a book about it in 2012 [5], as authoritative as one might wish since Gøtzsche heads the Nordic Cochrane Center — the Cochrane Collaboration  being an independent group whose raison d’être is literature reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether actual practices do or do not live up to claims and expectations.

But what does the public learn from the popular media?
In 2014, for example, THIS WEEK (ABC TV, 26 October 2014) mentioned, as supposedly current news, that there’s controversy over the benefits of routine mammography screening.

I mentioned this to a good friend who happens to be a statistician/probabilist. He had worked at the University of Michigan some 40 years ago in a group that reported already then that annual mammograms did more harm than good.

Long gone are the days when Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes programs, to the occasional bemusement and sometimes dismay of sponsors, advertisers, and executives, would actually call a spade a spade (or a bloody shovel, as Aussies would say).

When the Science Bubble finally bursts, it will do far more damage than the defective air-bags and other things that the media are currently obsessing over and describing as world-shattering risks. Much is wrong with present-day medical practice, scores of books have been written about that, but the popular media seem ignorant of it and continue to disseminate misleading and damaging material.

——————————————-
[1] The Science Bubble, Edgescience #17, February 2014, 3-6
[2] What’s Wrong with Present-Day Medicine
[3] Cancer screening: Doing more harm than good?, Reader’s Digest, April 2009
[4] Diane Rehm show, “Debate over the benefits of routine mammograms”, 12 December 2012
[5] Mammography Screening: Truth. Lies and Controversy, Radcliffe, 2012

Posted in conflicts of interest, media flaws, medical practices, resistance to discovery, science is not truth, science policy | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »

Anti-obesity surgery: Weight loss prevents Alzheimer’s? (Anti-obesity fuss IV)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/09/05

Being obese is bad for you, so everyone is saying just now; everyone including professional societies, official agencies, and drug companies who sell mind-altering drugs to curb your appetite that may also cause “potentially life-threatening serotonin syndrome . . . . confusion, Cognitive Impairment, disturbances in attention or memory . . . , Psychiatric Disorders including euphoria and dissociation, . . . depression or suicidal thoughts” [emphasis added] as well as priapism (erections lasting longer than 4 hours) [1].

Lest this possibility of literally fatal harm suggests that the possible benefit is not worth the risk and dissuades potential customers for these drugs, we’re now told that the drugs might not only harm the brain, they could actually do the very opposite too:

“Weight-loss surgery can boost brain power and ‘cut the risk of developing Alzheimer’s’”

  • Scientists in Brazil found gastric bypass surgery can affect brain activity
  • Found the operation curbed changes in the brain associated with obesity
  • They noted improvements in planning, strategising and organising
  • Researchers also found evidence operation could reduce risk of Alzheimer’s

All this from a study of just 17 obese women, comparing them before bariatric surgery and 24 weeks after surgery.

“[S]ome areas of their [obese women’s] brains metabolised sugars at a higher rate than normal weight women. . . . in a part of the brain linked to the development of Alzheimer’s disease . . . . Since bariatric surgery reversed this activity, we suspect the procedure may contribute to a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia. . . .

The new research focused on a procedure known as a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYBG) which combines the two types of bariatric surgery.

Brain scans and a range of psychological tests were used to assess its effect over a period of six months. . . .
bariatric surgery seemed to improve the performance of the obese women in a test of ‘executive function’. . . . the brain’s ability to connect past experience and current action . . . involved in planning, organising and making strategic decisions. Other tests measuring various aspects of memory and thinking ability showed no change after bariatric surgery”.

 

The original article on which this account is based is Marques et al., “Changes in neuropsychological tests and brain metabolism after bariatric surgery”, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 26 August 2014: jc.20142068. Its 6 pages are replete with speculation and do nothing to decrease my skepticism that lack of improvement in “various aspects of memory and thinking ability” could accompany improved performance in “planning, organising and making strategic decisions”.

This speculation is without any reasonable basis at all because Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is far from well understood. It is simply not known that there is “a part of the brain linked to the development of Alzheimer’s disease”. There is considerable evidence against the mainstream hypothesis that AD is characterized by amyloid plaques [2].

TV’s 60 Minutes of 31 August 2014 reported results of continuing research with cohorts of old (≥90 years) people, observing their behavior and cognitive abilities together with in vivo recording of brain activity. The researchers expressed surprise that the amyloid plaques and tau tangles thought to be the cause of AD were present in some people who showed no signs of dementia; while some individuals with dementia had no sign of amyloid plaques or tau tangles. Instead, there were indications that tiny strokes had effectively killed small parts of the brain, strokes so small that the affected individual would have had no immediate indication of their occurrence.

 

Lay people might regard those findings as further evidence that amyloid and tau have nothing to do with AD, or indeed with dementia in general.
Those who believe that science rejects hypotheses when the evidence contradicts them might also imagine that the mainstream is now discarding the notion that AD is caused by accumulation of plaques of amyloid protein.

But that’s not what happens in the real world. The researchers suggested on 60 Minutes that maybe the brains of non-demented individuals with tau tangles and amyloid plaques had found some way or other to “get around” those indications of AD . . . . They didn’t try to explain why some AD victims had no tau tangles or amyloid plaques.

 

Those of us who are familiar with the ignoring of evidence that contradicts mainstream dogmas recognize this as routine, cognitive dissonance in the service of mainstream denialism.

 

————————————————————

[1] Belviq®, revised 08/2012

[2]  Pp. 108-9 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland (2012)

Posted in consensus, denialism, medical practices, resistance to discovery, science is not truth, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“The scientific method” — it’s just not used, e.g. in Alzheimer’s Disease

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/07/17

Alzheimer’s disease is one of the dysfunctional knowledge monopolies mentioned in my book, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine  (pp. 108-9).

Decades-old dogma takes the cause of the disease to be the build-up in the brain of plaques of amyloid protein. However, a mass of actual evidence indicates that theory to be wrong: there have been “hundreds of experiments casting doubt on the neurotoxicity of amyloid”; drugs and vaccines that act against the plaque have been ineffective; amyloid injected into brains of mice caused no symptoms. Yet researchers find it very difficult to get their evidence for other causes of Alzheimer’s published or to get research support for their work.

Rationalizations that try to prop up the amyloid theory are feeble and far-fetched, as illustrated by a fairly recent paean to a “breakthrough”:
“New imaging shows Alzheimer’s unfolding in live brains” (Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 18 September 2013):
“The two major brain abnormalities that underlie Alzheimer’s disease can now be viewed simultaneously in brain scans while people are still alive”. Amyloid plaque has been observable since 2005 by PET (positron emission tomography), but now one can also observe “tau tangles”, and “tau lesions are known to be more intimately associated with neuronal loss than plaques . . . . tau tangles accumulate first in the hippocampus — the brain’s memory centre — at a time when the plaques are already widespread. . . . Previous research has shown that the tangles rapidly kill neurons and trigger behavioural changes. . . . [The new] images suggest that the plaques are themselves harmless, but help to advance disease by spreading the tau tangles from the hippocampus to other brain regions” [emphases added].

Note first that “the scientific method” * that so many pundits still cite and believe in states that a theory is discarded when the evidence goes against it. Here, the mass of evidence against amyloid theory has not broken the grip of the dogmatic knowledge-monopoly. Even as it is acknowledged that tau tangles and not plaques are actually closely associated with loss of neurons, and that plaques were present “10 to 15 years before there are symptoms”, the amyloid theory is still paid obeisance by suggesting that amyloid plays an essential role by “spreading the tau tangles”.

But since plaque pre-dates symptoms by a decade or more, surely it makes more sense to infer that plaque “may be neutral or even beneficial, perhaps attempting to defend neurons that are under attack” since “some amyloid can be found in the brains of most people over 40”.

The New Scientist piece is based on Maruyama et al., “Imaging of Tau Pathology in a Tauopathy Mouse Model and in Alzheimer Patients Compared to Normal Controls”, Neuron, 79 [2013] 1094-1108; the “et al.” stands for 24 additional names. That article begins, “Hallmark pathologies of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are extracellular senile plaques consisting of aggregated amyloid β peptide . . . and intraneuronal . . . pathological tau fibrils, while similar tau lesions in neurons and glia are also characteristic of other neurodegenerative disorders” [emphasis added].
Tau tangles, but not amyloid, are known to be associated with a number of neurodegenerative disorders. Where was the need to invoke amyloid rather than tau as a cause of Alzheimer’s in the first place?
Those who question established mainstream dogmas are routinely called “denialists” — “AIDS denialists”, “climate change denialists”, and so forth. In point of fact, it is typically the mainstream thatis truly denialist: evidence denialist. As Max Planck out it long ago, old theories die only as their proponents also pass away; science advances funeral by funeral.
————————————-

* See Scientific Literacy and Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press 1992

Posted in denialism, medical practices, resistance to discovery, the scientific method | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

More reviews of DOGMATISM book

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/05/22

Two substantial reviews offering much room for further thought have just been published of Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth:

Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28 (2014) 142-48, by Donald J. DeGracia
Dogmatism in Science and Medicine (DSM) by Henry H. Bauer is about the corruption of modern science. For practicing scientists it is a disturbing book to read. Medicine is bitter, yet we put up with it to get better. DSM is bitter medicine intended to improve the health of science.
. . . .
Dr. Bauer does a professional, competent, and important job bringing the corruption of modern science into the light. The criticisms offered above do not detract from the fundamental correctness of the picture DSM paints, but instead underscore its seriousness, and the need to further refine the picture. To scoff at DSM or to think it is off-base is merely to reveal that the scoffer is woefully uninformed about the transformations that have occurred in science over the past decades. If one is a practicing scientist, or a concerned citizen of good will, one ignores this book at one’s own peril.

Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28 (2014) 149-52, by Brian Josephson
At the end of this fascinating book, Bauer asks the question: Can 21st century science become trustworthy again? He suggests that change must come from outside the existing institutions, which merely serve to perpetuate knowledge monopolies, but first the need for change must become generally recognized . Possibilities discussed include a Science Court; independent, publicly funded institutions that can assess scientific claims of public importance; and designated funds for non-mainstream research. Something of this nature is clearly needed.

 

 

 

Posted in denialism, fraud in medicine, fraud in science, funding research, global warming, media flaws, medical practices, peer review, politics and science, prescription drugs, resistance to discovery, science policy, scientism, scientists are human | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Experts, pundits, and the search for trustworthy knowledge

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/03/16

Long ago on a family trip by car, after we had gone for some miles in a wrong direction, my 9-year-old daughter noted that “No one’s perfect, not even Daddy”.
That’s worth recalling whenever you hear the word “expert”.

“According to experts” is a favorite media phrase. The citing of un-named experts is an outright scam. Maybe the reporter had just asked a trusted friend? Or consulted Wikipedia or some other Googled source? “Experts” differ in what they know, in how competent they are, how honest, scrupulous, publicity-seeking . . . . — they differ in all the ways that humans can differ from one another, including trustworthiness.

The whole point of citing experts is to justify a claim. But to be able to judge whether an expert is trustworthy, one needs to know who that expert is.

The media’s choices of experts are anything but reassuring. When non-anonymous experts about subject X appear in the media, in print or in person, it can be observed that any assistant professor of subject X at any college evidently qualifies for the media designation “expert”; or any journalist or pundit who has devoted time to subject X. For my part, if I am to take someone’s opinion as worth attending to, I need a lot more information and assurance than that.

Even experts with ostensibly unimpeachable credentials for expertise may not necessarily inspire trust. On matters of public policy, experts (like others) may express views on technical matters that reflect their political inclinations more than they do an unbiased view of the technicalities. Thus on matters of atomic energy and nuclear warfare, indubitably qualified expert Edward Teller and indubitably qualified expert Robert Oppenheimer delivered directly opposite advice with comparable force and expertness.

Indeed, when it comes to informing the general public or giving advice to policy makers, the most technically expert experts are not typically the best sources. The most lauded experts are those who have gained prominence through achieving something highly significant and original. Almost always, such individuals are headstrong, fiercely driven, egotistical personalities whose unwillingness to listen to others was an important asset in their technical achievements, for the most significant and original advances almost always encounter initial resistance from the mainstream, and it requires great self-confidence and persistence and not listening to critics to bring novel science into being (Barber, 1961; though Barber’s analysis is half-a-century in the past, it remains pertinent. For instance, if Townes (1999) had listened to the pleas of his Department Head and other senior physicists at Columbia University, his invention of the maser and laser might well have had to wait for later work by others).

Pundits, journalists, science writers and others may well have focused virtually all their time and effort on subject X and yet get it significantly or even entirely wrong on central points (Bauer, 2012a). Most commonly, they do so because they misguidedly lend unquestioned trust to the most prominent technical experts. And like those experts and everyone else, pundits and journalists and science writers may be so at the mercy of their ideology that they cannot evaluate the evidence in reasonably unbiased fashion. Writings and statements on the subject of human-caused global warming or climate change illustrate that fact as pro and con “experts” wax furious at those with differing views; and the great majority of pundits, journalists and others only consult those experts whose views are congenial to them: Fox News and MSNBC manage to find experts on opposing sides of almost any issue.

Anyone who wants to form a trustworthy opinion on any issue over which “experts” differ must delve into the substantive issues for themselves. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, one does not need much technical expertise to be able to evaluate the trustworthiness of opposing experts. One can judge appropriately by how well or badly the experts try to explain and justify their opinions, whether they respond substantively to queries or whether they brush them aside haughtily or evade them sneakily. When Robert Gallo is queried about the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, for example, sometimes he hangs up the phone, or perhaps says that everyone agrees with him so he must be right; what he has never done in response to a direct request is to cite publications that supposedly prove that HIV causes AIDS (Bauer, 2007).

So the most prominent, publicly acclaimed “experts” on a given topic cannot be relied on to deliver the most judicious and unbiased advice. They can be useful about the most intricate technical details, the structure and properties of leaves or arteries or retroviruses, but they are not usually willing or able to see the forest among all the trees.

Nor of course can anyone else be relied on if you really want to reach an informed and evidence-respecting opinion. No matter how much time and effort anyone may have devoted to an issue over which there is less than 100% consensus, everyone remains fallible for a variety of reasons: conflicts of interest, ideology, lapses of mental acuity, bad luck in not locating important evidence. Not that 100% consensus guarantees trustworthy information either. The whole history of the progress of scientific understanding is marked by milestones that are also gravestones of earlier 100% unquestioned mainstream consensuses. Scientific understanding has progressed via major revolutions in which earlier 100% consensuses were acknowledged to be wanting and were ditched in favor of something different (Kuhn, 1970).

Encyclopedias and other compendia are particularly to be treated with great caution, for they too are drawn up by fallible people. Most commonly, the authors suffer from faith in scientism, namely, “a too uncritically deferential attitude toward science” (Haack, 2013/14): using “science” or “scientific” as an honorific, signifying “to be trusted”; insisting on a clear difference between real science and pseudo-scientific imposters; asserting the existence of an unimpeachable “scientific method”; regarding science as the only source of reliable answers to all possible questions, and denigrating the legitimacy of such non-scientific endeavors as the humanities, the arts, theology.

Nowadays, it is quite difficult to locate individuals who are not to some degree addicted to and misled by scientistic belief — and those most immune to it most often suffer addiction to some comparably intellectually disabling dogmatic faith, say erroneously literalist and fundamentalist Islam or Christianity.

The unquestioned benefits that the Internet has brought have been accompanied by wholesale lack of reliable sourcing. I’ve described from personal experience the lack of fact-checking at Wikipedia and the lack of useful means to correct misinformation, for example, getting plainly wrong by half-a-dozen years two events in my career and thereby drawing an absurdly unwarranted conclusion (Bauer, 2008, 2009). Not that this happens only to ordinary folks like me: The Wiki entry for Francine Prose, a first-rate writer and novelist, has a plain error of fact whose correction has not happened because she “cannot face the byzantine process apparently required”. An even more famous writer, Philip Roth, had to publish at the New Yorker blog a 2600-word open letter before the self-appointed, anonymous officials at Wikipedia corrected an unwarranted inference about an alleged real-life model for one of Roth’s fictional characters (Prose, 2014).

Anyway: with Internet, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, or any other established authority, you believe them unreservedly at your peril. To discover what is most likely to be trustworthy, you need to find and evaluate primary sources for yourself.

Over the years I’ve found the conventional wisdom and the mainstream consensus to be significantly lacking — or just plain wrong — about the Loch Ness Monster (Bauer, 1986); about statins and many other prescription drugs (Bauer 2012b, 2014); about HIV/AIDS (Bauer, 2007) and about the Big Bang and about global warming (Bauer, 2012a); about what gets labeled pseudo-science (Bauer, 2001).

But please don’t take my word for it.
And don’t take anyone else’s word for the opposite, either.
Look at the evidence I cite,
look for other sources of evidence and other interpretations,
and eventually make up your own mind . . .
and don’t hesitate to leave a question open,
awaiting more and better evidence

——————————————————–

Barber, Bernard, 1961: Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery, Science, 134: 596-602;
Bauer, Henry H., 1986: The Enigma of Loch Ness: Making Sense of a Mystery, University of Illinois Press; also Genuine facts about “Nessie”, The Loch Ness “Monster”
Bauer, Henry H., 2001: Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena                 and Other Heterodoxies, University of Illinois Press
Bauer, Henry H., 2007: The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland
Bauer, Henry H., 2008: Defenders of the HIV/AIDS Faith: Why Anonymous?
Bauer, Henry H., 2009: Beware the Internet: Amazon.com “reviews”, Wikipedia, and other sources of misinformation
Bauer, Henry H., 2012a: Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories                        Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland
Bauer, Henry H., 2012b: Seeking Immortality? Challenging the drug-based medical paradigm,
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 26: 867-80
Bauer, Henry H., 2014:  Statins: Scandalous new guidelines
Haack, Susan, 2013/14:  Six signs of scientism, Skeptical Inquirer; Part 1, 37 #6: 40-5; Part 2, 38 #1: 43-7
Kuhn, Thomas S., 1970: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press
Prose, Francine, 2014: New York Times Book Review, 19 January, p. 27
Townes, Charles H., 1999: How the Laser Happened: Adventures of a Scientist, Oxford University Press

Posted in consensus, media flaws, resistance to discovery, science is not truth, scientism, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »