tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55986891530502493462024-03-13T12:19:55.530+00:00Primum Non Nocere"Medicine is to do as much nothing as possible."
Rantings on politics, science, medicine, journalism and whatever else should adhere to this motto.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-7506830460716555592016-04-30T23:32:00.002+01:002016-04-30T23:32:32.075+01:00Fifty thousandIt appears despite years of absense I managed to be sufficiently interesting to attract my 50.000th visitor. Not being the worlds best known commenter I want to thank all those that took the time to read my thought and share their response.<br />
<br />
To another 50.000, rambling one post at a time.<br />
<br />
<br />Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-30811853681602000522016-02-23T23:03:00.003+00:002016-02-23T23:03:41.897+00:00Pecunia non oletThough the name of this blog has its roots in medicine my interest has become more general. In fact, I seem to be more and more interested in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science" target="_blank">maltreatment of science</a> and how certain factions prefer <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/08/agnotology-or-denialism-as-policy.html" target="_blank">misrepresenting the facts</a> to serve their <a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/persecution-of-scientists-whose-findings-are-perceived-as-politically-incorrect/" target="_blank">ideology</a>.<br />
<br />
Just recently have I written about an exposé showing <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2016/02/corrupting-science.html" target="_blank">science is for sale</a>. Meaning, you can now buy the outcome you require to protect your <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunia_non_olet" target="_blank">financial interests</a>. Unsurprisingly there are more examples to add to that unethical behaviour.<br />
<br />
As I initially observed, Emilie Udell for<i> the Center for Public Integrity</i> <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/08/19223/meet-rented-white-coats-who-defend-toxic-chemicals" target="_blank">reported</a> how<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/itxc20#.VjuzALerSUk"><em>Critical Reviews in Toxicology</em></a> and <a href="http://www.journals.elsevier.com/regulatory-toxicology-and-pharmacology/"><em>Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology</em></a> </blockquote>
are the go-to journals for<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
misleading, industry-backed articles that threaten public health by
playing down the dangers of well-known toxic substances such as lead and
asbestos. The articles often are used to stall regulatory efforts and
defend court cases.</blockquote>
The article showed how the asbestos industry bought scientists to opine the link between asbestos and mesothelioma is in dispute. For an explanation on the technique used see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy" target="_blank">manufactroversy</a>. <br />
<br />
Climate Progress updates the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2015/10/merchants-of-doubt.html" target="_blank">#Exxonknew</a>-meme by reporting and showing a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/12/3749275/frank-capra-1958-global-warming/" target="_blank">reportage by Frank Capra from 1958</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In this film, Dr. Research (Dr. Frank Baxter) explains to The Writer
(Richard Carlson) that unrestricted carbon dioxide emissions could lead
to a world where “Tourists in glass bottom boats would be viewing the
drowned towers of Miami.”</blockquote>
They conclude<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Scientists have been warning us about the dangers of unrestricted CO2
emissions, global warming and climate change for over six decades. So
much for the myth that climate scientists used to believe in global
cooling a couple of decades ago — a myth that has been utterly debunked
in the scientific literature (see <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11/08/207002/the-global-cooling-myth-dies-again/">here</a>). Heck, thanks to excellent reporting by <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken">InsideClimate News</a>,
we now know oil giant ExxonMobil had been told by its own scientists in
the 1970s and 1980s that climate change was human-caused and would
reach catastrophic levels without reductions in carbon emissions. </blockquote>
Another example of politicians confusing facts for fiction: voter-fraud. <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/10995512/john-oliver-voter-ID" target="_blank">John Oliver</a> shows us the utter fiction of it.<br />
<br />
But, this is not about science, it is about politics. By corrupting science the usual suspects are able to <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/koch?utm_campaign" target="_blank">sabotage</a> necessary <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/02/what_is_dark_money_and_how_is.html" target="_blank">legislation</a>: f.e. to combat smoking related deaths, global warming, gun control, derail vaccination programs, et cetera, <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, as I write this we still are defrauded by politicians invoking the <i>"it is nothing more than a global hoax by liberal-commie-nazi scientists"</i>-tactic.<br />
<br />
All the misrepresentations by <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2016/01/politics-vs-reality-revisited.html" target="_blank">politicians</a> evoke som <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/26/the-truth-is-rushing-out-there-why-conspiracies-spread-faster-than-ever?" target="_blank">paranoid</a> response in me: <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/koch?utm_campaign" target="_blank"><i>Cui bono</i></a>? Which leads me to conclude we are in need of some mandatory <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2015/10/politics-vs-reality.html" target="_blank">regulation in politics</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li>Politicians must be able to say whatever they want. They should be
able to make any suggestion, propose or block any law, make any claim
they want.</li>
<li>Following their suggestions (to implement, or block, policy/law) it
should be mandatory to show evidence of a) the need for this
proposal/its refusal, b) the proposal has the claimed effect, c) the
claimed effect outweighs the expected negative <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.no/2011/02/house-of-god.html" target="_blank">impact</a>.</li>
<li>For the purpose of ascertaining the available facts politicians themselves are not considered <i>experts</i> in the field. </li>
<li>The evidence shown can not be "I strongly believe," or "god said so," but has to be based on a review by an <i>independent expert</i>
in the relevant field. This expert has to a) share with us the
mainstream view among the relevant experts, b) state that in case of any
discrepancy between the politicians statement and <i>communis opinio</i> among these experts this is entirely <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-im-not-scientist-line-wont-cut-it" target="_blank">reasonable</a> and reflects an actual <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy" target="_blank">debate</a> among <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/why-republicans-always-say-im-not-a-scientist.html" target="_blank">experts</a>, c) in case of politicians <a href="http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09/28/news/potentially-scandalous-probe-muzzled-scientists-not-likely-out-oct19" target="_blank">withholding</a> such <a href="https://researchinquiry.org/" target="_blank">studies</a> they are obliged to mention the result and reason behind not mentioning it.</li>
<li>In the absence of <i>verifiable evidence</i> politicians are
obligated to either withdraw their suggestions/comments or admit they
are only sharing their private opinion and that layman opinion is more
important than evaluation by people with real knowledge: otherwise known
as experts.</li>
<li>Any proposal based on non-expert guestimation shall be publicly presented as make believe or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness" target="_blank">truthiness</a>. </li>
<li>Akin to nearly every other profession I would <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort" target="_blank">suggest</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpractice" target="_blank">accountability</a>
in case of policy that can not be reconciled with expert opinion, or
lacks reasonable arguments to ignore the patently fallacious solution
presented. </li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Concluding I think there is to much room for misstatements regarding science, and we should better protect society against <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil" target="_blank">those</a> who mislead us for personal gain.<br />
<br />
<br />Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-29821272855289107132016-02-23T14:46:00.000+00:002016-02-23T14:46:17.140+00:00Broken record: Homeopathy no better than placeboTime and time again science has shown <a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/homeopathy/" target="_blank">homeopathy</a> is no better than a placebo. An observation I have documented <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/03/homeopathy-placebo.html" target="_blank">before</a>. Needless to say I was shocked, shocked I tell you, when <i>The Independent</i> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/homeopathy-quackery-should-be-cut-from-nhs-campaigners-urge-after-study-finds-it-ineffective-a6889606.html" target="_blank">reported</a> that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Campaigners have welcomed the latest study to show that homeopathy
"treatments" are no more effective than a placebo, and called for the
technique to be cut from the NHS. </blockquote>
It noted:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Good Thinking Society, which campaigns against homeopathy, said the
latest study bolstered scientific consensus that the “treatments” do not
work. </blockquote>
<a href="http://www.popsci.com/homeopathy-is-therapeutic-dead-end-says-british-scientist" target="_blank">Popular Science</a> has seen the study too:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/plausibility-test-homeopathic-medicine">Homeopathy</a>,
the form of alternative medicine in which proponents claim that small
doses of natural substances can cure patient’s ailments, has come under
fire recently—Australia deemed the practice <a href="http://www.popsci.com/article/science/australia-declares-homeopathy-useless">“useless”</a> in 2014, and last year the FDA <a href="http://www.popsci.com/fda-considers-cracking-down-homeopathy">considered cracking down</a>
on unregulated treatments sold over the counter. Now homeopathy has
received another blow: Paul Glasziou, a professor of evidence-based
medicine at Bond University in the United Kingdom, called homeopathy a
“therapeutic dead-end," according to <a href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/02/16/paul-glasziou-still-no-evidence-for-homeopathy/">a blog post</a> published on the website of the <em>British Medical Journal</em> last week and <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/homeopathy-therapeutic-dead-end-systematic-review-no-evidence-it-works-a6884356.html">covered by The Independent</a>. </blockquote>
Of course, last year Australia came to the same <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/08/homeopathy-is-bunk-study-says" target="_blank">conclusion</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The <a class="u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/public_consultations/homeopathy_health">draft paper by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council</a>
(NHMRC) assessed research into the effectiveness of the alternative
medicine on 68 health conditions and concluded “there is no reliable
evidence that homeopathy is effective”.</blockquote>
For those new to the world of <strike>quackery</strike> homeopathy <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/21/will-2016-be-the-year-when-the-fda-and-ftc-finally-crack-down-on-homeopathy/" target="_blank">Orac</a> has a great summary of what it entails, the scientific and legal challenges: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
the developments in homeopathy last year, which have now been recapped in an article in the <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1513393#t=article">New England Journal of Medicine</a>. Actually, the developments weren’t so much in homeopathy, which
basically never changes, other than sometimes in the extravagant
imagination of homeopaths trying to justify their quackery with
everything from quantum mechanics to “nanoparticles.” Rather, the
developments concerned the regulation of homeopathy in the US. </blockquote>
In light of this latest study, let me leave you with <span class="st">a comment by Emeritus Professor of Complementary Medicine at the Peninsula School of Medicine, University of Exeter</span>, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/need-any-more-proof-that-homeopathy-is-useless-weve-just-got-it-so-lets-finally-end-this-farce-a6889671.html" target="_blank">Edzard Ernst</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia recently published what might be <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/homeopathy-therapeutic-dead-end-systematic-review-no-evidence-it-works-a6884356.html" target="_blank">the most thorough evaluation</a> of homeopathy ever since it began 200 years ago. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603" target="_blank">warned against homeopathy</a> in
2002, and a range medical experts have been vocal about the dangers of
homeopathy for many years now. Yet homeopaths around the world seemed
shocked by the news of this study, and are now on the warpath
to suppress it. </blockquote>
Despite the numerous intricate explanations homeopaths have imagined the underlying placebo-effect remains the same: <i>plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-37031523279354263792016-02-15T00:05:00.004+00:002017-08-08T20:09:09.264+01:00My collection of films, 2016<p>Years ago I shared my attempt at <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2009/12/multimedia.html" target="_blank">helping you play audio-video files</a> on your computer. This for those that lacked adequate equipment. Today I am using a <a href="http://www.harmankardon.co.uk/blu-ray-disc-home-theatre/BDS+885S.html?dwvar_BDS%20885S_color=Black_EMEA&cgid=blu-ray-disc-home-theatre" target="_blank">Home Cinema system</a> that makes that post redundant.</p><p><br>As a cinephile I have collected numerous films. You surely are wondering what my preference might be. To share my current collection with you, and as a record for myself, here is an updated version of a <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-collection-of-films.html" target="_blank">previous list</a>. Do comment on my selection and/or feel free to suggest titles you feel <a href="http://www.timeout.com/newyork/movies/the-100-best-movies-of-all-time" target="_blank">should</a> be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best" target="_blank">included</a>.</p><p><em>Dutch</em><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca_%28film%29" target="_blank">Cloaca</a> <br><a target="_blank" href="#">Loft</a> <br>De Eetclub <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoorloos" target="_blank">Spoorloos</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakter" target="_blank">Karakter</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_Heaven" target="_blank">De Ontdekking van de Hemel</a>. <br>Schemer <br>Het Meisje met het Rode Haar <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldaat_van_oranje" target="_blank">Soldaat van Oranje</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_%28film%29" target="_blank">Zwartboek</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oorlogswinter">Oorlogswinter</a> </p><p><em>French </em><br><span lang="fr"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Be_and_to_Have" target="_blank">Être et Avoir</a> </span><br><span lang="fr"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bienvenue_chez_les_Ch%27tis" target="_blank">Bienvenue Chez les Ch'tis</a></span><br><span lang="fr"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_dors_Nicole" target="_blank">Tu Dors Nicole</a> </span><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sous_le_sable" target="_blank">Sous le Sable</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5x2">5X2</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant_l%27hiver" target="_blank">Avant L'Hiver</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Loved_Women_%281977_film%29" target="_blank">L'Homme Qui Aimait Les Femmes</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers%C3%A9cution" target="_blank">Persécution</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Amants_du_Pont-Neuf" target="_blank">Les Amant De Pont-Neuf</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelie">Amélie</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bear_%281988_film%29" target="_blank">L'Ours</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog" target="_blank">Le Hérisson</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Tourneuse_de_pages">La Tourneuse de Pages</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Life_of_V%C3%A9ronique" target="_blank">La Double Vie de Véronique</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Fine,_Don%27t_Worry">Je Vais Bien, Ne T'En Fais Pas</a> <br><a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10011372-mark_of_an_angel/">L'Empreinte de l'Ange</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_y_a_longtemps_que_je_t%27aime">Il y a Longtemps Que Je T'Aime</a> <br><a href="http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117928355.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0">Les Âmes Grises</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Temps_Qui_Reste">Le Temps Qui Reste</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intouchables" target="_blank">Intouchables</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Inconnu">Code Inconnu</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoires_affectives">Mémoires Affectives</a>. <br>Voleurs de Cheveaux <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Haine">La Haine</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_prophete">Un Prophète</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cach%C3%A9_%28film%29" target="_blank">Caché</a><br>Trois Couleurs: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Colors:_Blue" target="_blank">Bleu</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Colors:_White" target="_blank">Blanc</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Colors:_Red" target="_blank">Rouge</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Florette" target="_blank">Jean de Florette</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_des_Sources_%281986_film%29" target="_blank">Manon des Sources</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Vacances_de_M._Hulot" target="_blank">Les vacances de M. Hulot</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_Oncle" target="_blank">Mon Oncle</a> </p><p><em>Spanish</em><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovers_of_the_Arctic_Circle">Los Amantes del Círculo Polar</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_City_Without_Limits">En la ciudad sin límites</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_noche_de_los_girasoles">La Noche de los Girasoles</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Aura" target="_blank">El Aura</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesis">Tesis</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matador_%28film%29" target="_blank">Matador</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Education_%28film%29" target="_blank">La Mala Educación</a> <br><a target="_blank" href="#">Son de Mar</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Squirrel">La Ardilla Roja</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_y_el_Sexo">Lucia y el Sexo</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abre_los_Ojos">Abre los Ojos</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_Me_Up%21_Tie_Me_Down%21" target="_blank">¡Átame!</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amores_perros" target="_blank">Amores Perros</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_secreto_de_sus_ojos">El Secreto de sus Ojos</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan's_Labyrinth" target="_blank">El Laberinto del Fauno</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_About_My_Mother" target="_blank">Todo Sobre Mi Madre</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biutiful" target="_blank">Biutiful</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hable_Con_Ella">Hable Con Ella</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volver" target="_blank">Volver</a> <br><em>Scandinavian</em><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insomnia_%281997_film%29" target="_blank">Insomnia</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headhunters_%28film%29" target="_blank">Hodejegerne</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Water">DeUsynlige</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bothersome_Man" target="_blank">Den brysomme mannen</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kautokeino-oppr%C3%B8ret">Kautokeino-Opprøret</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarino">Submarino</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiots">Idioterne</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_the_Right_One_In_%28film%29" target="_blank">Låt den Rätte Komma In</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipp_Jimmy_fri">Slipp Jimmy Fri</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noi_the_Albino" target="_blank">Nói albinói</a> </p><p><em>Italian</em> <br><a href="http://variety.com/2004/film/reviews/agata-and-the-storm-1200534639/" target="_blank">Agata</a> e la <a href="http://www.avclub.com/review/agata-and-the-storm-4421" target="_blank">Tempesta</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Hour">La Doppia Ora</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_ti_muovere">Non Ti Muovere</a> <br>Trilogy of life: <br></p><ul><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decameron_(1971_film)" target="_blank"><em>Il Decameron</em></a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canterbury_Tales_(film)" target="_blank"><em>I Racconti di Canterbury</em></a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Nights_(1974_film)" target="_blank"><em>Il fiore delle Mille e una Notte</em></a></li>
</ul><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2_o_le_120_giornate_di_Sodoma">Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma</a></p><p><em>Other. </em><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others" target="_blank">Das Leben der Anderen</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall_%282004_film%29" target="_blank">Der Untergang</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Counterfeiters_%282007_film%29" target="_blank">Die Fälscher</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_%282002_film%29" target="_blank">Cidade de Deus</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Since_Otar_Left" target="_blank">Depuis qu'Otar est parti...</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(2014_film)" target="_blank"><span lang="ru">Левиафан</span></a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_%282003_film%29" target="_blank">Возвращение</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%281972_film%29" target="_blank">Солярис</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_%28film%29" target="_blank">Mongol</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cave_of_the_Yellow_Dog" target="_blank">Шар нохойн там</a> <br><span lang="ru"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev_%28film%29" target="_blank">Андрей Рублёв</a> </span> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_in_tallinn">Tallinn pimeduses</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crouching_Tiger,_Hidden_Dragon" target="_blank">臥虎藏龍 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_My_Concubine_%28film%29" target="_blank">霸王別姬 - Farewell My Concubine</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon" target="_blank">Rashomon</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogtooth_%28film%29" target="_blank">Κυνόδοντας</a> </p><p><em>English</em><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver!_%28film%29" target="_blank">Oliver!</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice_%282004_film%29" target="_blank">The Merchant of Venice</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_%2B_Juliet">Romeo and Juliette</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_%281995_film%29" target="_blank">Richard III</a> </p><p>Hamlet </p><p>Macbeth <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cook,_the_Thief,_His_Wife_%26_Her_Lover">The Cook, The Thief, The Wife and Her Lover</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainspotting_%28film%29" target="_blank">Trainspotting</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_%281987_film%29" target="_blank">Wallstreet</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_of_Wall_Street_%282013_film%29" target="_blank">The Wolf of Wall Street</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine" target="_blank">The Shock Doctrine</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_%282010_film%29" target="_blank">Inside Job</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Insider</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt_%28film%29" target="_blank">Merchants of Doubt</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_%28film%29" target="_blank">Wild</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Name_of_the_Father_%28film%29" target="_blank">In The Name of the Father</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blow_%28film%29" target="_blank">Blow</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_vs._Larry_Flynt" target="_blank">The People vs. Larry Flint</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_%28film%29" target="_blank">Lenny</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Night,_and_Good_Luck" target="_blank">Good Night, and Good Luck</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_President's_Men_%28film%29" target="_blank">All the President's Men</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Burning" target="_blank">Mississippi Burning</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamous_%28film%29" target="_blank">Infamous</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capote_%28film%29" target="_blank">Capote</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who's_Coming_to_Dinner" target="_blank">Guess Who Is Coming To Dinner</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Heat_of_the_Night_%28film%29" target="_blank">In the Heat of the Night</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_Freedom" target="_blank">Cry Freedom</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X_%281992_film%29" target="_blank">Malcolm X</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_%28film%29" target="_blank">Bird</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi_%28film%29" target="_blank">Ghandi</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cotton_Club_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Cotton Club</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane" target="_blank">Citizen Kane</a></p><p>Lawrence of Arabia <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Man_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Elephant Man</a> </p><p>Ole Bull </p><p>Mahler <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_Venice_%28film%29" target="_blank">Death in Venice</a> </p><p>Amadeus <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papillon_%28film%29" target="_blank">Papillon</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mission_%281986_film%29" target="_blank">The Mission</a> </p><p>The Great Gatsby <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_Salesman_%281985_film%29" target="_blank">Death of a Salesman</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Waterfront" target="_blank">On the Waterfront</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove">Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate_%281962_film%29" target="_blank">The Manchurian Candidate</a> </p><p>Apocalypse Now </p><p>Easy Rider <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_trilogy">Back To The Future</a> </p><p>Ferris Bueller's Day Off </p><p>A Christmas Carol </p><p>The Nightmare Before Christmas <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running">Silent Running</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_the_Navigator">Flight of the Navigator</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial" target="_blank">E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Crystal">The Dark Crystal </a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_%281985_film%29" target="_blank">Legend</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Stoker's_Dracula" target="_blank">Bram Stoker's Dracula</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_%28film_series%29" target="_blank">Lord of the Rings Trilogy</a> </p><p>Highlander <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greystoke:_The_Legend_of_Tarzan,_Lord_of_the_Apes" target="_blank">Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_the_Mohicans_%281992_film%29" target="_blank">The Last of the Mohicans</a> </p><p>Vidoq <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Trilogy" target="_blank">The Dark Knight Trilogy</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer" target="_blank">Snowpiercer</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine_%281960_film%29" target="_blank">The Time Machine</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_%28film%29" target="_blank">Primer</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29" target="_blank">2001: A Space Odyssey</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_%28film%29" target="_blank">Gravity</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Martian</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_%28film%29" target="_blank">Interstellar</a> </p><p>Alien I-IV <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars">Star Wars</a> I-VI </p><p>Dune <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.I._Artificial_Intelligence">AI</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_%28film%29" target="_blank">Ex Machina</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_(film)" target="_blank">Her</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca" target="_blank">Gattaca</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_%28film%29" target="_blank">V for Vendetta</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men" target="_blank">Children of Men</a> </p><p>Blade Runner </p><p>Terminator I-II <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblivion_%282013_film%29" target="_blank">Oblivion</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix" target="_blank">The Matrix Trilogy</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor" target="_blank">The Thirteenth Floor</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXistenZ" target="_blank">eXistenZ</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_%28film%29" target="_blank">Inception</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_Color" target="_blank">Upstream color</a> </p><p>91/2 Weeks <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unbearable_Lightness_of_Being_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Unbearable Lightness of Being</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Remains_of_the_Day_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Remains of the Day</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28film%29" target="_blank">Atonement</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Patient_%28film%29" target="_blank">The English Patient</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds_of_Sils_Maria" target="_blank">Clouds of Sils Maria</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Harry_Met_Sally..." target="_blank">When Harry Met Sally ...</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Good_as_It_Gets" target="_blank">As Good As It Gets</a> </p><p>Chocolat <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan_DeMarco" target="_blank">Don Juan De Marco</a> </p><p>Before Trilogy:<br></p><ul><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Sunrise" target="_blank">Before Sunrise</a> </li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Sunset" target="_blank">Before Sunset</a> </li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Midnight_(film)" target="_blank">Before Midnight</a> </li>
</ul><p>Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex,_Lies,_and_Videotape">Sex, Lies and Videotape</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantana_%28film%29" target="_blank">Lantana</a> </p><p>American Beauty<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_%28film%29" target="_blank">A Clockwork Orange</a> <br><a target="_blank" href="#">One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_there">Being There</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinist">The Machinist</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_%28film%29" target="_blank">Spider</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picnic_at_Hanging_Rock_%28film%29" target="_blank">Picnic at Hanging Rock</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnie_Darko">Donnie Darko</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Heart">Angel Heart</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weight_of_Water_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Weight of Water</a> </p><p>Fight Club <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intacto">Intacto</a> </p><p>Sleepy Hollow <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Name of the Rose</a> </p><p>Sineater </p><p>The Blair Witch Project </p><p>Fallen </p><p>Wisdom of Crocodiles </p><p>The Ninth Gate <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_%28film%29" target="_blank">Se7en</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Sense">The Sixth Sense</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Monkeys">12 Monkeys</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_%28film%29" target="_blank">Л</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_%28film%29" target="_blank">Memento</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel_%281971_film%29" target="_blank">Duel</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_Driver" target="_blank">Taxi Driver</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_%281957_film%29" target="_blank">12 Angry Men</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...And_Justice_for_All_%28film%29" target="_blank">And Justice for All</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpico">Serpico</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Days_of_the_Condor">3 Days of the Condor</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conversation" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_%28film%29" target="_blank">Enemy of the State</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Parallax_View">The Parallax View</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullit">Bullit</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_Fish">Rumblefish</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosford_park">Gosford Park</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Confidential_%28film%29" target="_blank">LA Confidential</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usual_Suspects">The Usual Suspects </a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_%281974_film%29" target="_blank">Chinatown</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarface_%281983_film%29" target="_blank">Scarface</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Godfather" target="_blank">The Godfather</a> Trilogy <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_America" target="_blank">Once Upon a Time in America</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodfellas">Goodfellas</a> </p><p>Donnie Brasco <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_%28film%29" target="_blank">Léon</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dog">Ghost Dog</a></p><p>The Bourne Trilogy:<br></p><ul><li><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bourne_Identity_%282002_film%29" target="_blank">The Bourne Identity</a> </em> </li><li><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bourne_Supremacy_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Bourne Supremacy</a> </em></li><li><em><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bourne_Ultimatum_%28film%29" target="_blank">The Bourne Ultimatum</a> </em> </em> </li>
</ul><p>Ronin <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_%28film%29" target="_blank">Traffic</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sting">The Sting</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Italian_Job" target="_blank">The Italian Job</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_Dogs" target="_blank">Reservoir Dogs</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_%28film%29" target="_blank">Snatch</a> </p><p>Pulp Fiction <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Bad_Things">Very Bad Things</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ruin" target="_blank">Blue Ruin</a> </p><p>American Psycho </p><p>Natural Born Killers <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry:_Portrait_of_a_Serial_Killer">Henry</a> 1 & 2 </p><p>Kiss Before Dying<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsiberian_%28film%29" target="_blank">Transsiberian</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_River_%28film%29" target="_blank">Mystic River</a> </p><p>The Life of David Gale <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_%28film%29" target="_blank">Cube</a> </p><p>Hellraiser</p><p><em>Television</em></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brideshead_Revisited_%28TV_serial%29" target="_blank">Brideshead Revisited</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes_%281984_TV_Series%29" target="_blank">Sherlock Holmes</a> I-IV<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards">House of Cards</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_minister">Yes Minister</a> I-III<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Yes_Minister_and_Yes,_Prime_Minister_episodes" target="_blank">Yes, Prime Minister</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chef%21">Chef!</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones" target="_blank">Game of Thrones</a></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder">The Blackadder</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">I Claudius</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Books">Black Books</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28UK_TV_series%29" target="_blank">Coupling</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimme_Gimme_Gimme_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Gimme Gimme Gimme</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_%26_Grace" target="_blank">Will & Grace</a></p><p>Married with Children <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonder_Years" target="_blank">The Wonder Years</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Soap</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Elsewhere">St. Elsewhere</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">ER</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubs_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Scrubs</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_south">Due South</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_wire">The Wire</a></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blacklist_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">The Blacklist</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooks" target="_blank">Spooks</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice" target="_blank">The Practice</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Legal" target="_blank">Boston Legal</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suits_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Suits</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Wife" target="_blank">The Good Wife</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_One_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Murder One</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlighting_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Moonlighting</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Steele">Remington Steele</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Collar_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">White Collar</a></p><p dir="ltr"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Heroes</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlashForward">FlashForward</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Event">The Event</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Skies">Dark Skies</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5" target="_blank">Babylon 5</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_2_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Earth 2</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgen_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Borgen</a> <br><span lang="da"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_%28Danish_TV_series%29" target="_blank">Forbrydelsen</a> </span><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_%28Danish/Swedish_TV_series%29" target="_blank">Broen</a> <br><br><em>Documentaries</em> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Universe_Works" target="_blank">How The Universe Works</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Spacetime_Odyssey" target="_blank">Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Personal_Voyage" target="_blank">Cosmos: A Personal Voyage</a><br><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00yb434" target="_blank">Seven Ages of Starlight</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcosmos_%28film%29" target="_blank">Microcosmos</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migrations">Great Migrations</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Planet Earth</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Yellowstone</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Planet">Human Planet</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Planet" target="_blank">Frozen Planet</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrier_Reef_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Great Barrier Reef</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">North America</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Russia" target="_blank">Wild Russia</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_the_Trojan_War">In Search of the Trojan War</a><br></p><ul><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkbUQKyie_w" target="_blank">Episode 1: The Age of Heroes</a> </li><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc8I2IuVxEw" target="_blank">Episode 2: The Legend Under Siege</a> </li><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64QPz2t5T3A" target="_blank">Episode 3: The Singer of Tales</a> </li><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2lHDUvKPsM" target="_blank">Episode 4: The Women of Troy</a> </li><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyKIlRqRb58" target="_blank">Episode 5: Empire of the Hittites</a> </li><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBk9j9Slb1Y" target="_blank">Episode 6: The Fall of Troy</a> </li>
</ul><p>The Truth of Troy<br><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0079tpf/episodes/guide" target="_blank">In Search of Myths and Heroes</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_an_Empire">Ancient Rome - The Rise and Fall of an Empire</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_%28BBC_TV_series%29" target="_blank">Horizon</a> <br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Tucker_Man">The Bush Tucker Man</a> <br>Qatsi Trilogi: <br></p><ul><li><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi" title="Koyaanisqatsi">Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of balance</a></em> </li><li><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powaqqatsi" title="Powaqqatsi">Powaqqatsi: Life in transformation</a></em> </li><li><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqoyqatsi" title="Naqoyqatsi">Naqoyqatsi: Life as war</a></em> </li>
</ul><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_Nightmares">The Power of Nightmares</a>. <br><br><em>Animation</em><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin_%28TV_series%29" target="_blank">Tintin</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek" target="_blank">Shrek</a> I-IV <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age_%282002_film%29" target="_blank">Ice Age</a> I-IV <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Out_%282015_film%29" target="_blank">Inside Out</a> <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despicable_Me" target="_blank">Despicable Me</a> I & II <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_%282013_film%29" target="_blank">Epic</a> <br><a target="_blank" href="#">Rio I</a> & <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_2" target="_blank">II</a><br>Lorax <br><a href="http://www.premiere.fr/film/Le-Parfum-de-la-Carotte" target="_blank">Le Parfum de la Carotte</a> <br>Pim & Pom: Het Grote Avontuur <br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_and_the_Brain" target="_blank">Pinky and the Brain</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Animated_Series" target="_blank">Batman: The Animated Series</a> </p><p><br>..................................................................................................................................</p>Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-67021887769500457982016-02-09T19:30:00.000+00:002016-02-09T19:30:38.663+00:00Corrupting scienceAs been noted before science is not necessarily reliable. Since <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/environment/science-sale" target="_blank">monetary gains</a> trump scientific integrity it is difficult to prevent the misrepresentation or fabrication of science. A previous post explained the use of claimed uncertainty in science confabulated by the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2015/10/merchants-of-doubt.html" target="_blank">Merchants of Doubt</a>.<br />
<br />
Case in point, Emilie Udell for<i> the Center for Public Integrity</i> <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/08/19223/meet-rented-white-coats-who-defend-toxic-chemicals" target="_blank">reports</a> how a lawyer (Evan Nelson of the law firm <i>Tucker Ellis & West</i>) invited a scientist to publish a "scientific theory" regarding the cause of mesothelioma. Coincidentally:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nelson defended companies that had exposed people to asbestos .........</blockquote>
Luckily for his clients <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nelson came up with a new culprit: tobacco.</blockquote>
But:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There was an obvious problem with Nelson’s “science.” Researchers for
decades have exhaustively analyzed data on the health of hundreds of
thousands of smokers. Since 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General has <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/index.htm">summarized</a> the findings of study after study, none of which shows evidence that tobacco causes mesothelioma.</blockquote>
The scientist involved offered to write "scientific articles" meant to be used in court cases. A firm offering such services is Gradient.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A group of academic researchers were so outraged by an article on BPA [bisphenol A, which, according to hundreds of studies is linked to health problems] written by Gradient’s Julie Goodman and Lorenz Rhomberg that they wrote a
lengthy response with a table listing all the “false statements” in it.</blockquote>
In the words of the report:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Gradient has become a leading scientific voice in trying to prevent further regulation of air pollution.</blockquote>
Continuing the exposé <i>the Center for Public Integrity</i> recounts the case of Pam Collins, who was suffering from mesothelioma allegedly caused by asbestos gloves. Shawn Acton, one of the lawyers, was confronted with a novel theory regarding the cause of mesothelioma:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Acton did a little research and discovered that Valberg [the aforementioned scientist] had just co-authored an article in the <em>Journal of Environmental Radioactivity</em> saying
that cigarette smoke emits radiation. And he noticed that the article
was funded by the law firm representing the maker of the gloves.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Acton had no idea that months earlier a lawyer at the firm, Evan Nelson,
had concocted the scientific theory that Valberg was using against
Collins. Or that Valberg and colleague Goodman had emailed drafts of the
article in advance to the lawyer, as their contract required. </blockquote>
In another court case lawyers<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
decided to subpoena all records .....</blockquote>
The discovery led to e-mails showing how Nelson had commissioned three scientific articles and how its authors struggled to get it published. Eventually two got published.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Pam Collins’s lawyer said efforts by industry consultants to absolve asbestos of blame show they will say almost anything. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Why are some of these companies putting so much money into research
to be published in scientific and medical journals years and sometimes
decades after they stop making the product?” Acton asked rhetorically.
“Is its purpose for the advancement of medicine? Is its purpose to
address a public health concern? Its purpose is for litigation. It’s
science for sale.”</blockquote>
The article proves that even scientists are not above <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gekko" target="_blank">human nature</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-74688172345713379172016-01-22T23:36:00.001+00:002016-01-25T20:10:00.126+00:00Politics vs. Reality revisitedThere are many that fail to appreciate how their lack of knowledge leads them to <a href="http://www.openculture.com/2014/12/john-cleese-on-stupidity-and-a-cornell-study.html" target="_blank">feel</a> they are <a href="http://ascienceenthusiast.com/dunning-kruger/" target="_blank">experts</a>, this <a href="http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-atir-rosenzweig-dunning-effect-when-experts-claim-to-know-the-unknowable" target="_blank">infliction</a> has unfortunately been diagnosed among politicians. <br />
<br />
As you undoubtedly remember this has led me to <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.no/2015/10/politics-vs-reality.html" target="_blank">suggest</a> limiting the politicians ability to view their job description to be <a href="https://youtu.be/jLEQCipy6NM" target="_blank">ideology-driven</a> as opposed to <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10776398/republican-debate-2016-charleston-world" target="_blank">reality-based</a>. <br />
<br />
Recent events appear to justify that. Several news items show how today we have unfortunate situations that might have not occurred had politicians adhered to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine" target="_blank">Evidence-Based Policy</a>. However, considering the total <a href="http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/four-times-when-journalists-read-a-scientific-paper-and-reported-the-complete-opposite" target="_blank">failure of the media</a> one does have to admit the problem is not just <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/donald-trump-wins-special-award-merit-brazen-lying" target="_blank">politicians</a>. We lack incentives to adopt an approach that puts the best for society at the top of the politicians to-do list.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/08/the-poisoning-of-the-children-of-flint-michigan/" target="_blank">events</a> in <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/the-poisoning-of-flint/" target="_blank">Flint</a> illustrate the tension between responsible governance and opportunism:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As (Governor) Snyder was testing the presidential waters, however, his government
was being shamefully unaccountable to constituents who were concerned
about their water supply. The city of Flint switched its primary water
source from Lake Huron, through Detroit’s system, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-timeline-of-the-water-crisis-in-flint-michigan/2016/01/16/cc4d32a2-bc63-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com">to the Flint River in April 2014</a>.
Approved by an emergency manager appointed by the governor, the move
was supposed to save the beleaguered city millions of dollars. But
residents soon began reporting tap water that appeared discolored,
smelled rotten, and caused kids to break out in rashes. Today, Flint has
become a nightmarish example of how misguided austerity policies can
literally poison the public. </blockquote>
The article continues to explain this by mentioning the moronic <i>"let's get rid of the government"</i>-zealots:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Unfortunately, the biggest obstacles to desperately needed public
investments are politicians like Snyder who conflate “accountability”
with austerity. For Republican technocrats in particular, more
accountability almost always means less spending on government programs
that help ensure the public good.</blockquote>
But of course, we are not allowed to know the <a href="http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/01/16/flint-water-snyder/78798458/" target="_blank">details</a> of the decision making process. Unlike scientists who are unrelentingly <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/11/transparency-should-not-mean-a-license-to-harass-scientists/" target="_blank">harassed</a> in the name of transparancy by agents of Big Industry, otherwise known as politicians. Take the case of using politics to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/nov/19/lamar-smith-harassing-climate-scientists" target="_blank">sabotage</a> science in order to serve Global Warming denialism:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you don’t like a particular scientific study, attack the scientists who produced it. It’s a tried and true method of <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy">manufacturing controversy</a>
around inconvenient scientific analysis. And now, Lamar Smith, Chairman
of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, is <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/smith-misfires-on-climate-science/">using the sledgehammer of a congressional subpoena</a> to bully <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.noaa.gov/">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration</a> (NOAA) scientists for their research on climate change. </blockquote>
I cannot help but think of the following <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/16/us-australian-taxpayers-pay-billions-fund-coal" target="_blank">article</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Coal subsidies are costing US and Australian taxpayers billions of dollars a year, according to a <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.carbontracker.org/report/coal-subsidies/">new report</a>.</blockquote>
It continues by citing Tim Buckley, who worked on the report:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Any discussion of cost competitiveness of renewable energy and energy
efficiency needs to take into account the decades of extensive subsidies
evident for the coal industry and that, in many cases, remain in place
today.” </blockquote>
Another example of reality-challenged action is Michigan no longer requiring the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-helmetlaws-michigan-injury-idUSKBN0UL2JN20160107" target="_blank">use of helmets</a> for motorists:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="articleText"><span class="focusParagraph"></span></span><br />
In the three
years after Michigan repealed a mandatory motorcycle helmet law, deaths
and head injuries among bikers rose sharply, according to a recent
study.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="articleText"><span id="midArticle_1"></span></span><br />
Deaths at the scene
of the crash more than quadrupled, while deaths in the hospital tripled
for motorcyclists. Head injuries have increased overall, and more of
them are severe, the researchers report in the American Journal of
Surgery</blockquote>
Then we have the odious example of <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/01/malheur-militants-are-picking-wrong-beef-feds" target="_blank">white terrorists in Oregon</a>. A situation hinted at in <a href="http://usuncut.com/politics/bombshell-dhs-overlooked-anti-government-militias/" target="_blank">a report deemed unacceptable</a> by ideologues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Daryl Johnson, a former analyst for the Department of Homeland
Security, wasn’t surprised when Ammon Bundy and his group of right-wing
gunmen took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. His
office was responsible for the famous 2009 report, “<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/downloads/resource/DOJ_rwextremism2009.pdf" target="_blank">Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment</a>,” which suggested right-wing groups would be an emerging domestic terror threat if left unchecked. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
However, the report, which was published in the fraught political
climate shortly after the first inauguration of Barack Obama, created
outrage amongst Republicans and right-wing media outlets, and the
political pushback resulted in the burying of the report, an apology
from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/inside-dhs-former-top-analyst-says-agency-bowed-political-pressure" target="_blank">eventual closure of Johnson’s office</a>. </blockquote>
Then we have the blooming <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_%28Nineteen_Eighty-Four%29" target="_blank">Big Brother</a> industry attemting to mandate the software industry to grant automatic (without the need for any court of law), and unrestricted access through so-called backdoors to our information. Again, against <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/dutch-government-encryption-good-backdoors-bad/" target="_blank">the advise</a> of those more knowledgable:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Dutch government has released a statement in which it says that "it
is currently not desirable to take restricting legal measures concerning
the development, availability and use of encryption within the
Netherlands." It also notes that forcing companies to add backdoors to
their products and services would have "undesirable consequences for the
security of communicated and stored information," since "digital
systems can become vulnerable to criminals, terrorists and foreign
intelligence services."</blockquote>
President Obama, increasingly annøyed with repeated gunmassacres in the US announced he intends to unilaterally implement some restriction on the spread of killing machines among people needing to assert their manhood. The obligatory <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/05/what-obama-said-on-gun-control-doesnt-matter-republicans-oppose-it" target="_blank">gun fetishists</a> are increasingly seperated from reason, to the point of them opposing even saint Ron:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... in 1991, former president Ronald Reagan wrote an op-ed <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html">endorsing federal gun control legislation</a>;
in 2016, Obama’s proposed to do less on gun control than even Reagan
wanted is seen by Reagan-worshipping Republicans as unconscionable
tyranny. </blockquote>
Maybe Richard Feynman can <a href="http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/how-to-use-the-feynman-technique-to-identify-pseudoscience" target="_blank">help us</a> interpret politicalese more reliable and reality-based.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Update 1:</span></b><br />
Regarding the dubious handling of water <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/22/water-lead-content-tests-us-authorities-distorting-flint-crisis" target="_blank">poisoned</a> with lead in Flint:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Water authorities across the US are systematically distorting water
tests to downplay the amount of lead in samples, risking a dangerous
spread of the toxic water crisis that has gripped Flint, documents seen
by the Guardian show. </blockquote>
........................................................................................................ <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
.................. the issue of misleading test results was widespread. “There is no way
that Flint is a one-off,” [Lambrinidou] (a senior environmental scientist at the department of health) said.“There are many ways to game the
system. In Flint, they went to test neighbourhoods where they knew
didn’t have a problem. You can also flush the water to get rid of the
lead. If you flush it before sampling, the problem will go away. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The EPA has completely turned its gaze away from this. There is no
robust oversight here, the only oversight is from the people getting
hurt. Families who get hurt, such as in Flint, are the overseers. It’s
an horrendous situation. The system is absolutely failing.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Centers for Disease Control is very clear about lead’s impacts on
children. The agency emphasises that lead has no biological function in
humans, and even the smallest exposure can developmentally impair
children.</blockquote>
Not entirely safeguarding the publics health.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b>Update 2:</b></span><br />
David Gorski has a good analysis of the unfortunate choices made resulting in the <a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/science-based-medicine-versus-the-flint-water-crisis/" target="_blank">poisoning of Flint</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For those of you who haven’t heard of it yet, the Flint water crisis
refers to the ongoing contamination of the tap water in Flint, MI with
unacceptably high levels of lead that resulted from change in its water
supply nearly two years ago to Flint River water. </blockquote>
His conclusion hints at the root cause:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Now we will now be forced to use science-based medicine to treat
potentially thousands of children for lead poisoning and science to try
to fix the problems caused by this colossal failure of science-based
public policy. Worse, it’s still going on, as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/22/water-lead-content-tests-us-authorities-distorting-flint-crisis"><cite>The Guardian</cite></a>
just reported on Friday that water authorities across the US are
systematically distorting water tests to downplay the amount of lead in
samples. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As I think about that, seeing the Governor <a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2016/01/gov-snyder-throws-mid-level-bureaucrats-career-service-people-under-the-flintrivercrisis-bus-on-msnbcs-morning-joe.html">throwing mid-level bureaucrats under the bus</a> and other politicians <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/20/why-some-michigan-politicians-say-the-flint-water-crisis-is-a-hoax/">saying that the Flint water crisis is a hoax</a>
does not give me confidence in how this crisis will ultimately turn out
or that the aging infrastructure that allows such a catastrophe to
occur will be fixed any time soon. </blockquote>
There is more out there for those interested in the Flint disaster. ProPublica has a <a href="http://www.propublica.org/podcast/item/how-did-the-flint-water-crisis-happen/" target="_blank">podcast</a> about what caused the problem, who dropped the ball,
and what happens next. Or, try Mother Jones, which uses the deteriorating health of <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/mother-exposed-flint-lead-contamination-water-crisis" target="_blank">LeeAnne Walters and her family</a> to tell the underlying story. And, then there is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis" target="_blank">Dah Wiki</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-34352991125542930122015-10-21T00:22:00.001+01:002015-10-21T00:38:07.318+01:00Merchants of DoubtIn a previous <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/08/agnotology-or-denialism-as-policy.html" target="_blank">post</a> I mentioned the deliberate attempt at inventing "scientific debate." The culprits, and methods used, are extensively debated and explained by <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/" target="_blank">Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway</a>. They posit that from smoking to global warming, and other manufactroversies, there has been a concerted effort to invent doubt. As I wrote then:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We were first shown that tactic by the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21565663">tabacco industry</a> (<a href="http://roswellitc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/corrective_statements_ajpm.pdf">PDF</a>)
, which despite increasing evidence smoking is detrimental to our
health, made it possible to stall legislation. Their trick:
manufacturing scientific doubt. </blockquote>
We have just been given proof that these claims are indeed not merely speculation. As it happens <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/exxons-climate-lie-change-global-warming" target="_blank">Exxon</a> appears to have proven the existence of global warming decades ago yet chose to counter their own scientists by generating an industry of denialism. According to <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/exxon-knew-everything-there-was-to-know-about-climate-change-by-the-mid-1980s-and-denied-it/" target="_blank">The Nation</a>: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"... from months of careful reporting by two separate teams, one at the Pulitzer Prize–winning website <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models">Inside Climate News</a>, and other at the <i><a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/">Los Angeles Times</a></i>
(with an assist from the Columbia Journalism School). Following
separate lines of evidence and document trails, they’ve reached the same
bombshell conclusion: ExxonMobil, the world’s largest and most powerful
oil company, knew everything there was to know about climate change by
the mid-1980s, and then spent the next few decades systematically
funding climate denial and lying about the state of the science."</blockquote>
They continue:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"But though we know now that behind the scenes Exxon understood precisely
what was going on, in public they feigned ignorance or worse. CEO Lee
Raymond described global warming as “projections are based on completely
unproven climate models, or, more often, on sheer speculation,” and
insisted—in a key presentation to China’s leading officials in 1997—that
the globe was probably cooling."</blockquote>
The image I used in the aformentioned post aptly captured these revelations:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Denial-Machine1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Denial-Machine1.gif" height="400" width="285" /></a></div>
<br />
Another article by <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/the-government-may-already-have-the-law-it-needs-to-beat-big-oil/" target="_blank">The Nation</a> suggests a possible criminal case:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The revelation that Exxon knew about the link between climate change
and carbon pollution as early as 1981, and yet continued to support the
decades-long campaign of denial described in the [Union of Concerned
Scientists] report, strengthens the parallel with the tobacco-industry
conduct that led to a civil RICO verdict against tobacco,” Senator
Whitehouse told <i>The Nation</i>.</blockquote>
Which is also discussed by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/22/what-exxon-knew-then-is-what-we-know-now/" target="_blank">Greg Laden</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The timing of this expose is interesting because it comes at about the same moment as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/19/letter-to-president-obama-investigate-deniers-under-rico/">a
call to use US RICO laws to investigate and possibly prosecute those
who seem to have been conspiring for a long time muddy the waters about
the science of climate change in order to put off taking action that
might financially hurt Big Petrol</a>. (See also <a href="http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/09/in-light-of-exxon-revelation-they-knew.html" style="color: orange;">this</a>.) " </blockquote>
He reanalyses their results and presents the results, showing that Exxon was amazingly accurate. As an aside I quote <a href="http://progressive.org/news/2015/10/188369/going-mobil-oil-giant-switches-cutting-edge-climate-research-climate-denial" target="_blank">The Progressive</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">"Greenpeace's <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php" style="line-height: 1.6;" target="_blank">investigation of the role of ExxonMobil</a> in
funding climate change deniers led to an interactive website,
ExxonSecrets.org, where visitors can select people and organizations and
view the charted connections between dozens of organizations, funding
streams, and climate-denying experts active in the decades-long, $30
million effort."</span> </blockquote>
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/29/is-the-fossil-fuel-industry-like-the-tobacco-industry-guilty-of-racketeering" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> has the following to say: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Recently, 11 House Republicans <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/14/republicans-are-becoming-the-party-of-climate-supervillains">broke ranks with their party leadership</a> to <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/17/republican-congress-climate-change-action-rebellion">call for action against climate change</a>. Thus far, dependency on <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/26/koch-brothers-889m-budget-2016-presidential-election">fossil fuel industry campaign donations</a> has played a major role in <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/14/republicans-are-becoming-the-party-of-climate-supervillains">the Republican Party’s efforts to obstruct national and international climate policies</a>. "</blockquote>
Which, coincidentally, underscores <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2015/10/politics-vs-reality.html" target="_blank">my point</a> that politicians might not always have an honest and objective incentive to make realistic decisions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-45749097827709471902015-10-02T00:34:00.003+01:002015-10-02T22:27:15.248+01:00Politics vs. Reality<div>
My view on countries is that they are nothing more than oversized companies, shops if you will. We all agree that running a company boils down to being a good manager. One has to ensure there are enough resources, cheese, or toilet paper. In case of illness make sure there is a replacement. The primary goal being the survival of the enterprise. Case in point, opening a restaurant is not the same as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsay's_Kitchen_Nightmares" target="_blank">knowing how to run it</a>. The reason is you have to understand what the <i>best</i> course of action is to be a restaurateur, not which menu fits your personal believe system. <br />
<br />
In the same vein to adequately run a country one must differentiate between <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy/" target="_blank">ideology</a> and verifiable reality. Just like rational people emphasise the need to adhere to science in medicine we should not ignore the wider effects <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html" target="_blank">denialism</a> (<a href="http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2" target="_blank">more here</a>) has on <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial" target="_blank">society</a>.<br />
<br />
The audacity with which politicians blatantly <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lying-politicians-a-fact-of-life/" target="_blank">posit</a> <i>fact-free</i> "facts" is both impressive as it is disheartening. Stranger still is the observation the general public lets them get away with <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-do-we-let-politicians-get-away-with-lying/" target="_blank">that</a>. Evidence <a href="http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/can-you-be-taught-how-to-think-better" target="_blank">critical thinking skills</a> should be part of our educational system. Although, it might not be as simple as introducing accurate information to correct <i><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney" target="_blank">reality</a>-<a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text" target="_blank">challenged</a></i> <a href="https://www.blogger.com/">opinions</a>, enter the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right" target="_blank">backfire</a> <a href="http://theconversation.com/inoculating-against-science-denial-40465" target="_blank">effect</a> (<a href="https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a>).<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Thinking of examples is easy, one can mention the follwing <a href="http://debunkingdenialism.com/tag/manufactroversy/" target="_blank">falsehoods</a>, that remain "<a href="http://skepdic.com/manufactroversy.html" target="_blank">unresolved</a>" controversies to this day. In light of the numerous stories refuting their premise voters remain annoyingly loyal adherents to these peddlers of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humbug" target="_blank">humbug</a>, a result that to me is utterly unpalatable. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Global Warming</i><br />
Confronted with all the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change" target="_blank">scientific evidence</a> supporting the position the earth is warming <i>and</i> humans are part of the cause, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial" target="_blank">special interest groups</a> have reacted with an <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-about-climate-change" target="_blank">assault</a> on the science and have been able to make us believe there still is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt" target="_blank">doubt</a>, doubt which <a href="http://slate.me/1JG9dAC" target="_blank">politicians</a> use to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/06/17/climate_denialism_is_the_real_hoax_why_politically_motivated_science_is_good_science_partner/" target="_blank">sabotage</a> necessary reforms.<br />
<br />
In short, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/08/17/july_2015_hottest_july_on_record.html" target="_blank">politicians</a> keep repeating the factually incorrect <a href="http://bigthink.com/think-tank/10-examples-of-settled-science-that-are-controversial" target="_blank">claim</a> that <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Manufactroversy" target="_blank">the science is not settled</a>.<br />
<br />
To make things worst AP has decided that calling people who deny the science "<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/23/ap-changes-style-guide-takes-out-denier-puts-in-doubter/" target="_blank">denier</a>" is no longer <a href="http://gizmodo.com/ap-dont-call-them-climate-change-deniers-anymore-bec-1732686586" target="_blank">allowed</a>. Yet again proof of journalism refusing to report <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.no/2011/01/facts-are-overrated-anyway.html" target="_blank">facts</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Capitalism</i><br />
We all know how the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism" target="_blank">free market</a> has made us all <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming" target="_blank">extremely</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic" target="_blank">happy</a>. The notion that government is out to prevent <i>us all</i> from making money has led to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis" target="_blank">deregulation</a>. Luckily, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html" target="_blank">removal</a> of laws preventing <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105" target="_blank">some</a> to become obscenely <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/martin-shkreli-is-just-a-tiny-part-of-a-huge-problem/" target="_blank">rich</a> has made our lives alot <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis" target="_blank">easier</a>. <br />
<br />
Part of protecting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy" target="_blank">our</a> right to make money the world has envisioned a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership" target="_blank">free trade agreement</a> (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid" target="_blank">TTIP</a>) presented as a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEW3DYDJi2E" target="_blank">solution</a> to our economic woes to come. My biggest problem with it is the lack of <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/criticism-grows-over-investor-protections-in-transatlantic-trade-deal-a-945107-2.html" target="_blank">transparancy</a>. Meaning: nobody, except the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/secrets-ttip-corporations-not-citizens-transatlantic-trade-deal" target="_blank">lucky</a> <a href="http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/08/eu-doubles-down-on-ttip-secrecy-as-public-resistance-grows/" target="_blank">few</a>, are allowed to see what this agreement entails. Because of that many have voiced <a href="https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8" target="_blank">opposition</a>, even observed it threatens <a href="http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/05/ttip-explained-the-secretive-us-eu-treaty-that-undermines-democracy/" target="_blank">democracy</a> itself. How? I see you think. Should a country enact laws which might impact expected <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-oliver-highlights-ridiculousness-corporate-sovereignty-provisions.shtml" target="_blank">revenue</a>, (think smoking, food, cars, et cetera), the affected company may sue the country in what in essence is a secret court:<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="mw-headline" id="National_sovereignty_and_investor-state_dispute_settlements_.28ISDS.29"> the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#National_sovereignty_and_investor-state_dispute_settlements_.28ISDS.29" target="_blank">National sovereignty and investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS)</a>, more <a href="http://robertreich.org/post/117948294805" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/trade-agreement-troubles" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/the-tpp-will-finish-what-chiles-dictatorship-started/" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/never-mind-isis-its-isds-thats-real-threat/" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/11/elizabeth-warren-fires-back-at-obama-heres-what-theyre-really-fighting-about/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/30/battle-rages-over-key-obama-trade-policy/" target="_blank">here</a>. Many fear this will be an <a href="https://youtu.be/dSuIGKSm7z0" target="_blank">incentive</a> not to enact consumer protective laws. Which, if you <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34324772" target="_blank">are</a> <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9365667/volkswagen-clean-diesel-recall-passenger-cars" target="_blank">VW</a>, is a good thing. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="mw-headline" id="National_sovereignty_and_investor-state_dispute_settlements_.28ISDS.29">Another truism among monetary wizards is the notion that reducing taxes on the rich, paired with </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="mw-headline" id="National_sovereignty_and_investor-state_dispute_settlements_.28ISDS.29"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="mw-headline" id="National_sovereignty_and_investor-state_dispute_settlements_.28ISDS.29"><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/economic-theory-science-scam/" target="_blank">lower</a> wages/increased taxes on the rest of us plebs, </span></span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/revealed-wealth-gap-oecd-report" target="_blank">stimulates</a> the economy, better known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics" target="_blank">trickle</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/14/vox-blasts-media-for-repeating-mistakes-that-ha/205523" target="_blank">down</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85" target="_blank">economics</a>. </span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Too Big to Fail, and Jail </i><br />
After convincing politicians to <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/25/1265127/-Why-No-Corporate-CEOs-Were-Prosecuted-For-Causing-The-Financial-Crisis" target="_blank">remove</a> our protections against a financial collaps, completely unexpected the world was on the brink of disaster as the economy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis" target="_blank">crashed</a>. To avert the end of times politicians decided to rescue the financial world because it was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail" target="_blank">impossible</a> to let them go bankrupt.<br />
<br />
The concept "too big to fail" is something I do not subscribe to. But, as I have no background in economics, I will not force my opinion upon you. So, conceding the premise the logical next step is to reduce the size of our financial institutions and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/30/how-the-banks-ignored-lessons-of-crash" target="_blank">update</a> their <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog" target="_blank">ethics</a>. This is something politicians have <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/big-fail" target="_blank">refused</a> to <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/another-disaster-is-coming-unless-we-downsize-too-big-to-fail-banks-2015-08-03" target="_blank">mandate</a>. In addition to that we have seen a <a href="http://www.propublica.org/special/your-guide-to-the-latest-efforts-to-hold-big-banks-accountable" target="_blank">reluctance</a> to either <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/untouchables/senators-bash-doj-for-evasive-response-on-too-big-to-jail/" target="_blank">investigate</a> or <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214" target="_blank">sufficiently</a> <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/congress-subpoenas-doj-over-too-big-fail-bank-prosecutions-1916999?rel=rel2" target="_blank">punish</a> widespread <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/hsbc-prosecution-fine-money-laundering" target="_blank">criminal</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama" target="_blank">behaviour</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Guncontrol</i><br />
This is aimed at politicians that refuse to <a href="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/" target="_blank">acknowledge</a> <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control" target="_blank">reality</a> surrounding the <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics" target="_blank">unlimited</a> <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5797892/us-world-firearm-ownership-map" target="_blank">availability</a> of murder <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-rising-harvard" target="_blank">tools</a>. Despite impressive results of curtailing gun ownership in <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/20/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work" target="_blank">other</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia" target="_blank">countries</a>. But <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-nra-vs-america-20130131" target="_blank">ideology</a>, and hysteria, trump common <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gun-control-ban-homicides-suicides-20140528-story.html" target="_blank">sense</a>, and emperical <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/what-researchers-learned-about-gun-violence-before-congress-killed-funding" target="_blank">data</a> showing gun control <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html" target="_blank">works</a>. Worse, because of politics we are no longer allowed to even collect and analyse <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/blackout-how-the-nra-suppressed-gun-violence" target="_blank">data</a> <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cdc-still-cant-get-funding-research" target="_blank">pertaining</a> to gun <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/" target="_blank">violence</a>. </div>
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Terrorism</i> </div>
<div>
Following the attacks on the US of A in 2001 politicians claimed this attack, WMD and support of international terrorism meant they had to invade Iraq. While already evident before the invasion those politicians ignored the evidence refuting those claims which simultaneously pointed to the actual <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden" target="_blank">culprit</a>.<br />
<br />
Even today we fail to recognise our <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1002/To-turn-tables-on-ISIS-at-home-start-asking-unsettling-questions-expert-says" target="_blank">role</a> in creating <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant" target="_blank">Islamic State</a> by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq" target="_blank">destabilising the region</a> and <a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/09/23/u-s-state-department-welcomes-news-close-ally-saudi-arabia-chosen-head-u-n-human-rights-council-panel/" target="_blank">supporting</a> one of the worst <a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/09/15/great-bbc-interview-british-loyalist-saudi-regime-shows-journalists-first-duty/" target="_blank">regimes</a> around today. The entire notion that "<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/18/bombing-immoral-stupid-syria-victim-deaths-drones" target="_blank">war</a>" is the solution to complicated sectarian conflicts is risible. Strangely enough we are shocked when this <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine" target="_blank">non-diplomatic</a> approach to solving global challenges causes another <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis" target="_blank">catastrophe</a>. Needless to say, nobody ever remembers how things got <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-United_States_relations#1980s" target="_blank">started</a>, or how human rights are just <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/29/uk-and-saudi-arabia-in-secret-deal-over-human-rights-council-place" target="_blank">bargaining chips</a>. Worse still, after history has proven you do not know what you are talking about we happily listen to your insights yet <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/09/05/dick_cheneys_savage_revisionist_history_inside_his_disturbing_campaign_to_twist_the_facts_of_iraq/" target="_blank">again</a>.<br />
<br />
Coincidentally, the <a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/09/18/halfabomb-explodes-twitter-think-tank-calls-boys-clock-threat/" target="_blank">inflated fear</a> of those "men with beards and funny names" has opened up <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905" target="_blank">opportunities</a> for those interested in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28company%29" target="_blank">making</a> some <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton" target="_blank">money</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine" target="_blank">those</a> that feel <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_%282013%E2%80%93present%29" target="_blank">civil</a> liberties are overrated anyway. Which most of us think is just <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/so-you-think-you-have-nothing-hide" target="_blank">fine</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
For years I have wondered how it is that politicians are able to make a plethora of incorrect statements without the possibility of correcting them. Looking at the rest of society I notice all the jobs I am aware off have some <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine" target="_blank">kind</a> of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_operating_procedure" target="_blank">quality</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_control" target="_blank">control</a>. For whatever reason politics knows no such system. Despite the tedious political debates presented as such we have no objective means of steering the political process back to <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reality_Based" target="_blank">reality</a>.<br />
<br />
Would it not be great if we finally get to implement <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0916/Combating-global-warming-good-for-economic-growth-after-all-video" target="_blank">measures</a> to <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climage-change-failed-efforts-to-combat-global-warming-a-1020406.html" target="_blank">save</a> the planet and thereby <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/07/climate-change-global-warming-refugee-crisis" target="_blank">ourselves</a>, or if we stop wasting resources on solving <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/13/the-biggest-threat-to-americans-other-americans-with-guns.html" target="_blank">problems</a> that do not <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/24/terrorism-poses-no-existential-threat-to-america" target="_blank">exist</a>?<br />
<br />
What if we implement some quality control measures to check whether politicians espouse reality-based opinions. <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/" target="_blank">The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking</a> seems like a good place to start. We can steal some of his suggestions and turn those into the following: <br />
<ol>
<li>Politicians must be able to say whatever they want. They should be able to make any suggestion, propose or block any law, make any claim they want.</li>
<li>Following their suggestions (to implement, or block, policy/law) it should be mandatory to show evidence of a) the need for this proposal/its refusal, b) the proposal has the claimed effect, c) the claimed effect outweighs the expected negative <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.no/2011/02/house-of-god.html" target="_blank">impact</a>.</li>
<li>For the purpose of ascertaining the available facts politicians themselves are not considered <i>experts</i> in the field. </li>
<li>The evidence shown can not be "I strongly believe," or "god said so," but has to be based on a review by an <i>independent expert</i> in the relevant field. This expert has to a) share with us the mainstream view among the relevant experts, b) state that in case of any discrepancy between the politicians statement and <i>communis opinio</i> among these experts this is entirely <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-im-not-scientist-line-wont-cut-it" target="_blank">reasonable</a> and reflects an actual <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy" target="_blank">debate</a> among <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/why-republicans-always-say-im-not-a-scientist.html" target="_blank">experts</a>, c) in case of politicians <a href="http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09/28/news/potentially-scandalous-probe-muzzled-scientists-not-likely-out-oct19" target="_blank">withholding</a> such <a href="https://researchinquiry.org/" target="_blank">studies</a> they are obliged to mention the result and reason behind not mentioning it.</li>
<li>In the absence of <i>verifiable evidence</i> politicians are obligated to either withdraw their suggestions/comments or admit they are only sharing their private opinion and that layman opinion is more important than evaluation by people with real knowledge: otherwise known as experts.</li>
<li>Any proposal based on non-expert guestimation shall be publicly presented as make believe or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness" target="_blank">truthiness</a>. </li>
<li>Akin to nearly every other profession I would <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort" target="_blank">suggest</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpractice" target="_blank">accountability</a> in case of policy that can not be reconciled with expert opinion, or lacks reasonable arguments to ignore the patently fallacious solution presented. </li>
</ol>
Yes, I realise we now get into <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass" target="_blank">Through-the-Looking-glass</a> territory:<br />
<ul>
<li>How do we know <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_truth" target="_blank"><i>The Truth</i></a>, because there is not an absolute <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth" target="_blank">Truth</a></li>
<li>As such everything is merely <a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-updated-7611752" target="_blank">opinion</a>,<i> w</i>e have freedom of opinion, ergo: who are we to <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_balance" target="_blank">differentiate between opinions</a>?</li>
</ul>
The asnswer is: we employ a system that optimises the objectivity of politics and minimises ideological influences. Just as we are used to in the rest of society: think <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection" target="_blank">regulations</a> for the automotive industry, hospitals, construction industry, your local restaurant, hotel, et cetera.<br />
<br />
Anyway, the goal is to make visible that politics is not seldom based on wishful thinking if not good old-fashioned <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_and_mirrors" target="_blank">smoke and mirrors</a>. Who knows, it might even reduce political disputes as it limits the possibility to abuse reality without getting corrected.<br />
<br />
Feel free to augment/amend my proposal in comments.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Update:</span> Unfortunately we have an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-umpqua-community-college.html" target="_blank">oportunity</a> to see whether politicians are willing to choose society over <a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/zealot" target="_blank">ideology</a>. What will the response be to Obama <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting" target="_blank">pleading</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Obama <a class=" u-underline" data-component="in-body-link" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/obama-gun-control-laws-oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting">appealed to voters to elect politicians committed to strengthening gun control</a>
and to gun owners to ask themselves whether organisations such as the
National Rifle Association, which pour large amounts of money into
lobbying against restrictions, are really serving the interests of those
who use weapons for sport and hunting." </blockquote>
Obama also <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/oregon-college-shooting-obama-is-right-that-guns-kill-more-americans-than-terrorism-but-so-do-lots-a6676366.html" target="_blank">asked</a> to compare the effects of gun violence and terrorism.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/10/02/08/gun%20deaths.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/10/02/08/gun%20deaths.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
Will politicians choose the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/" target="_blank">facts</a>-<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/5-facts-about-the-nra-and-guns-in-america/" target="_blank">based</a> <a href="http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-gun-control-battle-its-not-about-guns-as-weapons-but-guns-as-symbols" target="_blank">approach</a>? Not holding my <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/gun-reform-obama-not-optimistic-political-realities-congress" target="_blank">breath</a>.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-58139600111350334782015-09-25T18:36:00.000+01:002015-09-26T15:55:46.938+01:00Scary things<div><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">As you have noticed my writing has been somewhat spars even though I was still active on Twitter. Much has happened.</span></div><div><br></div>The past years I have been busy emigrating and it has not been easy. To learn the language I used children's books and <a href="http://www.byki.com/category/Norwegian/">Byki</a>, a good way to learn the basics of a foreign language but not nearly sufficient for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_%28medicine%29">communicating</a> in a medical setting. Though I had only two months before I had to start I managed. <div><br></div><div>You would think that is a huge decision but there is more. Since I like difficulty I simultaneously became a parent. Imagine that.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, today I sort of regained control of my life and as such you can expect a rebirth of this blog.</div><div><br></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic9XkQ15xgpuqdtgfuXmNL8KSniN5W6rH1AKyncQruDMr53B73_pOf2XVrYhDfkzh5qauAVhYxtkR5pxwNCOlvc3v2Om4nBQcDe8d2GQgSeSsdtaTY3B-lfF9F4Zupt6QIxA3kthSbMdA/s640/blogger-image-1671203397.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic9XkQ15xgpuqdtgfuXmNL8KSniN5W6rH1AKyncQruDMr53B73_pOf2XVrYhDfkzh5qauAVhYxtkR5pxwNCOlvc3v2Om4nBQcDe8d2GQgSeSsdtaTY3B-lfF9F4Zupt6QIxA3kthSbMdA/s640/blogger-image-1671203397.jpg"></a></div><br></div>Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-3381608240404385882011-09-14T18:47:00.006+01:002011-09-16T09:33:50.889+01:00House, M.D.Ever since St. Elsewhere -yes, I am really, really old- I am addicted to hospital series, from ER to Grey's Anatomy. My favourite, since I like caricature, and the overt references to the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/02/house-of-god.html">House of God</a>, is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubs_%28TV_series%29">Scrubs</a>. There are more series, and one of them is annoying beyond description: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_%28TV_series%29">House, M.D.</a>. Apparently <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_%28TV_series%29#U.S._television_ratings">nobody</a> shares my dislike.<br />
<br />
Why do I have a problem with this particular series?<br />
<ol><li>House simultaneously works as a paediatrician, gynaecologist, nefrologist, gastro-enterologist, radiologist, surgeon, et cetera. For some reason his hospital does not need <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialty_%28medicine%29">medical specialists</a>. Internists do know alot but those I have met never attempt to be any other type of physician. </li>
<li> Oddly enough, his diagnosis will ignore more obvious possibilities, and instantly requires us to accept a more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses,_not_zebras">unlikely scenario</a>.</li>
</ol>The first point should be self-evident, the second I will explain in more detail. Let me be absolutely clear, in no way am I suggesting the presented diagnoses are incorrect. One can argue that technically every episode is medically possible. Whether the sequence of events is plausible is something else.<br />
<br />
From experience I can tell you that the series explores medical conditions that rarely, at initial presentation, offer sufficient information to instantly suggest their highly unusual diagnoses. The list of enigmas, i.e. uncommon diagnoses, I encountered consists of:<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_lupus_erythematosus">Systemic Lupus Erythematosus </a> (SLE), initial presentation: severe thrombopenia</li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic_thrombocytopenic_purpura">Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura</a> (ITP), initial presentation: severe thrombopenia</li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glanzmann%27s_thrombasthenia">Glanzmann's thrombasthenia</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_hepatitis">Autoimmune hepatitis</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heparin-induced_thrombocytopenia">Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia</a> (HIT) </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRALI">Transfusion Related Acute Lung Injury</a> (TRALI)</li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogilvie_syndrome">Ogilvie syndrome</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_shock_syndrome">Toxic Shock Syndrome</a> (TSS) which, within four hours after being admitted to A & E, developed into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_organ_failure">Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome</a> (MODS) </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens-Johnson_syndrome">Stevens–Johnson syndrome</a> </li>
<li>Irreversible brain damage because of prolonged hypoxaemia following acute and severe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning">carbon monoxide poisoning</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotenemia">Carotenaemia</a> evaluation jaundice after visit to the tropics </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutonneuse_fever">Fièvre boutonneuse</a> evaluation after visit to the tropics, GP thought of malaria (in case of fever + tropics malaria should be the first in your DD) </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lassa_fever">Lassa fever</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wpw">Wolff–Parkinson–White syndrome</a> (WPW) </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_dissection">Dissectio aortae</a> requiring a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentall_procedure">Bentall procedure</a> </li>
</ul>Only carotenaemia (jaundice without yellow eyes), and fièvre boutonneuse (eschar), were an <i>on-the-spot</i>-diagnosis, the others involved extendsive investigations. Eventhough I worked in highly regarded hospitals, no physician was able to pull any rabbit out of his hat. House, of course, would have known the answer within seconds. Utterly unrealistic, especially those that invlove a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis_per_exclusionem"><i>diagnosis per exclusionem</i></a>, it is ridiculous to let House skip the <i>exclusionem</i> part.<br />
<br />
Add to that the convoluted, and at times incomprehensible, decisions and you understand my being underwelmed. In all honesty, his diagnostic and therapeutic approach are so aberrant it immediately removes any credibility for me. Even the caricature Scrubs has an air of authenticity.<br />
<br />
His Asperger-like antisocial personality I find less offensive, it resembles many physicians I have worked with. Totally incapable of thinking of others, and convinced of their infallability. Admittedly, like House, they do tend to know their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison%27s_Principles_of_Internal_Medicine">stuff</a>. Strangely enough this part of the character is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence">true to life</a>.<br />
<br />
His magician-like ability to conjure up the right answer out of thin air makes me incapable of watching the series.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-43076540258693502962011-08-28T18:11:00.005+01:002011-10-04T16:07:19.027+01:00Agnotology: or denialism as policyWhen I entered medical school I strongly believed that knowledge was the answer to most, if not all, problems. By the same token I thought that in any debate, just offering your opponent a <a href="http://debunkingdenialism.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/appeal-to-scientific-consensus-is-not-an-appeal-to-popularity-or-authority/">well-supported argument</a> had to lead to its acceptance.<br />
<br />
Not so. Apparently, for psychological reasons humans <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/02/03/the-perception-gap-an-explanation-for-why-people-maintain-irrational-fears/">reject</a> evidence that contradicts strongly held beliefs. Hence the need for <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2010/05/the_new_scientist_debates_deni.php">denialism</a>. Because of that I coined the phrase: <i>there is no cure for stupidity.</i> As I remarked before, there are two sides to that coin. One, there are those that sincerely refuse to accept scientific facts, mostly through lack of understanding. Eventhough studies show increasing their knowledge does not help, I sincerely hope it does. Unfortunately, they <a href="http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/echo-chambers-are-ruining-scientific-communication/">evade</a> venues that offer critical thinking courses.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, there is another group. They do not reject science, they understand and accept it. However, their monetary gains, <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/santorum_rejects_antiscience_l031830.php">religious</a> and political powers, are severly damaged should certain scientific facts become known and accepted by the general public. To protect profitable companies, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science">policies</a>, et cetera they attempt to keep uncomfortable information hidden, and are actively aided by politicians. And if that does not work they soften the blow by pointing out the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy">science is not settled</a>, or even making us <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evil_Liberal_Science_Conspiracy">distrust</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory">science</a>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRle1cYk9aknMfh3vS9LJrCuRDPf0-jqYqSlvxyI-oObIW71Ejoiw" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRle1cYk9aknMfh3vS9LJrCuRDPf0-jqYqSlvxyI-oObIW71Ejoiw" /></a></div>We were first shown that tactic by the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21565663">tabacco industry</a> (<a href="http://roswellitc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/corrective_statements_ajpm.pdf">PDF</a>) , which despite increasing evidence smoking is detrimental to our health, made it possible to stall legislation. Their trick: manufacturing scientific doubt. <br />
<br />
Following that success new acolytes appeared: <a href="http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/the-climate-wars-are-over-we-lost-what-do-we-do-next/">global warming</a> does not exist, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/yet_another_bad_day_for_the_anti-vaccine_1.php">vaccination</a> kills, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/bryan_fischer_and_the_dogmatic.php">evolution</a> is merely another <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/why_the_evolution_question_mat.php">opinion</a>, the <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/08/wall-street-is-our-main-street.html">financial</a> <a href="http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/24/obama-administration-pressures-prosecutors-to-drop-criminal-investigations-of-banks-in-mortgage-fraud/">industry</a> <a href="http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/08/24/the-timing-of-the-schneiderman-attack/">Ponzi scheme</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/legislative-alchemy-i-naturopath/"><i>non-medicine</i>-medicine</a>, <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/25/cheney/index.html">only plebeians commit crimes</a>, we guarantee your safety, <a href="http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/08/24/in-last-two-years-fbi-developed-intrusive-files-on-77100-innocent-americans/">privacy</a> <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/gps-privacy-crossroads/">will</a> be the end of us all, <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/24/obama/index.html">militarism and ignoring the law breeds democracy</a>. The recurring theme is misinformation, misrepresentation, and fullblown denialism.<br />
<br />
Putting as many sticks as possible in the wheels of the bicycle called science has become a <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html">major</a> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2010/05/the_new_scientist_debates_deni.php">strategy</a> <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/handbook-in-denialism/">which</a> is detailed in <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">Merchants of Doubt</a>. The cause is self-evident: if people hear smoking kills you lose customers, once evolution is accepted and the bible is proven to be a set of fairy tales that book can no longer be used to indoctrinate the rabble, if global warming is true you need to make costly adaptations to factories and cars, if <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/">security</a> <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/beyond_security.html">theatre</a> <a href="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/the-follies-of-security-theater/">does</a> not <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/security-theatre-of-the-absurd/article1418698/">prevent</a> <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_schneier.html">terrorist</a> attacks we won't spent billions on the military-industrial-complex incarnation called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xe_Services">security firms</a>.<br />
<br />
That <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-02/st_thompson">technique</a> of creating confusion is <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/03/the-oregon-petition-a-case-study-in-agnotology/">known</a> as <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Agnotology.html?id=qp7rKT56fw0C">agnotology</a>. According to Dah <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology">Wiki</a> this:<br />
<blockquote>is the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. </blockquote>The term was invented by Robert Proctor in 1992. An example is given by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jun/28/study-science-research-ignorance-foucart">Stéphane Foucart</a> for <i>The Guardian</i>:<br />
<blockquote>A famous internal memo issued by the US cigarette manufacturer Brown & Williamson put it bluntly: "Doubt is our product." The campaign by the tobacco industry to spread ignorance, which became a deliberate ploy in the 1950s, has since been copied in other fields. </blockquote>Hmm, <a href="http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/">doubt as a product</a>, where have I heard that <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">before</a>?<br />
<br />
Today the intertoobs are a highly effective method of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php">disseminating</a> misinformation. There are numerous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29">echo</a> <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/sunstein/echo.pdf">chambers</a> promoting "alternative views" by <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/07/dunning-kruger-effect.html">experts without knowledge</a>. Countering the deliberate manufacture of debate becomes increasingly difficult. Especially when exposing those fabricating facts results in abuse like the recent <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/08/attack-of-anti-science-movement.html">unpleasantness</a>.<br />
<br />
Not only facts are misrepresented, also <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/the-ways-of-silencing/">language</a> is conscripted in this war on reason. Something Orwell years ago <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language">explained</a> to us, which is why today we call such abuse of language <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian">Orwellian</a>.<br />
<br />
The sad thing is I expect powerful factions to mislead in order to gain money and power, I have been turned into a cynic by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince">Il Principe</a> combined with a lack of interest in the latest Hollywood gossip. What annoys me is that the one <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/some_science_journalists_need.php">institute</a> whose <i>raison d'être</i> should be exposing such blatant fraud is refusing to do so. Or, in the case of one news organisation, participating in the scheme to <a href="http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/jon_stewart_on_foxs_reverse_cl.php">mislead</a> us. Commenting on the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/02/propaganda-posing-as-journalism.html">P.R.-departments</a> we call media <a href="http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-02-28-what-we-have-and-havent-learned-from-climategate">David Roberts</a> writes:<br />
<blockquote>There's one thing we <i>haven't</i> learned from climategate (or death panels or birtherism). U.S. politics now contains a large, well-funded, tightly networked, and highly amplified tribe that defines itself through rejection of "lamestream" truth claims and standards of evidence. How should our political culture relate to that tribe? </blockquote><blockquote>We haven't figured it out. Politicians and the political press have tried to accommodate the shibboleths of the right as legitimate positions for debate. The press in particular has practically sworn off plain judgments of accuracy or fact. But all that's done is confuse and mislead the broader public, while the tribe pushes ever further into extremity. The tribe does not want to be accommodated. It is fueled by elite rejection. </blockquote><blockquote>At this point mainstream institutions like the press are in a bind: either accept the tribe's assertions as legitimate or be deemed "biased." Until there is a way out of that trap, there will be more and more Climategates.</blockquote>Confronted with such opposition to change, i.e. advancement of knowledge, I am reminded of my school days. During physics lessons <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_Law">Lenz's law</a> was introduced to me. <br />
<blockquote>An induced current is always in such a direction as to oppose the motion or change causing it.</blockquote>Add to that a pinch of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_third_law">Newton</a>:<br />
<blockquote>To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.</blockquote>which completes my version of <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo">quantum-woo</a> to explain <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_%28Star_Wars%29">The Force</a> is behind the anti-science movement.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> Added image borrowed from <a href="http://waldenswimmer.blogspot.com/2011/08/agnotology-and-future-developments.html">Waldenswimmer</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update II</span>: Yet another brilliant picture from <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/03/335022/organized-climate-change-denial/">Joe Romm</a>, for <i>Think Progress</i>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Denial-Machine1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Denial-Machine1.gif" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Nice flow-chart of <em>The Denier Industrial Complex</em>.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-40018096051287696442011-08-22T22:11:00.011+01:002011-08-24T11:55:57.926+01:00Attack of the anti-science movementOne of the last resorts left to the anti-science crowd is <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-science-fails-you-resort-to-old.html">bullying</a> more saner individuals into submission. Since they cannot win the debate on its merits they regularly use the legal system to stifle critique: i.e. those exposing their nonsense. However, it is not the only tactic available, <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/08/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-death-threats-for-scientists/">death</a> <a href="http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2011/08/22/chronic-fatigue-research-sparks-death-threats/">threats</a> are always a very effective way too to show you are not pleased with science. The similarities in <i>modus operandi</i> with that other group of ideologues, Scientology, is striking. For this post I limit myself to the <i>litigation</i>-crowd. Behaviour that in the past made me <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/03/ideology-using-legalities-to-stifle.html">remark</a>:<br />
<blockquote>This is because the intrepid ideologue will start by simply denying anything that contradicts his/her erroneous opinion since <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/09/i-am-galileo-argument.html">the Galileo-gambit</a> proves he/she is right. This method is not without risks. More and more people realise they are the victim of <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/02/propaganda-posing-as-journalism.html">propaganda</a>. Another avenue for maintaining your discreditied <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/what_does_it_mean_to_be_anti-vaccine.php">position</a> is <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-science-fails-you-resort-to-old.html">legal bullying</a>. As <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/04/there-may-be-hope.html">we have seen</a>, in the case of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-libel-case-dropped">Simon Singh</a>, litigation -using the U.K.'s libel laws in particular- is a preferred method, employed by cranks, of removing <a href="http://skepticblog.org/2010/01/04/another-libel-suit-this-time-against-paul-offit/">science-based</a> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/suppression_of_speech_anti-vaccine_editi.php">criticism</a> from public discourse. </blockquote>That post was a response to how this tactic:<br />
<blockquote>resulted in cancelling the publication of Paul Offit's latest book <i><a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/03/director-of-the-society-of-homeopaths-threatens-libel-action-against-paul-offit.html">Deadly Choices: How The Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All</a></i>. </blockquote>Based on the past weeks it appears this method of silencing reality-based criticism is on the rise. First, the recently unleashed <a href="https://plus.google.com/">Google Plus</a> <a href="http://tekfrenzy.com/2011/07/27/google-plan-to-address-the-issue-of-pseudonymity-in-future/">requires</a> users to <a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/ethicsandscience/2011/07/25/pseudonymity-and-google/">disclose</a> their true identity. That is, even a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/25/1">well established</a> pseudonym will <a href="http://infotrope.net/2011/07/22/ive-been-suspended-from-google-plus/">lead</a> to <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2011/07/google-responds-to-google-account-suspension-controversy/1">suspension</a> of your account. Eventhough numerous <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/case-pseudonyms">legitimate</a> <a href="http://skepchick.org/2011/07/sunday-ai-does-google-hate-women/">reasons</a> <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/12/death_of_internet_anonymity">exist</a> for people to keep their personal details <a href="http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/case-study-notorious-spammer-brought-down-twitter-tumblr-social-media-mabus/">hidden</a>. Nevertheless, Google is not always <a href="http://thenextweb.com/la/2011/08/20/google-fined-in-brazil-for-refusing-to-reveal-bloggers-identities/">in favour of disclosing</a> that type of information:<br />
<blockquote>Yet, it’s precisely for defending three bloggers’ right to anonymity that its Brazilian subsidiary was fined this Thursday by a local judge.</blockquote>Following that kerfuffle the Overlords at Scienceblogs have also chosen to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2011/08/pseudonymous_blogging_at_scien.php">prohibit</a> anonymous/pseudonymous blogging. Strangely enough both organisations were able to miss the fact that a blogger, named Samuele Riva, was threatened to stop writing about the factually correct observation that there was no scientific support for the claims (pun intended) being made by a producer of homeopathic remedies. In the words of <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/homeopathic-thuggery/">Steven Novella</a>:<br />
<blockquote>this time the international homeopathy producer, Boiron, is threatening a lone Italian blogger because he dared to criticize their product, <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/ososillyococcinum-and-other-flu-bits/">Oscillococcinum</a>. The blogger, Samuele Riva, wrote two articles on his blog, blogzero.it, criticizing what our own Mark Crislip has called “oh-so-silly-coccinum.” The blog is entirely in Italian, <a href="http://www.blogzero.it/contatti/prova/">but he is maintaining a page in English</a> with updates on the Boiron vs Blogzero affair.</blockquote>As a result of this legal thuggery the <a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/boiron_please_sue_us">Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)</a> are begging to be sued too:<br />
<blockquote>We are inviting Boron [sic] to litigate not because we think their suit might have merit; quite to the contrary, such a suit would have absolutely no merit. If sued in any American court, we are confident we will prevail. Homeopathy has no scientific basis. Instead, we are inviting litigation because we do not believe Boron should be able to silence critics by picking on isolated bloggers. </blockquote>Working on a post documenting this schoolyard approach to science I noticed the most recent incident involving <a href="http://twitter.com/EpiRen">EpiRen</a>, who is a great force for reason. <a href="http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2011/08/a-public-servant-blogging-and-twitter-under-his-own-name-is-silenced-by-his-employers.html">Liz Ditz</a> wrote that his employer, because of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/the_consequences_of_blogging_under_ones.php">legal threats</a>, forced him to stop writing his science-based articles debunking the plethora of claims by the <i>ideology-trumps-science</i>-crowd:<br />
<blockquote>Last weekend, Mr. Najera had a heated exchange with a pharmaceuticals "entrepreneur", Mr. X-- I put that in quotes as Mr. X. made some claims that don't stand up. Mr. X also made a series of ad hominem attacks on <a href="http://www.preemieprimer.com/about/" target="_self">Jen Gunter MD</a>, to which Mr. Najera responded.</blockquote><blockquote>Rather than responding to Mr. Najera, Mr. X escalated in a particularly virulent way. Mr. X sent a series of emails--complaining about Mr. Najera's opinions, complaining about Mr. Najera's defense of vaccination, and threatening legal action--to a great many people senior to Mr. Najera in his department -- starting with Mr. Najera's immediate superior. Mr. X was able to do so because Mr. Najera was blogging under his own name, named the state in which he worked, and because the name René Najera is rather uncommon -- especially in a small, East Coast state.</blockquote>Commenting on this incident <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/the_consequences_of_blogging_under_ones.php">Orac</a> adds:<br />
<blockquote>René was ordered by his superiors to cease all blogging, Twittering, and other social network activity related to public health. </blockquote>You will find his blog is no longer available, a truly disgusting result. This tendency to prevent pertinent information from being shared with the general public -i.e. censorship- is the hallmark of ideologues. Why am I not allowed to hear facts that are incompatable with your preferred/perceived version of reality?<br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/02/propaganda-posing-as-journalism.html">absence of media</a> that adequately report on pseudoscience -you must know <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/search/label/Journalism">this</a> is a particular peeve of mine- it is frightning to witness the blatant use of threats, instead of reasoned discourse, to get rid of opposing voices. Especially, when it has been repeatedly shown that there is absolutely <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/04/delusional-disorder-part-iii.html">zero evidence</a> to support those anti-science claims. The fact the anti-science crowd will stop at nothing to hide criticism is one of the main reasons I keep my personal details hidden, though luckily I am hardly important enough for them to bother me.<br />
<br />
In light of the above, an article by Glenn Greenwald <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers">detailing</a> the <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50761.html">war</a> on <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/23/risen">whistleblowers</a>, combined with an expanding <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/19/surveillance/index.html">Surveillance State</a>, add a somewhat sinister <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/12/death_of_internet_anonymity">argument</a> as to <a href="http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/judicial-harassment-against-journalists-new-form-censorship-brazil">why</a> ones identity should be allowed to remain seperated from <i>real world</i> interactions.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> The internet has reacted with strong emotions over this incident, since the underlying debate is about the ability to adopt an anonymous/pseudonymous alter ego, for whatever purpose. From <a href="http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2011/08/keeping-up-with-epigate.html">Liz Ditz</a> we learn that @epiApril has suggested <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23EpiGate">Epigate</a> for this circus. She also keeps a list of posts by others detailing this thuggery. An excellent observation of these events is written by <a href="http://conductingclinicalresearch.blogspot.com/2011/08/censorship-causes-blindness-valuable.html">Dr Judy Stone</a>. The effect the internet has on the age old exchange of ideas amongst the medical profession is reviewed by <a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/2011/08/22/of-douches-online-identity-and-ethics/">PalMD</a>. To remind us of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences">law of uintended consequences</a> <a href="http://scepticemia.com/2011/08/22/rhett-daniels-epiren-and-the-streisand-effect-a-blog-round-up/">Scepticemia</a> discusses the Streisand effect while listing the numerous responses. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update II:</span> Regarding nymity <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/08/on_nymity.php">Chad Orzel</a> adds some points, while <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2011/08/on_the_value_of_pseudonyms.php">Tara C. Smith</a> stresses its importance and asks National Geographic to reconsider the ill-advised Scienceblogs-thingy. Thinking on the methods used by the <i>let's-reinstate-the-Dark-Ages</i>-brigade I am reminded of another type of <a href="http://www.asap-spssi.org/pdf/asap019.pdf">strongarming</a>. It is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism">defined</a> as:<br />
<blockquote>acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes (<i>took part of the definition to offer my view on what it is</i>)</blockquote>Which, after my selective quoting, sounds like the definition offered by <a href="http://www.icj.org/IMG/UK-Carlile-DefTer.pdf">Lord Lloyd of Berwick</a>:<br />
<blockquote>The use of serious violence against persons or property, or threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public or any section of the public, in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives.</blockquote>Obviously, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism">similarity</a> is a misunderstanding on my part. We all know that only <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/23/nyt/index.html">brown people with islamic sounding names</a> embrace such <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/22/terrorism">tactics</a>.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-66556871457290420132011-08-17T14:27:00.008+01:002011-09-05T23:51:09.359+01:00The Galileo MovementLast year I, though <a href="http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-reasons-we-know-your-are-not-a-scientific-genius/">I was not alone in this</a>, noticed the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/09/i-am-galileo-argument.html">tendency of cranks to invoke Galileo</a> as proof of the inherent scientific basis of their <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2010/05/the_new_scientist_debates_deni.php">refusal</a> to accept the scientific consensus.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m_zzWj0lECQ/TksQJJ1lJkI/AAAAAAAAAFc/sUuGVGxLnWo/w402/Galileo+smackafool.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="183" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m_zzWj0lECQ/TksQJJ1lJkI/AAAAAAAAAFc/sUuGVGxLnWo/w402/Galileo+smackafool.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
This time it is discussed by <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide">Scientific American</a> as part of the epidemic, involving global warming <a href="http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html">denialism</a>, in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2775298.html">Australia</a>. Apparently there is a new anti-science group Down Under:<br />
<blockquote>Launched in February, the Galileo Movement is getting much of its lift from its influential "patron," conservative radio personality Alan Jones, one of the most popular broadcasters in Australia, who has touted the effort on his daily morning show.</blockquote>For the casual observer this is yet more evidence that <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">Merchants of Doubt</a> was spot on, which makes Scientific American observe:<br />
<blockquote>By casting doubt on the science, the need for behavior change is blunted – an approach the tobacco industry successfully employed throughout the 1980s and '90s to delay efforts to warn the public of <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=smoking">smoking</a>'s dangers. </blockquote><i>Independent Australia</i> has more details on the who, and what, <a href="http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/environment/galileo-movement-fabricates-science-to-fuel-climate-divide/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/republic/climate-change-denial-with-the-galileo-movement-all-the-usual-suspects/">here</a>. This campaign is part of the current non-debate over there on how to tackle the consequences of global warming. As expected there is vocal opposition to science whenever it interferes with ideological and/or monetary interests. As I <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/09/i-am-galileo-argument.html">noted</a> before:<br />
<blockquote>What these "sceptics" fail to notice is that Galileo made observations based in science, something they invariably refuse to do. Since his conclusions contradicted religious dogma, i.e. ideology, the Church attacked him. His findings were opposed not on their merits but by appeal to authority: the bible. Enter the anti-science brigade. The mere fact their stance is rejected too proves they, like Galileo, are <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Persecution_complex">persecuted</a>. Wrong. They clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word.</blockquote>Strangely enough the <a href="http://www.galileomovement.com.au/">Galileo Movement</a> missed the discovery that <a href="http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/">Galileo was wrong</a>, although <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/geocentrism_was_galileo_wrong.php">Ethan Siegel</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/whats_next_flat_earth.php" style="color: brown;">Orac</a> are less certain of that proposition. For those interested in the less fantasy infested version of reality I suggest visiting <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/">Skeptical Science</a>, <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/">Open Mind</a>, <a href="http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/">New Anthropocene</a>, <a href="http://www.climateshifts.org/">Climate Shifts</a>, and <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/">RealClimate</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> Borrowed picture from <a href="http://galileospendulum.org/2011/08/16/a-useful-banner/">Matthew Francis</a> who also <a href="http://galileospendulum.org/2011/08/16/i-call-on-the-resting-soul-of-galileo-to-whup-your-behind/">discusses</a> this incarnation of the anti-science movement.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update II:</span> Found a post by <a href="http://bicycleuser.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/galileo/">Bycicle User</a> on this topic.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update III</span>: The Galileo gambit is also explained by <a href="http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/09/minor-myths-galileo-gambit.html">The Tracker</a>.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-63095125713287943892011-08-03T12:26:00.003+01:002011-08-04T09:31:34.087+01:00Apps for the iPhoneIt is about <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-troubling-toy_20.html">one year ago</a> that I acquired my first <a href="http://www.apple.com/iphone/">iPhone</a>. It replaced my <a href="http://h41131.www4.hp.com/uk/en/press/New_HP_iPAQ_Delivers_High_Performance_Versatility_and_Security_for_Mobile_Professionals.html?jumpid=reg_R1002_UKEN">previous toy</a> which has moved on to a better world. Since then I have been playing around with it, and today it has more or less the <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/genre/mobile-software-applications/id36?mt=8">apps</a> I like, and need.<br />
<br />
For the benefit of future reference, and for those of you who might think it useful, I will discuss what I am currently using. <br />
<br />
For starters the iPod-function makes it possible to bring my favourite music with me, although I <a href="http://www.copytrans.net/download.php">evade the use of iTunes</a> to sync my music, and as it has an adequate camera-funtion I take my pictures with it too.<br />
<br />
The apps I have put in seperate "folders," below I reproduced their names and contents:<br />
<br />
Utilities<br />
<ul><li>App Store (for searching and downloading apps)</li>
<li> Settings (to personalise the iPhone)</li>
<li>Compass (fun, but not sure if it can replace the real thing)</li>
<li>Clock (helps me get up in the morning)</li>
<li>Battery Life (nice )</li>
<li>Flashlight (when your skulking around in the dark this will add some light)</li>
<li>Wi-Fi Finder (great for finding free spots, CAVE: phonebill when abroad)</li>
<li>Handy Level </li>
</ul>iPhone<br />
<ul><li>Messages</li>
<li>Contacts</li>
<li>ContactSync</li>
<li>PhoneCopy</li>
<li>MacMost</li>
<li>Find iPhone</li>
<li>Remote</li>
<li>RDP</li>
<li><a href="http://mashable.com/2011/06/15/discovr-apps/">Discovr Apps</a>, cool way to find new apps </li>
<li>12 Days</li>
</ul>News<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/02/pulse-iphone/">Pulse</a>, <a href="http://iphone.appstorm.net/reviews/internet-reviews/pulse-vs-flud-two-iphone-news-readers-square-off/">news</a> aggregate</li>
<li> BBC News</li>
<li>Norway News</li>
</ul>Social<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.echofon.com/twitter/iphone">Echofon</a>, interface for Twitter </li>
<li>Facebook, </li>
<li><a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google/id447119634?ls=1&mt=8">Google+</a>, new alternative to <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/DrNescio">Twitter</a> and Facebook, for those who want to follow, or add, me: click <a href="https://plus.google.com/114961518586836223532">here</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.fring.com/iphone">Fring</a>, alternative for Skype, and it works on 3G </li>
<li><a href="https://foursquare.com/download/">Foursquare</a>, let people now where you are </li>
<li><a href="http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/get-skype/on-your-mobile/download/iphone-for-skype/">Skype</a>, contrary to Fring it only works on Wi-Fi</li>
<li>Hoccer</li>
<li>Bump</li>
<li>PingChat</li>
<li>Tango</li>
<li>eBuddy XMS</li>
</ul>Weather<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://yr.no/">Yr.no</a>, </li>
<li>AccuWeather</li>
<li>MyWeather </li>
<li>AeroWeather</li>
<li>Weather</li>
<li>Skiinfo</li>
<li>Ski Club Snow Report</li>
<li>Snoveo</li>
<li>Snow Report</li>
<li>Ski Montagne </li>
</ul>Travel<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.tripit.com/uhp/iphone">Tripit</a>, keep track of your travels</li>
<li> PF Free</li>
<li>FlightStatus</li>
<li>Tripwolf</li>
<li>iTrailMap</li>
<li>MetrO</li>
</ul>Navigate<br />
<ul><li>Google Earth</li>
<li>Navigon</li>
<li>Google Maps</li>
<li>SkyView Free</li>
<li>Layar</li>
<li>AroundMe</li>
<li>GPS Tracker</li>
<li>EveryTrail</li>
<li>Yubify</li>
</ul>Television & Radio<br />
<ul><li>StreamItAll</li>
<li>P4</li>
<li>22Tracks</li>
<li>Top 100 Hits</li>
</ul>Audio & Video<br />
<ul><li>VLC, this allows me to bring my <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-collection-of-films.html">favourite fims</a> with me</li>
<li> YouTube</li>
<li> TED Mobile</li>
<li> Shazam</li>
<li> SoundHound</li>
<li>iTunes</li>
<li> iTalk</li>
<li> Voice Memos</li>
<li> Nike + iPod</li>
</ul>Photography<br />
<ul><li>Camera</li>
<li>Photos</li>
<li>Gorillacam</li>
<li>Genius Scan</li>
<li>Instagram</li>
</ul>Cullinary<br />
<ul><li>Epicurious</li>
<li>VintageChart</li>
<li>BigOven</li>
<li>DrinksFree</li>
<li>Cook's</li>
</ul>Medical<br />
<ul><li>NEJM App</li>
<li>PubMed Tap</li>
<li>Student BMJ</li>
<li>MedCalc</li>
<li>Eponyms</li>
<li>Skyscape</li>
<li>Medscape</li>
</ul>Shopping<br />
<ul><li>Groupon</li>
<li>IKEA</li>
</ul>Productivity<br />
<ul><li>Notes</li>
<li>2Do Lite</li>
<li>Easy Note</li>
<li>EasyTask </li>
<li>UYIH</li>
<li>Evernote</li>
<li>Camcard</li>
</ul>Reference<br />
<ul><li>Wikipanion</li>
<li>Wikipedia</li>
<li>Science</li>
<li>Planets</li>
<li>KnotsGuide</li>
<li>SearchIt</li>
<li>Merriam-Webster</li>
</ul>On the Town<br />
<br />
Language<br />
<ul><li>myLanguage</li>
<li>Google Translate</li>
<li>WordPower Norwegian</li>
<li>WordPower Spanish </li>
<li>Word Lens</li>
</ul>Literature<br />
<ul><li>Book Reader</li>
<li>iBooks</li>
<li>Poe</li>
<li>Shakespear</li>
<li>Stanza</li>
<li>Audiobooks</li>
</ul>Readers<br />
<ul><li>NeoReader</li>
<li>RedLaser</li>
<li>Scan</li>
<li>ShopSavvy</li>
</ul>Converters<br />
<ul><li>Xe Currency</li>
<li>Currency</li>
<li>Coverter</li>
<li>Stocks</li>
</ul>Excercise<br />
<ul><li>MapMyTracks</li>
<li> Runtastic Pro</li>
<li> RunKeeper</li>
</ul>Games<br />
<ul><li> Inception</li>
<li>Zen Bound</li>
<li> Paper Pilot</li>
<li>WordFeud</li>
<li> Solitaire</li>
</ul><br />
<br />
Note: Not all applications are linked, so I will be updating that part of the post in the coming days. Second, if any of you know apps I need to check-out let me know.<br />
<ul></ul>Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-35198388894775343572011-03-08T19:03:00.002+00:002011-03-10T14:55:20.535+00:00Ideology using legalities to stifle scientific critiqueThroughout history many have found ideology to be a trustworthy window on reality. As such it is the basis of many misconceptions. When science increased our knowledge of the world surrounding us <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment" linkindex="422">inevitably</a> this contradicted many <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html" linkindex="423">beliefs</a>. The solution people have found to that contradiction is the following:<br />
<ol><li>Confronted with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence" linkindex="424">evidence</a> your opinion is flawed you amend your view <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method" linkindex="425">accordingly</a>, </li>
<li>Confronted with <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence" linkindex="426">evidence</a> your opinion is flawed you amend (read: ignore, or misrepresent) the <a href="http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/war-science/" linkindex="427">evidence</a> <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/05/delusional-disorder-part-iv.html" linkindex="428">accordingly</a>.</li>
</ol>Anyone interested in sanity, and reason, will adopt <i>option 1</i>. Of course, the <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-science" linkindex="429">anti-science movement</a>, without exception, chooses <i>option 2</i>.<br />
<br />
This is because the intrepid ideologue will start by simply denying anything that contradicts his/her erroneous opinion since <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/09/i-am-galileo-argument.html" linkindex="430">the Galileo-gambit</a> proves he/she is right. This method is not without risks. More and more people realise they are the victim of <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/02/propaganda-posing-as-journalism.html" linkindex="431">propaganda</a>. Another avenue for maintaining your discreditied <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/what_does_it_mean_to_be_anti-vaccine.php" linkindex="432">position</a> is <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-science-fails-you-resort-to-old.html" linkindex="433">legal bullying</a>. As <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/04/there-may-be-hope.html" linkindex="434">we have seen</a>, in the case of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-libel-case-dropped" linkindex="435">Simon Singh</a>, litigation -using the U.K.'s libel laws in particular- is a preferred method, employed by cranks, of removing <a href="http://skepticblog.org/2010/01/04/another-libel-suit-this-time-against-paul-offit/" linkindex="436">science-based</a> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/suppression_of_speech_anti-vaccine_editi.php" linkindex="437">criticism</a> from public discourse. <br />
<br />
The latest incarnation of the <i>"let's-prohibit-those-pesky-reality-based-objections-to-our-nonsense"</i>-method resulted in cancelling the publication of Paul Offit's latest book <i><a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/03/director-of-the-society-of-homeopaths-threatens-libel-action-against-paul-offit.html" linkindex="438">Deadly Choices: How The Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All</a></i>. It is discussed by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/society_of_homeopaths_director_richard_barr_libel.php" linkindex="439">Orac</a> describing how he:<br />
<blockquote>found out about this when a British blogger, who had been originally sent a copy of Dr. Offit's book to review, received an e-mail from Dr. Offit's British publisher, Basic Books, requesting the review copy back and informing the blogger that "for legal reasons we have had to cancel the publication of this book." I had to tell the blogger that I had no idea what this was about, but it didn't take me long to find out that Richard Barr was threatening legal action against Perseus over one sentence. </blockquote>He continues to note:<br />
<blockquote>that usually the goal of cranks is not to win a judgment, but to shut down criticism by any means necessary. To that end, even though it would have been pretty pointless for Barr to sue Dr. Offit directly, legal threats against his U.K. publisher are very effective. All Barr has to accomplish is--if you'll forgive the term--to raise the bar on the costs of publication to the point that publishing Dr. Offit's book can't be profitable. Given the low profit margin of most books, likely Dr. Offit's included, a few legal fees spent to fend off threats like that of Mr. Barr go a long way towards discouraging publishers from publishing critical or controversial books. That's the point.</blockquote>Unfortunately, the anti-science movement, like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra" linkindex="440">Hydra</a>, appears impossible to debilitate. The purveyors of woo disingenuously invoke <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/11/freedom-of-speech-clarification.html" linkindex="441">freedom of speech</a> to make the most outlandish claims, while simultaneously insisting that this right does not apply to those pointing out these claims are factually incorrect. One can only hope <a href="http://www.libelreform.org/" linkindex="442">Libel Reform</a> will be effectuated before more attempts are made to keep the public from knowing experts have debunked the <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html" linkindex="443">medieval</a> <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200802/magical-thinking" linkindex="444">beliefs</a> promoted by the anti-science brigade.<br />
<br />
In the mean time, whenever you see an organisation/individual, engaged in making <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/10/correcting-misinformation-week-week.html" linkindex="445">controversial claims</a>, trying to limit the availability of information exposing possible misstatements on their part be very sceptical towards those claims. Especially regarding health related claims where they simultaneously, yet always coincidentally, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/16/60minutes/main6402854.shtml" linkindex="446">sell</a> something related to that "<a href="http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/" linkindex="447">controversy</a>."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> Then again, "I'll sue you" is so 1980's. To show your superior intellect in the 21st century you need to use a more sophisticated method of bullying, enter the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack" linkindex="448">Distributed Denial of Service Attack</a> (<a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk59/technologies_white_paper09186a0080174a5b.shtml" linkindex="449">DDoSA</a>). <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/channel/24-hours/" linkindex="450">Scienceblogs</a>, a source of science information, is the <a href="http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/ddos/" linkindex="451">latest</a> to come under attack. Details by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/03/readers_scienceblogs_is_being.php" linkindex="452">Greg Laden</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/problem_diagnosed.php" linkindex="453">Pharyngula</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2011/03/recent_sb_flakiness_caused_by.php" linkindex="454">Aardvarchaeology</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/sb_under_ddos_attack.php" linkindex="455">Orac</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2011/03/scienceblogs_is_under_attack_h.php" linkindex="456">Mike the Mad Biologist</a>.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-36694070095076172632011-02-18T14:49:00.010+00:002011-03-15T19:33:46.984+00:00Propaganda posing as journalismMy interests are very diverse. Much of what I might want to share is done by others, and probably better. Medicine and quackery are covered by -among others- <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/" linkindex="124">Orac</a>, <a href="http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/" linkindex="125">Steven Novella</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/" linkindex="126">Science-Based Medicine</a>, and <a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground" linkindex="127">PalMD</a>. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/channel/24-hours/" linkindex="128">Scienceblogs</a>, <a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/" linkindex="129">Scientopia</a> for science in general. Analysis of U.S. Policies regarding the War of Terror can be found at <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/" linkindex="130">Glenn Greenwald's blog</a>. Information on Global Warming can be found at <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/" linkindex="131">Skeptical Science</a>, <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/" linkindex="132">Open Mind</a>, <a href="http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/" linkindex="133">Watching the Deniers</a>. For other suggestions look at my blogroll.<br />
<br />
Though I try and discuss whatever has caught my <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9844" linkindex="134">attention</a> it is impossible to ignore the absolutely inadequate, bordering on willfully ignorant, stories presented to us by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1" linkindex="135">the media</a>. Regardless of the topic you will find journalists are: <br />
<ol><li>Insufficiently schooled to appreciate the intricacies involved, as such they <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/abcs_am_mislead_listeners.php" linkindex="136">fail to intervene</a> when factually false statements are made,</li>
<li>Insufficiently schooled to evade, or expose logical fallacies,</li>
<li>Insufficiently aggressive to confront powerful interviewees with inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies, or logical fallacies, (just imagine their special status being revoked, thereby limiting their access to the inner circle)</li>
<li>Frequently employed to disseminate the <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/12/media" linkindex="137">talking points</a> of politicians and religious leaders, also known as <a href="http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/" linkindex="138">propaganda</a>, see point 3, </li>
<li>Trained to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/21/nyt/index.html" linkindex="139">obey the wish of their government</a> (an offer they can't refuse?) to conceal information negating statements made by said government, </li>
<li>Not inclined to ask for expert advise, when confronted with the previous points, because they are <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/02/the_full_oreilly_video.php" linkindex="140">abundantly</a> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/science_bill_oreilly.php" linkindex="141">unaware</a> of the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/07/dunning-kruger-effect.html" linkindex="142">limits their knowledge has</a>,</li>
<li>Inherently disinclined to support anyone who forgets to adhere to the above, i.e. <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/14/journalism/index.html" linkindex="143">those who engage in actual journalism</a> </li>
</ol>With that in mind I am genuinly surprised that any selfrespecting individual would dare to claim to be a <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/facts-are-overrated-anyway.html" linkindex="144">Serious Reporter</a> while adhering to those principles. That is, it is not as if they act like those amateuristic bloggers who never <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/the_australians_war_on_science_59.php" linkindex="145">fact-check</a> and lack any credentials to be considered trustworthy.<br />
<br />
Of course, newsorganisations have to cut down their costs and inevitably the number of (qualified) journalists goes down. As a result the public feels they become untrustworthy, which in turn makes them buy less newspapers. This leads to more lay-offs, as income for newsorganisations keeps dwindling. Under these circumstances I propose a radical thought: invest in <a href="http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp" linkindex="146">quality journalism</a>, even the investigative kind. That is, create the environment needed to present a factual and accurate story, as opposed to ideology driven <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2011/02/our_real_adult_educational_cri.php" linkindex="147">misinformation</a>. Naive as I am I would not be surprised if this would increase their audience. Why else are people reading blogs and fora? They still want to know things. And no, not only about <a href="http://www.ok.co.uk/" linkindex="148">who does so and so with whom</a>. <br />
<br />
Scary thought: what if news reports go beyond hollywood scandals, petty gossip, propaganda and turn out to actually contain existential topics using real experts; i.e. global warming does exist, Intelligent Design is inherently <a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/war-on-science/" linkindex="149">unscientific</a>, <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/bmj-wakefield-is-fraud.html" linkindex="150">vaccines do not cause autism</a>, the exaggerated threat of terrorism is used to abolish <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/23/detainees/index.html" linkindex="151">civil rights</a>, et cetera.<br />
<br />
One can, and should, dream.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> Added point 5. You will note that the linked article there is an example of combining point 4 and 5 in an attempt to shape public opinion. Also known as Psyops.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update II:</span> It is becoming tedious, but <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/27/hastings/index.html" linkindex="152">Glenn Greenwald</a> again notes the principal thing journalists consider to be in their job description: never reveal actual information but actively strife to keep it hidden from the public while dutifully reporting the propaganda. Or, in his words:<br />
<blockquote>That's what our establishment media outlets largely are for: to disseminate and amplify the messages of our most powerful political, military and financial factions without any accountability. </blockquote>His article also clarifies that today the widespread use of "anonymous" sources is essential to ensure nobody can be held accountable for evidently false statements, even as they drive the perception of things. Quoth Glenn:<br />
<blockquote>Anonymity does have a valid purpose in journalism: its legitimate purpose is to protect the vulnerable and powerless when they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html" linkindex="153">expose wrongdoing</a> by <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html" linkindex="154">those who wield power</a>. But most establishment journalists have completely reversed that, so that anonymity is used to protect those with the most power: to enable them to make all sorts of public claims and launch all kinds of attacks on critics without being accountable. When anonymity is used for those purposes, it is inherently and incomparably corrupt (that, of course, is the dynamic that led to <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFDE1E3EF93BA3575AC0A9649C8B63" linkindex="155">public acceptance of patently false claims justifying the Iraq War</a>). But this perversion of anonymity from what it was supposed to be (a means of holding the powerful accountable) into a power-shielding weapon is simply a microcosm of the broader reversal by establishment journalists of the old dictate to "afflict the powerful and comfort the powerless." Most establishment journalists -- by definition -- do exactly the opposite, and their eagerness to indiscriminately grant anonymity to the nation's most powerful officials is simply one manifestation of that power-serving mindset. </blockquote>Contrast that with the way anonymity of <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/department_of_justice/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/02/25/whistleblowers" linkindex="156">whistleblowers is respected</a>. But hey, let's not forget not forget how hard it is to be a <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/28/the-alternative-to-nyts-subservience-actual-journalism/" linkindex="157">Real Journalist</a>. You need to fact-check, use your elaborate journalistic skills, and above all you need to <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/12/thou-shalt-be-fair-and-balanced.html" linkindex="158">refrain from taking sides</a>!<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update III:</span> The claim Real Journalists are objective, as opposed to those unprofessional bloggers, is shattered by Jack Goldsmith, according to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/28/biases/index.html" linkindex="159">Glenn Greenwald</a>. Apparently U.S. media feel their duty is to show allegiance to the U.S. administration:<br />
<blockquote>... allowing such loyalties to determine what one reports or conceals is a very clear case of bias and subjectivity: exactly what most reporters vehemently deny they possess. Many establishment journalists love to tout their own objectivity -- insisting that what distinguishes them from bloggers, opinionists and others is that they simply report the facts, free of any biases or policy preferences. But if Goldsmith is right -- and does anyone doubt that he is? -- then it means that "the American press" generally and "senior American national security journalists" in particular operate with a glaring, overwhelming bias that determines what they do and do not report: namely, the desire to advance U.S. interests. </blockquote>He then notes:<br />
<blockquote>A desire to promote American policy or its "interests" will often directly conflict with core journalistic obligations. It's often the case that disclosing the truth about the American government (a journalistic duty) will undermine the government's policy aims or subvert government "interests." The same is true for serving as an adversarial watchdog on government officials: exposing their false statements and lies, uncovering their corruption and deceit, contradicting their propaganda; doing that can also undermine American interests. Reporters who engage in journalism with the goal of advancing U.S. interests or promoting their nationalistic allegiance -- which Goldsmith suggests is the majority of them -- are engaged in activism and propaganda, not adversarial journalism. That's fine, I suppose, if they acknowledge their biases, but those who are driven by these allegiances while pretending to be "objective" are engaged in a game of deceit.</blockquote>Usually I write about science, but this intermezzo was meant to show this behaviour, of replicating talking points for ideological reasons while hiding inconvenient information, is not limited to science reporting: i.e. global warming, vaccination, evolution, et cetera. Whatever else is true, journalists are far from <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/facts-are-overrated-anyway.html" linkindex="160">objective</a> regarding any topic, which is the point I keep making.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update IV:</span> Strangely enough the <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/01/assange/index.html" linkindex="161">NYT appears capable of "taking sides."</a> Eventhough we have a classic example of a "he said, she said"-situation they have no problem choosing one version over the other. Would that have anything to do with the "controversy" involved?<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update V:</span> After years of being "objective," i.e. not taking sides, the NYT has started writing about waterboarding as a form of <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/09/journalism/index.html" linkindex="162">torture</a>. Could it be because the alleged perpetrator is not from the U.S.?<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update VI:</span> Another <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/11/hammer-misses-mark" linkindex="163">newsarticle</a> incapable of being accurate, whether its writer is intentionally misleading his readers I leave up to you.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update VII:</span> To quote <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/what_does_it_take_to_be_a_scie.php" linkindex="164">Pharyngula</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Science journalists, you really piss me off…at least some of you. Here are a couple of headlines about <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/brachiopods_another_piece_in_t.php" linkindex="165">that recent paper I summarized</a> that make me want to slap someone. </blockquote>Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-55208601364422149412011-02-14T17:22:00.004+00:002011-02-15T13:31:54.504+00:00Valentine's dayLike every year today is <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/02/happy-valentines-day.html" linkindex="30">Valentine's day</a>. Of course, an utterly commercialised event. Despite that I hope everybody will have a great and romantic day.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> The insect input for romance, Shellac:<br />
<blockquote>is an insect-produced product that may be part of your Valentine’s candy (and many other things). </blockquote>More is explained by <a href="http://skepchick.org/2011/02/shellac-its-a-bug-and-a-feature/" linkindex="31">bug girl</a> for <i>Skepchick</i>.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update II:</span> For the Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/feb/14/valentines-day-dating-tips-scientists" linkindex="32">Jason Goldman</a> gives us:<br />
<blockquote>seven tips from science that just may help you find a date on <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/valentines-day" linkindex="33" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Valentine's Day">Valentine's Day</a>. You've heard of evidence-based medicine? This is evidence-based dating.</blockquote>And <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/valentines_day_video_hedgehogs.php">Pharyngula</a> introduces some loving hedgehogs.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-90083546508489085512011-02-14T17:17:00.000+00:002011-02-14T17:17:00.976+00:00The House of GodWhen I began as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_%28medicine%29#United_Kingdom" linkindex="389">resident</a> I was allowed to ask for any diagnostic tool. The only requirement was that I needed to show the specialist I worked for how the results would influence my decisions. Imagine ordering an X-ray of the left foot to evaluate a possible <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEMI" linkindex="390">heart attack</a>. As it is impossible to make any reasonable connection between the two (foot-heart) no <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_radiography" linkindex="391">radiograph</a> would be allowed.<br />
<br />
Before that, as an intern, I was impressed to see an orthopaedic surgeon evaluate patients in order to find reasons not to operate. Later, as a resident I found that it is a trait seldom found among those trained to use a scalpel. The reasoning was, obviously, that we as physicians do cause complications, and as such may end up hurting patients.<br />
<br />
With that in mind I just read an article, by <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=10365" linkindex="392">Harriet Hall</a>, which underscores that point:<br />
<blockquote>We are healthier, but we are increasingly being told we are sick. We are labeled with diagnoses that may not mean anything to our health. People used to go to the doctor when they were sick, and diagnoses were based on symptoms. Today diagnoses are increasingly made on the basis of detected abnormalities in people who have no symptoms and might never have developed them. Overdiagnosis constitutes one of the biggest problems in modern medicine. Welch explains why and calls for a new paradigm to correct the problem. </blockquote>To me, this is not rocket science. If anything, we were already warned by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/18house.html" linkindex="393">Samuel Shem</a> that medical interventions inevitably introduce risks. His "good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible" I interpret to stand for:<br />
<ol><li>There are so-called self-limiting conditions. This means they resolve by themselves without any treatment: i.e. common cold. </li>
<li>Medical interventions are inherently dangerous, there is always the risk it leads to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complication_%28medicine%29" linkindex="394">complications</a>.</li>
</ol>These points should make any physician question the necessity of any intervention. The following examples are meant as illustration to those points, and of how I view diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.<br />
<br />
One day a patient <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliguria" linkindex="395">did not sufficiently produce urine</a>. The medical history showed abdominal surgery the previous day, while the current status showed an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intravenous_drip" linkindex="396">i.v. drip</a> with NaCl 1 liter/24h, an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsaid" linkindex="397">NSAID</a> to counter the post-operative pain, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatinine" linkindex="398">blood tests</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_urea_nitrogen" linkindex="399">suggesting</a> deteriorating kidney function, and diuretics to correct for the diminishing urine production. At this time I was consulted to look at the kidney function. To the trained eye there already are several clues.<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_replacement" linkindex="400">Fluid replacement</a> at 1 l/24 h is not much (the patient did not yet eat or drink), especially in abdominal surgery. This alone might cause <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypovolemia" linkindex="401">dehydration</a>. After evaluating the patient I concluded this was what happened,</li>
<li>Of course, once a patient is dehydrated using diuretics appears somewhat counter productive: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_balance" linkindex="402">you need fluid to urinate</a>, not lose more by stimulating diuresis, </li>
<li>Then the use of NSAIDs, they are known to cause stomach, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephrotoxin" linkindex="403">kidney problems</a>. In a patient that already has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renal_failure" linkindex="404">compromised kidney function</a> these drugs should be immediately discontinued, and replaced by another type of analgesic,</li>
</ul>After concluding this was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_kidney_injury#Prerenal" linkindex="405">prerenal kidney failure</a>, or dehydration, the fluid volume parenterally administered was increased to 2 l/24h, the NSAID and diuretic were stopped. Several hours later the urine production, and lab tests, returned to normal. This is not meant to embarrass any colleague but as a warning that something trivial as a painkiller may have devastating effects. In this case the patient might have ended up requiring <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemodialysis" linkindex="406">haemodialysis</a>.<br />
<br />
An example of the risk diagnostic methods pose is perforating the colon, which is rare, when taking a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_specimen" linkindex="407">specimen</a> to evaluate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_adenomatous_polyposis" linkindex="408">polyps</a>. To prevent you from falling asleep I will stop illustrating the point. You undoubtedly understand my point.<br />
<br />
Thinking about these possibilities today my view is that we should always ask ourselves: is the possible complication from the therapy/diagnostic method I want to prescribe worth the expected benefit?<br />
<br />
In short, is this test required for a diagnosis, and is non-treatment more dangerous than treatment? Only then should one proceed with the intended intervention. Or, "good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible."<br />
<br />
As an aside, this maxim is applicable to other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq,_2003%E2%80%93present" linkindex="409">professions</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html" linkindex="410">too</a>.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-72846232749891815022011-02-02T15:25:00.004+00:002011-02-02T15:34:40.969+00:00MedGadgetBe sure to help your favourite medical blog by voting at <a href="http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2011/01/the_2010_medical_weblog_awards_finalists_sponsored_by_epocrates_and_lenovo.html" linkindex="49">MedGadget</a>:<br />
<blockquote>After a careful analysis and consideration, we are pleased to present the finalists of the seventh annual Medical Weblog Awards.</blockquote>There are several categories:<br />
<blockquote><div id="content"><li><b>Best Medical Weblog</b></li><br />
<a href="http://www.celebritydiagnosis.com/" linkindex="50">Celebrity Diagnosis</a><br />
<a href="http://casesblog.blogspot.com/" linkindex="51">Clinical Cases and Images:CasesBlog</a><br />
<a href="http://emcrit.org/" linkindex="52">EMCrit blog</a><br />
<a href="http://sterileeye.com/" linkindex="53">The Sterile Eye</a><br />
<a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/" linkindex="54">White Coat Underground</a><br />
<li><b>Best New Medical Weblog (established in 2010)</b></li><br />
<a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs-by-CelebrityDiagnosis/" linkindex="55">Celebrity Diagnosis Professional Edition</a><br />
<a href="http://thefuturewell.com/" linkindex="56">The Future Well</a><br />
<a href="http://scepticemia.com/" linkindex="57">Scepticemia</a><br />
<a href="http://wellnessrounds.org/" linkindex="58" title="Wellness Rounds">Wellness Rounds</a><br />
<a href="http://zdoggmd.com/" linkindex="59">ZDoggMD</a><br />
<li><b>Best Literary Medical Weblog</b></li><br />
<a href="http://other-things-amanzi.blogspot.com/" linkindex="60">other things amanzi</a><br />
<a href="http://thequackdoctor.com/" linkindex="61">The Quack Doctor</a><br />
<a href="http://www.gradydoctor.com/" linkindex="62">Reflections of a Grady Doctor</a><br />
<a href="http://storytellerdoc.blogspot.com/" linkindex="63">StorytellERdoc</a><br />
<a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/" linkindex="64">White Coat Underground</a><br />
<li><b>Best Clinical Sciences Weblog</b></li><br />
<a href="http://academiclifeinem.blogspot.com/" linkindex="65">Academic Life in Emergency Medicine</a><br />
<a href="http://www.geripal.org/" linkindex="66">GeriPal</a><br />
<a href="http://emcrit.org/" linkindex="67">EMCrit blog</a><br />
<a href="http://renalfellow.blogspot.com/" linkindex="68">Renal Fellow Network</a><br />
<a href="http://www.resusme.em.extrememember.com/" linkindex="69">Resus M.E!</a><br />
<li><b>Best Health Policies/Ethics Weblog</b></li><br />
<a href="http://33charts.com/" linkindex="70">33 charts</a><br />
<a href="http://covertrationingblog.com/" linkindex="71">Covert Rationing Blog</a><br />
<a href="http://www.everythinghealth.net/" linkindex="72">EverythingHealth</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/" linkindex="73">The Health Care Blog</a><br />
<li><b>Best Medical Technologies/Informatics Weblog</b></li><br />
<a href="http://doctordalai.blogspot.com/" linkindex="74">Dalai's PACS Blog</a><br />
<a href="http://histalk2.com/" linkindex="75">HIStalk</a><br />
<a href="http://www.imedicalapps.com/" linkindex="76">iMedicalApps</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nanotechgalaxy.com/blog" linkindex="77">NanoTechGalaxy</a><br />
<a href="http://scienceroll.com/" linkindex="78">ScienceRoll</a><br />
<li><b>Best Patient's Blog</b></li><br />
<a href="http://www.brassandivory.org/" linkindex="79">Brass and Ivory</a><br />
<a href="http://www.oc1dean.blogspot.com/" linkindex="80">Dean's Stroke Musings</a><br />
<a href="http://www.diabetesmine.com/" linkindex="81">Diabetes Mine</a><br />
<a href="http://secondbasedispatch.com/" linkindex="82">Dispatch From Second Base</a><br />
<a href="http://www.wheelchairkamikaze.com/" linkindex="83">Wheelchair Kamikaze</a> </div></blockquote>After reading my musings you will be pleasantly surprised, or shocked, to find there are much, much, much better bloggers around. (h/t <a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/2011/02/01/medgadget-nominees-announced/" linkindex="84">PalMD</a>)Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-10290933726738051352011-02-02T14:33:00.001+00:002011-02-03T14:01:01.069+00:00The red moonA highly informative and interesting post by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/why_the_moon_turns_red_during.php" linkindex="323">Ethan Siegel</a> explains why the moon turns red during an eclipse. You should read it in full so I won't bother you with my take on it.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> Still wondering how the universe came into being, from nothing? That is, how could there be a Big Bang without some sort of creator? Be sure to read <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/can_you_get_something_for_noth.php">his new post</a> on how something can come from nothing. Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-45535905940276189532011-01-13T23:44:00.005+00:002011-01-20T15:31:45.650+00:00Facts are overrated anywayThis blog was started to share my thoughts on science, rationality and why they are continuously <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620" linkindex="244">attacked</a>. Today I am convinced <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" linkindex="245"> intra-personal</a> <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html" linkindex="246">psychological</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" linkindex="247">processes</a> create the caustic responses from humans that are confronted with scientific conclusions which <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/knowledge_versus_certainty_in_skepticism.php" linkindex="248">contradict</a> their ideology.<br />
<br />
Even before I began writing this blog I was not impressed by what journalists produce. Knowing a little about medicine I was repeatedly surprised by the either outdated, incomplete, or even incorrect articles I read covering medicine. When I became a resident I was taught how to read, and write, articles. In every hospital I worked we would discuss two articles from medical journals -i.e. <a href="http://www.nejm.org/" linkindex="249">NEJM</a>, <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/" linkindex="250">JAMA</a>, <a href="http://www.annals.org/" linkindex="251">Annals of Internal Medicine</a>, <a href="http://www.bmj.com/" linkindex="252">BMJ</a>, <a href="http://icmjournal.esicm.org/index.html" linkindex="253">Intensive Care Medicine</a>, et cetera- on a weekly basis. By talking about the strenghts, and weaknesses, of the article this has increased my critical thinking skills. Undoubtedly one of the reasons this ritual is part of hospital life.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately this is not part of journalist school. As such I wonder how this may influence the viability of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/06/same_old_same_old_in_the_denia.php" linkindex="254">nonsensical ideas</a> in society. The <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/07/journalism-if-only.html" linkindex="255">type of journalism</a> media currently practice does the general public a disservice by making the "<a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/12/thou-shalt-be-fair-and-balanced.html" linkindex="256">fair-and-balanced</a>"-fallacy a popular point of view. This doctrine increases the dumbing down of society, which has given us numerous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism" linkindex="257">absurd opinions</a>. Also, the need for <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=497" linkindex="258">celebrities</a> to engage in misinforming the public has devastating effects. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-stars-who-are-bad-for-your-health-2171132.html" linkindex="259">Terri Judd</a>, for <i>The Independent</i>, writes about these effects and on how the public sees manufactroversies. To illustrate the spread of the "<a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/07/journalism-if-only.html" linkindex="260">I-refuse-to-adequately-inform</a>"-virus, within the media, below are stories covering different topics that fall within the "facts-are-to-be-treated-as-opinions"-category.<br />
<br />
<i>Regarding vaccines:</i><br />
Just recently there was a <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/11/vaccine-unawareness-week.html" linkindex="261">concerted effort</a> to counter the <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2584" linkindex="262">misinformation</a> being spread by the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/the_annals_of_im_not_anti-vaccine_part_4.php" linkindex="263"><i>infectious-disease-promotion</i>-movement</a>. It was hugely successful. So much so that today radiostations <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/once_more_into_the_anti-vaccine_fray_in.php" linkindex="264">have been enlisted</a> to help keep us scared of science. One wonders how effective <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/08/infectious-disease-promotion-movement.html" linkindex="265">the fearmongerers</a> would be without the complicit media wich refused to point out the numerous, and huge, inaccuracies being presented as facts. A review by David Gorski of:<br />
<blockquote>two — count ‘em, two! — books taking a skeptical, science-based look at vaccines and, in particular, the anti-vaccine movement. </blockquote>can be found <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9466" linkindex="266">here</a>. Astonishingly, even after Brian Deer in a leading medical journal concluded the father of the current infectious-disease-promotion-movement, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/bmj-wakefield-is-fraud.html" linkindex="267">made up the article</a> which started the recent anti-vaccination scare journalists refuse to discard the "fair-and-balanced"-doctrine. As <a href="http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2011/01/07/comment-mmr-autism-scare-shows-the-best-and-worst-of-journalism/" linkindex="268">Cyril Washbrook</a>, for MediaSpy, reminds us:<br />
<blockquote>As <b>Ben Goldacre</b> notes in a <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/" linkindex="269" target="_blank">well-known critique</a> of the media's reporting on the issue, the so-called "quality" press stood shoulder-to-shoulder alongside trashy tabloids in peddling fears that lacked a credible basis.</blockquote>What does the Serious Reporter do?:<br />
<blockquote>But even now, purportedly respectable media outlets continue to trot out their post-modernist, we-shall-never-adjudicate routine, showing that the lessons have not been learned. <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/06/autism.vaccines" linkindex="270" target="_blank">Step forward, <b>CNN</b></a>.<br />
<blockquote>A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines is an "elaborate fraud," according to a medical journal - a charge the physician behind the study vigorously denies.</blockquote>Note the immediate establishment of the basic heuristic: one person says the study is a fraud, the other person says it isn't. Unsurprisingly, the entire article proceeds along these very lines. Wakefield says it's a smear campaign; the <i>BMJ</i> says it's a genuine exposé. Wakefield says Deer has been paid off; Deer says he's independent.</blockquote>There is no sign journalists realise that informing one's audience about the <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1010594" linkindex="271">veracity of claims</a>, not merely reporting the claims themselves, is what journalism should be about. <br />
<br />
<i>Regarding the placebo-effect:</i><br />
We all have heard of the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/01/placebo-effect.html" linkindex="272">placebo-effect</a>. A recent study suggests we underestimate the power of the placebo. According to what has been reported in the media it works even when patients are aware they are taking fake medicine. Predictably, the popular press has not been sceptical enough, as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/more_dubious_statements_about_placebo_ef.php" linkindex="273">Orac</a> points out.<br />
<blockquote>I don't have a huge problem with the study. After all, it's a pilot study. The biggest problem I have is with how the study is being sold to the press, as though it were evidence that placebo effects can really be triggered without at least some degree of deception. It shows nothing of the sort.</blockquote>More on this by <a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/2010/12/24/you-wouldnt-lie-to-me-would-you/" linkindex="274">PalMD</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9339" linkindex="275">David Gorski</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Evolution is not science:</i><br />
Once Darwin irked the religious with <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMlim055660" linkindex="276">his theory</a> their response has been: attack, attack, and attack. The reason for this is clearly their fear science might prove The Bible is not <i>The Truth</i>. One can imagine religion being shown to be nothing more than mythology. The horror. There was initially the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial" linkindex="277">Scopes trial</a> and recently through slight of hand, introducing the sciency sounding reincarnation of creationism: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design" linkindex="278">Intelligent Design</a>. Despite the fact ID has been shown to violate the <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/videos/2094-a-war-on-science" linkindex="279">basics of science</a> they keep claiming this is proof of an <i>Evil Atheist</i>-plot to take over the world. Surely, the media have come to the rescue by promoting, and continuing, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy" linkindex="280">teach-the-controversy</a>-fallacy. Still, I am waiting for journalists to use this argument to report on the Holocaust-controversy, and the Flat-Earth-controversy.<br />
<br />
<i>Regarding global warming:</i><br />
Despite the fact the science is settled <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/11/can_the_party_of_reagan_accept.php" linkindex="281">ideologues</a> keep telling us AGW is a <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/13-2" linkindex="282">hoax</a>. An example of inadequate reporting is Climategate. This purportedly showed a conspiracy of scientists to keep <i>The Truth</i> from us. A fact journalists felt compelled to share with us. After it became abundantly clear <a href="http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/climategate-inquiry-no-proof-of-fraud-better-disclosure-called-for/" linkindex="283">this was not the case</a>, and the scientific method was <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/03/climategate-much-ado-about-nothing.html" linkindex="284">exonerated</a>, the media could not be bothered to share that with us. At least, not with the same zeal, and headlines, as the alleged corruption. <br />
<br />
<i>War of Terror:</i><br />
The breakdown of journalistic standards became painfully apparent when the Bush administration was <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/10/media_failure" linkindex="285">allowed</a> to make the <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html" linkindex="286">wildest</a> <a href="http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/03/11/greg_mitchell" linkindex="287">accusations</a> towards Iraq. Worse, the media <a href="http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3725" linkindex="288">themselves</a> were the main purveyors of misinformation. Even today, while those claims have turned out to be unsupported by the <i>then</i> available evidence, the media are <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/04/burns/index.html" linkindex="289">incapable</a> of learning from that experience. Like Saddam then both Iran and<a href="http://opiniojuris.org/2011/01/12/the-guardians-revealing-zimbabwewikileaks-admission/" linkindex="290"> Julian Assange</a> are now The Biggest Threat In The World. Again, no questions are asked to counter that premise.<br />
<br />
<i>Political discourse in the US:</i><br />
For decades it has been <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bon+ton" linkindex="291">bon ton</a> in the US, and it is spreading beyond its borders, to use the most antagonistic and inflammatory ways of discussing topics. It is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse" linkindex="292">freedom of speech</a>. In short, use ad hominems and never relevant arguments. Politicians, and newsmedia, have engaged in sharp descriptions of individuals. After Obama became President of the US the Republicans, their <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/" linkindex="293">ministry of truth</a>, and other supporters have used terms like <i>traitors, terrorists, un-american</i> (and much more) to describe members of the Democratic Party. Then, this week, a Democrat was shot. In light of the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/12/sarah-palin-response-arizona-shooting" linkindex="294">recent rhetoric</a> by the political Right some have suggested a correlation with the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/08/arizona-shooting-gabrielle-giffords-politics" linkindex="295">toxic political climate</a>. While it is difficult to prove any causality one has to be blind to ignore the possibility. In the words of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2011/01/the_absence_of_civility_is_not.php" linkindex="296">Mike the Mad Biologist</a>:<br />
<blockquote>As I've said before, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2006/06/words_as_weapons.php" linkindex="297">words do have meaning</a>. Words should have meaning: if they don't, then do us all a favor and shut up. I believe Representative Trent Franks. I believe them when Rush Limbaugh and his millions of regular listeners believe we're the problem. And the anti-abortion movement has shown what happens when people post cross-hairs over people's names.<br />
So let's not be so concerned with civility, but instead demand honesty and accuracy. That will serve us far better.</blockquote>He also <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2011/01/beware_compulsive_centrists_an.php" linkindex="298">discusses</a> a NYT article, by Matt Bai, on the shooting which employs the usual "but-both-sides-do-it"-meme. <br />
<blockquote>........, <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/09/day-2-the-excuse-making-begins/#comments" linkindex="299">John Cole succinctly sums it all up</a>:<br />
<blockquote>And then my personal favorite: "He was just crazy!" No shit. You have to be crazy to walk into a crowd of people and start spraying bullets, killing a bunch of elderly people and a little kid. That is crazy. </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>The point we have been trying to make for the last couple of years is that Republicans need to stop whipping up crazy people with violent political rhetoric. This is really not a hard concept to follow. There are crazy people out there. Stop egging them on.</blockquote>The problem Bai has is that, if you report the obvious story--Republicans have been engaged in eliminationist and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2009/07/misunderstanding_palin_and_pal.php" linkindex="300">exclusionary</a> rhetoric that has <i>some</i> of the hallmarks of fascism--there's nothing new there. It doesn't establish you as a 'contrary' thinker who comes up with devastating counterintuitive insights. But if you can 'establish' (even though you actually can't) that the Left does it too, then you have something different to say.</blockquote>Another comment on the incident is made by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2011/01/definitely_politicize_this_tra.php" linkindex="301">We Beasties</a>:<br />
<blockquote>There's been plenty of talk about the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html" linkindex="302">violent rhetoric</a> that's been spewed for the last 2 years, and many have blamed talk radio, Sarah Palin's map with cross-hairs over congressional districts (including congresswoman Giffords') and the like, and I don't have much to add on that front. There's been no direct connection, and there may never be, but I find it hard to believe that this atmosphere of violent hatred had nothing to do with this gunman's actions.</blockquote>If you are wondering how this relates to my criticism on journalism I refer you to the fact-free, and at times delusional, opining by <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/11/beck-loughner-rhetoric/" linkindex="303">Glenn Beck</a>, <a href="http://rush-matters.com/discussion-of-the-latest-topic-about-rush-administration-or-reader-generated/lush-rimbaugh-becomes-more-and-more-delusional-by-the-day" linkindex="304">Rush Limbaugh</a>, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and many others which contributed to this climate. In all fairness, yes: they are not journalists but propagandists. Responding to the "the-guy-must-be-crazy"-view, by David Brooks, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2011/01/that_guy_must_be_crazy.php" linkindex="305">We Beasties</a> notes:<br />
<blockquote>Vaughan Bell has a <a href="http://goo.gl/RL7bU" linkindex="306" style="background-image: none;">devastating critique</a> of this sort of thinking in Slate, noting that the most complete scientific research on the effects of mental illness show very little increase in risk of violent behavior. </blockquote>More on mental health and violence can be found <a href="http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2011/January/mental-illness-and-violence" linkindex="307">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Wikileaks exposes journalists as not doing their jobs:</i><br />
As I noted before without the <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/20/surveillance/index.html" linkindex="308">massive failure</a> of journalism we would not have <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/12/pay-no-attention-to-man-behind-screen.html" linkindex="309">Wikileaks</a>. Their recent disclosures appear to be based on Bradley Manning, who allegedly confessed to a total stranger, Adrian Lamo. His newfound friend then turned informant, and contacted Wired. Note the <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/16/wikileaks/index.html" linkindex="310">curious treatment</a> <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html" linkindex="311">he recieves</a> while he is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This tellingly has led the <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/23/manning/index.html" linkindex="312">U.N.</a> to start an investigation.<br />
<br />
To aid those favouring all sorts of <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/12/30/pulling-some-threads-on-lamos-inconsistencies/" linkindex="313">conspiracies</a> Wired refuses to confirm, or deny, the ever <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/12/31/lamos-two-laptops/" linkindex="314">changing narrative</a> being told by Adrian Lamo. Kept hidden from us, by <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_response_1/index.html" linkindex="315">Wired</a>, is how he met Manning and what his relationship is with journalist Poulsen, quoth <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1/index.html" linkindex="316">Greenwald</a>:<br />
<blockquote>That's what so much "journalism" now is: a means of <b>shielding secrets from the public</b> -- usually to protect friends and the agendas of "sources" to ensure further access. Ironically, it is that very mentality -- the Cult of Secrecy that American journalism has become -- that gave rise to the need for WikiLeaks in the first place. </blockquote>He concludes:<br />
<blockquote>The chat logs that <i>Wired</i> has but is withholding -- and about which they are refusing to comment -- are newsworthy in the extreme. They cannot but shed substantial light on what really happened here, on the bizarre series of events and claims for which there is little evidence and much cause for doubt. I expect government officials to shield the truth from the public and to conceal key evidence and facts. But those who claim to be journalists should not be aiding in that effort. <i>Wired</i> is doing exactly that. </blockquote>Totally unsuspected the media in general also fail to tell about Wikileaks without incorporating <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html" linkindex="317">copious amounts</a> of <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/08/wikileaks/index.html" linkindex="318">inaccurate statements</a>. How journalists, in this story, have become the voice of the Obama administration's <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/12/propaganda/index.html" linkindex="319">PR-department</a> is described by <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/28/cnnn/index.html" linkindex="320">Greenwald</a>. Of course, Wikileaks does things real journalists never do, they endanger lifes, or <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/wikileaks/index.html" linkindex="321">this is what we are being told</a>. Therefore we should not be afraid of governments <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/wikileaks/index.html" linkindex="322">limiting free speech for the real media</a>, who never publish secret information. Strangely enough The NYT itself is now endangering National Security with a new article. In the words of <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/21/nyt/index.html" linkindex="323">Greenwald</a>:<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/world/asia/21intel.html?hp" linkindex="324">In <i>The New York Times</i> today</a>, Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins expose very sensitive classified government secrets -- and not just routine secrets, but high-level, imminent planning for American covert military action in a foreign country.</blockquote>He rhetorically asks:<br />
<blockquote>The question that emerges from all of this is obvious, but also critical for those who believe Wikileaks and Julian Assange should be prosecuted for the classified information they have published: should the <i>NYT</i> editors and reporters who just spilled America's secrets to the world be criminally prosecuted as well? After all, WikiLeaks has only exposed past conduct, and never -- like the <i>NYT</i> just did -- published imminent covert military plans. Moreover, WikiLeaks has never published "top secret" material, unlike what the <i>NYT </i>has done many times in the past (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html" linkindex="325">the NSA program</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html" linkindex="326">the SWIFT banking program</a>) and what they quite possibly did here as well. </blockquote>Just to remind us of what we have learned because of <i>Dah Evil</i> Wikileaks, which Real Journalists failed to uncover, read <a href="http://opiniojuris.org/2011/01/14/what-weve-learned-from-wikileaks/">this</a>, <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks/index.html" linkindex="327">this</a>, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026591-503543.html">this</a>, and <a href="http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/" linkindex="328">this</a>. <br />
<br />
With the above in mind, combined with the numerous examples I left out, what I notice about journalism today is that it does not matter what you are writing about, to be seen as a Serious Reporter the following characteristics are mandatory:<br />
<ol><li> There are <i>always</i> two sides to a story, </li>
<li>In the absence of any dispute <a href="http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/" linkindex="329">pretend there is one</a>, and present any discredited view as if the topic is still debated: failing to point out opposing opinions is a tell-tale sign of bias, hence point 1,</li>
<li>Never point out any <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/02/why_the_denial_camp_is_winning_1.php" linkindex="330">incorrect statements</a>, or <a href="http://climatesafety.org/swallowing-lies-how-the-denial-lobby-feeds-the-press/" linkindex="331">factual inaccuracies</a>, by the parties involved: that would be taking sides, </li>
<li>Never reveal anything that damages those in power, i.e. see the hounding of anybody even <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/11/justice/index.html" linkindex="332">remotely linked</a> to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/10/fear/index.html" linkindex="333">Wikileaks</a>. Limit your reporting to nefarious pawns and your career is a guaranteed success. </li>
<li>Never explicitly admit <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/12/propaganda/index.html" linkindex="334">error on your part</a>,</li>
<li>A source is anyone who shares information with you, regardles of its veracity or factual accuracy,</li>
<li>Expertise, or lack thereof, should not influence your decision to use a source, i.e. expert opinion is equivalent to that from laymen, and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/for_shame_oprah_winfrey_shills_for_faith.php">celebrities</a>, which have studied at the <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=139" linkindex="335">University of Google</a>, </li>
<li>A priori you are required to keep the identity of a source, and any possible conflict of interest on <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119122626.htm" linkindex="336">their</a> and <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/13/the-rules-apply-to-everyone/" linkindex="337">your</a> part, from the public. Especially when it turns out your source willfully lied to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_%28journalist%29" linkindex="338">you</a> in order to <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/id.10410,content.true,css.print/bookshelf.aspx" linkindex="339">advance</a> a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_Affair" linkindex="340">political agenda</a>, </li>
<li>Should you feel overly generous you might include ad hominems, straw men, and other invaluable arguments to get rid of those annoying people trying to steer the article/interview into a more rational position. </li>
</ol>Concluding, the abysmal state of <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/07/journalism-if-only.html" linkindex="341">reporting</a> is not limited to scientific manufactroversies. As long as journalism school teaches the above characteristics there will be the need for organisations that understand the adagium Serious Reporters find tedious and outdated:<br />
<blockquote>is this a reasonable representation of the facts (NB: <a href="http://www.outfoxed.org/" linkindex="342">opinions do not equal facts</a>) involved, and am I merely reporting a story, or is my reporting the story? In other words, is this a realistic portrayal of the facts involved and can it be supported by independent reliable sources?</blockquote>Are the media to blame for all that is evil? No, but their habit of having propaganda pose as news is certainly not helping us in making informed decisions, i.e. should I vaccinate, or who do I vote for, does The Law <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/14/lawlessness/index.html">look backward</a>? Those on Planet Reality need to keep pointing out that they sure <a href="http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/webjournalist/201012/1918/" linkindex="343">act</a> like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono" linkindex="344">willful</a> footsoldiers in the <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/essays/secondcrusade.html" linkindex="345">War</a> on <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac.php" linkindex="346">Reason</a> and Sanity.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> Nice reading tip on "making mistakes," by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2011/01/how_being_wrong_can_be_so_righ.php">We Beasties</a>, for non-journalists too. Also, amended post slightly.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-259678201791166592011-01-12T17:30:00.001+00:002011-02-02T21:25:40.061+00:00Norwegian Christmas 2010Like last year I spent the holiday season in Telemark. Despite the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12034317" linkindex="410">chaos</a> in <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-20/europe-s-cold-blast-disrupts-travel-for-third-day-as-more-snow-is-forecast.html" linkindex="411">Europe</a> I was able to fly to <a href="http://www.osl.no/en/osl" linkindex="412">Gardermoen</a>, take the train, and continue by bus. Apparently snow is not a problem in Norway.<br />
<br />
In Oslo I went out and tried tapas at <a href="http://www.delicatessen.no/" linkindex="413">Delicatessen</a>, which has been on my wishlist for years. The only thing wrong with the place is that it is unbearingly crowded. They could be more frugal with the number of tables they squeeze in, and refrain from putting four people at a table for two. Having eaten here next on the to-do list is <a href="http://www.sult.no/" linkindex="414">Sult</a>, but it apparently no longer exists. Will find out next time I am here. Afterwards I had homemade beer in the local brewery: <a href="http://www.spottedbylocals.com/oslo/schous-kjelleren" linkindex="415">SchousKjelleren</a>. The next day I took the <a href="http://www.haukeliekspressen.no/?lang=en_GB" linkindex="416">Haukeliekspressen</a> to Telemark. When I got there the thermometer claimed it was -22 °C. Brr, luckily I came prepared: warm clothes! Curiously enough I managed to travel while first evading the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12073501" linkindex="417">weather chaos</a>, and then apparently I missed the <a href="http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101224/world-news/railway-station-at-oslo-airport-evacuated-after-bomb-scare" linkindex="418">sillyness at Gardermoen</a>.<br />
<br />
Christmas involved <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk" linkindex="419">lutefisk</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakfisk" linkindex="420">rakfisk</a> with homemade <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatbr%C3%B8d" linkindex="421">flatbrød</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnekjott" linkindex="422">pinnekjøtt</a>, aquavit, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risengrynsgr%C3%B8t" linkindex="423">risengrynsgrøt</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_deer" linkindex="424">rådyr</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_ribs" linkindex="425">juleribbe</a>. The cullinary events force me to consider fasting the entire next month. Apparently all my clothes have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_gain" linkindex="426">washed too hot</a>. Even those I did not bring with me. Guess what my New Year's resolution is.<br />
<br />
Like last year I visited some friends to try the <a href="http://www.enjoyfoodtravel.com/2008/01/shrimp-salad-from-vesterlen-what-could.html" linkindex="427">Norwegian</a> <a href="http://www.karifoxphotography.com/NorwayJ/slides/Shrimp.html" linkindex="428">shrimps</a>. The next morning I took the train to Oslo to prepare for the flight home. The last day in Norway I used to do some shopping. But first I had some excellent coffee at <a href="http://www.stockfleths.as/" linkindex="429">Stockfleth</a>. Oddly enough they forgot to install toilets. Then to see if there are any new DVD's, trousers and other important things: shopping centre. While I was waiting for the <a href="http://www.flytoget.no/" linkindex="430">train</a> to Gardermoen I ate a burger at <a href="http://www.fiasco.no/" linkindex="431">Fiasco</a>. Should you have some time and don't want to go shopping around <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Central_Station" linkindex="432">Oslo S</a>, please try their Fiasco burger.<br />
<br />
This ends the festive season for this year.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-91184200559058965932011-01-06T17:51:00.007+00:002011-01-11T13:07:23.645+00:00BMJ: Wakefield is a fraudIn a stunning article in the British Medical Journal we are told that Andrew Wakefield, possibly the principal cause of the recent <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/08/infectious-disease-promotion-movement.html" linkindex="281">vaccines-are-evil-hype</a>, is even less trustworthy than we discovered <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/01/surprise-dr-wakefield-abused-position.html" linkindex="282">before</a>.<br />
<br />
Of course, who but <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/piltdown_medicine_andrew_wakefields_scie.php" linkindex="283">Orac</a> is on the prowl:<br />
<blockquote>The discrepancies between the case reports as described in Wakefield's Lancet paper and the actual medical records are anything but random; all are in the direction of suggesting a link between the MMR and Wakefield's as yet unverified syndrome of regressive autism and enterocolitis. The cases that were selected appear not to have been random, sequential patients but were rather recruited specifically through anti-vaccine activists and trial lawyers.</blockquote>And:<br />
<blockquote>There is no innocent explanation possible for the systematic and numerous discrepancies between the medical record and Wakefield's paper, as the editors of the BMJ point out in their accompanying editorial: <br />
<blockquote>The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal. </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children's cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.</blockquote></blockquote>Nevertheless:<br />
<blockquote>Wakefield continues to deny that he has done anything at all wrong and blames the criticisms leveled against him on conspiracies. In reality, given the way the anti-vaccine movement has begun to circle the wagons to defend Wakefield yet again, it's tempting to claim that this is a conspiracy.</blockquote>In his analysis <a href="http://briandeer.com/mmr-lancet.htm" linkindex="284">Brian Deer</a> <a href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/01/06/brian-deer-piltdown-medicine-the-missing-link-between-mmr-and-autism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bmj%2Fblogs+%28Latest+BMJ+blogs%29" linkindex="285">likens</a> this fraud in scope to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man" linkindex="286">Piltdown Man</a>. The next commentator is <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/01/05/breaking-bmj-calls-andrew-wakefield-a-fraud/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29" linkindex="287">Phil Plait</a> who writes:<br />
<blockquote>Brian Deer, an investigative journalist, <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full" linkindex="288" target="_blank">has written a multi-part series on the BMJ site</a> which slams Wakefield. Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full" linkindex="289" target="_blank">also writes about this</a>… and just to be clear, she uses the word "fraud" <i>nine times</i> in her editorial. Not surprisingly, it’s been picked up by several news outlets like <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1" linkindex="290" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CNN</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40930256/ns/health-mental_health/" linkindex="291" target="_blank">MSNBC</a>, and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=12547823" linkindex="292" target="_blank">ABC</a>. </blockquote>His conclusion:<br />
<blockquote>Andrew Wakefield may not have started the antivax movement, but he certainly egged it on very strongly, along with such mouthpieces as <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?s=jenny" linkindex="293" target="_blank">Jenny McCarthy</a>, and <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?s=dorey" linkindex="294" target="_blank">Meryl Dorey and the AVN</a> in Australia. If the charges of fraud can be made to stick, then we might be able to make some progress toward reality once again, and lower the rate of outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and polio… and save a lot of lives in the process.</blockquote>This is exactly why I am not opposed to <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/11/freedom-of-speech-clarification.html" linkindex="295">accountability</a> for willfully endangering other people by invoking free speech. More on the BMJ story by both <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/it_wasnt_just_shoddy_it_was_fr.php" linkindex="296">Pharyngula</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/british_medical_journal_calls.php" linkindex="297">Deltoid</a>, and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deanscorner/2011/01/fraudulent_vaccine-autism_stud.php" linkindex="298">Jeffrey H. Toney</a>.<br />
<br />
In the past I have wondered why people adhere to a worldview that has been thoroughly discredited. My unscientific opinion was that it must be some form of <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/04/delusional-disorder-part-iii.html" linkindex="299">delusional disorder</a>. Later, I noted the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/10/freedom-of-speech.html" linkindex="300">cognitive dissonance</a> which has been shown to explain such behaviour. In light of what the BMJ has just made public one would hope the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/11/vaccine-unawareness-week.html" linkindex="301">infectious-disease-promotion-movement</a> will lose members. Unfortunately, being a cynic, I doubt that will happen.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span><span style="color: blue;"> </span>Be sure to <a href="http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2011/01/press-release-from-the-british-medical-journal-wakefields-mmr-study-an-elaborate-fraud-.html" linkindex="302">read this</a> too.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update II:</span> A roundup of responses to the BMJ article is provided by <a href="http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2011/01/a-roundup-of-responses-to-the-british-medical-journal-andrew-wakefields-research-was-motivated-by-a-.html" linkindex="303">Liz Ditz</a>. The <a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/01/the-national-autism-association-tries-and-fails-to-defend-andrew-wakefields-fraud/" linkindex="304">Autism Blog</a> discusses the alleged replication of Wakefield's results: it does not exist. In Scientific American <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=in-the-wake-of-wakefield-risk-perce-2011-01-06" linkindex="305">David Ropeik</a> explains that there is a discrepancy between the perceived and factual risk:<br />
<blockquote>Sometimes we’re more afraid than the facts say we need to be (vaccines). With many of the bigger threats, we’re not afraid enough (infectious disease). The gap between our fears and the facts can be dangerous all by itself. Just ask the parents of the thousands of kids worldwide now getting, or <i>dying</i> of diseases that vaccines had pretty much controlled. </blockquote>And:<br />
<blockquote>The harm he [Wakefield] and others have done will persist for a long time…and will continue to serve as a reminder of the risk we face if we don’t recognize that the way we perceive risk can be a huge risk in and of itself.</blockquote>The danger of the infectious-disease-promotion-movement is shown by <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/wakefield-whooping-cough/" linkindex="306">Maryn McKenna</a> who contracted whooping cough in India and wrote an article in Wired about the rise in cases. Take home message:<br />
<blockquote>The worst news in this upsetting trend is this: We’re doing it to ourselves. As far as anyone can tell, the rise in pertussis is not due to any change in the organism, or to any mysterious error among the manufacturers who make pertussis vaccines. It’s due to vaccine refusal, to parents turning away from vaccines because they think the vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they prevent — or, more selfishly, because they think the wall of immunity created by other vaccinated children will protect their unimmunized ones.</blockquote><a href="http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2011/01/06/wakefield-studies-slammed-by-bmj/" linkindex="307">Grant Jacobs</a>, for Code for Life, made an overview, and <a href="http://skepacabra.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/andrew-wakefield-is-a-fraud/" linkindex="308">Skepacabra</a> did the same. Nice review of communication pitfalls by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/11/vaccination_confirmation_bias.php" linkindex="309">The Thoughtful Animal</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Giving us incidence and death rates and other such statistics doesn't really get the job done. It doesn't communicate what they want it to. Nor will glossy pamphlets (like the one they gave me) <a href="http://www.morethanmedicine.us.gsk.com/blog/2010/09/a-goal-for-health-wellness.html" linkindex="310" target="_blank">featuring Mia Hamm</a> telling us to get vaccinated. What will get the job done is story-telling, appealing to emotion, and utilizing accessible analogies. Instead of telling us how many gazillions died last year, tell us how many airplanes full of people, or how many football stadiums full of people died last year.</blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Update III:</span> Luckily <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/jenny_mccarthy_weighs_in_about_andrew_wa.php">Jenny McCarthy</a> comes to our recsue and rehashes long ago refuted non-arguments. Apparently, true or false is determined by the number of times you make a claim.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-35317384555485338582011-01-06T17:46:00.002+00:002011-01-11T23:42:39.150+00:00The Lehrer effectEver since Jonah Lehrer identified the supposed flawed nature of the scientific method, and named it the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-decline-effect-shows-scientific.html" linkindex="33">decline effect</a>, the Intertoobz has responded by either advancing the notion this proves science is just as unreliable as other manufactroversies, or by pointing out that what Lehrer sees as problematic actually is why science is reliable: it eventually <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean" linkindex="34">filters out</a> human bias.<br />
<br />
Eventhough I was somewhat late in noticing the current kerfuffle others are slightly faster to <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-decline-effect-shows-scientific.html" linkindex="35">comment</a> on the notion that science does not work. Some observations I initially missed are by <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/12/30/the-decline-effect-postulate-fails-to-find-its-theory/" linkindex="36">Kent Anderson</a>, responding to "a study that scientists thought proved that female barn swallows preferred mating with males who had long, symmetrical feathers:"<br />
<blockquote>In this case, the raw observations about feathers are generalized first to one species, then attempts are made to generalize them to other species, and soon the attempts start to fail. This isn’t an erosion of truth. It’s a failure of theorizing. The theory was derived after the fact, and to no useful end other than to publish more papers. It wasn’t a hypothesis that was tested, but a data set shoehorned into a <i>post hoc </i>theory.</blockquote><blockquote>The scientific method itself is revealing the limitations of initial findings. It’s working. But we’re so geared to create “headline science,” and so wrapped up in ego and pride that we’ve forgotten the humility we need to exhibit before the facts. But most importantly, we may have forgotten that something is even more important than facts — and that is theory.</blockquote>Writing for <i>Big Think</i> <a href="http://bigthink.com/ideas/25533" linkindex="37">Matthew C. Nisbet</a> notes that:<br />
<blockquote>the reaction that the article has stirred in some cases does not match the nuance of Lehrer's arguments. The article has been unfairly critiqued by some for giving ammunition to those already committed to extreme doubt about subjects such as climate change or evolution. As Lehrer notes at <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/frontal-cortex/" linkindex="38">his blog</a>, he's also been accused of being a post-modernist, arguing that there is no such thing as truth or reality.</blockquote>Criticism he does not share. In his view the article, and the ensuing debate, are an opportunity to bolster science education. The added benefit is that they:<br />
<blockquote>are wonderful teaching tools for science students.</blockquote>A column by <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/decline-effect-scientific-truth-turns-wrong/story?id=12510202" linkindex="39">John Allen Paulos</a>, for ABC News, reviews the article and elaborates on the explanations for why the "decline effect" might occur:<br />
<blockquote>A greater realization of these effects by journalists, scientists, and everyone else will lead to more caution in reporting results, more realistic expectations, and, I would guess, a decline in the decline affect (more accurately, the stat-psych effect). </blockquote>The criticism his article generated has led Lehrer to write a response. Nonetheless, it appears he did not grasp what was said, or as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/is_the_decline_effect_really_so_mysterio_1.php" linkindex="40">Orac</a> puts it:<br />
<blockquote>Actually, what Lehrer's critics have been doing is anything but reassuring ourselves with platitudes about the rigors of replication. Indeed, all of us who bothered to write about Lehrer's article spent considerable time pointing out how regression to the mean, publication bias, and a variety of other factors that could explain much of the decline effect. We spent a lot of effort trying to explain how it is unsurprising that initial promising results often appear less so as more and more scientists investigate a question, developing along the way better techniques and approaches to investigating the question and approaching it from different angles. We spent a lot of verbiage describing how it is not at all unsurprising that new drugs, which seem to work so well in early clinical trials, appear to lose efficacy as their indication is broadened beyond the homogeneous initial small groups of subjects to more patients whose characteristics are less tightly controlled. Indeed, one of the letter writers <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2011/01/10/110110mama_mail3" linkindex="41">pointed this very fact out to Lehrer</a>, but he chose not to address this point directly. </blockquote><blockquote>The decline effect is something any physician who does clinical research knows from experience (although he may not call it that) because he sees it so often. To Lehrer it seemed to be some sort of shocking revelation in clinical research. The expectation that randomized clinical trials can overestimate the efficacy of new drugs is the very reason why, after drugs are released, physicians sometimes carry out what are known as "pragmatic trials," which are designed to find out how effective a treatment is in everyday, real-world practice, where the conditions are not nearly as controlled and the patient populations not nearly as homogeneous as they are in randomized clinical trials. Efficacy results determined in pragmatic trials are virtually always less robust than what was measured in the original randomized clinical trials. Not that any of this stops Lehrer from simply repeating the same stuff about big pharma having incentives to shape the results of its science and clinical trials. We get it; we get it. Science is done by humans, and sometimes human biases and motivations other than scientific discovery influence thee humans who do science.</blockquote>He continues with:<br />
<blockquote>More importantly, after discussing the decline effect and impugning the reliability of science, Lehrer still can't seem to give a coherent explanation as to why AGW and evolution are such reliable, well-founded scientific theories compared to what he seems to perceive as the unreliability of the rest of science. Worse, he hasn't addressed many of the more cogent criticisms of his work, in particular the numerous attempts to explain to him why it is not at all remarkable that second generation antipsychotics have not proven to be as effective as initial results suggested or why it is not particularly surprising or disturbing that fluctuating asymmetry never panned out. Lehrer had a great opportunity to explain why making scientific conclusions is so difficult and why all scientific knowledge is provisional. Those points are in his articles on the decline effect, but they're buried in the surrounding implication that the decline effect is mysterious. Then in the last paragraph of his response to critics Lehrer has the chutzpah to declare that "there is nothing inherently mysterious about why the scientific process occasionally fails or the decline effect occurs."</blockquote>Someone else not overly impressed by Lehrer is <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/neuro-atheism/201101/jonah-lehrers-decline-effect-now-in-decline" linkindex="42">David Weisman</a> who strongly opines:<br />
<blockquote>the 'decline effect' is bullshit. Science also ignores things for long periods of time, then recognizes their importance, at which point the theory grows, strengthens, branches off into new fields, and improves. Germ theory is hardly in decline, it grows stronger with every pneumonia. DNA as genetic instruction is also a theory, one that is hardly in decline. Ditto evolution. Ditto greenhouse gas. Ditto cells, tectonic plates, gravity, sodium channels, and atoms. None seem in danger of decline. </blockquote><blockquote>Lehrer wrote a faulty article. It got published. Initially it must have seemed almost reasonable. But on second look, it has fatal flaws. In fact, it appears to me that he cherry picked examples to support his own pet theory, a classic fallacy of the highly biased. Now it doesn't look very reasonable at all. It looks like small minded pseudoscience.</blockquote>Another take on the phenomenon is given by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2011/01/a_critical_cause_of_the_declin.php" linkindex="43">Mike the Mad Biologist</a> by referring to Andrew Gelman:<br />
<blockquote>Gelman (and he has some good slides over at <a href="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/%7Ecook/movabletype/archives/2010/12/the_truth_wears.html" linkindex="44">his post</a>) is claiming, correctly, that if the effect is weak and you don't have enough samples (e.g., subjects enrolled in the study), any <i>statistically</i> significant result will be so much greater than what the biology would provide that it's probably spurious. You might get lucky and have a spurious result that points in the same direction as the real phenomenon, but that's just luck.</blockquote>Then he points out:<br />
<blockquote>So what someone will do is report the statistically significant result (since we tend to not report the insignificant ones). But further experiments, which often aren't well designed either, fail to pick up an effect. The ones that are well designed and have a large sample size will either identify a very weak real effect, leading to a consensus in the field of "Meh", or correctly fail to find a non-existent effect.<br />
Sounds like the Decline Effect to me.</blockquote>By claiming science is unable to provide any definite answers, i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TRUTH" linkindex="45"><i>The Truth</i></a>, Lehrer apperently agrees with the anti-science movement which claims science is merely another opinion. Once everything is opinion how could any reasonable person (you know, the "fair and balanced"-type) object to dissenting views such as: evolution is not true, global warming does not exist, vaccines are evil, HIV is harmless, et cetera? This inadvertent support of denialism, through the <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/freakonomics-in-the-times-magazine-unintended-consequences/" linkindex="46">law</a> of unintended <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2168" linkindex="47">consequences</a>, I propose we call the <i>Lehrer effect</i>. In other words, the <i>Lehrer effect</i> stands for the proposition that the orchestrated efforts of misinformation-central, in time inevitably will contaminate and debilitate even the protectors of reason, i.e. they too eventually come to believe that the scientific method is no more reliable than pseudoscience and denialism. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> Amended definition last sentence.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598689153050249346.post-40825583274089613602011-01-03T17:54:00.004+00:002011-01-07T10:53:16.894+00:00Why the "decline effect" shows the scientific method worksPart of the struggle between science and ideology is the recurring theme that science too can be wrong. Note the number of times we have seen scientists retreating from their initial position to a more nuanced one. This transition to less pronounced statements causes the anti-science crowd to claim this proves science is not as reliable as we think. This phenomenon is discussed by <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=8987" linkindex="27">David Gorski</a> while responding to:<br />
<blockquote>an article in <i>The New Yorker</i> by Jonah Lehrer entitled <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer" linkindex="28">The Truth Wears Off: Is There Something Wrong With the Scientific Method?</a> </blockquote>The above concept is called the "decline effect" which, according to Gorski, stands for:<br />
<blockquote>a phenomenon in which initial results from experiments or studies of a scientific question are highly impressive, but, over time, become less so as the same investigators and other investigators try to replicate the results, usually as a means of building on them. In fact, Googling “<a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=the+decline+effect&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8" linkindex="29">the decline effect</a>” brought up an entry from <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/declineeffect.html" linkindex="30">The Skeptic’s Dictionary</a>, in which the decline effect is described thusly: <br />
<blockquote>The decline effect is the notion that psychics lose their powers under continued investigation. This idea is based on the observation that subjects who do significantly better than chance in early trials tend to do worse in later trials.</blockquote></blockquote>To him this observation is is neither shocking nor new:<br />
<blockquote>In medicine, in particular, early reports tend to be smaller trials and experiments that, because of their size, tend to be more prone to false positive results. Such false positive results (or, perhaps, exaggerated results that appear more positive than they really are) generate enthusiasm, and more investigators pile on. There’s often a tendency to want to publish confirmatory papers early on (the “bandwagon effect”), which might further skew the literature too far towards the positive. Ultimately, larger, more rigorous studies are done, and these studies result in a “regression to the mean” of sorts, in which the newer studies fail to replicate the large effects seen in earlier results. This is nothing more than what we’ve been writing right here on SBM ever since its inception, namely that the normal course of clinical research is to start out with observations from smaller studies, which are inherently less reliable because they are small and thus more prone to false positives or exaggerated effect sizes </blockquote>His conclusion:<br />
<blockquote>Although Lehrer makes some good points, where he stumbles, from my perspective, is when he appears to conflate “truth” with science or, more properly, accept the idea that there are scientific “truths,” even going so far as to use the word in the title of his article. That is a profound misrepresentation of the nature of science, in which all “truths” are provisional and all “truths” are subject to revision based on evidence and experimentation. The decline effect–or, as Lehrer describes it the title of his article, the “truth wearing off”–is nothing more than science doing what science does: Correcting itself.</blockquote>Commenting on this article <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2580" linkindex="31">Steven Novella</a> writes that the term "decline effect:"<br />
<blockquote>was first applied to the parapsychological literature, and was in fact proposed as a real phenomena of ESP – that ESP effects literally decline over time. Skeptics have criticized this view as magical thinking and hopelessly naive – Occam’s razor favors the conclusion that it is the flawed measurement of ESP, not ESP itself, that is declining over time. Lehrer, however, applies this idea to all of science, not just parapsychology. </blockquote>Just like Gorski he notes:<br />
<blockquote>Lehrer is ultimately referring to aspects of science that skeptics have been pointing out for years (as a way of discerning science from pseudoscience), but Lehrer takes it to the nihilistic conclusion that it is difficult to prove anything, and that ultimately “we still have to choose what to believe.” Bollocks!</blockquote>His explanation for this phenomenon is the same as Gorski's. The article was also noticed by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/science_is_not_dead.php" linkindex="32">Pharyngula</a> who stated:<br />
<blockquote>I read it. I was unimpressed with the overselling of the flaws in the science, but actually quite impressed with the article as an example of psychological manipulation.</blockquote>And he then remarked:<br />
<blockquote>Early in any scientific career, one should learn a couple of general rules: science is never about absolute certainty, and the absence of black & white binary results is not evidence against it; you don't get to choose what you want to believe, but instead only accept provisionally a result; and when you've got a positive result, the proper response is not to claim that you've proved something, but instead to focus more tightly, scrutinize more strictly, and test, test, test ever more deeply. It's unfortunate that Lehrer has tainted his story with all that unwarranted breast-beating, because as a summary of why science can be hard to do, and of the institutional flaws in doing science, it's quite good.</blockquote>In short, the article erroneously points out the inherent characteristics of the scientific method as "proof" of why science is just another opinion. While provocative it identifies weakness but fails to recognise this actually is science's strongpoint.<br />
<br />
As an side, this flowchart on how to debate the anti-science brigade (creationists actually) is brilliant:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/12/why_i_dont_debate_creationists/debatingrules.jpeg" imageanchor="1" linkindex="33" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/12/why_i_dont_debate_creationists/debatingrules.jpeg" /></a></div>(h/t <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/why_i_dont_debate_creationists.php" linkindex="34">Pharyngula</a>)<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Update:</span> Following the "decline effect" there now is the <a href="http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/lehrer-effect.html">Lehrer effect</a>.Nesciohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05873864197249227328noreply@blogger.com1