Saturday, 30 April 2016

Fifty thousand

It 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.

To another 50.000, rambling one post at a time.

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

Pecunia non olet

Though 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 maltreatment of science and how certain factions prefer misrepresenting the facts to serve their ideology.

Just recently have I written about an exposé showing science is for sale. Meaning, you can now buy the outcome you require to protect your financial interests. Unsurprisingly there are more examples to add to that unethical behaviour.

As I initially observed, Emilie Udell for the Center for Public Integrity reported how
Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and  Pharmacology 
 are the go-to journals for
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.
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 manufactroversy.

Climate Progress updates the #Exxonknew-meme  by reporting and showing a reportage by Frank Capra from 1958:
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.”
They conclude
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 here). Heck, thanks to excellent reporting by InsideClimate News, 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.
Another example of politicians confusing facts for fiction: voter-fraud. John Oliver shows us the utter fiction of it.

But, this is not about science, it is about politics. By corrupting science the usual suspects are able to sabotage necessary legislation: f.e. to combat smoking related deaths, global warming, gun control, derail vaccination programs, et cetera,

Nevertheless, as I write this we still are defrauded by politicians invoking the "it is nothing more than a global hoax by liberal-commie-nazi scientists"-tactic.

All the misrepresentations by politicians evoke som paranoid response in me: Cui bono? Which leads me to conclude we are in need of some mandatory regulation in politics.
  1. 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.
  2. 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 impact.
  3. For the purpose of ascertaining the available facts politicians themselves are not considered experts in the field. 
  4. The evidence shown can not be "I strongly believe," or "god said so," but has to be based on a review by an independent expert 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 communis opinio among these experts this is entirely reasonable and reflects an actual debate among experts, c) in case of politicians withholding  such studies they are obliged to mention the result and reason behind not mentioning it.
  5. In the absence of verifiable evidence 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.
  6. Any proposal based on non-expert guestimation shall be publicly presented as make believe or truthiness
  7. Akin to nearly every other profession I would suggest accountability in case of policy that can not be reconciled with expert opinion, or lacks reasonable arguments to ignore the patently fallacious solution presented.
Concluding I think there is to much room for misstatements regarding science, and we should better protect society against those who mislead us for personal gain.

Broken record: Homeopathy no better than placebo

Time and time again science has shown homeopathy is no better than a placebo. An observation I have documented before. Needless to say I was shocked, shocked I tell you, when The Independent reported that:
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.
It noted:
The Good Thinking Society, which campaigns against homeopathy, said the latest study bolstered scientific consensus that the “treatments” do not work. 
Popular Science has seen the study too:
Homeopathy, 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 “useless” in 2014, and last year the FDA considered cracking down 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 blog post published on the website of the British Medical Journal last week and covered by The Independent.
Of course, last year Australia came to the same conclusion:
The draft paper by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (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”.
For those new to the world of quackery homeopathy Orac has a  great summary of what it entails, the scientific and legal challenges: 
the developments in homeopathy last year, which have now been recapped in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. 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.
In light of this latest study, let me leave you with a comment by Emeritus Professor of Complementary Medicine at the Peninsula School of Medicine, University of Exeter, Edzard Ernst:
The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia recently published what might be the most thorough evaluation of homeopathy ever since it began 200 years ago.
warned against homeopathy 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.
Despite the numerous intricate explanations homeopaths have imagined the underlying placebo-effect remains the same: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Monday, 15 February 2016

My collection of films, 2016

Years ago I shared my attempt at helping you play audio-video files on your computer. This for those that lacked adequate equipment. Today I am using a Home Cinema system that makes that post redundant.

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 previous list. Do comment on my selection and/or feel free to suggest titles you feel should be included.

De Eetclub
De Ontdekking van de Hemel.
Het Meisje met het Rode Haar
Soldaat van Oranje

Être et Avoir
Bienvenue Chez les Ch'tis
Tu Dors Nicole
Sous le Sable
Avant L'Hiver
L'Homme Qui Aimait Les Femmes
Les Amant De Pont-Neuf
Le Hérisson
La Tourneuse de Pages
La Double Vie de Véronique
Je Vais Bien, Ne T'En Fais Pas
L'Empreinte de l'Ange
Il y a Longtemps Que Je T'Aime
Les Âmes Grises
Le Temps Qui Reste
Code Inconnu
Mémoires Affectives.
Voleurs de Cheveaux
La Haine
Un Prophète
Trois Couleurs: Bleu, Blanc, Rouge
Jean de Florette
Manon des Sources
Les vacances de M. Hulot
Mon Oncle

Los Amantes del Círculo Polar
En la ciudad sin límites
La Noche de los Girasoles
El Aura
La Mala Educación
Son de Mar
La Ardilla Roja
Lucia y el Sexo
Abre los Ojos
Amores Perros
El Secreto de sus Ojos
El Laberinto del Fauno
Todo Sobre Mi Madre
Hable Con Ella
Den brysomme mannen
Låt den Rätte Komma In
Slipp Jimmy Fri
Nói albinói

Agata e la Tempesta
La Doppia Ora
Non Ti Muovere
Trilogy of life:

Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma

Das Leben der Anderen
Der Untergang
Die Fälscher
Cidade de Deus
Depuis qu'Otar est parti...
Шар нохойн там
Андрей Рублёв
Tallinn pimeduses
臥虎藏龍 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
霸王別姬 - Farewell My Concubine

The Merchant of Venice
Romeo and Juliette
Richard III


The Cook, The Thief, The Wife and Her Lover
The Wolf of Wall Street
The Shock Doctrine
Inside Job
The Insider
Merchants of Doubt
In The Name of the Father
The People vs. Larry Flint
Good Night, and Good Luck
All the President's Men
Mississippi Burning
Guess Who Is Coming To Dinner
In the Heat of the Night
Cry Freedom
Malcolm X
The Cotton Club
Citizen Kane

Lawrence of Arabia
The Elephant Man

Ole Bull

Death in Venice

The Mission

The Great Gatsby
Death of a Salesman
On the Waterfront
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
The Manchurian Candidate

Apocalypse Now

Easy Rider
Back To The Future

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

A Christmas Carol

The Nightmare Before Christmas
Silent Running
Flight of the Navigator
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
The Dark Crystal
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes
The Last of the Mohicans

The Dark Knight Trilogy
The Time Machine
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Martian

Alien I-IV
Star Wars I-VI

Ex Machina
V for Vendetta
Children of Men

Blade Runner

Terminator I-II
The Matrix Trilogy
The Thirteenth Floor
Upstream color

91/2 Weeks
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
The Remains of the Day
The English Patient
Clouds of Sils Maria
When Harry Met Sally ...
As Good As It Gets

Don Juan De Marco

Before Trilogy:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Sex, Lies and Videotape

American Beauty
A Clockwork Orange
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
Being There
The Machinist
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Donnie Darko
Angel Heart
The Weight of Water

Fight Club

Sleepy Hollow
The Name of the Rose


The Blair Witch Project


Wisdom of Crocodiles

The Ninth Gate
The Sixth Sense
12 Monkeys
Taxi Driver
12 Angry Men
And Justice for All
3 Days of the Condor
The Conversation
Enemy of the State
The Parallax View
Gosford Park
LA Confidential
The Usual Suspects
The Godfather Trilogy
Once Upon a Time in America

Donnie Brasco
Ghost Dog

The Bourne Trilogy:

The Sting
The Italian Job
Reservoir Dogs

Pulp Fiction
Very Bad Things
Blue Ruin

American Psycho

Natural Born Killers
Henry 1 & 2

Kiss Before Dying
Mystic River

The Life of David Gale



Brideshead Revisited
Sherlock Holmes I-IV
House of Cards
Yes Minister I-III
Yes, Prime Minister
Game of Thrones

The Blackadder
I Claudius
Black Books
Gimme Gimme Gimme
Will & Grace

Married with Children
The Wonder Years
St. Elsewhere
Due South
The Wire

The Blacklist
The Practice
Boston Legal
The Good Wife
Murder One
Remington Steele

White Collar

The Event
Dark Skies
Babylon 5
Earth 2

How The Universe Works
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
Cosmos: A Personal Voyage
Seven Ages of Starlight
Great Migrations
Planet Earth
Human Planet
Frozen Planet
Great Barrier Reef
North America
Wild Russia
In Search of the Trojan War

The Truth of Troy
In Search of Myths and Heroes
Ancient Rome - The Rise and Fall of an Empire
The Bush Tucker Man
Qatsi Trilogi:

The Power of Nightmares.

Shrek I-IV
Ice Age I-IV
Inside Out
Despicable Me I & II
Rio I & II
Le Parfum de la Carotte
Pim & Pom: Het Grote Avontuur
Pinky and the Brain
Batman: The Animated Series


Tuesday, 9 February 2016

Corrupting science

As been noted before science is not necessarily reliable. Since monetary gains 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  Merchants of Doubt.

Case in point, Emilie Udell for the Center for Public Integrity reports how a lawyer (Evan Nelson of the law firm Tucker Ellis & West) invited a scientist to publish a "scientific theory" regarding the cause of mesothelioma. Coincidentally:
Nelson defended companies that had exposed people to asbestos .........
Luckily for his clients
Nelson came up with a new culprit: tobacco.
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 summarized the findings of study after study, none of which shows evidence that tobacco causes mesothelioma.
The scientist involved offered to write "scientific articles" meant to be used in court cases. A firm offering such services is Gradient.
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.
In the words of the report:
Gradient has become a leading scientific voice in trying to prevent further regulation of air pollution.
Continuing the exposé the Center for Public Integrity 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:
Acton did a little research and discovered that Valberg [the aforementioned scientist] had just co-authored an article in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity saying that cigarette smoke emits radiation. And he noticed that the article was funded by the law firm representing the maker of the gloves.
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.
In another court case lawyers
decided to subpoena all records .....
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.
Pam Collins’s lawyer said efforts by industry consultants to absolve asbestos of blame show they will say almost anything.
“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.”
The article proves that even scientists are not above human nature.