Logo

American Institute for Technology and Science Education Newsletter



October, 2011

Follow me on Twitter View my profile on LinkedInView our videos on YouTubeLike us on Facebook DonatetoAITSE
Crocker in LA Press ClubGreetings!

Have you noticed the "evolution" of our culture with regard to food? Fifty years ago most families had their meals at home around the kitchen table. Much of the food was home-grown and made from scratch. Eating in a restaurant was reserved for special occasions--and these came once a year, if that. Obesity was rare. Now the average American eats out 200 times/year and only 1/3 of "home-cooked" evening meals are made without the aid of convenience foods. An amazing 74% of adults are overweight or obese, inspiring BMW to come out with a new line of car, especially designed for our new figures.

Obviously, something needs to be done. And the food industry and others are catching the wave towards making a profit. I recently ate at True Food Kitchen, a great restaurant with a "healthy menu...packed with nutritious, good-for-you vegetables, whole grain and proteins." Their meals are absolutely delicious. But, unfortunately, as so often happens, their literature contains a mixture of truth and very unscientific nonsense. To be specific, yes, as they say, the food pyramid should be revised; fruits and vegetables need to be at the bottom. But, the inclusion of Asian mushrooms, tea, supplements, herbs and red wine in the pyramid is more trendy than accurate and is definitely more focused on Dr. Weil's profit margin than on science. He charges only $4/week for diet advice, but more for meals at True Food Kitchen and for his supplement, Weil-Juvenon. Interestingly, a quick survey of the scientific literature for information on this supplement reveals that the only person to have published on it is a Dr. Ames, who appears to be in business with Dr. Weil. In addition, Weil-Juvenon has only been tested in rats, not in people. For more on supplements and vitamins, see past AITSE newsletters.

What about the claim that the True Food diet is anti-inflammatory? This assertion sounded very familiar to me because I recently read a book claiming the same thing about a Fleming diet: Stop Inflammation Now, by--Richard Fleming, MD. Dr. Fleming, a nuclear cardiologist from Nebraska, is not an immunologist and it shows. His book is an amazing mixture of truth (yes, we should eat right and exercise), scientific inaccuracies and ridiculous promises. In fact, he gets many well-known biological facts absolutely wrong! As an immunologist myself, his continuous mixing up of leukotrienes and interleukins was an immediate red flag. Another was his claim that 100% of the people he has treated (and who followed his diet plan) are cured of their cardiovascular disease. This book fails #2-#5 of the AITSE bunk-detecting principles. It appears that both Dr. Flemming and Dr. Weil are snowing people with scientific words so that they do as they say, buy their books and supplements, or even eat at their restaurant chain.

The truth about nutrition and health is somewhere in the middle, as truth often is. Of course it is healthy to eat fruits, vegetables, and unprocessed foods. But, if you are doing so, there is usually no need to take supplements or even get individualized diet advice. And if you are not, pills won't help you. According to cardiologist Dr. Jay Hollman, "a person cannot be fat, lazy, and eat a rich diet and expect to be rescued by vitamin supplements, food technology, or the pharmaceutical industry." So, get yourself an apple, sit back, and read on for information on influenza, exiled scientists, global warming, cheating scientists, and some more bunk science. And, if you find that the $4/week you had designated for Dr. Weil is burning a hole in your pocket, consider using it to support AITSE, where we present you with good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not bunk. Then, go for a nice walk and enjoy Fall!

Protandim

Bunk Science?       

Snake Oil
Remember the AITSE rules for evaluating bunk science? After Dr. Crocker recently received literature on Protandim, a dietary supplement that is said to be a "scientific breakthrough" and will make it "difficult to distinguish the 80 year old from the 20 year old," she decided closer analysis, using the "rules," was warranted.

The first thing noted was that the Protandim website violates the second AITSE bunk-detecting rule. The author claimed to have accomplished something beyond what has actually been done. That is, although the website claims that there have been many peer-reviewed studies published on Protandim, no clinical trials were found in the Pubmed database. Rather, the vast majority of the work was done in vitro (cells) or in mice (in vivo). There have not been any published studies showing efficacy in reducing disease in people. In humans it may reduce the TBars (a number), but it is not known whether changing this number has a real-life advantage. In fact, recently published work suggests that anti-oxidant supplements may do more harm than good.

Secondly, in the promotional video Dr. McCord claims that Protandim is safe because it is metabolized by the liver and not the kidneys. This is an astonishing assertion. Physicians do not generally monitor the effect of a drug on the kidneys, but on the liver, because that is where drug-related damage often occurs. In other words, Protandim being metabolized by the liver is no guarantee of its safety--and actually entails quite a risk for those on prescription medications. Again, the second AITSE rule has been violated. There have been no clinical trials, so there is no way one can honestly assert that Protandim is safe.
 
The third AITSE rule suggests that readers look for elementary science mistakes. These are evident on the homepage of the Protandim website. Oxidative stress may be one factor causing cellular aging, but not the only one. Most people will be aware that aging is a complex process and cannot be reduced to only one factor. Note also the subtle misdirection contained in the wording on this page. It is suggested that, if a person takes Protandim, their cells will age at the same rate as a 20-year-old's. This is, of course, accurate. We all age one year at a time. 

The fourth AITSE rule instructs readers to be watchful for grandiose claims. These were not hard to find in the Protandim brochure, which implies that this supplement will combat aging, heart disease, cancer, inflammation, arthritis, dementia, diabetes, asthma, autism, hypertension, muscular dystrophy, renal failure and even AIDS. Remind anyone of snake oil?

How does it do this? The supplement is said to activate a transcription factor that stimulates cells to make anti-oxidant enzymes. The claim is that taking Protandim gives you the benefits that you would receive from eating "32 pounds of strawberries, 31 pounds of raspberries, 15 pounds of dark chocolate per day," kind of like using a shotgun on the genome. It is difficult to explain the science, but an easy analogy for the role of oxidation in our bodies is that of a fire. The fire is good and necessary in the fireplace or the furnace, but not in the middle of the room. Antioxidants make sure the fire stays in the fireplace or the furnace. BUT, to upregulate their production is akin to using a fire extinguisher indiscriminately. Since the body's use of nutrients is absolutely dependent on oxidation, this would not be a good thing.

Finally, much is made over the fact that Protandim is made from natural ingredients. In fact, the marketing guru said, "I prefer taking natural products over synthetic or pharmaceuticals, if possible. Prescription drugs have killed many more people than any natural product I know of." Presumably he was not thinking of deadly nightshade, hemlock, or even uranium, all of which are natural. But seriously, it bears repeating that natural does not mean safe. For a more complete analysis, just click on the link.

When these concerns were raised with some of the folks marketing Protandim, one wrote back, "I believe every free man and woman needs to decide for themselves what they want to take and what they don't want to take." Absolutely. But, AITSE believes that every man and woman deserves to have the information necessary to make a good decision. And until such time as clinical trials on safety and efficacy have been completed, AITSE will not be recommending the use of Protandim to anyone. 
Frankencell

Influenza  

What Can We Do? 

Have you and your family had your flu shot  this year? If any of you are in a risk group, that person should be vaccinated. (Risk groups include the elderly, those in ill health and those working in a position where exposure to influenza may be increased; check with your physician for more information.) After all, it is much better to prevent a viral infection than to try to cure it. But, if you are not in one of the above groups, here is some information to help you in making a decision about whether or not to be vaccinated. 

First, the influenza vaccine is grown in eggs. Therefore, it makes sense that those with an egg allergy should not be vaccinated against flu. The nurse administering the vaccine will normally ask first, but it is as well to be aware.

Second, the multi-dose influenza vaccines contain thimerosal, a highly toxic compound that contains mercury. The health risks of yearly exposure to this chemical have not been thoroughly evaluated, but a possibly link to autism is suspected. By the way, the single dose flu vaccine, although more expensive, does not contain thimerosal, so it would be a good alternative, especially for pregnant women and children.

Third, be aware that if you do get the flu, the standard treatment (Tamiflu) will only reduce the length of your illness by about 16 hours (out of ten days for the normal course of flu). In addition, it only works at all if it is administered within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. Tamiflu can have psychiatric and gastrointestinal side effects in children and young adults. In other words, don't bother to take Tamiflu if you are already sick. You'd do better with chicken soup.

The real benefit of Tamiflu appears to be in prophylactic treatment of uninfected and unvaccinated people who are known to have been exposed to the flu. Here Tamiflu and the related drugs can reduce your risk for getting flu by 70%, which in some years is better than the vaccine.

Current guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control are that everyone 6 months or older should receive a yearly influenza shot. Whether you do or not is up to you--but it is important to have the facts at hand.DonatetoAITSE

Cells 

They're Complicated!

According to Dr. Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, a cell is "an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell, we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings, we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more then a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we could see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell..."

Is it then surprising that learning about cells causes many scientists to agree with astrophysicist Christopher McKay that the origin of life is a scientific mystery?
Cheating in Research
At Duke University

JournalsAfter his scientific dishonesty was discovered, Dr. Anil Potti  resigned his position in cancer research at the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy and the School of Medicine at Duke University, but the repercussions go on. Just last month more patients filed suit, claiming that they had been exposed to "unnecessary and harmful chemotherapy after being enrolled in 'fraudulent' clinical trials."

Dr. Potti revealed his alleged groundbreaking discovery that it would be possible to individually tailor cancer treatment by use of expression arrays in 2006. His work was partially funded by a $729,000 grant from the American Cancer Society. But, scientists at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston raised the alarm after they found it impossible to replicate Dr. Potti's work. Further investigation revealed that, not only had Dr. Potti made several fundamental errors in research and published papers, he also lied in grant applications and other documents. Finally, in 2010, the clinical trials having been discontinued, Dr. Potti resigned.

One may ask why it took so long. The article in the Economist gives several possible reasons, none of them encouraging. First, significant research journals refused to publish papers critical of Dr. Potti's work. The scientists who were challenging his work were forced to publish in a non-medical journal where few of the relevant researchers would ever see the article. Next, Duke University was slow to acknowledge or deal with significant financial conflicts of interest. Both Dr. Potti and two firms to whom the university had ties stood to benefit from his work. Not surprisingly, criticisms of Dr. Potti's work were kept from the external review committee. Finally, peer review requires reviewers to put hours into the process, something that few scientists do. Even fewer attempt to replicate the work. The scientists who finally brought the misconduct to light estimate that they spent 10-50 weeks reviewing Dr. Potti's papers!

As the reporter from the Economist notes, scientists are human too. However, AITSE believes that with more power comes more responsibility--and that the name of the institution should not matter. It is said that science is  self-correcting--and it is. But, who of us who has contributed to cancer research or had a relative suffer from cancer is willing to tolerate this type of fiasco? We need integrity in science.
FeynmanQuote of the Month  
Where is the Freedom to Question?

"But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science...It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty-a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked-to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."  

 

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that."

 

"I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."

 

These quotes were part of a commencement address given by Richard Feynman in 1974, but are just as valid today.
In order for science to advance and provide maximum benefit to the public, science must be conducted with integrity and not be narrow-minded or controlled by financial, political or religious motives. We must be Free to Think. AITSE is working to make sure that we are.
DonatetoAITSE
Dr. KortePublish and Perish  
Pressure to Conform

Dr. Mary Korte of Concordia University in Wisconsin has just joined the AITSE consortium. Welcome! Dr. Korte specializes in environmental sciences and is passionate about scientific integrity. We look forward to receiving her contributions, especially to hearing more about her work and about the details of the corruption she has personally encountered in science (not at Concordia).

Sadly, her story of problems within the scientific establishment is not unique. Take the University of California medical school professor who said that all of "his" first author publications were written by his residents. Or the long-term pressure exerted on chemistry Nobel prize winner Dr. Dan Shectman, when he published research results that did not fit in with the current scientific consensus. Dr. Shectman, like so many others, was mocked, insulted, and even thrown out of his research group.

Although most scientists are more focused on doing good research than advancing their careers, lack of integrity in science abounds. Perhaps this is what spurred President Obama to sign a memorandum on scientific integrity. Of course, while statements may win votes, it is highly unlikely that they will significantly change the behavior of individuals who are faced with the publish or perish environment of science. Here, the temptation to prevent a competitor from publishing, kowtow to the powerful (see Cheating in Research), or steal another's work is immense. The answer has to be scientists, engineers and physicians working together with like-minded people to advance integrity in science. This is the function of the AITSE consortium. Watch us grow and make a difference. And if you know a scientist who would like to join us, just email

Questioning earth

Is it Anti-Science?   

                   

According to Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a plenary session speaker at the July 2011 American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) annual meeting, anthropogenic climate change is a scientific fact and the reason that many people do not believe it is that the "science is complex and they cannot see it happening in their own backyards." In her opinion, some groups are exacerbating the problem by "lying through their teeth and spreading false information" about global warming, even though "98% of scientists agree that it is settled science." She said that we need to educate people about the issue so that they understand that questioning anthropogenic global climate change is anti-science. 

 

Of course, Dr. Hayhoe is right that we should be responsible in how we use the Earth's resources and mindful of those who are victims of natural disaster. But, it is not anti-science to be intrigued that Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel prize winning physicist, and Dr. Harold Lewis, physics professor emeritus from University of California, Santa Barbara resigned their memberships at the American Physical Society (APS) over the APS's refusal to consider all the scientific evidence surrounding this issue. Rather, the evidence should be heard and considered, not hidden. Those who do not agree with the politically correct consensus should not be labeled as uneducated and ostracized from the academy.
In closing, as always, thank you for your past gifts and support. It is a fact that AITSE cannot function in its efforts to educate to increase scientific understanding and integrity without contributions. Please consider helping us with a special donation or a commitment to give on a monthly basis. Please make checks payable to AITSE and send them to PO Box 15938, Newport Beach, CA 92659. Alternatively, you can donate on line through PayPal or credit card.

Sincerely,DonatetoAITSE

 


Caroline Crocker
American Institute for Technology and Science Education