|
|
|
American Institute for Technology
and Science Education Newsletter
|
November, 2011 | |
Greetings!
So much information to communicate--so little time! That is how I have been feeling every month as I sit down to compile the AITSE newsletter. You may be feeling something similar: so much information to absorb--so little time. If so, let me encourage you to consider receiving our information in other (shorter) formats. We are now on Facebook where, if you "like" our page, you will receive daily short updates about news of relevance to integrity in science. Or, if you rather, you can get the same information in manageable bites by following me on Twitter. That way you don't miss anything. Then, you can just read the monthly newsletter as and when you have time, perhaps while you digest your Thanksgiving dinner. There--don't you feel better now?
|
|
Thanksgiving is Healthy
The Value of a Positive Outlook 
Did you know that negative emotions can lead to physical illness and physical illness can lead to negative emotions? In the same way, positive emotions can lead to health and health can lead to positive emotions. Probably you knew this. But, do you know why?
The biological basis of this phenomenon is that immune cells can release neurotransmitters, which are chemicals that communicate with nerves. Immune cells also have receptors for neurotransmitters; they can "hear" and "understand" the language that nerves use. In addition, it appears that neurons can respond to pro-inflammatory cytokines, the chemicals that immune cells use to communicate. Translation: both immune cells and nerves are "bilingual;" they understand and speak each others' language.
So, what does this have to do with Thanksgiving? Simply, strong relationships and positive attitudes have real-life health benefits. So spend some time thinking about all you are thankful for--and if you can communicate your happy thoughts with others, all the better. Spread the health!
|
 A Collision of Opinion, Prejudice, Punditry and Marketing Scientific Integrity in Psychiatry
By Consortium Member John Benson, MD
Psychiatry has a desperate need for scientific integrity. Obviously, there are issues touching upon psychiatric medications, but there are also a whole range of "behavioral psychology" questions around which opinion, punditry and pseudo-science abound.
With regard to pharmaceutical treatments, one difficulty is that clinical trials do not get set up to test real world conditions, as often as they should. They tend to be "narrow" and defined to "acute" trials, such as 6 to 8 week safety and efficacy trials. And, it is not possible to extrapolate anything regarding longer term treatments, or viable alternatives to medication interventions, from these trials. They tell you how Drug A stacked up against placebo, but not too much else. The take-home message, which is not often made clear, is that the drug is better then nothing.
A crowning example of where opinion, prejudice, punditry and marketing all collide is the topic of ADHD. A sadly typical scenario is where an over-worked teacher wants "Johnny" to get ADHD medications and recommends this to the parents. Short term this is for the teacher's relief and convenience. But, most experts in the field (of which I am one) believe that intervening with a "medication only" solution is certain to be short of the mark.
Long term change also requires classroom accommodations, at home coaching, and behavioral change. One must consider ingredients such as parental emotional state, study skills which are eroded if they were ever good to start with, the parent-child emotional "fit," and other behavioral or social problems, as well. All of this is necessary to impact the dysfunctional system so that Johnny can advance and flourish.
In my practice, I try to use and refer people to a good bit of bibliotherapy on ADHD. One of my favorites, which helps to de-stigmatize the condition, especially for those who live with it in themselves, is "You Mean I'm NOT Lazy, Stupid or Crazy?!" by Kelly and Ramundo. Herein ADHD type people are described as the "hunters" of our supposed evolutionary past, who could chase a deer all day, stimulated by the chase and the prospect of bringing meat to the family. This is opposite to the "farmer" type personality, the personality who is happiest plowing the same 30 acres, the same way, day in day out. Both types of people are needed for a functioning society. Viewing ADHD as an alternative kind of gifting, not JUST a weakness, stops some of the internalized shame, blame and guilt. (Another great book for helping those dealing with ADHD is More Attention, Less Deficit by Ari Tuckman. No bunk, just straight talk written in a way that caters for the learning style of those who deal with the disorder.)
Finally, my sister, who is also a psychiatrist, and I suspect that, although there are people who genuinely struggle with this disorder, in the past twenty years the American medical profession has gone from under diagnosing/treating ADHD to way over diagnosing and treating. The British psychiatry establishment does not believe that all our diagnoses are valid simply because they appear to have a much lower rate of incidence of the disorder in Great Britain. One of my very erudite Italian colleagues quipped, "Yes, well, we have a theory in Italy that most of the people with ADHD in Europe headed to America in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were the ones most up to the dangers and challenges, and the most adaptive in a pioneer environment. That left us with fewer in Europe than in the States." Witty, but maybe there is something to that. If so, America is better off for our population of differently gifted individuals. 
|
 "Antidotes to Anecdotes" Cookies and Cost
Did you know that eating cookies is a dangerous practice? At least that is what the British press is telling us after a cookie-manufacturer-sponsored report showed that cookies can lead to burns when one dunks them, back strain when one picks up a crumb, and doctor visits for crumbs that end up where they shouldn't (don't think about this one too hard). Of course, the competition's brand of cookie was far more "dangerous" than that of the company doing the research.
According to Kathleeen Fairman, associate editor at the Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy, this rather silly example demonstrates what often happens in assessments made by managed care decision makers. They need to sift through vast quantities of information: peer-reviewed studies, press reports, and anecdotal evidence from blogs and the Internet. The normal policy would be to give the most weight to peer-reviewed literature, but those also suffer from problems, not the least of which being that the research is usually funded by the drug-manufacturer. Thus, even peer-reviewed literature can become extremely misleading.
Fairman goes on to show how a Pfizer-sponsored study claimed to show that use of Lipitor is more cost-effective than use of the generic simvastatin, simply because Lipitor gives clinically superior results. However, her analysis of their data pretty convincingly shows that this conclusion was, at the very least, questionable. Lipitor is not significantly better than simvastatin, even though it costs four to five times as much.
Similarly, she analyzes claims that Plavix + aspirin is marginally better than placebo (nothing) + aspirin in improving outcome for patients with cardiovascular risk factors. But, an analysis of the statistical methods used in the CHARISMA study reveals that fundamental errors were made and the results were not statistically significant. In other words, the CHARISMA study, when properly analyzed, effectively demonstrates that Plavix is as good as nothing, but not much better.
Fairman concludes that it is vital to our health and financial well-being that clinicians and managed care organizations have access to "evidence-based information" and valid research results. She also recommends "healthy skepticism about commonly accepted practices and ideas in health care." In other words, we should base our science on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus (or claims of statistical significance).
|
|
Spotted Horses
Real or a Figment of Someone's Imagination?
When cavemen drew spotted horses, were  they using artistic license, creating mythical figures, or drawing realistic representations of what was outside their caves? New DNA studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science suggest that the cavemen were engaged in artistic realism. That is, spotted horses actually were present in Southern France during the Stone Age.
But notice something. The scientists investigating the drawings never asked the question, "Were these depictions of spotted horses a result of water erosion over time, not due to human action, and thus not representing anything?" They did not. Rather, the scientists assumed that, because the drawings are complex and conform to a pre-existing pattern (spotted horses), they were intelligently designed. And thus, the research looking for DNA evidence of actual prehistoric spotted horses in Southern France continued.
It is worth considering whether the cave painting situation might be analogous to what is observed in biological systems. Most of the scientific community assumes that non-intelligent, non-teleological processes led to the complex codes present in DNA, which Bill Gates described as "like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created." But, intelligent design advocates suggest that it is more logical to acknowledge that extreme complexity, when combined with specificity, might indicate design.
Roddy Bullock, the author of a very readable book, The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, seems to agree. Mr. Bullock is a patent lawyer who analyzes scientific data, weighs evidence, and thinks logically for a living. In his story, Jenny's fifth grade class takes a field trip where they are shown the natural wonders found in a local cave: stalactites, stalagmites, and--cave paintings. The twist in the story is that the university professor leading the trip insists that the paintings are only "apparent paintings," that is, created by natural processes, not painted by a painter. This claim is eerily similar to what is espoused by Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, and other neo-Darwinists: living creatures only exhibit "apparent design." Jenny's efforts throughout her high school and college career to enlighten the professor and others to the possibility that there may be another way to look at things, and the response of the "experts," is reminiscent of what is going on in science today.
However, dogmatism and slavish adherence to consensus opinions do not advance good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence. Bullock, like those who would like to silence him (and Jenny), definitely has a particular bias, but his book gives much food for thought. Sign up to donate $20/month to AITSE, get a FREE copy of The Cave Painting, read it, and let us know what you think!
|
 Quote of the Month
Not Anti-science, but Anti-abuse of Science
"I'm not anti-science, I'm anti the way science is sometimes used."
Charles, Prince of Wales, BBC TV programme, 'Charles at 60: The Passionate Prince,' 12th November 2008
.
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 (see coupon below). AITSE is working to make sure that we are.
|
|
Fizzy Drinks, Pop, Soda, Whatever 
Are Our Kids Addicted?
For over 100 years the Coca Cola company has been telling us that Coke is "delicious," "wholesome," "the real thing," "the pause that refreshes," and what we should "buy the world." Now, it appears that our children won't give it up.
But, the sad fact is that regular consumption of sugary drinks has been shown to significantly increase risk of diabetes, obesity, heart disease and stroke. In addition, some of these drinks are also laced with caffeine, a legal drug that is known to cause anxiety and sleep problems and has been shown to be addictive in the majority of adolescents. According to several studies, referenced in the above-linked paper, caffeine is also suspected of being associated with risk-taking behavior and impaired brain development.
The upshot is that America is feeding its young a non-nutritional substance that leads to obesity, diabetes, and possible brain damage. Perhaps we could suggest the 2012 slogan include some of that! 
|
|
 LAVIV
Is it Worth the Risk?
Do you have--horror of horrors--smile lines? Well, now there is hope on the horizon. The FDA has just approved LAVIV, the first "autologous cellular product" (cells that come from you) for treatment of "severe nasolabial fold wrinkles" (smile lines). Apparently, the healthcare professional takes some of your own skin cells (fibroblasts) from behind your ear, Fibrocell Science Inc. grows more in the lab, sends them to your healthcare provider, and he or she injects them into your smile lines. Since the cells are from you, and fibroblasts make collagen, surely that is a great idea! Right?
Well, let's think about that. First the healthcare professional removes some of your fibroblasts. That's okay. You shed lots of them every day anyway. Next, he or she sends them to a lab where they are encouraged to multiply. Here the problems begin. Growing cells outside of the body requires keeping them in a highly nutritious fluid or medium, which is very attractive to infectious agents. Thus, antibiotics are routinely added to the culture medium. And, since we do not actually know everything cells require for optimum growth, the standard practice is to also add a bit of cow's blood extract (bovine serum albumin). Your cells are grown in this concoction of medium, antibiotics and albumin. Therefore, those who are allergic to gentamicin, amphotericin, or cow-related products should not use LAVIV.
Another issue of concern is that, while in the lab, yours are not the only fibroblasts being handled by the technician or in the incubator. Since cells in culture have to be fed regularly, cross contamination can occur. And, as the FDA warns, there is no testing for adventitious viruses nor are sterility tests conducted on cells arriving at the clinic. A rare complication of treatment with LAVIV can be Herpes infection. After treatment you won't have wrinkles, but you may have cold sores.
Next, because LAVIV needs to be administered in three doses and transported back to the healthcare provider, the cells are frozen in a solution containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), a type of antifreeze. Therefore, those allergic to DMSO should not use LAVIV. Interestingly, when using DMSO, the material safety data sheet advises laboratory workers to wear thick gloves and safety goggles. Nothing is said about whether DMSO should be injected into people.
Finally, the cells are defrosted, thoroughly rinsed, and injected into the patient's smile lines. The claim is that the beneficial effect on appearance lasts for up to six months and that few people experience negative side effects, such as vasculitis, allergic reaction, hemorrhage, or scarring. What they do not mention is that those who work with cells know that they should NEVER work with their own because growing cells in tissue culture can cause them to become transformed (cancerous). Perhaps this is why there is already a report of a patient developing basal cell cancer after treatment with LAVIV. Currently, this occurs in less than 1% of those who are treated, but it is important to be aware that the after effects of treatment with LAVIV have not been studied for longer than a year. Therefore, only time will tell if the risk is actually higher than this.
So, how good does this treatment make you look? Is it worth the money and the risk? AITSE could only find one before and after photo (included below). Looks like the difference is only visible if a person looks very, very sad. Since smiling and laughter have proven health benefits, laugh lines seem to be the better option.
|
|
|
|
|
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, 
Caroline Crocker
American Institute for Technology and Science Education |
|
 |
This is your chance! Buy up AITSE's stocks of Dr. Crocker's book Free to Think.
Only $16.00 while supplies last. Shipping is FREE for AITSE members.
Stock up for Christmas and promote integrity in science at the same time!
| Just click on the Free to Think link above and enter Coupon Code: likeAITSE
|
|
|
