|
|
|
American Institute for Technology
& Science Education Newsletter
|
May, 2012
| |
Greetings!
 So how's your health been over the last couple of months? Did you get that nasty virus: coughing, fever, muscles aches, sore throat, runny nose and lethargy? If you are like me, most of the people in your family got it, too.
Since I have contacts all over the country, I noticed something odd/interesting. This "bug" seems to have hit our eastern, western and southern borders all at once (I don't know about the north). Folks who visited their physician were often prescribed antibiotics, but since antibiotics do not affect viruses, the sufferers still took 7-10 days (or longer) to recover. None of the them were told that they have influenza. Neither were they tested for it. Why not?
According to the World Health Organization, the symptoms of flu are "high fever, cough (usually dry), headache, muscle and joint pain, severe malaise (feeling unwell), sore throat and runny nose." Sound familiar? Since the "flu season" can last into May, why were none of the folks I spoke with tested for it? One could speculate that it might have been because at least 50% of those who got "the bug" had been vaccinated against influenza and it was assumed they could not have flu. And, for the others, it might have been that the quickest way to make them happy was to prescribe (unnecessary and ineffective) antibiotics.
One might then ask just how effective the influenza vaccine is. According to the CDC website, it is hard to determine how well the vaccine works. They estimate it protected about 60% of those vaccinated in 2010. Another site asserts that the flu shot keeps 30-40% of recipients from getting the flu, but keeps 80% of those vaccinated from actually dying of the flu.
But, it appears that many who had an illness that looks exactly like flu were never tested for, let alone diagnosed with, influenza. Is this a lack of integrity or just the inevitable consequence of medical professionals being fallible? Regardless of the reason for the oversight, it does throw suspicion on any statistics claiming flu vaccine efficacy.
Here at AITSE we will not tell you what to think. Rather our goal is to provide you with the information and resources to decide for yourselves. Meanwhile, please indulge my curiosity. Please take the five-question AITSE survey on your health this spring. The results will not be scientific, but they might be interesting.
Finally, we are so glad to be able to serve your needs by these monthly updates about good science, based on evidence, not mere consensus. But, that is not all we do! Let me encourage you to "like" us on Facebook to receive frequent science updates in a shorter (much shorter) format on your Facebook page. Or, if you would rather, you can get the same information in manageable bites by following me on Twitter or Linked in.
AITSE: Dedicated to bunk-free science. (Slogan courtesy of journalist Denyse O'Leary) |
|
 Information that Could Save Your Life Spread the Word! Did you know that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have been estimated to be the 3rd most frequent cause of death in the USA today, outstripped only by heart disease and cancer? And this is not even considering all those who suffer, but don't die.
What can the average person do? After all, those drug information sheets with their tiny print are pretty intimidating. Practically speaking, those who are not medically qualified are at the mercy of the physician, who depends on the accuracy and completeness of what is published in peer-reviewed articles, the judgement of the FDA, and the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry. Does this make anyone else a bit nervous? It should. But, there is hope.
According to Ray Strand, MD, you can, and should, do a lot to protect your health from "a harmful or fatal encounter with a prescription drug." Many of the principles below come from his book. Share this article with everyone you know; these simple rules might save them or someone they love. 
1. Understand that no drug is "safe"--whether herbal, prescription or over-the-counter. All medications have the potential to cause side-effects and adverse drug reactions. Pharmaceutical texts are full of warnings against St John's Wort. So, when you are considering taking a drug or supplement, balance the risks with the benefits. Remember Fenphen; would the victims really have been willing to risk permanent heart valve abnormalities, pulmonary hypertension, and death in order to lose a few pounds? Sad thing is that this drug combination is still available--and definitely not to be recommended.
2. If you can avoid taking an over-the-counter drug or supplement, do. These theoretically innocuous medicines cause ~16,000 deaths per year! And the biggest culpit? Tylenol and the treatments that contain it (Nyquil, Theraflu, Midol). Colds are not fun, but these remedies are leading causes of acute (and deadly) liver failure. Maybe a little suffering is preferable.
3. If it is possible to treat a condition requiring a prescription with a lifestyle change, opt for the lifestyle change! Hypertension, high cholesterol, and even type 2 diabetes often resolve with a healthy diet and exercise. The medications that are used to treat these conditions carry many side effects and risks. Better to save their use for those whose conditions will not respond to lifestyle changes.
4. Be extremely cautious about medicating your children. Only 6% of FDA-approved drugs have ever been tested in the pediatric population. Note that the list of FDA-approved drugs does not include Benedryl or Zantac. And drug interactions, such as that between acetaminophen (Tylenol) and erythromycin (antibiotics) or cold medicine, can be fatal, especially in children.
5. Never take a prescription medication currently being advertised on TV or given to you as a sample. Unless of course you like being a guinea pig. These drugs have been recently approved by the FDA and, as such, have never been tested in people with complicated medical histories, who take more than one drug. They have also not been tested in large populations. But, the drugs are being being heavily marketed to recoup the pharmaceutical company investments made in their development. And, as the general population uses them, it is hoped that no devastating side effects emerge. If they do, it will take years for the drug to be recalled, so either way the company wins--and you may lose. So, ask for a medication equivalent to a recently released drug, preferably one that has been on the market for over five years.
6. Make sure that your primary care physician has a current list of all your prescription medication, all over-the counter drugs, herbal medications and supplements that you use (with doses). In these days of many medical specialists, it is also a good idea to have such a list with you at all times. Make sure that your primary care physician is willing to discuss how to reduce the number of drugs you take, whether by lifestyle changes or by elimination of unnecessary scripts--if they do not want to involve you in your medical care, change doctors.
7. Use just one pharmacy so that the pharmacist also knows everything you take. This is an important back-up in preventing drug interaction problems. Pharmacies catch about 25% of drug errors. Better, but obviously not good enough.
8. Take responsibility for double-checking that you receive the right medicines. Ask your physician to print the name of the drug (so it is legible), make sure the name of the drug on the prescription label matches what the physician prescribed, check that the pill "looks" like it should (product insert), and read about what conditions the medication treats. It has been known that patients is given Xanax (tranquilizer) instead of Zantac (antacid) or Prilosec (another antacid) instead of Prozac (antidepressant). If in doubt, ask.
9. When a new medication is added to your or a loved one's existing regime, run an interaction check yourself. Don't forget to also run any over-the-counter drugs you may take--they also interact. This tool has saved more than one life and, hopefully, will save many more.
10. Trust your body. If you do not feel well, do not dismiss the symptoms. Suspect the drugs you are taking and alert your physician immediately. If he/she dismisses your concerns, persist until you are heard. Nausea, vomiting and lethargy should never be dismissed as unimportant since they are signs of liver problems and can signal potentially fatal ADRs. Muscle aches, especially in those taking cholesterol-reducing agents, can precede devastating reactions. Even a persistent cough can signal an ADR. It is always a good idea to be familiar with the potential side effects of your medications (by reading the product insert), but remember: these lists are not exhaustive. New side effects are only added to the list as they are reported and less than 5% are reported. So the newer the drug, the less likely that your side effect will appear.
AITSE congratulates Dr. Strand on his book and recommends it to its readership. But, since many will not have the time to read the book for themselves, do those you love a favor. Forward this article!  |
 Bunk Science Extraordinaire
Rubenstein Center for Pain-Free Living
by Caroline Crocker
Earlier this month homes in Newport Beach, CA were blitzed with flyers advertising a guaranteed cure for chronic pain: one that does not involve "drugs, surgery or psychology." This caught AITSE's attention because it sounds a lot like snake oil. So, we decided to investigate. The first step was to attend one of "Dr." David Rubenstein's free informational sessions. Unfortunately, it was cancelled due to lack of interest. So, we evaluated their website by applying the bunk-detecting principles and decided it might not be worth rescheduling. What do you think?
First, infringements of Principle 2, claiming to have accomplished something that cannot be shown, abound. In the interest of space, let's just point out one. "Kinetic Sequencing creates new patterns in the brain." First, we need to ascertain what they mean by kinetic sequencing--dissecting the website Woo, it appears that it is just guided exercise. How would one investigate whether exercise then recreates brain patterns to get rid of chronic pain? The technology to map brain patterns does not exist. If one removes a brain to study it, you kill the patient and the "patterns" stop. Unfortunately, the Rubenstein method appears to contain a lot of woo dressed up in scientific language, but not a lot of science.
Principle 3. Are there scientific inaccuracies? Again, too many to document. You can find a list here. The Rubenstein Center's "core principles" are virtually all scientifically inaccurate. The entire body is not built on brain patterns; if it were, fetal development before brain maturity would be impossible. Where you feel pain is not never the source of the pain. Just ask someone who cut themselves or broke a bone. Even saying that pain medication does not fix pain is not completely accurate. Much pain is due to inflammation and anti-inflammatory agents, such as ibuprofen, when they reduce inflammation, do fix the cause of the pain. The problem then is to fix the cause of the inflammation.
Principle 4. Grandiose claims. Check out where Rubenstein claims to cure 97.8% of his clients. Or where he says that the method contains "No drugs, no surgery and no psychology - just pure medical science at work." Medical science performed by someone who is not medically qualified--see more below. We can only be grateful that Rubenstein does not offer drugs or perform surgery!
Principle 5. Can the claims be tested scientifically? This has already been discussed. No. And a Pubmed search shows that there has been no attempt to do so. David Rubenstein does not have even one peer-reviewed publication, despite his claim to have written three books and several articles.
Principle 6, making too much of someone's scientific qualifications, has been thoroughly infringed on. In this case, it looks a lot like they just made the qualifications up. Dr. Rubenstein allegedly has a PhD in medical science from California Trinity University. But, the website for CTU shows that they do not offer a PhD in medical science. Rather, they are accredited to give master's degrees and are in process of developing a PhD in acupuncture. In addition, Rubenstein earned his "PhD" in only 2 years--amazing when one considers that it usually takes 4-6. Another interesting twist is that the Center's website claims Rubenstein has been practicing in CA since 2004, but, according to his resume, he only received his supposed PhD in 2010. Get your story straight! Finally, note that Rubenstein claims to be a faculty member at CTU--but they do not list him.
What about his other claims about qualifications? Is Rubenstein a senior clinical instructor at the White Memorial Medical Center? According to a phone conversation between Dr. Crocker and a Sara Rubalcava-Beck at White Memorial, they do not employ someone by this name. Did Rubenstein earn both a bachelors and a masters degree in kinesiology from Glendale University? Unlikely. Glendale University's website shows they do not offer these programs, although they are happy to give you a MS for $675 and a PhD for $700! Interestingly, Glendale University provides a study in bunk all on its own--perhaps a subject for a future newsletter (check out the misspellings on the website). Principle 6 not just infringed upon, but thoroughly blown up! At most it appears that, if any of his resume is true, Rubenstein is a personal trainer without even a bachelor's degree.
Principle 7. Are the satisfied customers also paid employees or did they just experience the placebo effect? We did not check, but sure would not be surprised if one of the two was true.
Principle 8. Be skeptical, especially if it involves your health or money. Here Rubenstein is offering to cure you of chronic pain for only $2500. Well, if your problem is caused by carrying a heavy wallet this might work. And it is a great solution for him, who only had to pay $675 for his master's degree. But, if the chronic pain is caused by a genuine medical issue, going to Rubenstein will not only make you poorer, it may also cause you to neglect seeking genuine medical evaluation, so that serious problems could be missed. After all, cancer can cause chronic pain.
Sadly, even though TED has featured Rubenstein and his alleged work, the Rubenstein website is full of convincing medical jargon, but not a lot of truth. We will not bore you with going through and showing all the holes in the "science." We also will not follow up on all the alleged testimonials. After all, the bunk-detecting principles have thoroughly de-bunked the "Rubenstein Method" already. One does not need to be a scientist to evaluate some "scientific" claims.
 |
|
 Vaccination Linked to Autism? How Valid is the New Rsearch?
AITSE recently published an overview of possible causes of the relatively recent rise in autism incidence, but it has been requested that we also investigate a paper that was published in 2011 by business and finance expert, Dr. Gayle Long. Not an obvious person to write on this subject, but presumably her two autistic children spurred her interest in the subject.
As would be expected from a person with a mathematical bent, Dr. Long approached the issue by doing a statistical analysis of "the relationship between the proportion of children who received" all of the 14 shots recommended before the age of 2 (4 DPT, 3 polio, 1 MMR, 3 Hib, and 3 HepB) and the proportion of children diagnosed with autism or speech problems by age 8. Her analysis showed that a 1% rise in total vaccination is indeed positively correlated with a 1.7% increase in autism/speech disorder. This relationship was not observed with other disabilities: hearing problems, mental retardation, specific learning disabilities, vision problems, etc. But, since none of these disabilities are on the rise, the analysis does not add much information to the picture.
So how likely is it that the correlation of completed vaccinations with increased autism rates means causation? Could it be that vaccination and autism rates just happened to increase over the same span of time, but that one did not cause the other? As Dr. Long points out, the only way to definitively show causation would be to compare autism rates in children who did not have all 14 shots with rates in children who did. This was not accomplished. Apparently, several similar studies have been conducted, but none have been adequate to establish that vaccination causes, or even increases the risk, of autism. So, we are left in the dark--for now. Perhaps it is as a study published by scientists at Cornell suggest--autism is associated with rainfall! |
Quote of the Month
Robert A. Myers
"...I applaud legislation that wold allow teachers to question the scientific strengths and weaknesses of accepted scientific theories--even evolution. Even better would be encouraging students to do the same. After all, science evolves from questioning and criticizing accepted wisdom."
Dr. Dave Rine, AITSE Consortium member, drew our attention to this great comment by physicist Robert Myers made with regard to the recent Tennessee legislation protecting educators who teach the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories. In the same article another commentator points out that it is good to "challenge young people to think." What a concept!
This is in total contract to input from the executive director of a humanist group who worries that effectively teaching more about the theory of evolution might cause students to be "ill-equipped to pursue degrees in biology and chemistry..." One might ask why. After all, our country has benefited greatly from the inventiveness of its people and that cannot happen unless folks are Free to Think. |
 Consternation over Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality
by Richard Weikart, PhD
Almost 500 Emory University faculty and students have expressed their dismay that their commencement speaker on May 14 does not toe the ideological line when it comes to evolutionary biology. Yes, gasp, the renowned Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson does not believe in evolutionary theory. Not only that, but biology professors at Emory and their supporters also accuse Carson of committing a thought crime because he allegedly "equates acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality."
Since I am a historian who has studied and published on the history of evolutionary ethics, I was rather surprised by the Emory faculties' consternation over Carson's belief that evolution undermines objective ethics and morality. Last summer I attended a major interdisciplinary conference at Oxford University on "The Evolution of Morality and the Morality of Evolution." Thus I am well aware that there are a variety of viewpoints in academe on this topic. Nonetheless, many evolutionists-from Darwin to the present (including quite a few at that Oxford conference)-have argued and are still arguing precisely the point that Dr. Carson was highlighting: they claim that morality has evolved and thus has no objective existence.
One of the keynote speakers at the Oxford conference was the leading philosopher of science Michael Ruse, who stated in a 1985 article co-authored with Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson: "Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate." Why do biologists at Emory try to make Carson appear foolish for asserting that evolution undermines ethics, while one of the leading evolutionary biologists and one of the leading philosophers of science admit that evolution destroys any objective morality? Wilson in his book Consilience (1998) argued: "Either ethical precepts, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience or else they are human inventions." He rejected the former explanation, which he called transcendentalist ethics, in favor of the latter, which he named empiricist ethics.
The whole field of sociobiology, which is a vigorous field of biology founded by Wilson in the 1970s, presupposes that morality is the product of evolutionary processes and tries to explain most human behaviors by discovering their alleged reproductive advantage in the evolutionary struggle for existence. (Even some evolutionists consider some of their "just-so" stories either speculative or even downright ridiculous). Sociobiologists, and their colleagues in the related field of evolutionary psychology, have explained that many sinful behaviors, ranging from adultery to infanticide to abortion to warfare to homosexuality-and many, many more-evolved because they conferred reproductive advantages to those engaging in these behaviors. On the flip side, they have also argued that altruistic behaviors, such as helping the poor, healing the sick, taking care of the disabled, are simply behaviors that helped our forebears get their genes into the next generation.
The idea that evolution undermines objective moral standards is hardly a recent discovery of sociobiology, however. In Descent of Man Charles Darwin devoted many pages to discussing the evolutionary origin of morality, and he recognized what this meant: morality is not objective, is not universal, and can change over time. Darwin certainly believed that evolution had ethical implications.
Ben Carson, then, should hardly be pilloried for arguing that evolution has ethical implications and that it undermines morality. If Emory University professors want to argue that evolution has no ethical implications, they are free to make that argument (I wonder how many of them actually believe this). However, if they do, they need to recognize that they are not just arguing against "benighted" anti-evolutionists, but they are arguing against many of their cherished colleagues in evolutionary biology, including Darwin himself.
Emory University graduates should feel honored to receive a commencement address from Carson. Aside from the obvious-his path-breaking surgical techniques and medical expertise that landed him a position at one of the most prestigious academic hospitals in the United States-his life story of overcoming poverty and his subsequent dedication to philanthropy are exemplary and inspirational. His willingness to courageously embrace ideas he considers true, despite the ridicule directed toward him, should count as another point in his favor.
Richard Weikart is a professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
|
Technological Cheating
 Cell Phones Helping Us Pass--or Fail?Want to know how to succeed in school without learning the material? Have we got a website for you--50 ways technology can help you cheat! As they say, lots of students do it and many claim that it isn't even wrong.
During an exam you can use earphones or your smartphone to connect with friends outside the exam room, load information into the notes section of your graphing calculator or phone, use a calculator watch or connect with Google. If you want to earn a couple bucks, you could always take photos of the exam and sell them to your friends!
When asked to write a paper, you can of course plagiarize from the Internet, but what about just paying someone on line to write the thing for you? Or, if the paper just needs to be a little longer, how about changing the font size of the periods (yes folks, that was suggested)?
More imaginative methods of cheating include replacing lyrics on iTunes or the label on a Coke bottle with needed information. Or writing necessary information on a rubber band bracelet, inserting a cheat sheet into a mechanical pencil or using invisible ink on scratch paper. There are many more suggestions. Check it out for yourself!
But first, let's stop to think. If the point of school is to get an education, isn't cheating kind of self-defeating? And, if the point of college is to become a scientist, engineer or physician, isn't student cheating positively dangerous for those who will trust them in the future?
Yes, it is amusing to browse through innovative ways to cheat. What is not so amusing is the fact that many students will use the methods--to the detriment of us all.
Now, how can you help? We are in process of formulating a list of ten rules that will help educators to prevent cheating in their classes. If you are an educator, either at the high school or college levels, please email us with ideas. Together we can make a difference.  |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
