Logo

American Institute for Technology  

& Science Education Newsletter



October, 2012 

Like us on FacebookFollow me on Twitter DonatetoAITSE View my profile on LinkedInView our videos on YouTube
Greetings!

Election fever. Have you noticed? The media is full of articles about this or that politician and their views. Some articles warn us that Earth is near to a "global tipping point" and others advocate that politicians go green to win votes. Some authors think Obamacare is wonderful and others say that it will be a disaster. Regardless of one's views, there is no doubt that politics, finances, and beliefs go hand in hand--and that all of the positions seem to be supported by science. So, what does the science really say? And how can we be free to think about the facts if don't know what they are? That is AITSE's goal: to help you sort out the science from the bunk, enabling you to decide on the politics for yourself.

Meanwhile, have you seen the new, improved AITSE website with information about our growing consortium of scientists, physicians and engineers (more below)? Or have you made use of our ever-expanding list of articles on Alternative Medicine and Nutrition, Climate Change and Environmental Issues, Education Publishing and Scientific Integrity, Engineering and Technology, Evolution and Intelligent Design, Mental and Emotional Health, Pharmaceutics and Medicine, and Scientists and their Stories?  It'll be well worth your time. Also, be sure to "like" us on Facebook, sign up for our tweets or connect with me on Linkedin in order to receive daily
flag updates on good bunk-free science.

AITSE: meeting your needs for bunk-free science information. 

Stem Cell Charlatans  

 by Caroline Crocker, PhD    

  

Stem cell

 

 

Ever wondered how to make nearly half a million dollars or more per year? Try putting out some bunk science. It worked for countless stem cell charlatans; it might work for you. 

Seriously, after receiving an enquiry about ReLuma, a line of skin care products said to be based on stem cell technology, AITSE did some investigation of one of these companies and their products: Invitrx Technologies, located in Irvine, CA. According to their website, "Invitrx Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company specializing in the culture and engineering of adult stem cells by which we develop innovative products and therapies that are used in aesthetics, wound closure, and healing as well as plastic and reconstructive surgery." Sounds great. And, if true, one would expect their claims to pass the AITSE Bunk-Detecting Principle test. But do they? Not by a long shot!

1. Check if the author claims that something has been proven or declares something to be a fact.

According to the website, "In the case of Reluma, for example, cytokines and growth factors stimulate skin cells to produce more collagen, elastin, and matrix proteins that lead to smoother, younger, healthier looking skin." Note what is being said. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts." They do. But this assertion has not been proven with regard to ReLuma -there have not been any publications on ReLuma. In fact, there have not been any publications showing that cytokines and growth factors can make skin look younger. According to Duke University's Chief Scientific Officer of the multimillion dollar Stem Cell Research Facility, Joanne Kurzbeurg MD, we are at least ten years away from stem cell therapy being beneficial for anything other than bone marrow transplants.  Principle 1: FAILED.

But, in case this is not enough to show failure of Principle 1, AITSE searched for scientific statements on the Invitrx website. The page on cytokines contained the most alleged science. Here there was little overstatement, but there were a lot of mistakes. We were interested to see that the author of the page misspells a common scientific word (mesenchymal), the last paragraph is a direct repeat of that preceding it, and the information is many years out of date and extremely slanted. Note that the website claims that TGF-beta stimulates collagen production, stimulates collagenase (which degrades collagen!) and glycosaminoglucan production, etc. But, according to Wikipedia (not a great reference but better than this website), TGF-beta does a whole lot more than this. One of its functions is to trigger apoptosis, or cell suicide-presumably not a good thing when trying to reverse aging.

To address the alleged science, think of cytokines as being like cellular words. A combination of cytokines is interpreted by the cell that "hears" them (with a receptor) as a sentence. And, as with language, the meaning of one word is dependent upon its context. So, doing what Reluma does, just applying a bunch of cytokines to the skin, is roughly equivalent to saying some random words to a person. Will it mean anything to the cells? Will the cytokines remain intact and functional while the lotions are being made? And will they get through the skin, which is designed to keep things out? Unlikely. Do note that the publications cited on the "cytokine" page are two very old textbooks and a one ten year old paper that claims to review molecular mechanisms for skin aging. A lot has happened in the field of molecular biology since then, but none of it shows that creams and potions reverse skin aging. Principle 1: The science is so outdated that it couldn't be factual even if Invitrx claimed it was. Again, FAILED.

2. Check if the author makes claims to have accomplished something that is beyond what has actually been done or is even possible to do.

In the video recording of Habib Torfi, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Invitrx Therapeutics speaking with Marta from Truth in Aging, we hear him say that "we are trailblazing" and "we are glad to be leading the way" in promoting a "shift in paradigm in how we are going to practice medicine." Is this beyond what Invitrx has done? The fact that Torfi only has two peer-reviewed scientific publications (1991 and 1993) and is leading author on neither of them suggests it is.  "Trailblazing," "leading the way" and changing how medicine is practiced definitely require informing the scientific community about what you are doing. They have not. Perhaps because they are not. Principle 2: FAILED.

3. Check if what is said is scientifically accurate.

The Invitrx website contains little science of substance, so scientific inaccuracy is not a problem there. But there is a lot of erroneous science in the Youtube video found at Stem Cell TV, the host of much bunk science.  One example is when Torfi explains that Invitrx has come up with a method whereby they inject skin cells with four genes, which causes them to revert to stem cells. The scientific problems with this claim are almost too many to explain.

First, scientists do not even know how many genes there are in the human genome, let alone what each one does or which would cause cells to undifferentiate to become stem cells. Indeed, it is unlikely that there are any genes that would do so-after all, if cells had equipment that would cause them to effectively become younger and be able to replace damaged tissue, why would they not be using it already?

Next, causing new genes in a cell to be functional is not as simple as giving the cell an injection. Cells use their genetic information much like one would use a library of instruction manuals. They "read" the pages (genes) that are necessary to make the equipment needed. But, if the pages are just lying on the floor instead of properly filed on the shelves, the automated equipment in the cell does not know where the information is or when to read it.

So, even if it was simple to put four genes into a cell (and it is not), the only technology we have to make sure those genes are expressed once in the cell uses retroviruses, which are certainly not legal for use in people. (AIDS is a retrovirus.) And, we do not have any real means whereby we could control how much or when the expression (or reading of the genetic information) occurs.

Finally, many reputable laboratories are investigating the therapeutic use of stem cells, but so far they have proven notoriously difficult to control, more often causing cancer than providing healing. Invitrx's "science" is not just inaccurate; it is wildly, ridiculously inaccurate.

Amazingly, Torfi's on-line publications also contain a remarkable amount of inaccuracy in general. In the video posted on the "technology" page of the Invitrx website Torfi claims to have been researching in stem cells for two decades. But a simple Pubmed search reveals that the only two publications ('91 & '93) where he is mentioned are not on stem cells.

Similarly, in the recording posted by Truth in Aging, Torfi talks about his 20 years of research at UCLA, but the Invitrx website under "Management Team" says he worked there as Director of the Laboratory of Regenerative Bioengineering and Repair from 1998-2001 (3 yrs). And, even more seriously, the Cytori  website says this laboratory was directed by Marc Hedrick from 1998-2005.

A comparison of both these claims with what UCLA says on the Internet and during a phone call with AITSE revealed that the UCLA Department of Surgery does not have such a division nor do any of the labs know of Torfi! Torfi also claims to have been director of the Epithelial Autograft Facility at UC Davis Medical Center, but they neither have such a facility (according to a phone call) nor have they heard of him.

Principle 3: Not only is what Invitrx presents scientifically inaccurate, it is just inaccurate overall. FAILED.

4. Beware of grandiose claims.

In one interview Torfi brags,  "we are the pinnacle and the front runner, if you will, in this cosmetic and scientific endeavor." In another Youtube we are told that Invitrx is a "world leader" in stem cell technology.  Sounds pretty grandiose, especially since we could find no relevant publications in the premiere scientific and medical database Pubmed.

As for stem cell therapy itself, it has been touted as a cure for heart disease, aging skin, cerebral palsy, rheumatoid arthritis, burns, strokes, re-growing fingers, re-growing breasts, curing blindness, creating human eggs, and much more.  Sounds like snake oil? It is. Charlatans posing as physicians, uninformed physicians, and greedy physicians are using bunk science to deprive desperate people of their money. Principle 4: FAILED.

 

Oh wait! Perhaps some of what we read on the Internet is bunk. In the case of Invitrx, stem cell cosmetics, and most current stem cell therapies, it appears that it is.

 Like us on Facebook 

Introducing...
 
The New Members of the
AITSE Consortium 

Robert Christman, DPM, Ed M
is currently employed as Professor of Podiatric Medicine, Surgery & Biomechanics at the Western University of Health Sciences College of Podiatric Medicine. Dr. Christman has 15 peer-reviewed papers and wrote the radiology text almost universally employed in education of foot and ankle surgeons: Foot and Ankle Radiology.

Nicholas Drapela, PhD worked at  Oregon State University until September 2012. While there he taught and engaged in research in organic chemistry, synthesizing compounds that are thought to have anti-tumor activity.

Bill Freeman has 40 years of experience in the petroleum extraction industry with 28 years in environmental engineering. He was the environmental advisor to senior management at Shell Oil for 13 years and has in depth knowledge of most major federal and state statutes affecting the petroleum extraction industry. Freeman has published papers on environmental protection.

Dr. James D. Hodge earned an M.S. in chemistry at the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from Penn State University.   He worked for two years for Shell Chemical Company in research and development of epoxy resins and as a research chemist for DuPont for 31 years.  Following retirement he continued to work for several years as a consultant to the Intellectual Property Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Bob Schober has been a leader in ultra-low power integrated circuits starting from the beginning of his professional career in spacecraft electronic design, through extensive work in integrated circuit design for the cardiac pacing industry from 1975 to 1999 to his current work in IC design today. Mr. Schober's experience has been primarily in the field of analog/digital integrated circuit design and he holds multiple patents in the areas of cardiac pacemakers, high efficiency/compact digital integrated circuit cell libraries, RF, and high sensitivity RFID integrated circuits.

Dr. Michael Windheuser holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and has done post-doctoral work in molecular biology and virology. Dr. Windheuser has taught at both the high school and university level and has worked in the pharmaceutical industry for almost 20 years. He also writes a regular column in UPLOOK magazine called "Science and You" (www.Uplook.org).
     
Like us on Facebook 
Bunk-free Contest for Teens 
Learn about Bunk Detecting and Win Money! 

  

AITSE, in its endeavor to educate and promote integrity in science, is now sponsoring a bunk-detecting essay contest where young people can enter to win $500. Since the essay only needs to be 600 words, that is nearly $1.00/word. A bargain!

Spread the news to your children, grandchildren, your local science teachers, home schoolers, youth groups, etc. You may find that your favorite young person's work gains a place of honor on the home page of our website.
 
Follow us on Twitter 

How Do We Know Something is True?  

More from Martin F. Sturman, MD, FACP (some emphases added)

Most of us are inclined to regard some discussions as mere philosophical prattle, questions such as "What is truth? "What is the nature of belief?" and ultimately "What is knowledge?" and "How do we know anything?"

Belief  People often say they "believe" in something, such as their favorite college football team or the stock market, meaning they predict that it will prove useful or successful in some sense. This is not the kind of belief under discussion, but rather I define that "to believe something" simply means to think that it is true.Scientific Method

"Truth" and The Scientific Method  The crucial question is: If knowledge is distinct from belief, how do we know a belief is true? Since the 17th Century, thinkers have continued to develop a systematic and powerful approach to the problem of truth. Called The Scientific Method, it uses various techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge and is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning. Scientists propose predictions or hypotheses and design experiments to test these predictions for accuracy and verification. Theories addressing whole domains help form new hypotheses, but the tapestry of hypotheses is continuously being rewoven. Scientific knowledge regarded as truth is always tentative, or provisional, constantly yielding to new experiments and information. Science is based on the premise that the process must be objective, and not subject to the bias of the scientist in interpreting results or changing them outright by lying.

The reader should understand that the scientific method can only be used to study questions susceptible to experiment or rational verification. This excludes many common beliefs and opinions... Still, it must be admitted that claiming validity for the scientific method is itself a form of belief; it's special claim to superiority lies, among other things, in its practical success and the widespread acceptance of its approach to rationality. The founder of pragmatism, Charles Sanders Peirce, once wrote, "Truth is what the community of observers ultimately comes to believe."

Truth in the "Soft" and the "Hard" Sciences  Controversy continues to erupt over the concept of the "soft" sciences, including medicine, sociology, psychology, even economics-vs. the "hard" sciences, among which are mathematics, physics, and chemistry. The argument strongly suggests that the scientific method is weaker and subject to fewer rigors in the former than in the latter fields. Let's examine this idea in the case of medicine and in particular "medical science."

(Medical) Figures Don't Lie, but Liars Can Sure Figure

Risk: Absolute and Relative  When researchers, reporters, and others use data to compare two or more different groups, they may present their results in two very different and often confusing ways to emphasize a point of view. These relations may be expressed as either absolute or relative differences. An absolute difference is a subtraction; a relative difference is a ratio. More information.

To emphasize how easily people and even most physicians can be fooled, consider the following: Which drug would you rather take, one that reduces your risk of cancer by 50 percent, or another drug that only reduces your risk of cancer from two to one out of 100? Most people would choose the drug that reduces their risk of cancer by 50 percent, but in fact both these numbers refer to the same outcome. They're just two different ways of looking at the same numbers. Without any qualification, both statements "reduced the risk by 50%" and "reduced the risk by 1 in a hundred" (1%) could be construed as representing either an absolute or relative difference. But note the difference in "feel" between 50% and 1%. Which figure sticks in your mind?

The headlines read, "Tamoxifen Cuts Breast Cancer Risk by 33% in Healthy Women!," yet it turns out, among all the women in a study who took Tamoxifen, less than 2% got breast cancer, and among those that took the placebo, less than 3% got breast cancer. The real difference was 1%. {"How to Lie With Statistics," Real Health Breakthroughs, Dr. William Campbell Douglass, 2004}

One of the main studies being cited in support of a new drug for advanced breast cancer, Herceptin�, saw 34 deaths in the control group (2.0% of the participants) and 23 deaths (1.4%) in the group treated with Herceptin. According to the authors, this translates into a 46% Relative Reduction in cancer deaths, (wrong calculation; should have been 2.0-1.4 divided by 2.0 or 30%) But the true absolute reduction in deaths is only 0.6% (2.0%-1.4%), almost certainly not statistically significant in this series. Is this a miracle drug? The number, of course, is pure marketing and statistical spin. As reported in the New Scientist magazine, one of the main cheerleaders for Herceptin is none other than Hortobagyi, a paid consultant of Genentech, who received somewhere between $10,000 and $100,000 from the drug company. He's one of the proponents who calls Herceptin a "cure."

Keep in mind that headlines promoting a drug will almost always refer to relative risk, "A breathtaking 40% reduction in risk!" -and this numerical shell game will be copied in the mainstream media, press, medical journals, even the FDA... Pharmaceutical companies, marketing reps, even some physicians anxious to publish and usually supported by commercial drug interests are constantly pushing and exaggerating the supposed benefits of their drugs while minimizing their risks.

Expos�s of the Clinical Literature  Odds ratios, as in "this horse is favored 4 to 1" and "P values", examples of relative differences, are a favorite ploy of drug advertisers and clinical researchers publishing in medical journals. In an important study, the significance of P values was compared with observational data in 260 abstracts of randomised controlled trials in PubMed, and concluded that "Significant results in abstracts are common but should generally be disbelieved."

Another study examined outcome reporting bias in 519 trials with 10,557 outcomes. The authors concluded that "Incomplete reporting of outcomes within published articles of randomised trials is common and is associated with statistical non-significance. The medical literature therefore represents a selective and biased subset of study outcomes..."

Random Thoughts about Truth in the "Modern" World  Modern life as mirrored in the media offers continuous stimulation in the form of entertainment, news, and advertising. Sadly, we are all drowning in "information," whether it is belief disguised as medical truth or opinion parading as received wisdom. Even "string theory," promoted as the holy grail of physics for over two decades is coming under attack. Public confusion reigns. Not a day passes when we don't hear about the dangers of HRT, antidepressants, Vioxx, and the importance of proper diet to protect us against cancer and heart attacks. The City of New York is even deciding whether to mandate the amount of trans fat allowed to be served in restaurants. Many beliefs edge into a form of snobbery when skeptics are ridiculed. We all want to be "right" and politically correct, even if, for example, Federal dietary guidelines change every few years or spectacular new medical treatments are proven to be dangerous.

Once we begin to acknowledge that life is all about uncertainty, we are still left with that slippery word, Truth, and its fashionable costumes of faith and belief. Ultimately, we are left to deal with faith, reason, and the actual basis of knowledge...

Comment from AITSE

AITSE's goal is to help the public navigate through the inevitable uncertainties by equipping them with information about good science, based on evaluation of evidence, not political, religious, or financial expediency. Then they can decide for themselves.

DonatetoAITSE
Quote of the Month   Bunk-free
Suzanne E Willis, PhD
 

  

To detect bunk:

"
First, see what other scientists are saying. Go to original sources as much as possible...

Second, if someone makes a claim, ask "How do you know?" Learn how to evaluate the response.

Third, beware of "scientifical" or "sciency" arguments. Especially beware of anything that invokes vibrations, frequencies or energy flow, as well as anything with "quantum" in the title that doesn't involve partial differential equations.

And, finally, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is..."


This great advice is from Dr. Willis, a professor at the Northern Illinois University Department of Physics. Read the whole article in the NIU paper. Compare to the AITSE Bunk-Detecting Principles. Then, take the quiz!
 
Visit our blog 

Can Vitamins Cure Everything from a Cough to Cancer?

by Michael Windheuser, PhD
Dr. Windheuser

   

The September 2012 issue of Consumer Reports, with the blaring cover of "10 Surprising Dangers of Vitamins & Supplements - How to protect your family", has been available for several months now. Given that Consumer Reports (CR) could reasonably review whether vitamin C supplements actually contain pure vitamin C or whether calcium supplements provide calcium that could be absorbed by the body, it was surprising that they chose, instead, to give medical advice.  Why would the reader take medical advice about supplements from a magazine that specializes in evaluating toasters, lawnmowers and cars?  Here is the real danger to your family: following the medical advice of someone or somethingwho is not a healthcare professional with up-to-date medical knowledge of the issues.  To be fair, there are points where CR refers the reader to their health-care provider for advice or testing and they do provide information from credible medical sources.  But they also conclude the article by giving "our take on five top-selling vitamins, plus multis".  No indication is given where their "take" comes from nor why the reader should accept and act on it.  The entire piece is listed under the heading "CR Investigates Vitamins & Supplements" which seems to go beyond the scope of the magazine's mission.

Of the "10 Surprising Dangers," most are neither surprising nor a danger but rather are just common sense.  For example, Danger #10 is that you may not need a supplement at all. This may be true but it is not a "surprising danger" of supplements.  Danger #9 is that some products labeled "natural" are not.  This is misleading because it implies that only natural ingredients are safe and that natural ingredients are always safe.   Danger #5 is simply wrong.  It asserts that no supplements "are proven to cure major diseases".  Actually scurvy can be cured by vitamin C.  Rickets can be cured by vitamin D and calcium and pernicious anemia can be cured with vitamin B12 supplementation.  Yes, diseases caused by vitamin deficiency can be cured by supplying the appropriate vitamin and or mineral.

But can vitamins cure everything from a cough to cancer?  Should supplemental vitamin D be taken to prevent heart disease, cancer, diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and osteoporosis?  The Internet is a battleground of medical claims about the wondrous curative power of vitamins and, in particular, vitamin D.  There is an abundance of fairly well done medical research about the possible benefits of vitamin D.  Even some physicians are convinced that vitamin D supplementation can be of positive benefit in many diseases.

I want to make two basic observations about this because I have worked with medicines used to treat human disease for the last twenty years.  The first observation is that if treating chronic diseases were as easy as treating a vitamin deficiency or even simply raising vitamin levels above what the body would normally have, then many chronic diseases would have been cured or successfully managed by this strategy years ago.  At the very least, every major pharmaceutical company would have in clinical development dozens of vitamin preparations and methods of administration to maintain curative levels in the body.  As I look around the industry, the fact that this is not the case is one clue that the hyperbolic claims on the Internet go beyond the current state of science and medicine.

The second observation is a bit less obvious, but is even more important to understand.  Almost all of the studies done on vitamin D have been the type of study that shows an "association" of vitamin D levels with a clinical outcome or is "associated" with fewer individuals developing a certain disease.  It is very important to appreciate that, while these associations are encouraging and worthy of more study, they do not prove that changes in the level of vitamin D actually cause the effects seen in the study.  This is not the fault of the investigators but is a consequence of the type of study design used.  Not that the basic study design is wrong.  It is simply limited in the type of conclusions that can be drawn from it.   The Family Circus cartoon may help make the concept of "association" more clear.

Billy from the Family Circus sees and feels the association between the seatbelt light coming on and the bumpy ride but he wrongly concludes that one is the cause and the other is the effect. This is the basic error behind many of the claims for Vitamin D and other vitamins on the Internet. The association is real and can be demonstrated but there is not necessarily a cause and effect relationship behind it that makes it real. Association does not equal causation.

It is also true that many of these studies, or reviews of these studies, have been published in well known and respected medical journals like the New England Journal of Medicine or Annals of Internal Medicine.  But when published in these journals, the authors refrain from making claims about cures and, as is appropriate, use the language of speculation and uncertainty when discussing the value of vitamin D in chronic diseases.  Even if the author has made bold claims in other publications, knowledgeable peer-reviewers in better journals will not allow such assertions to be published.  But this still comes down to one scientist's opinion (the author) versus another (the reviewer). So who can we trust to referee the war between competing scientific and medical claims about vitamin D and other physiologically important vitamins?   My first choice would not be Consumer Reports.  


If you are concerned about maintaining bone health, talk with your doctor about having a bone mass density (DEXA) scan and about measuring your vitamin D level.  You may even want to have your vitamin D level checked at different times of the year if the amount of sun exposure you get varies by season.  And if you choose to take supplements, be sure that they do not affect other medicines being taken and the amounts do not exceed the recommended Upper Limits. And don't expect them to cure everything from a cough to cancer.
Like us on Facebook 
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
Signature
Caroline Crocker
American Institute for Technology and Science Education