|
|
|
American Institute for Technology
& Science Education Newsletter
|
January, 2013
| |
Greetings!
Are you used to writing "2013" yet? Takes time to get used to new things. Speaking of which, AITSE will be making some changes this year. Due to time and financial constraints, we will be reducing our activity--the newsletters will only come out on a bimonthly basis. We will also be seeking someone who can join us to take over many of Dr. Crocker's responsibilities.
But, we do have a great newsletter for you this month. Enjoy reading a truly amazing response to a past article from someone who may well be a stem cell charlatan (you decide), a response to Dr. Hayhoe's article on climate change, an article on the importance of accurate navigation, and a call to integrity in pharmaceutical research. And, remember, if you click on "share," all your friends will enjoy this newsletter, as well.
Finally, the AITSE webmaster is going into business--as a web designer! Mario has given AITSE countless hours of volunteer and minimally paid time. Take a look at our website and his. If you like what you see, want to support a member of AITSE's hardworking team, and need a website for your organization, contact Mario!
|
|
 A Stem Cell Charlatan Defending Himself --but not well
In the spirit of acting with integrity and giving everyone a fair chance, please find below parts of a response to the AITSE article Stem Cell Charlatans, sent in to us by Habib Torfi, CEO at Invitrx (italics)--and AITSE's response to Torfi.
Dear Dr. Caroline Crocker,
I was forwarded a link to your article entitled Stem Cell Charlatans and wanted to take this opportunity to offer a few corrections as well invite you to the lab at Invitrx to see the facility, as well as discuss the science, at your convenience.
Dear Mr. Torfi,
Thank you for your email and invitation to visit Invitrx labs. A team of us from AITSE would be pleased to do so at some time in the New Year. Meanwhile, we thought it would only be fair to post your email, where you defend yourself and Invitrx, on our website. Please allow us to also offer some responses: our goal is to check where we may be in error and clarify where we may have been misleading.
In response to the resume Habib attached: .... This brings us to your "peer-reviewed" publication list, where you claim to have over 133 peer-reviewed publications. This is at odds with the Pubmed search of your name, which revealed two.
In response to Habib's amazing allegation that he never said he was an MD or a PhD: ...please find here his signature as Habib Torfi, PhD. 
In response to Habib's claim that the before and after photos in the article have nothing to do with Invitrx, being from the AVEYOU Beauty Boutique: ...This is a strange allegation because the photographs were obtained from the Invitrx website , as can be seen in the screenshot. Are you saying that you "borrowed" the photos in order to promote your product falsely? Otherwise how do you explain them being on your site and in your video?
In response to Habib's claim that he never said that skin cells can be turned into stem cells by injecting four genes: ...Yes, you did. We've included the selected recording on the AITSE website.
Read and hear it all. 
|
Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not? 
An Alternative View From Down Under
by Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, geologist & environmental scientist
Katharine Hayhoe, PhD, who wrote the December AITSE piece "Climate Change: Anthropogenic or Not?", is an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She is senior author of the book "A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions". I am a senior research geologist who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on palaeo-environmental and palaeo-climatic topics and also author of the book, "Climate: the Counter Consensus".
Quite clearly, Dr. Hayhoe and I are both credible professional scientists. Given our training and research specializations, we are therefore competent to assess the evidence regarding the dangerous global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) alleges is being caused by industrial carbon dioxide emissions.
Yet at the end of her article Dr. Hayhoe recommends for further reading the websites RealClimate.org and SkepticalScience.com, whereas here at the outset of writing my own article I recommend the websites wattsupwiththat.com and www.thegwpf.org (Global Warming Policy Foundation). To knowledgeable readers, this immediately signals that Dr. Hayhoe and I have diametrically opposing views on the global warming issue.
The general public finds it very hard to understand how such strong disagreement can exist between two equally qualified persons on a scientific topic, a disagreement that is manifest also on the wider scene by the existence of equivalent groups of scientists who either support or oppose the views of the IPCC about dangerous anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (DAGW).
In this article I shall try to summarize what the essential disagreement is between these two groups of scientists, and show how it has come to be misrepresented in the public domain.
|
|
Of Airplanes and World Views 
Adapted from an article by James Keith Johnson
In pilot training we learned that a small initial error at the point of origin can result in a very large lateral error when one should be arriving at the destination. For example, a one degree initial error will result in a one nautical mile lateral deviation for every sixty nautical miles downrange.
For this reason, it is necessary for the pilot flying under visual flight rules (VFR) to check his actual position (pilotage) with his calculated position (dead reckoning) at regular intervals. If the two do not match, then a correction has to be calculated and implemented. Otherwise, one does not reach the desired destination. To a large degree the use of GPS has made this process much simpler. GPS deviation is presented as a linear error instead of an angular one. However, we are still required to teach navigation using pilotage and dead reckoning so that pilots will be able to fly from point A to point B when the satellites don't work.
With the understanding that we will always be off on our initial heading as fallible humans, it should be no surprise that science, medicine, philosophy and our world views can become just as "off-target." Logically, one should be able to compare actual position with the calculated one, see that there is a discrepancy and apply a correction, but it often seems that we are incapable of admitting we are lost, especially when finances or egos are involved. This is another common problem with pilots-they never get lost!
Read more.
|
| Quote of the Month
"Spin and bias exist in a high proportion of published studies of the outcomes and adverse side-effects of phase III clinical trials of breast cancer treatments..."
58% of the trials that showed the treatment to be ineffective in achieving the primary endpoint were published as if the results were positive. 67% of papers that reported adverse effects did so in a biased manner, severely under-reporting the more serious adverse events in efficacious treatments. Result? The peer-reviewed published data on breast cancer treatments accurately reflects neither the efficacy nor the risks of treatment.
What is worse is this observation does not only apply to breast cancer treatments. After all, Turner et al. published that, with regard to anti-depressants, the vast majority of the trials with positive results were published, but less than 10% of those with negative results saw the light of day. Moreover, about 30% of the trials with negative results were published as if they were positive. Definite spin and bias.
Then, take the case of Tamiflu, the anti-flu medication made by Roche and stockpiled at great expense to many governments. The British Medical Journal has pointed out that, in fact, Tamiflu is no more effective against flu than Tylenol. But, since only half of the Tamiflu drug trials are published, the medical community and the public, not to mention the governments, are kept in the dark.
The inevitable result of this spin and bias is that physicians have difficulty discerning which treatments are beneficial to the patient and which are only beneficial to the pharmaceutical company. In addition, the public loses confidence in traditional medicine.
What can be done? Various organizations, including the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors have agreed and/or demanded that all trials, not just positive ones, be published. This has not been accomplished; only a fifth of FDA registered trials are published. But, it can be.
As a start, "the All Trials Initiative is calling for universities, ethics committees and medical bodies to enact a culture of change, ensuring that under-reporting of trials is recognized as misconduct." You can help. Sign the petition here and make a stand for integrity in science and medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
In closing, as always, thank you for your past gifts and support. It is a fact that AITSE cannot continue 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 |
|
|
|
|
