Biomedical research funding is falling because of the nation’s budget problems, but biomedical research itself has never been more promising, with rapid progress being made on a host of diseases.  Here’s a way to increase the available funding to NIH without increasing the NIH budget: halt funding to NCCAM, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.  This Center was created not by scientists, who never thought it was a good idea, but by Congress, and specifically by just two Congressmen in the 1990′s who believed in particular “alternative” (but scientifically dubious) treatments.  Defunding NCCAM would save at least $225 million, possibly more.

Defunding NCCAM would also provide a direct societal benefit.  Practitioners of so-called “alternative” medicines constantly refer to NIH’s support as a way of validating their practices and beliefs, most of which are not supported by evidence.  The fact is that after >10 years, NCCAM has not yet found a single piece of positive evidence for any of these methods, which include acupuncture, “qi”, homoepathy, magnet therapy, and other treatments.

Any legitimate, promising medical treatment can be funded by one of the existing NIH Institutes.  There’s no need for a separate center for “alternative” therapies – but what has happened is that NCCAM has become a last refuge for poorly designed, unscientific studies that couldn’t get funded through the normal peer-reviewed process.

A useful discussion of this issue and the history of NCCAM can be found at http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html.

We can quickly save $225 million and move the funding into more promising research programs by eliminating NCCAM.

For Real Change, Defund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.

However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.

Wakefield is currently the subject of a disciplinary hearing by the UK’s General Medical Council. He stands by his research and in an article for the Times is dismissive of the claim that he is in any way responsible for the drastic drop in vaccinations in some parts of the UK and the United States,

Dr Wakefield denies the charges, but hanging on the wall near his office in Thoughtful House is a poster spelling out the “Wakefield Hypothesis”, which stemmed from the contested research.

“The suggestion that parents should have the option of single vaccines was based on a review of all of the safety studies that were conducted on all of the vaccines from the single vaccine through to the MMR,” he said. “It was not based upon a case report of 12 children with a possible new syndrome. This was made explicit in a communication to my colleagues in advance of the press briefing. Based upon my review of the literature, the safety studies were totally inadequate.”

Dr Wakefield claims no responsiblity for the fact that one in four children still does not receive the recommended two doses of MMR, adding: “The reemergence of measles is not the consequence of a hypothesis. We did not cause a scare. We responded to parents’ legitimate concerns. They were uncertain about the vaccine. We responded to that, as we should have done, and did, in a professional and ethical manner. Not to have done so would have been negligent.”

This from the man still pushing autistic enterocolitis as a legitimate diagnosis.

Did Andrew Wakefield Fake Data in His MMR/Autism Study? is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As Time puts it in its profile,

No one would disagree that children who suffer from life-threatening allergies need to be protected, but the growing trend of demonizing nuts only fuels anxiety, Christakis says. Instilling in the general public the idea that nuts are a “clear and present danger” does little beyond heightening panic. “There are kids with severe allergies, and they need to be taken seriously,” he says, “but the problem with a disproportionate response is that it feeds the epidemic.”

The British Medical Journal ran a similar piece in 2006 arguing that the risks of food allergies in children was greatly exagerrated,

The public seems to have an exaggerated perception of the risks of food allergy, probably spurred on by the media. Recent headlines in national newspapers in the United Kingdom include: “One bite and he dies,” “School unable to supervise boy with killer allergy,” and “Worry over nut allergy knocks out school conkers.” Food allergy is often thought to be more dangerous and frightening than, say, pneumonia, asthma, or diabetes, probably because of the rapid onset of symptoms and the notion that severe reactions and deaths from food allergy can be prevented. In reality, the number of deaths is small, and only some are preventable.

Time Magazine on Nut Allergy Hysteria is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What’s The Harm? is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Consider, for example, one of the beleaguered researchers featured by Wired,

Arpad Pusztai encountered a similar situation with a study he performed on genetically modified potatoes.

“We found that when we are feeding these (young) rats with genetically modified potatoes, their immune system … was not developing so well,” Pusztai said. “Their organs, their guts, their pancreas (and) their liver were not developing as well as the ones which had been fed on the parent line non-genetically modified potatoes. Quite truly I tell you I was very perplexed.”

He “naively” published his work, he said. He was unprepared for the vortex into which the paper threw him.

“I never thought that as a conventional scientist I would have reporters parking and living on my driveway to try to get my views on anything,” he said. “I’m a very polite and humble person and I couldn’t really understand how this happened until somebody explained to me that what I put my foot in was a multibillion-dollar business.”

That is simply an unbelievably inept summary of Pusztai’s story

Pustzai first came to prominence after he published a study in The Lancet claiming that rats who were fed genetically modified potatoes experienced immune system changes. The Lancet published the study over the objections of its own referees assigned to conduct a peer review of Pustzai’s research. A number of those referees, who are usually semi-anonymous, went public with their objections to the Lancet’s publication. Professor John Pickett, for example, who refereed Pustzai’s paper for The Lancet, told the BBC,

Since I understand that a number of us were very, very critical of the work and yet the journal is going to go ahead and publish this information with its conclusions, then we have decided to speak out.

If this work had been part of a student’s study, then the student would have failed whatever examination he was contributing the work for.

An independent group of six toxicologists appointed by the UK’s Royal Society concluded that Pusztai’s research was fundamentally flawed. Its report said,

We found no convincing evidence of adverse affects from GM potatoes.

Where the data seemed to show slight differences between rats fed predominantly on GM and on non-GM potatoes, the difference were uninterpretable because of the technical limitations of the experiment and the incorrect use of statistical tests.

Too often, the media’s depiction of scientific controversies is like this Wired News article — a one-sided fairy tale that leaves out key information that the reader needs to evaluate the claims being made.

Sources:

Professor, Biotech Butt Heads. Kristen Philipkoski, Wired News, December 13, 2003.

GM controversy intensifies . The BBC, October 15, 1999.

Genetics scientist suspended . The BBC, August 12, 1998.

Lancet defies GM study advice. The BBC, October 15, 1999.

GM food study was flawed. The BBC, May 18, 1999.

Wired Left Out A Few Details in “Oppressed Scientist” Story is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Ross Gelbspan [who] is the author of “The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up, the Prescription.” Gelbspan won the Pulitzer Prize in 1984 for a series of articles that he wrote for the Boston Globe.

This is a meme that just won’t die despite it having been debunked years ago. A Google and Lexis search, for example, finds numerous articles about Gelbspan in which he is referred to as winning a 1984 Pulitzer Prize.

First, Gelbspan did not write any of the articles in the series that won the Pulitzer Prize in 1984. He was apparently involved in editing and conceiving at least some of the stories.

Second, Gelbspan was not among seven Boston Globe employees who were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for that series.

So why do so many people think he did? Because “The Heat Is On” — in which Gelbspan complains about how global warming critics distort the truth — touted Gelbspan as a “Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist” and Gelbspan has apparently done little in the intervening years to dissuade people of this falsehood despite being called on it on a number of occasions.

Perhaps Gelbspan could take the time to add this little nugget to the disinformation section of his web site.

Source:

Religious Leaders Rally at UN to Stop Global Warming. Press Release, Religious Witness for the Earth, November 10, 2003.

Ross Gelbspan’s Pulitzer Prize is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The 6.7 percent infection rate is based on the most extensive look at AIDS in Kenya yet, and even then the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey looked at a mere 8,561 households in a country of 32 million people.

On the heels of other studies in Mali, Zambia and elsewhere that found similar overestimates, one has to wonder about the quality of data on HIV prevalence throughout the developing world.

Meanwhile UNAIDS advisor Catherine Hankins took the bizarre view that there was, in fact, no overestimation of HIV rates,

We cannot say that we have overestimated HIV rates in Africa. All figures for HIV prevalence in Africa are estimates.

Yes, but I don’t remember UNAIDS ever warning publicity that estimates may be off by a factor of two or more. Such large discrepancies could potentially cause donor nations to question the reliability of UNAIDS assessments of the epidemic.

Source:

Study cuts Kenyan HIV estimates. The BBC, January 9, 2004.

Just How Accurate Are Third World HIV Estimates? is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The largely-Muslim northern states of Kaduna, Kano and Zamfra ordered a stop to a WHO-sponsored vaccination program. Reuters quoted Dr. Datti Ahmed, president of Nigeria’s Supreme Council for Sharia Law, as saying,

A lot of documents have come into our possession indicating there are grave doubts and concerns about the safety of the oral polio vaccine being used in Nigeria. We therefore called on the authorities to suspend the immunization program and investigate these fears.

WHO representatives dismissed such objections saying the polio vaccine was safe.

Unfortunately, Nigeria is one of only 7 countries where the disease is still prevalent and many children there are not vaccinated. Authorities worry that the disease could expand from Nigeria into surrounding countries. According to WHO representative Dr. David Heymann,

In some parts of Nigeria, only 13 percent of children have been vaccinated, largely because of the fears about it that have been disseminated. Nigeria is now exporting the disease. It has already cost Nigeria’s five neighbors $13 million to launch their own campaigns against it and that could go up to $20 million if it is confirmed that Chad has cases.

The government set up a group to test the polio virus, but that group dealt another setback to the polio eradication in January when it issued results claiming it found high levels of estrogen in the polio vaccine which would render those who received the vaccine infertile.

Both the WHO and the Nigerian state dismissed these claims, but WHO’s efforts to vaccinate children in Nigeria appears to have been severely set back which bodes ill both for the children there who are unnecessarily exposed to the risk of contracting polio as well as neighboring states and the rest of the world that would like to see polio eradicated.

Source:

Health experts losing battle to promote polio vaccine in Nigeria. AFP, Friday January 9, 2004.

Nigeria orders polio vaccine tests. Associated Press, October 29, 2003.

Nigeria debates polio campaign. Anna Borzello, The BBC, December 22, 2003.

Anti-Vaccine Hysteria Grips Nigeria is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, examined 576 women with breast cancer and 585 women without the disease. Researchers at Sony Brook University measured the electromagnetic fields in various rooms of the houses of the women, and also mapped the power lines around each house.

Like previous such studies, it found no association between EMF exposure and breast cancer risk. The study also took pains to examine only women who had lived in their houses for at least 15 years, to test if there was any association with long term exposure to EMF.

Dr. M. Cristina Leske, who headed up the six-year, $2.5 million study, said in a press release announcing the results of the study,

The results are reassuring in that residential levels of EMF, such as from electrical wiring in or around the home, were not related to breast cancer. Given these results, we now have valuable information that leads us to conclude that we can now focus on other possible risk factors. Our team is most grateful for the support of the Long Island women, who made our study possible.

Sources:

Study finds no link between breast cancer, power lines. Associated Press, June 25, 2003.

Breast Cancer and Electromagnetic Fields Study. Press Release, Stony Brook University, June 25, 2003.

Breast Cancer Study Finds No Link with EMF Exposure is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Bailey notes, for example, that the European Union looked at what would happen if someone actually ate significant amounts of deplete uranium,

According to a European Union study released in 2001, “most of the ingested DU (between 98% and 99.8%, depending on the solubility of the uranium compound) will be rapidly eliminated in the faeces.” The vast majority of any remaining uranium will be “rapidly cleared from the blood” in a few weeks. Similarly, the majority of inhaled DU dust will also be cleared via the bloodstream and kidneys. The EU report concluded that “exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received.”

Similarly, studies by the European Union and World Health Organization also fail to find any evidence that would back up claims by alarmists such as Helen Caldicott that the use of DU in the 1991 Iraq war constituted America’s second nuclear war. Bailey writes,

Another 2001 report to the European Parliament compared exposures to DU to those experienced by uranium miners and concluded, “The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures—sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry—and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional.”

The World Health Organization agrees that DU is not a great health risk. Its 2003 fact sheet on the topic declares that “because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.” Another WHO report found, “The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU.”

The anti-DU rhetoric plays upon people’s fears and misconceptions about anything said to be even remotely radioactive. WHat it doesn’t have on its side is much in the way of evidence for its alarmist claims.

Source:

Nuclear genocide? Ronald Bailey, Reason, March 26, 2003.

Ronald Bailey on Depleted Uranium is a post from: Skepticism.Net

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.