You Can't Believe ANYTHING !

The Atlantic, a respected mainstream literary magazine, says you can't believe anything! (November 2010 issue)

They are not talking about political adverts, but about peer-reviewed MEDICAL RESEARCH as well as Internet sites. On this Blog we've recently discussed Elite Opposition to Online Information and compared it to peer-reviewed journals and books, so these items caught my eye.

Truth Lies Here by Michael Hirschorn, is a hit piece against right-leaning web sites. It starts with the alleged efforts of the "Digg Patriots" to drive down the readership of left-leaning web items by coordinated use of the Digg "bury" option. The reader is lead to believe that left-leaning groups have not use similar tactics. Digg, a website that allows users to recommend web items has since discontinued the "bury" option so the point is moot in any case. Hirschorn goes on to misreport the Sherrod incident (which I discussed here) as well as the Acorn pimp and prostitute caper. He claims the videos were "heavily doctored" when in fact they were simply edited.

The Acorn sting video speaks for itself. According to the NY Times "...two conservative activists pretending to be a pimp and a prostitute used a hidden camera and recorded Acorn employees advising them on how to conceal the source of illegal income and manage 14-year-old Salvadoran prostitutes in the country illegally: 'Train them to keep their mouth shut.'" Perhaps the activists had to visit several Acorn sites before they got that damning video, but it is clear at least one Acorn worker had no problem helping a pimp exploit underage illegal female immigrants. In the Sherrod case the editing was misleading, but the real story was how the Agriculture Department and the NAACP "bit" and fired and condemned Sherrod, despite the fact she had informed her superiors of the true situation and the NAACP had the complete video that proved Sherrod was not a racist but was reporting on a redemptive moment in her career.

Hirschorn blasts the usual suspect, Sarah Palin, for using Twitter shorthand, including "Ground Zero mosque" (it is a cultural center and two blocks away).

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science, by David Freedman, is a longer and much more serious piece that calls into question nearly all medical research. Freedman begins with the fact that Albanian immigrants to Greece have their "perfectly healthy" appendixes removed at a rate three times higher than Greeks, apparently because surgery residents are over-eager to rack up scalpel time. The researchers who uncovered the situation had trouble getting their study published, which led them to do some further investigations of medical research journals.

Many peer-reviewed medical findings are later refuted. This fact may be interpreted in two ways: 1) The system is working and correcting itself, or 2) Why are so many medical studies wrong in the first place?

Well, according to the researcher Freedman interviewed, the problem is the need for researchers to get grants and publish, and that may be accomplished only by getting new and surprising results. This leads them to come up with new theories and then construct research projects that are biased to prove those theories. Even in apparently properly set up randomized trials, results are exaggerated. For example, of 49 most widely used cited research articles over the past 13 years, 34 were retested and 41% of those were shown to be wrong or exaggerated! "Drug studies have the added corruptive force of financial conflict of interest." They hardly ever study the effect of not prescribing any medication. And, when it comes to nutritional studies, "ignore them all" is the best advice! Clearly, this information should be taken into account as we consider government involvement in health care and end-of-life issues, as I discussed here.

But medical research is not especially fact-free, "a remarkably consistent paucity of strong evidence in published economics studies made it unlikely that any of them were right."

Ira Glickstein

Do Liberals Consume More Health Care than Conservatives?

The stereotypical Conservative (C-Mind) is well-off financially, attends religious services regularly, and tends to vote Republican, while the stereotype Liberal (L-Mind) is less well-off, less likely to attend religious services, and tends to vote Democratic. Of course there are many well-known exceptions, but I think reasonable people would accept these generalizations on average. One would think that C-Minds, having more disposable income, would tend to spend more on medical care than their poorer L-Mind colleagues. If one thinks that, one would be surprised by the following maps. [Click maps for larger versions.]

Medical Ethics

[from John] Joel’s previous topic on medical ethics raises the broader question of medical ethics in its many forms. I would like to explore one or two points at this time.

Is it ethical for the nation or the state, to control the following medical practices if the individual wishes to participate? I’m discussing ethics not the law. I believe that these are personal choices and that the state has no ethical authority to interfere.

a. Use of drugs that are legal in other nations but not here. Drugs that are legally available in other countries may help an individual when drugs currently available in the US are not as effective.
b. Use of experimental drugs. Experimental drugs undergoing human blind test may help an individual, should it not be his choice?
c. Medical use of marijuana. The same argument as above.
d. Personal use of drugs now illegal.

In the last case ( d ) and as a second point the state will claim that it has an obligation to protect its citizens against the abuse of certain habit forming drugs is this a valid ethical position or a sophism? I don’t have the figures nor do I have the energy to pursue them however, intuition leads me to the conclusion that there is little valid evidence supporting their position. How does the state, ethically justify legalizing tobacco and alcohol, yet banning other drugs?

Does the zero tolerance policy make rational or ethical sense? Today we have locked up thousands for minor drug offensives. The illegal drug trade thrives as it did when alcohol was banned. What are we accomplishing?

In the early 1900s, we amended the constitution banning alcohol. It did not significantly reduce the use of alcohol rather it resulted in an active trade in contraband alcohol. The amendment was reversed after a few years. The illegal trade disappeared. Now that it is legal, does the use of alcohol present a serious problem for the nation? No.

Drugs are easily available today, in large quantities, if we are to believe the media, yet we are not swimming in drug addicts. Does anyone know the population of true drug addicts? How does that population compare to the population which uses the cancer causing drug tobacco or those using the legal drug alcohol? I would venture to say that the population of true drug addicts is small. The major harm to the nation is to the individuals incarcerated for minor drug offenses and the cost of fignting an ineffective war on drugs which in turn encourages a dangerous trade in illegal drugs.

Do irrational, illogical standards of medical morality and ethics guide our national policies rather than rationality and justice? I vote yes!

Ethical Dilemma?

Ethical Dilemma?
I was looking for ethical dilemmas. I recalled a serious one concerning the use of medical data derived during the Holocaust. I discovered a long article that I think is very interesting from a philosophical point of view. As in Dawkins' trolley there is an issue of one life for many, but also many other issues. There are historical implications as to how the victims will be remembered. There are implications with respect to glorifying the work of nazi butchers. I think you will find this site thought provoking and a true dilemma. With respect -Joel



http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html