Open thread---troll anmesty

Try to state actual medical/scientific questions that have been bothering you.

Vacuum energy. The very concept bothers me and I've never understood the explanation of how it works. Any physicists out there who can explain how a vacuum producing virtual particles does NOT violate thermodynamics?

Any physicists out there who can explain how a vacuum producing virtual particles does NOT violate thermodynamics?

Short answer: thermodynamics is statistical.

Somewhat longer answer: read Hawking's A Short History of Time. It's quite a good read, and its description of how black holes decay is an easy read. The author apparently knows at least a little bit about the subject :-)

Longer yet, but don't trust this: When a vacuum spontaneously generates two particles (as distinct from photon->electron/positron reactions) they are completely symmetrical: photon/antiphoton, notably. The antiphoton has negative energy and opposite momentum and angular momentum, which rather neatly conserves them.

How can we continue to deny the geocentric nature of the universe when the Michelson-Morley [and subsequent experiments] seem to consistently demonstrate that the luminiferous aether is fixed with respect to the Earth?

I often read in popular science journals that the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe. It sounds impressive, but I'm not sure what it really means - if anything.

If a shark's brain is larger then mine, but has the same neuron density, is it more complex? The motions of the atoms in a star must be fiendishly complex - surely more so than the firing patterns of my neurons.

What, in fact, is complexity? And how it is measured?

(Dangit, the interface stripped my "tongue in cheek" tags out because I previewed before posting...)

Is it possible that those with "problems in executive function" like providing "answers" more than asking questions ?

Kapitano, the word "complexity" really doesn't mean anything in literature as such. It is used frequently without any basis of measurement. Occasionally, they will use "complexity" in place of "neural connection density and total neural connections," but this is not complexity, it is neural connection density and volume. I usually avoid describing anything in biology this way, but I will describe my explanations as such. Example: "the truth is far more complex than this" meaning I simplified many parts which I do not feel are as important.

I do have a question, though: how much of an explanation to a question is acceptable to omit as a physician?

I don't think I'm generally considered a troll, ( I really hope not,) but a question I asked on a different sciblog a while back never seemed to get answered.

can anyone explain to me the makeup, nature and effects of substances like Prednisone and Cortisone? most of what I know about them (which is limited to say the least) is in regards to the reported side effects which seem to generally be very unpleasant. for example the doctor who prescribed prednisone to my father eventually mentioned that he thought that it might have contributed to the acceleration of my father's macular degeneration. there's a story about the director David Lean and the effects of cortisone on his system that was unpleasant to read about as well. so I grant that much of what I am aware of is anecdotal and therefore shaky grounds for decision making.

but again, I keep hearing about them being prescribed for various conditions, but it always seems to be along the lines of 'well, nothing else worked, let's try xxx-sone!'

so a bit of simplified background understanding of what these and similar drugs do would be very helpful. preferably before I ever have them prescribed to me. given my father's experience, I am (understandably I think) a bit wary.

cheers,
thanks.

@Kapitano:

I can't comment on the claim that the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe. As for what complexity means, in some fields, at least, the measure of complexity is Kolmogorov complexity, which essentially boils down to how short a description can be used to completely describe something. It's fairly closely tied to entropy. I'll give definitions and examples from CS, as it's where I encountered the concept.

Given a string S, its Kolmagorov complexity K(S) is the shortest combination (M, I) that will generate S, where M is a program, and I is input to that program. Which language M is written in doesn't really matter so long as it's Turing-complete, since by writing an interpreter for language A in language B (guaranteed since A and B are both Turing-complete), we can show that the Kolmogorov complexity of a string as measured using language A and as measured by language B will differ by at most a fixed amount. That is, if the length of the interpretter is c, then for all possible S, KB(S) <= K_A(S) + c.

Because I could be S and M a program that just repeats its input, K(S) <= |S| + c, for some constant c.

K(S) isn't computable - there is provably no program that will calculate the Kolmogorov complexity of every string, even though we can compute upper bounds fairly easily.

Note that in this definition, the concept of randomness doesn't exist. If I gathered 1000000 random numbers from some truly random source, I can't just describe it as 1000000 random numbers. In fact, barring any underlying patterns and a fairly uniform distribution, the shortest description is probably[1] just to list them all out. On the other hand, a list of 1000000 sequential numbers, or the first 1000000 primes, or even 1000000 pseudorandom numbers have a very low Kolmogorov complexity.

Anyway, by this definition of complexity, any individual star is very complex - it's very big, and generally lacks structure. (A crystal, on the other hand, is much simpler. A lot of atoms can be described at once by stating their type and then describing the structure.) A human brain is definitely complex as well, but there are a lot fewer parts involved, and many of them in large molecules with a limited number of configurations. Thus I'd say that a human brain is less complex than a star - it has a much lower entropy.

On the other hand, if we choose to describe what is necessary to get a typical element of this class rather than a specific element, things change a little. Once we can start describing things randomly, we can start describing a star as a combination of gasses x, y and z, with these parameterized properties, distributed with around this point with a gradient of this, etc. A human brain, on the other hand, while not having to describe every neuron, does have a lot more structure to maintain to ensure that the result behaves like a healthy, sane human brain.

If we paint an individual with similarly broad strokes, the complexity rises again. We don't have to worry about the placement of each amino acid, but do have to make sure that the neurons and whatever else are placed correctly to recreate the person's memories and personality.

By comparison, while a shark might have a larger brain, it might be a lot less stateful - you don't need to recreate as many memories, and so you can paint it with broader brush strokes.

Anyway, this post has gotten long enough, and now I'm mostly reduced to speculation. Hopefully this either has helped answer your question, or will at least spark off an interesting conversation.

[1] This is closely related to compression. Ideally, a string can be compressed to a file the length of its Kolmagorov complexity. However, the pigeon hole principle says that while there are 2n possible sequences of n bits, there are only 2n-1 sequences of n-1 bits or less, so at least one string cannot be described in less space than it takes up. In reality, most strings probably cannot be described in less space than they take up. Fortunately, most of them aren't very interesting.

Ok, not really intended as a troll question. But around the year 2000 (if memory serves) we unraveled the human genome. There was a Time magazine article about it, stating in effect that medicine was like a car mechanic diagnosing a problem without ever looking under the hood. That in the next decade medicine would advance at a lightning pace. Given that this is all from memory here are the questions. Has this really happened? Has unraveling the human genome lead to major advances in our understanding of cancer and if so what are they? Can we expect major break throughs in the next decade? I know these are not easy questions to answer, but ask them anyways.

Here's a hypothesis: Vaccines prevent cognitive disability. I might write about that sometime. I do wonder what will happen with the antivaxers if and when this is clearly shown to be the case.

I may have missed someone on SB talking about this already, but I read an article on Slate that there was a Cornell study that showed a correlation between autism and an infant's exposure to television.

Is there something to this? Or is this just as hokey as the vaccination correlation?

The only one of the anti-vaxers arguments that ever made sense to me was the one about overwhelming the immune system. After all, the immune system is fundamentally an information processor, and, as we've all seen with both computers and our brains, such processors can be overwhelmed. (Yes, I know we encounter tons of antigens every day, but generally not in concentrations great enough to cause fever, swelling, etc.) So, have there been any studies examining the effect of combined vaccines (either combined shots or vaccines given on the same day) on autoimmune diseases -- say, Type I diabetes -- or allergies later in life?

Epicanis@3:

Michelson-Morley, alone, suggests that an aether, if it exists, is stationery with respect to Earth. Improvements to the experiment - working on a moving vehicle, for instance - would show that the aether, if it exists, is also stationary with respect to that vehicle - indeed, both at the same time.

But even then we have data that shows that over the course of a day our own velocity changes by as much as 3000 or so km/h, as a vector - see the Foucault pendulum. Galileo also deduced that the earth was probably rotating by dint of the fact that the stars are so far away that it's probably a hell of a lot easier to spin the earth than to spin the stars. So, unless the aether too spins with us - which would have its own consequences as far as the behavior of light - the aether must not exist, and therefore Michelson-Morley cannot tell us anything useful about the motion of the Earth.

Any physicists out there who can explain how a vacuum producing virtual particles does NOT violate thermodynamics?

I'm not a physicist, but I'd like to play one on TV . . .

I'm not sure there are any really accessible explanations of this that are still somewhat accurate, but here are two key pieces to the puzzle:

1) Processes like so-called particle creation really involve fields. Talk about particles is just a helpful way of thinking about a certain kind of field behavior (and this talk can be made precise in certain contexts).

2) Quantum mechanics tells us that physical properties are in a certain sense "fuzzy" or "imprecise." Thus, quantum mechanically, it's not generally the case that there is a single well-defined energy (or number of particles, for that matter).

All this is certainly very strange, but it arises quite straightforwardly when one is dealing with quantum field theory (which is the theory that deals with such things). Thermodynamics looks a little different in this context, but it still holds. (Or, at least, particle "creation" etc. presents no problems for it.)

Here's (very loosely) how it works: The fuzziness in how much energy is in the field (or how much energy a particle has) allows a virtual particle to "exist" for a very brief time. To turn a "virtual" particle into a "real" particle, that particle has to get some "real" energy from somewhere else. The energy might come from the detector you're using to look for particles, or it might come from a black hole that gobbles up the partner virtual particle, or what have you.

At the end of the day, the figures in the energy books balance (to the extent that those quantum theory allows those figures to be precise).

. . . but don't trust this: . . . The antiphoton has negative energy and opposite momentum and angular momentum, which rather neatly conserves them.

Don't trust that: it's false. (An "anti-photon" is just a photon, and we generally don't want to say that there's negative energy.)

I just have a few simple questions:

1) Why, oh, why is it when I am really tired I can't get to sleep? I toss around trying to get comfortable, or I think about all the things that need to be done, or the fatigue is too painful to let me sleep. The resultant insomnia is just evil.

2) On a related note: What is the purpose of hot flashes? I can be sleeping soundly one moment, and the next I am burning up! Okay, okay... I want to be over and done with the menopause stuff, why to I need to wake up in a feverish sweat at random times?

3)... oh, just thought of this as it is related to the previous... it happened two nights ago... What is it with smoke alarms going off in the middle of the night for no reason? Did the designers decide we need fire drills at random times that just happen to be in the dead of night? And for the weird coincidence, dear hubby's place of work decided to have an unannounced fire drill the same morning! Though their drill was more planned with some employees who were instructed during planning to have injuries, from pretending to break an arm to fainting in order to train the company's EMT teams.

4) and finally, because I am sleep deprived and hope to finally get a full night's rest --- why do we need sleep? What is it all about? I listened to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe where Dr. Novella revealed he had synesthesia a couple of times when he was very tired. Why? Why do we need to shut down in order to actually function? Well, not completely shut down but be "entertained" with dreams that seem to be as random as smoke alarms. What is up with that?

Hi,

I don't mean to be a troll, but this topic does give mea chance to ask a question I've been wondering about with regards to this blog.I think this might be a "red button" question, so please don't fire off, as I don't mean to offend. I have discussed it with my husband who has a more scientific brain than me (he is a biostatistician, background in physics/maths). He is the most skeptical person I know, and can never be categorised into any group - he makes his own mind up on issues by finding out as much about them as he can and thinking for himself.

Anyway my point is this:-
You lump "Climate Change Denialists" in with the "antivaxxers" and the "woo merchants" and the "Psychic readers". Now, I am a paid up member of the Skeptics and enjoy a good poke at the psychics and the woo-ers, but I am withholding judgement about Global Warming.
Granted there are problems with pollution and overusing the Earth's resources, and I have heard professional ecologists argue (once my husband and I had dragged it out of them) that even if Global Warming isn't occurring, the changes that are made in fear of it can only be good for the Earth. That argument is disturbing, as professional scientists shouldn't be promoting as fact something which is still theory, on the grounds that the end justifies the means. That is using the privilege of a scientific position for political ends, and is a corruption of all that good science is.
Now maybe I'm wrong, and the Global Warming effect has been proved beyond doubt. But my husband is an expert mathematical modeller, and the Global Warming theory rests partly on mathematical models. The assumptions made in constructing the models have a profound effect on the outcome, and my husband isn't convinced that the original assumptions are valid.
In addition, the interpretation of temp. data over the last 100 yrs or so shows a small overall warming trend, but there is no way telling whether this is man made or a reflection of natural oscillations in the Earth's temperature.

regards
Di (and husband)

I've asked this before over email: What degree of support is there for flouridating the water supply? I know it can cause unsightly cosmetic issues in teeth; is there good support for positive benefits that outweigh the negatives?

@HCN

1) Why, oh, why is it when I am really tired I can't get to sleep? I toss around trying to get comfortable, or I think about all the things that need to be done, or the fatigue is too painful to let me sleep. The resultant insomnia is just evil.

There can be a number of reasons, but it is best to see a doctor who specializes in sleep disorders. Some of these are sleep apnea, relestless leg syndrom, and others. Being male I cannot talk about menopause. Anyways, I was diagnose with excessive daytime sleepiness and proscribed Provigil which seems to help. Having to sleep in a hospital with all the monitors attached was not fun. But seeing a specialist in sleep disorders would be a start.

Also do you drink? Drinking can cause all you speak of, including poor sleep, hot flashes, etc. Only your doctor will be able to answer your questions. I am not a doctor, though I use to play doctor as a kid.

...professional scientists shouldn't be promoting as fact something which is still theory,...

There's a problem here. Someone promoting speculation is not promoting a theory. A line of thought that is "still a theory" is probably good at explaining something, and could be true--otherwise, that theory would be discarded. Is there "the theory" of climate change?

With respect to climate change, part of the problem likely lies with sources of information and lack of means (for most outsiders) to readily assess the competence of those making claims, especially when the media refer to some (such as Lomborg) as "climate specialists" when they really have no special expertise. "Global warming deniers" are frequently lumped with anti-evolutionists and other anti-science or "woo-meisters" because often they hold several of these anti-science positions, and often share similar ideological baggage (there are exceptions, of course).

ScienceBlog "Deltoid" has frequent coverage of "global warming deniers" who are considered woo-meisters and discussions that indicate just why they are not considered credible.

Now maybe I'm wrong, and the Global Warming effect has been proved beyond doubt. But my husband is an expert mathematical modeller, and the Global Warming theory rests partly on mathematical models.

There's quite a bit more to it, and I'm just beginning to learn it. For example, they can actually measure the net radiative forcing (seen here) which is basically the thermal imbalance of the planet.

I also do think it's possible to prove anthropogenic global warming beyond doubt by means of a detrended cross-correlation analysis, which anyone can do, and this is basically what I argue here.

I'll be the first to tackle the global warming thing. I can't answer it directly, but what I can do is point out the reasoning I came across in trying to answer the same thing...

(1) As far as I could find, every argument raised against global warming has been answered.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Specifically, your (and my) argument of the fallibility of computer models is addressed.

What you'll find as you read through those, I hope, is that most are based on a fundamental flaw in reasoning. The arguments are something that may be intuitive, but they are only so because the arguer has an over-simplified view of the topic. Ignorance, basically.

So even if you come across some new arguments, hopefully you'll be able to recognize if they're based on the same flaws or fallacies. Maybe they won't be, but then at least you'll have the tools to ask "what does this change?" versus "what are they claiming it changes?"

(2) So far in what I've seen, the actions of anti-warming people match very closely the actions of woomongers. Whether it's relying on simplification instead of specificity, using logic fallacies, relying on ignorance, or coming up with poorly-built "theories" based on unfounded assumptions, denialists and woomongers use the same sort of methods.

This doesn't mean they're wrong in everything they say, but overall it does show their credibility. If someone comes up with 10 reasons why a vaccine is bad for you, and you show all ten of those reasons to be fundamentally flawed, there's really no point in arguing the same guy when he comes up with reasons 11 and 12 ;)

(3) Global climate and its driving factors are incredibly complex, to the point that no one can claim to understand all the subjects involved. I doubt there's even a single organization, government, or even a single field of study which has the expertise available.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had some sort of intergovernmental panel made up of experienced, qualified people who could put together the vast array of research on hundreds of topics, have qualified researchers determine the validity of each paper, pick out flawed or irrelevant data, and come up with some sort of aggregate report on global climate change? It wouldn't be perfect, and it would surely be expensive, but something like that sure could help us in... Oh, wait!...

1)Is the population of unvaccinated individuals that proactively reduce their risks to exposure to vaccine preventable illness that currently do not achieve herd immunity (ie influenza or HPV) more or less effecting then the vaccinated population in the long run (5 or 10 years). Which population is more cost effective (fully burdening the costs of all medical expenses (ie no government or insurance subsidies) also for 5 or 10 years?

2)Does the population of vaccinated individuals increase their risks of exposure to vaccine preventable illness due to their belief in the vaccines effectiveness (placebo)? If so, by how much?

Hmmm...chuck, thanks...the questions require some rewording in order to be comprehensible...we'll work on that for you, then you can see if the reworded question is still the one you were thinking of.

I've asked this before over email: What degree of support is there for fluoridating the water supply? I know it can cause unsightly cosmetic issues in teeth; is there good support for positive benefits that outweigh the negatives?

In my personal case, lived most of my life where there "was" fluoridation, had 1 cavity in 20 years, even when I didn't brush like I should most of that time. Moved to some place where there isn't any and I have had to have 3 fillings in the last 5. I would say, at least from an anecdotal stance, yes, it has an effect. I am equally sure that there are actual studies proving the same for a wide number of other people, even if I don't have time to hunt for them at the moment.

---

Oh, and on the whole virtual particle/quantum physics thing, just read an article on them proving something that that previously presumed impossible. Seems state changes, i.e., collapse of the indeterminacy of a particle into a known state, takes "time" to happen. They where able to measure it, garnering the data from its collapsing state, change parameters, then "remeasure" it, in a way that undid the effect of their original measurement, in effect, partially collapsing the state, then resetting it, back to an indeterminate one. Unfortunately, the site I read it on has been flaky and 'indeterminate' for my for the last two days, so I can't post a link. lol

Chuck, I'm gonna try to parse out your question to clarify it for myself.

1) Is the population of unvaccinated individuals that proactively reduce their risks to exposure to vaccine preventable illness that currently do not achieve herd immunity (ie influenza or HPV) more or less effecting then the vaccinated population in the long run (5 or 10 years). Which population is more cost effective (fully burdening the costs of all medical expenses (ie no government or insurance subsidies) also for 5 or 10 years?

I'm sorry, but this question is so unclear that I can't make head or tails of it. I hate to be picky, but can you try restating it?

2) Does the population of vaccinated individuals increase their risks of exposure to vaccine preventable illness due to their belief in the vaccines effectiveness (placebo)? If so, by how much?

Placebo is the wrong word here, if I understand your question correctly. Basically, your asking if vaccination increases high-risk behavior?

Fine, rework 1 and 2 to your liking and add these as well:

3) What longitudinal studies have been done showing adverse vaccine reactions and related medical deterioration related to the adverse reactions beyond 10, 20, or 30 years?

4) Of the cases that receive compensation from NVICP, what percentage of the total medical costs that can be attributable to the adverse reaction over the course of their lifetime are covered by the compensation?

I was typing #3 and #4 when your response posted.

Reworked #1) Does the population of people who actively attempt to reduce their risk to illness by living a healthy lifestyle without the assistance of vaccination do better than those that vaccinate in the long run? Which groups activities cost more to the individuals in terms of medical expenses?

Does the population of people who actively attempt to reduce their risk to illness by living a healthy lifestyle without the assistance of vaccination do better than those that vaccinate in the long run? Which group�s activities cost more to the individuals in terms of medical expenses?

The question is interesting, but impractical and unethical to do well controlled trials on. The immediate benefits of almost all vaccines is so glaringly obvious that it would be unethical to have an arm that used lifestyle mod for prevention. It's akin to trying to design a study to see if people with hemorrhagic shock do better with or without fluid and blood replacement.

However, if I understand you correctly, this would be one way to test your first hypothesis.

Hypothesis: Lifestyle modification is non-inferior to vaccination in preventing disease "x" (say, polio?) in population "y".

Given the prevalence of polio in the US is very very low due to vaccination, you would need a very very large sample size and a very long follow up period. As an easier alternative, we will choose kids in the Dominican Republic.

So, lets say the math says that a sample size of 5000 will give us valid results.

We enroll kids at birth, and 2500 randomly assigned kids get polio vaccine, and 2500 to get a placebo vaccine. Both groups are then assigned to lifestyle modification in addition to the placebo/polio vaccine.

We need to decide what "lifestyle mod" will mean. There is no plausible medical reason why any lifestyle mod, other than clean water and good sewerage, should affect polio rates, so the study is worthless and unethical, but lets play out the thought experiment. We'll say that all subjects will receive adequate calorie intake, a varied diet relying on fresh foods, fruits, veggies, whole grains and low fat meats. All kids will get regular outdoor exercise.

After 15 years, the rates of polio will be assessed in each group and compared statistically.

"Does the population of vaccinated individuals increase their risks of exposure to vaccine preventable illness due to their belief in the vaccines effectiveness (placebo)? If so, by how much?"

For some reason I am getting the feeling that this comes down to the typical 'fundamentalist objection to the HPV vaccine (ie."Won't teenagers who get the HPV vaccine have more sex than those that don't get vaccinated?")

Medical analysis may be unethical. Econometric analysis has no morals and just measures costs and efficiencies.

In response to Robert W,
Can the objection be objectively substantiated, or not? This isn't a morals discussion, it is a science discussion.

Both questions were primarily aimed at influenza and HPV, polio is not relevant to my questions.

I also pick influenza and HPV because "herd immunity" is argument non grata.

Interesting...OK.

So re-word. Let's do the same experiment except with Gardasil. Let the outcome be the development of cervical cancer or high-grade dysplasia. Let the intervention be what was mentioned PLUS safer-sex education.

From an amoral perspective, medical doctors often ask patients to change their behaviors to reduce or eliminate the need for medications and medical procedures. When that happens do people complain that doctors are being moralistic? Why shouldnt it be that way for STDs as well?

"So re-word. Let's do the same experiment except with Gardasil. Let the outcome be the development of cervical cancer or high-grade dysplasia."

That is history to date. How are the long term studies 10, 15, 20 years out? (Don't flame me I don't know how long gardisail has been used).

I think, if I'm getting Chuck (and the classic Fundamentalist view on this) right, they're saying "the existence of Gardasil will increase sexual behavior in people beyond what is warranted by the overall absolute decrease in risk of sexual activity (from all causes) Gardasil causes."

In which case the correct actual experiment would judge the quantity and severity of all sexually transmitted diseases, comparing inoculated and non-inoculated populations.

At a guess, I would say that the answer is no - HPV, I get the impression, is considered less severe than herpes (another common STD), and certainly less severe than, say, AIDS or gonorrhea or any of half a dozen other diseases, and also pregnancy, all of which are covered in greusome detail in any half-competent sex-ed class on either side of the abstinence divide. "Yay one less disease to worry about" is cold comfort when there's so damn many of them.

Gardasil, by the way, has only been approved for use since (as far as I can tell) 2006, following a clinical trial in which the results were so strong they terminated the trial and treated all placebo patients in the trial with it.

If "the classic Fundamentalist view" can also logically be applied to the influenza vaccine and the sexual behavior of those that use it, then I am using the "the classic Fundamentalist view".

Chuck: Obviously, different behaviors/risks/etc for different vaccines. ...though I'm going to pass on trying to figure out what those behaviors are for things other than HPV.

I have heard professional ecologists argue (once my husband and I had dragged it out of them) that even if Global Warming isn't occurring, the changes that are made in fear of it can only be good for the Earth.

They promote the AGW theory because in their professional opinion it is the theory that follows from the known evidence, not because the solution might be positive for other reasons.

Now maybe I'm wrong, and the Global Warming effect has been proved beyond doubt.

Not everything about AGW has been proven beyond doubt. But this is a great example of trying to find the right question (esp. since there are a lot of aspects to the AGW theory). For instance, do you mean the effect of CO2, acting alone, on surface temperatures? Yes, that is proven beyond doubt. Will the reaction of clouds to the CO2 warming increase or decrease global temperatures (ie, will it intensify or dampen the warming)? That is an open question right now.

In addition, the interpretation of temp. data over the last 100 yrs or so shows a small overall warming trend, but there is no way telling whether this is man made or a reflection of natural oscillations in the Earth's temperature.

Well, natural causes can be ruled out. For instance, there has been no increase in solar radiation since 1950 or so and so the sun is decidedly not the cause of the late 20th century warming. Other natural causes have similarly been ruled out, leaving CO2, which is a known greenhouse gas and which will increase the surface temperature of the Earth. The questions that remain are of how the climate system responds to the known warming of CO2.

Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming is a great resource for more info:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Now for my trolly question:

Can soap get dirty?

certainly it can. most cleaning is done with the universal solvent..water.

Soap helps remove hydrophobic molecules such as grease and oils.

Just a minor supplement from my area of denialist-study (AGW denialism):

Any student of history knows about the tobacco lobby's dirty tactics, conspiracy, and out-and-out lies in the name of increased profit during the relatively recent past. It turns out, not only are the vast majority of climate inactivist tactics the same, but also several of the major players (fake experts, think tanks and PR firms) are the same. Just swap the energy lobby for the tobacco lobby and away you go.

The best overview on the history (and weight) of the science, plus the opposition against it, is Naomi Oreskes' spectacular talk titled "The American Denial Of Global Warming, which was actually linked on this very blog a while back because it's so awesome.

Other good resources include Oreskes' more recent talk that serves as a study of the tactics used by the Western Fuels Association, and (if you're up for a more MSM approach), the CBC's The Denial Machine.

Ask yourself this: Are these the tactics of legitimate, modern-day Galileos, or are they the tactics of the woomonger? Don't concern yourself too much with their message or details for now, just the tactics at this stage. Once you have the answer to that, you can consider the basis of their claims in context.

Vorn,

If you cannot rationally and scientifically determine what behaviors/risks/etc are for other vaccines, how can you rationally and scientifically determine what they are for HPV?

Vorn,

There are subsets of the population that will have sex and have absolutely no cares or concerns about their health. The vaccines will not change their behavior.

There are subsets of the population that know a loved one that died of cervical cancer and do not want their lives to end that way. The vaccines will not change their behavior.

Will the vaccine change the behavior of any subset of the population? If so, why?

Another good source of denialism by industry is the book Deceit and Denial, by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner. This book discussed as examples the lead and the plastic industries, with detailed and well-documented discussion of how industry leaders tried to deceive citizens into believing that there was something very uncertain and even wrong about the science that suggested that lead (in paint, gasoline, and other products) and vinyl chloride monomer (used in the production of polyvinyl chloride) might be harmful. These industries also had very strong influence on government (consider Bush's appointment of former lead industry lobbyist Gale Norton as secretary of the Interior).

I was going to jump into this one last night, but I didn't want to interrupt the discussion. Seems like a good time now.

Honestly, are there instances that profits override what's best for the patient or the general public? Whether it's pharmaceutical companies with a new or existing product or a professional organization making recommendations on behalf of their members, do you believe that everything that comes "down the pipe" to the physician to disseminate to the public is based on what is absolutely the best for the patient or, sometimes, is that information based more on profit than the public welfare?

Thanks for the replies so far on my global warming post. I'm following them and following the links and so on.
There is a lot of vitriol thrown about on both sides of the debate which is dispiriting, and muddies the waters with emotional an "us and them" polarisation.

I hope there will be more discussion.

I want to find out why those this blog calls "climate denialists", ie people who are not convinced by the scientific evidence produced in favour of a conclusion, are lumped together with "woo-mongers" who are not convinced by evidence produced to disprove something (eg psychic manifestations or homeopathy). To me, the former are skeptics and the latter denialists.

Anyway, there's just one comment in the responses so far, and that from Boris, that I want to correct at this stage.

[[ quote]
(me)
I have heard professional ecologists argue (once my husband and I had dragged it out of them) that even if Global Warming isn't occurring, the changes that are made in fear of it can only be good for the Earth.

(Boris)
They promote the AGW theory because in their professional opinion it is the theory that follows from the known evidence, not because the solution might be positive for other reasons.]end quote]

No. You are wrong about the specific conversations I am referring to, conversations which I took part in and you did not.

You don't believe they said that?

Di

Back in 2001, I was stationed for three weeks down in Manhattan providing security for the team supporting the S&R at the World Trade Center. My knee, due to major instability (tendons stretched and torn but cartilege (sp?) okay) combined with standing on concrete for 16 hour shifts, swelled up to the point of immobility. I talked to my manager to get demobed home, but he suggested I try one of the accupuncturists volunteering at the Javitts Center.

I was skeptical, but was willing to give it a try.

I talked to one of the accupuncturists and described the problem. She stated that accupuncture cannot, in any way shape or form, help with the structural problems. Then she added that it may be able to alleviate the symptoms.

I asked, "How?"

She replied that there are lots of ideas about nerve meridians and internal connections (and my thought upon hearing that was, "See ya.") but then she added that no physical structures corresponding to those ideas have been found. She was a liscenced accupuncturist and freely admitted that she did not know how it worked. She said that, for about 70% of patients, it can relieve some symptoms.

I appreciated her honesty and tried it. I spent an hour on the table with pins in my ears, eyebrow, and leg. Within an hour, my knee was down to (for me) normal size. I went back every other day to keep the swelling down. Each accupuncturist used different points for the treatment, yet each one worked (some better than others).

After all that, here's my questions: First, despite being a skeptic, was I the beneficiary of a placebo effect? Second, does anyone know how (outside of non-physical structures such as nerve meridians etc) and/or why accupuncture works?

(By the way, a month after returning home, I had my MCL rebuilt which solved a lot of the problems)

I believe that the Gardasil subthread has boiled down to the classic, "seat belts cause reckless driving" argument. Long since disproven in other contexts.

Alas for those proposing it, they assume that humans carefully weigh risks and benefits to a precision worthy of an accountant before making decisions. Demonstrably not true; examples left as an exercise for the reader.

No. You are wrong about the specific conversations I am referring to, conversations which I took part in and you did not.

You don't believe they said that?

I find it odd that someone would say they only believe AGW because the proposed solution is also good in some way. I can't speak for any individuals you may know, but it is not a common viewpoint to say the least.

I want to find out why those this blog calls "climate denialists", ie people who are not convinced by the scientific evidence produced in favour of a conclusion...To me, the former are skeptics and the latter denialists.

I don't think anyone is calling someone who is skeptical a denialist. There is plenty of room for skepticism. But skepticism must be honest and the vast majority of so called skeptics--and this includes scientists like Patrick Michaels, Tim Ball and Zbigniew Jaworowski,--are not honest about the science. Unfortunately many honest skeptics are influenced by these types of denialists. Moreover, the AGW denialists use the exact same tactics as other woomeisters.

"I believe that the Gardasil subthread has boiled down to the classic, "seat belts cause reckless driving" argument."

That is your belief. Do you have any studies to back up your belief? That is the point of the thread.

Moreover, the AGW denialists use the exact same tactics as other woomeisters.

Once again, I refer to the links I posted above, detailing some of the larger examples of this.

The AGW inactivists* are using the same tactics as the denialists this blog covers -- all of them. Conspiracy? Check (and often contradictory). Fake experts? Check (take a look around). Moving goalposts? Check (just one recent example). Cherry-picking? Check (just one example of the most commonly-manifest cherrypick; read more here or see it in action here). Logical fallacies? Check** (just one of many examples, focusing here on the ad-hom. The non sequitor, straw man, and false dilemma are also common.)

These are not the tactics of honest-but-renegade scientists opposing the orthodoxy. They are the tactics of the denialists. And this blog has made it clear: it's the TACTICS that unify denialists, not the cause.

*I use 'inactivist' instead of denialist because it's a better group term for what those opposed to AGW on ideological terms actually do. For instance, Bjorn Lomborg ("It's happening, I accept the IPCC, but it's not worth acting on it because there are other worthy causes better worth our money") is much less of a denialist, but just as much an inactivist, as S. Fred Singer.

** The originator of that horrendous fiasco, Christopher Walter of Monckton, is actually debating DeSmogBlog editor Richard Littlemore on AGW PR today, in about 40 minutes, right here (click "listen live"). Watch the relevant tactics in action. (Note that the host and moderator is also an AGW 'skeptic' who spouts conspiracy garbage about the IPCC.)

First, despite being a skeptic, was I the beneficiary of a placebo effect? Second, does anyone know how (outside of non-physical structures such as nerve meridians etc) and/or why accupuncture works?

It is 100% placebo. One long time advocate of it now goes around showing people that it is total bunk, even though it works for some people. He often changes the points used, uses the wrong ones, uses "sterile pads" that actually prevent the needle from puncturing the skin at all, but just hold it, so it looks like they have been placed, and just about every other silly variation possible. What he has determined is that the ***only*** factor that determines if it works or not is how much the practitioner is trusted and/or how believable the explanation seems to be to people.

On the subject of climate denial/skepticism.I don't have a problem accepting that much of this is man-made and that the science is overwhelmingly in favor of such a view. Where I have a problem is in the accuracy of predictions that are made.Is there one(or more)genuinely specific prediction that a Climate scientist can make that,if it is wrong, will disprove the theory? It seems to me(seems)that an awful lot of predictions are wrong but then waved away by saying "it's just worse, or not as bad, as we thought but this doesn't disprove the theory". Is climate science like Psychology and Sociology in that it can only explain events in retrospect and not accurately predict them?

Re: Gardasil.
One of the problems with the encouraging risky behaviors argument in regards to Gardasil is that it doesn't take into account the behavior of men, who are at no risk. Parents who prevent their daughters from being vaccinated are not only betting on their daughters sexual restraint but also on the sexual restraint of their future husbands, men they haven't even met yet.

tresmal said "One of the problems with the encouraging risky behaviors argument in regards to Gardasil is that it doesn't take into account the behavior of men, who are at no risk."

Like the holy roller bible thumping pompous ass who attempted to sexually molest me when I as 17 years old. He said lots of the same stuff as Chucky, but his actions spoke louder than words.

On my same theme:

1) Why do smoke alarms need to alert us that they need new batteries in the middle of the night? (we do change them at least once a year, plus they are hard wired into house wiring, the batteries are only back-up)

2) So last night I slept through the thunder and lightning, but woke up to the raindrops hitting the open skylight above my head. I did close it before I got rain on myself. Why did I miss the thunder and get awakened by raindrops?

Chuck -
well, "abstinence only" sex ed causes rates of STDs to go up. That is that opposite of what should be the case if introducing something (condoms) that limits risk causes more risky behavior.
This is based on a recent CDC study.

HCN - because the thunder wasn't important (wasn't going to affect you) and the raindrops were.
Just off the top of my head.

mandrake,

Is HPV included in the study of STD transmissions? Condoms do not prevent the spread of HPV and HPV or influenza is the topic of my questions. How is "abstinence" defined in the study? If the study population got STD, then they are no longer in the "abstinence" population and you can't change study populations mid study for a good controlled scientific study.

tresmal & Random lurker,

On the Medscape reversal thread, I duly noted that the CDC is being a pompous ass for only vaccinating half of the "at risk" population and a gentleman poster did loose part of a finger due to HPV. Are the CDC's actions speaking louder than words concerning this issue? Is the CDC pushing their moral objectives on young girls only?

@peter: The drugs you're wondering about (prednisone, cortisone) are all corticosteroids, which have a variety of effects in the body. They are made to mimic the function of cortisol, which is often thought of as a "stress hormone" of the body.

So besides relieving a rash or keeping your autoimmune disease at bay, over time they can also make you gain weight, have increased blood pressure, lose bone density, and have elevated blood sugars. Immunosuppression can also put you at risk for certain infections that your body can normally fight off.

These drugs are usually either prescribed at low doses (e.g. topical creams, or short courses), or in situations where the immune-mediated damage is worse than the steroid side effects.

Hope this helps.

@vorn: dangit, what good is a physics-trolling question if you're just going to come along and stab it right between the eyes with facts and logic??? Thanks a lot...

(Good explanation though - thanks).

"Is HPV included in the study of STD transmissions? Condoms do not prevent the spread of HPV and HPV or influenza is the topic of my questions."

Yes, but Mandrake's point was that introducing a safety mechanism does not promote risky sexual behavior. This is independent of the specific risk factor in question.

"How is "abstinence" defined in the study? If the study population got STD, then they are no longer in the "abstinence" population and you can't change study populations mid study for a good controlled scientific study."

The groups are not divided based on abstinence, they are divided based upon the type of sex education they received. This is done because the subject being studies in these trials is the effectiveness of the education technique in preventing STD's and early pregnancy, not in avoiding sex itself.

If we were to divide the groups based on their actual abstinence or lack thereof, we would be testing the efficacy of abstinence, which is not in question. Everybody knows abstinence works. In fact, in a regular (not abstinence only) sex ed. class, they teach that abstinence is the best way to avoid STD's.

In any event, you asked for mandrake to provide proof for his claim that the "seat belts cause reckless driving" argument is flawed, and he did so by providing this study which clearly shows that withholding information about safe sex does not prevent risky sexual behavior.

Billy the Atheist, I saw your post and just had to add my own! Despite being a rational thinker and a trained biologist, I am SOOOoooooo placebo-treatable it's ridiculous. Sugar pills work on me like a charm, so much so that I have *knowingly* taken them for various symptoms and found relief. Medications I know for a fact take a week or two to build up in my system before becoming effective cause me to feel instant relief after taking. I am kind of disgusted at myself, really. ;) Still, it is kind of nice to find myself firmly ensconced in the easy-to-cure 30 percent! I'll chalk it up to my optimistic faith in science-based medicine!

Ok, I've got a question! I cannot get anyone to answer this for me-- anyone care to give it a shot?

It is a known, observable fact that rubbing stainless steel over your skin removes the odors of garlic and onions, etc. What I want to know is-- *how*? By what mechanism does the steel get rid of the odors? Does it have to do with molecular polarity somehow??? I am dying of curiosity!!!!

Anon,

"Yes, but Mandrake's point was that introducing a safety mechanism does not promote risky sexual behavior. This is independent of the specific risk factor in question."

Then Mandrake took a poorly defined educational analysis to justify a medical procedure. That study may only illustrate the instructor inability to adequately teach all the risk factors associate with sex (with or without protection or medical prevention)

Going back to the "seat belts cause reckless driving" argument. If a driver has no/incomplete/inadequate driver education that would contribute to reckless driving more than the seatbelt.

Is there one(or more)genuinely specific prediction that a Climate scientist can make that,if it is wrong, will disprove the theory?

Yes, statistically it's possible to detect changes away from projected trends. For example, right now some people are saying that the 1998-2008 temperature slope falsifies a rate of 2C/century. They are doing it wrong, though. 11-year slopes can deviate from the long-term trend by as much as 2.7C/century (I've actually checked the historical record to determine this). But if temperatures remain stable or decline for an additional 10 years, then we might start to talk about falsification. Of course, this could mean that there's some other forcing not accounted for or that climate sensitivity to GHGs is not what was originally thought. Knowledge will adjust accordingly as things unravel, no doubt. Most likely, however, the next decade will be the warmest in human history.

I am SOOOoooooo placebo-treatable it's ridiculous. Sugar pills work on me like a charm, so much so that I have *knowingly* taken them for various symptoms and found relief.

that was good for a big laugh

thanks

Chuck said "On the Medscape reversal thread, I duly noted that the CDC is being a pompous ass for only vaccinating half of the "at risk" population and a gentleman poster did loose part of a finger due to HPV. Are the CDC's actions speaking louder than words concerning this issue? Is the CDC pushing their moral objectives on young girls only?"

Actually I suspect the main reason it is not recommended on boys yet is due to cost, and the numbers of risk versus cost do not yet merit giving it to boys. It has been tested on males though, and it may not be too long before it is approved for them (perhaps in a couple of years).

Though it is nice that you are advocating more universal vaccine coverage. That is something that is also needed for influenza, which is more difficult because it is a crap shoot when it comes to figure out what form the main types of influenza viruses will take each year.

What I actually find amusing in troll land is why in a discussion of vaccines that is centered on measles, someone decides to pull out HPV or the fact that people still die from influenza. Either claiming HPV is lifestyle related, or that people still die from influenza (the latter because not many get vaccinated for influenza, and the strains changer every year).

Oh, and so far no one has answered to my satisfaction what real scientific evidence shows that the MMR is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella or that the DTaP is worse than pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus.

Russell: "Is there one(or more)genuinely specific prediction that a Climate scientist can make that,if it is wrong, will disprove the theory?"
If you take a few steps back, you might just realize how much that makes you sound like a creationist. Just replace "climate scientist" with "evolutionary biologist" and you've got a standard talking point from the creationist script.

And why do you accept the science up to a certain point and then decide to doubt what the scientific community says from then on? You say you accept the consensus that it's manmade, but you don't accept the rest of the consensus view. Isn't that a bit arbitrary? You can't pick and choose which bits of reality you don't like...

Of course there are huge margins of error in any predictions of something as complex as the climate, but most "wrong predictions" I've read about so far seem to be either made up or vastly exaggerated by the denialists - in many cases I've seen, either the scientists in question never made that prediction, or the data that "proves it wrong" is false. OK, there have been cases where the climate scientists have been genuinely wrong: they UNDER-estimated how bad it was...

"What I actually find amusing in troll land is why in a discussion of vaccines that is centered on measles, ..."

What I find even more amusing in trolls is they generalized threads about vaccines and only accepts comments related to their myopic view of the vaccines (measles).

HCN,

I honestly doubt that either one of us will ever get the answers to our questions that we are expecting. Do you?

Chuck, I thought that mandrake had an interesting idea of why I woke up to the raindrops hitting the open skylight above my head instead of the thunder and lightning (which I am told by a couple of other family members who were awakened by the noise was quite spectacular).

By the way, just like cancer is not one disease, vaccines are all different. There is no generalization that can be made, which is why when there is a discussion on the MMR one cannot bring in the HPV, DTaP, rotavirus or influenza vaccines.

HCN,

My guess is that you were in a different stage of sleep during the thunder. Sleep occurs in cycles (measurable by brainwaves and eye movement), during some of which we are more rousable than others.

di

The hypothesis that the benefits of Gardasil will be nullified by increases in risky behavior posits these three items:
1) That there is a subset of the female population that is not deterred by AIDS, herpes,other STDs, unwanted pregnancies and the social and the emotional consequences of risky sexual behavior, but is deterred by the possibility of contracting a certain type of cervical cancer.
2) That this subset is large enough...
3) and that the behaviors are risky enough (summer jobs in third world brothels?) to erase the benefits of the vaccine.

Now I can't prove this is wrong, in fact I don't have any evidence one way or the other, but nonetheless, I believe that the burden is on the Gardasil skeptics to establish at least the plausibility of this hypothesis.

Has there been much good quality evidence in support of the "Hygiene Hypothesis" - the idea that exposure to pathogens early in life tunes up the immune system by giving it appropriate enemies to fight so that it doesn't react to innocuos stimuli (as in allergies) or atack the body as in auto-imune disease. I have heard of studies showing that children who spend their first year in a house with a dog are less likely to develop allergies and first borns are more likely to develop allergies because they don't have older siblings infecting them.

If their is anything to this, I would think early chlidhood vaccinations would have an extra benifit beyond providing immunity.

tresmel,

In response to your number one, the individuals that you describe have a very high probability of not using Gardasil, so they are completely irrelevant to any discussions of vaccine effectiveness.

Since your #1 has been answered, your #2 should be re-worded to
How large is the subset of the unvaccinated population due to their behavior?

The answer to the reworked #2 will also answer #3.

To address the plausibility issue:

1)Since HPV vaccination is happening in less then half of the populations exposed and transmitting HPV, the probability of being exposed is probably relatively unaffected by the vaccine.

2)HPV can still be transmitted even when a condom is being used (digital)

3)The duration of coverage is unknown, so the potential for being exposed without immunity still exists, onset will be later.

4)Women may believe that since they have been immunized and practiced safe sex with their partners, there is absolutely no probability that they have been exposed and so extend the time between pap smears or completely stop having pap smears and increase the probability that precancerous cells will become cancerous.

HCN,

Alternate hypothesis:
You were in deep REM during the initial thunderstorm and ending the REM cycle after the initial thunderhead had past.

"when there is a discussion on the MMR one cannot bring in the HPV, DTaP, rotavirus or influenza vaccines."
When MMR is subject matter of the discussion, that statement is true.

The example you cited was not that specific, so HPV, DTaP, rotavirus and influenza vaccines were all valid for discussion. The example you cited did not mention MMR until the 9th response to the original post and was never directly referenced in the post.

And the goalposts have officially moved!

It wasnt appropriate for her to move the goalposts, but I will cut her some slack.

And an extremely subtle "I Know You Are, But What Am I?" gambit! He's going for all the marbles today, folks!

LanceR,

No one has been intelligent enough to rationally answer questions #2 through #4 that I have submitted. Are you up to the challenge or not?

Wow! He's gone for the very difficult Group Ad-hominem! That hasn't been attempted since the '08 thread!!

Wait for the judges... this is very exciting, folks...

OH! He missed it! All of the relevant questions were answered! The third classic blunder!* The judges are giving their scores now... 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and a big 0.003 from the Russian judge! Ooh, she's a hard one!

---
*1. Never get involved in a land war in Asia
2. Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line
3. Completely ignore any answers that disagree with your previous (mis)conceptions

LanceR,

Your usual response. Ad-hominem attacks are all you can ever offer. Keep up the predictable work.

Chuckles

Oh, too bad for Chuck! He's flailing around blindly! Oh no! He's reverted to the "I Know You Are But What Am I?" gambit! That's going to hurt him with the judges!

(You and I both know that you are not interested in an actual discussion. The only thing that is left is Point and Laugh.)