Science Lies!

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOMAR

I used an MD medical neglect complaint as the case study for my certification.

A young mom took her baby to the emergency room. The attending MD made a medical neglect report against the mom. The MD claimed mom brought the baby to the hospital for unnecessary treatment. The MD said mom was seeking inappropriate attention, and using the baby to do it.

But the baby really had a medical emergency. The baby had a respiratory virus and required inpatient treatment.

 

[R. Richard]

The title indicates a problem with scientists. However the article cites only political problems.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Going one step farther... who said this is even a science or political problem?

A board of Doctors were directed by a combined group of health insurance carriers, that the "best treatment for Lyme desease is..." Actually, some high school graduates were given a list of possible treatments for the desease and, naturally, chose the cheapest one. That treatment became the "official and only authorized" treatment for the desease.

Now, after they've killed a bunch of people, the insurance companies have figured out it's cheaper to listen to the scientists than pay out mounting death claims.

That's the way medicine works in this country

 

[WRJames]

The title indicates a problem with scientists. However the article cites only political problems.

Yep. Scientists are human beings iniviually as prone to errors in judgment as anyone else.

There are supposed to be safeguards in science to keep fallible humans on the right track. But clearly there was a lapse here -- very possibly a deliberate one. It's interesting that another construct that attempts to steer us to the truth -- the legal system -- needed to intervene.

What I'm trying to point out with my imflammatory title is that "science" has a reputation for honesty, objectivity, and integrity -- possibly undeserved in some cases.

 

[Weird Harold]

What I'm trying to point out with my imflammatory title is that "science" has a reputation for honesty, objectivity, and integrity -- possibly undeserved in some cases.

First, the example you cited has very little to do with "Science" other than the political academics on the panel have the dubious title of "scientist."

Second, what ever gave you the idea that "'Science has a reuptation for honesty?"

Ever hear of the "Clovis First Mafia?" The history of science is full of similar examples of the "Old Guard" in any field of endeavor protecting their reputation against anything that contradicts the position their prestige rests upon.

Your example, tragic though the consequences might be, is just another manifestation of the famous declartion by the head of the US Patent Office ca. 1900 -- "Everthing that can be invented has been invented."

 

[3113]

religion takes a lot of heat on this forum for the same reasons -- but let's not forget that scientists are human beings, subject to the same failings that may obscure their objectivity.

Apples and oranges, James. I get so TIRED of people comparing the two. If this were a religious panel that said, "Lyme disease can be cured with prayers said by out ministers, just give your money to us instead of a doctor," and people did that, and were not cured, do you think for ONE MINUTE that anyone would sue? Or could sue? Or that the religion would say, "whoops, we were wrong!" Nope. They'd just say, "You didn't give us enough money to pray long enough for you..." or "Give it time. We need to say more prayers."

And THAT is why religion takes more heat on this forum than Science, because when science fucks up, you can find out and make those behind the stupid decision, be it the scientists themselves or the insurance companies or the politicians PAY. With religious pronouncements, that may well never happen. How, after all, can you prove that you're right (the prayers did nothing) and they're wrong (that more prayers won't do the job)?

It wasn't science that lied when it said the Sun went around the Earth. It was RELIGION that said that and kept the scientists from telling the truth. And here, it was the insurance company making doctors maintain the lies. Scientists often want to tell the truth. But like the rest of humanity, they're all too often subject to those in control. And that includes religious institutions, even religious believers--as we see with the fact that Bush's government has removed all info on how the Grand Canyon was created except for a book asserting that it was Noah's Flood that did it.

But if you really believe science and religion are the same, and that science lies rather than tells the truth (as compared to religion?), then I suppose you'll be going to a minister for healing instead of a doctor next time you get sick? Because these doctors lied and science can't be trusted and heaven forfend that you rely on medicine.

If you really believe SCIENCE lies, and not scientists, then prove it. Give up all science. All of it. Forever. That includes tossing out all the technology in your house, computer included. You do know none of it would exist without science, right?

If science lies, why believe anything science has ever "proven" to be true? Like the Earth revolving around the Sun?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yep. Scientists are human beings iniviually as prone to errors in judgment as anyone else.

There are supposed to be safeguards in science to keep fallible humans on the right track. But clearly there was a lapse here -- very possibly a deliberate one. It's interesting that another construct that attempts to steer us to the truth -- the legal system -- needed to intervene.

What I'm trying to point out with my imflammatory title is that "science" has a reputation for honesty, objectivity, and integrity -- possibly undeserved in some cases.

"science" has a reputation for attempting to approach honesty, objectivity and integrity-- oftentimes well-deserved in many cases.

Once more, this article proves that point. If "science" were really underhanded, subjective and dishonest, the Surgeon General would have let the incorrect report remain in place. Politically, it would have been better for him to do that. But as a scientist, he would not.

Your title is inflammatory because it's incorrect and dare I say it, ignorant. The report was not made in the interests of science. It had nothing to do with science. If the public has blind faith in anyone who says they are a scientist-- and can't tell the difference between research and application-- Well, I've already said what I think the solution should be.

 

[WRJames]

"science" has a reputation for attempting to approach honesty, objectivity and integrity-- oftentimes well-deserved in many cases.

Once more, this article proves that point. If "science" were really underhanded, subjective and dishonest, the Surgeon General would have let the incorrect report remain in place. Politically, it would have been better for him to do that. But as a scientist, he would not.

Your title is inflammatory because it's incorrect and dare I say it, ignorant. The report was not made in the interests of science. It had nothing to do with science. If the public has blind faith in anyone who says they are a scientist-- and can't tell the difference between research and application-- Well, I've already said what I think the solution should be.

Ah -- you miss the point. It wasn't the SURGEON General -- it was the ATTORNEY General that put a stop to it. Science (or at least this particular manifestiation of it) -- failed so badly that the legal system was forced to intervene.

And my title is, of course, deliberately inflammatory. There are so many idiots giving the atheists an excuse to bash religion, that I couldn't resist the temptation when the scientific community offered up some low hanging fruit.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ah -- you miss the point. It wasn't the SURGEON General -- it was the ATTORNEY General that put a stop to it. Science (or at least this particular manifestiation of it) -- failed so badly that the legal system was forced to intervene.

And my title is, of course, deliberately inflammatory. There are so many idiots giving the atheists an excuse to bash religion, that I couldn't resist the temptation when the scientific community offered up some low hanging fruit.

The legal system (I stand corrected) intervened against medical insurance companies who were abusing the trust of their customers. That's a legal matter.

Scientific research onto lyme disease was not the problem. Money hungry insurance companies were the problem. They chose to hold onto interim research and call it definitive.

The difference is that "science" is a process-- as you've had explained time and again. And religion is almost always-- a product. The bashing that religion gets is on account of this structure of absolutes that cannot stand up to scrutiny. You keep using words like "belief" and "faith." Individuals in the scientific community certainly have beliefs and faith-- the process of science challenges these beliefs rigorously. Religious authorities can promote inaccurate information forever without challenge.

 

[rgraham666]

Oh those beliefs can be challenged. The method of challenge often involves a lot of blood though.

That hardly ever happens in science.

A musical interlude.

 

[neonlyte]

What happened here.

One group of medical practitioners (IDSA - Infectious Disease Society of America) produced medical guidelines in 2000 for the treatment of Lyme. In 2005/6, they reviewed research, medical practice and treatment trials and updated the treatment guidelines critically claiming that, what is known as chronic Lyme, is not a condition caused by Lyme infection. A rival group of medical practitioners involved in the daily treatment of Lyme patients had their evidence to the 2006 review refused by IDSA as 'unscientific'. The IDSA summary guidelines were rushed into publication and circulated to health authorities worldwide before the full text of the review was available to read. On the basis of IDSA's 2006 guidelines, medical treatment for Lyme Disease was reduced to a single dose of antibiotics administered over a 21-day period. Many Lyme experienced medical practitioners claimed this dosage was too small to eliminate Lyme particularly in late diagnosed and undiagnosed cases. The counter argument was so strong the Attorney General took up the case and examined the facts reaching the ruling announced. The agreement between IDSA and the AG relieves members of the IDSA from any negligence claim resulting from the mistreatment of Lyme under the 2006 IDSA guidelines - shameful!

Took me twelve months to persuade a doctor to administer a second round of antibiotics, they had an almost immediate effect to reducing symptoms, but the situation is still not cleared and I suspect I will need further treatment in due course.

As to the 'science' - IDSA claim to have taken a scientific approach to the review of all treatment data and drug trials studies on Lyme Disease. What they patently refused to do was accept or acknowledge the existence of group of Lyme infected patients who continued to show severe neurological manifestation after antibiotic treatment. Such an outcome was beyond their experience and they chose the empirical scientific viewpoint of claiming that because it was beyond their treatment experience, the ongoing illness could not be caused by Lyme infection. The only good thing to come out of this is Chronic Lyme is now recognised as an illness. IDSA's motivation? I'd guess they were being 'leaned on'. The cost of treatment for Chronic Lyme is large, involving hospitalization and intravenous drug therapy for anything up to a month - that's big money for a bug bite particularly when the initial onset of symptoms resolve themselves in the majority of cases if left untreated only to emerge 20-30 years down the road when the patient might well be someone else's insurance problem.

 

[WRJames]

The legal system (I stand corrected) intervened against medical insurance companies who were abusing the trust of their customers. That's a legal matter.

Scientific research onto lyme disease was not the problem. Money hungry insurance companies were the problem. They chose to hold onto interim research and call it definitive.

Not the case at all. The legal system intervened against the Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA). They accused the members of the IDSA panel of gross conflict of interest, and of reaching a "scientific" conclusion favorable to their concealed ties to the insurance industry. Put simply, they are accused of scientific fraud.

And this was settled, out of court, with what amounts to a tacit admission of guilt by the "experts" involved.

The ISDA is not, on the surface at least, a creature of the insurance industry. It's a (formerly?) prestigious scientific organization which sets standards for medical treatment. Doctors who defy those standards can lose their licences -- which happened to some of the prominent specialists in Lyme treatment.

I should explain that I did not come across this press release by accident. My daughter has been suffering from symptoms which could possibly be Lyme disease. My wife had been looking up information on chronic Lyme, and she was noticing that many of the authorities on the subject had suffered from profressional problems -- suspended licences and the like. One of the most prominent had actually comitted suicide. And this was due to the insistence of the ISDA that there was no such thing a chronic Lyme -- and these doctors were considered charalatans or worse for trying to treat a "nonexistent" disease.

It's interesting that the general news media has NOT picked up this story -- or in very muted form. I'm sure a similar scandal in a clergy organization would get a lot more media attention.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Here's another article, for what it's worth; Blumenthal also charged conflicts of interest, saying panelists who produced the guidelines were aligned with health insurers who promote shorter periods of care.

The article is quite the fence-sitter. The comments are excellent.

One statement from the IDSA director that was shockingly stupid in its ramifications; "Antibiotics are one of the greatest discoveries of mankind but we're finding that more and more bacteria are becoming resistant and this is a great concern."

Uh, yeah-- duh. And guess what happens when the lyme spirochete isn't bombarded long enough?

I'm sure a similar scandal in a clergy organization would get a lot more media attention.

What would be a similar scandal, in a clergy organisation?

 

[WRJames]

Here's another article, for what it's worth; Blumenthal also charged conflicts of interest, saying panelists who produced the guidelines were aligned with health insurers who promote shorter periods of care.

The article is quite the fence-sitter. The comments are excellent.

One statement from the IDSA director that was shockingly stupid in its ramifications; "Antibiotics are one of the greatest discoveries of mankind but we're finding that more and more bacteria are becoming resistant and this is a great concern."

Uh, yeah-- duh. And guess what happens when the lyme spirochete isn't bombarded long enough?

What would be a similar scandal, in a clergy organisation?

Most of the media coverage, what there has been of if, has soft pedalled the situation -- that's why I linked to the press release from the Attorney General's office.

Really, the point is not whether or not the panel reached the "right" answer -- it's more significant that they reached their conclusion in a prejudicial way -- so obviously that it appears they could have been charged with criminal conduct for concealing ties to the insurance industry. Really, Martha Stewart went to jail for a lot less.

Hmm -- what could clergy do that would be similarly reprehensible? Usually they stick to simple things like child molestation, embezzlement, or consorting with male prostitutes. Probably the systematic protection of bad priests by the Catholic hierarchy would come closest to a fundamental betrayal of public trust.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Most of the media coverage, what there has been of if, has soft pedalled the situation -- that's why I linked to the press release from the Attorney General's office.

Really, the point is not whether or not the panel reached the "right" answer -- it's more significant that they reached their conclusion in a prejudicial way -- so obviously that it appears they could have been charged with criminal conduct for concealing ties to the insurance industry. Really, Martha Stewart went to jail for a lot less.

Hmm -- what could clergy do that would be similarly reprehensible? Usually they stick to simple things like child molestation, embezzlement, or consorting with male prostitutes. Probably the systematic protection of bad priests by the Catholic hierarchy would come closest to a fundamental betrayal of public trust.

I think that promulgating bad information-- like, "You'll go to heaven if you're good," and "God is watching you," are betrayals of the public trust.
Or Joseph Smith's divine right to marry all the women he wanted.
Or Ron Hubbard's little gem-- The world's ills come from Aliens in volcanoes, and you can protect yourself from them by giving him all of your money.

I think that, even though the AG made a deal with these guys, a class-action civil suit could still be prosecuted.

 

[WRJames]

I think that promulgating bad information-- like, "You'll go to heaven if you're good," and "God is watching you," are betrayals of the public trust.
Or Joseph Smith's divine right to marry all the women he wanted.
Or Ron Hubbard's little gem-- The world's ills come from Aliens in volcanoes, and you can protect yourself from them by giving him all of your money.

I think that, even though the AG made a deal with these guys, a class-action civil suit could still be prosecuted.

Well, certainly the first two have been grossly misinterpreted and abused. Actually, there is a lot of dissension among Christians on those. Ever worse is the idea that some churches have that they can actually influence the hereafter.

And the later ones -- well, like I said, it's nice to have the scientific community offer up some low hanging fruit for a change. Yes, people do a lot of stupid things in the name of religion. But then again, how many things have we done in the name of science that turn out to be completely fraudulent?

You may be too young to remember that at one time it was solemnly proclaimed that watching tv in the dark was bad for your eyes? There was even one tv that came out with a little ring of white light around the screen as protection against this supposed problem. It turned out that it was all a hoax perpetrated by a light bulb company.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, certainly the first two have been grossly misinterpreted and abused. Actually, there is a lot of dissension among Christians on those. Ever worse is the idea that some churches have that they can actually influence the hereafter.

And the later ones -- well, like I said, it's nice to have the scientific community offer up some low hanging fruit for a change. Yes, people do a lot of stupid things in the name of religion. But then again, how many things have we done in the name of science that turn out to be completely fraudulent?

You may be too young to remember that at one time it was solemnly proclaimed that watching tv in the dark was bad for your eyes? There was even one tv that came out with a little ring of white light around the screen as protection against this supposed problem. It turned out that it was all a hoax perpetrated by a light bulb company.

And why was that hoax successful?

Because people have been trained to accept the word of authority without question- by religious leaders. That's why Kings were obeyed unquestioningly-- because the local medicine man supported him-- until Henry the eighth, at least.
So a commercial technology company-- NOT a scientific concern in any way-- can dress a guy up in a white lab coat and the sheep raised in the pews will believe him without question.
That's how ol' Joe and Ronny could get away with it, too.


My point is that a scientific theory can be challenged-- and will be challenged, by brilliant researchers and monomaniacs, people with a lick of horse sense and intuitive geniuses, and this happens in public. The public doesn't sually take part in it, though. And the public tends to misinterpret what they see, relating it to the kinds of Priestly Edicts they are accustomed to.

Religious figures, for the most part do not get challenged by their peers, or by their audience.

 

[WRJames]

Religious figures, for the most part do not get challenged by their peers, or by their audience.

It depends on the denomination -- and the people. A large proportion of the population is going to trust authority no matter what. The troublemakers are as likely to be religious as not.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

This is a long those same lines...

My wife had a complete hysterectomy in 1985, ever since then she has been on hormone therapy, until two years ago. She read somewhere that Soy Milk will stop menopausal women from having hot flashes, which she suffered from even on the hormone therapy.

So she stops taking her hormones and starts drinking an 8 oz. glass of soy milk a day. Presto, the hot flashes stop by the second day.

The next time we were at our doctors office she told her that she had stopped the hormones and started drinking soy milk instead to stop the hot flashes. The doctors then goes on to say that was a good idea. It seems she knew all about it helping. When I asked how come she didn't tell us, she didn't say a word just shrugged her shoulders.

She a good doctor, kind of, but will not suggest any natural medicines or cures.

So for two years my wife has been 'hot flash' free.

And really horny...

 

[rgraham666]

Well, a doctor offering naturopathic advice is going to be like a Christian priest quoting from the Koran. It might be good advice and very spiritual, but a lot of people are going to take offense. Other priests (doctors) for seeming to undermine the authority of the revealed religion and parishioners (patients) for pretty much the same reason.

 

[Pure]

to wr

thanks for that posting.

some posters have said the problem is not with science or medicine proper. perhaps. but as pursued these days, the money aspect is essentially linked.

drug companies hire researchers to conduct experiments; and only recently have those researcher been required to disclose their interests at the beginning or end of the articles they publish, alleging that the medicine is safe and effective.

in the lyme case, it seems some drs. were in bed with the insurance companies, and the other independent board, the neurology one, was not independent.

the issue of funding for scientific projects that go against consensus is an important one. on the surface it seems easy to dismiss 'flat earth' and other weird theories. but zeb's example of soy milk as a stand in for hormone replacement therapy shows it's not so easy. i've seen lots of doctors dismiss herbal approaches as bunk.

as to science or religion, and does the latter fuck up the former. surely it has, e.g. in leaning on copernicus and galileo. currently, iirc, religious people have stopped the handing out of info pamphlets at the Grand Canyon [by US Parks Service], which state its age, in conflict with the Bible.

most religions, by nature, tend to 'creep' or gallop into a host of areas, from medicine to geology. IF religions could restrain themselves to religious teachings, the world would be better. i see no intrinsic problem with a belief that X is somehow anointed by God. but of course if X says, 'go slay the fellows in a neighboring country," or "a man should never touch a menstruating woman because of her pollution, and he [she] should be executed if he has sex with her [him]," then problems are created.

the good side of most religions is an ethics component; as an atheist i know, once said, 'most of the ten commandments are pretty good ideas' (excluding the first couple). sometimes some religions have taken a lead in ethics, e.g. some denominations were against slavery [some abolitionists were practicing Christians]; some denominations or churches supported civil rights before it was fashionable. conceding that point, however, the problem of separating the wheat from the chaff, the bad ethical ideas from the good, arises.

religions do SOME self corrections, e.g., the liberal protestants and jews, re gays, but often it's little or late-- or NEVER done by the "traditionalist" wing of a denomination. in our area, the anglican churches are splitting over gay issues, and buildings are being fought over by the two groups.

there's no simple way to resolve the matter, unless a new prophet or inspired minister shows up, who's recognized by all.

the 'traditional' group can point to pretty clear bible passages about gay sex being bad. the only way to argue is rather sweeping: "many of the bible's claims or pieces of advice are wrong, because, whatever the "Godly" source [accepting ftsoa], humans were involved in writing and interpreting the messages, and they sometimes fucked up."

 

[WRJames]

as to science or religion, and does the latter fuck up the former. surely it has, e.g. in leaning on copernicus and galileo. currently, iirc, religious people have stopped the handing out of info pamphlets at the Grand Canyon [by US Parks Service], which state its age, in conflict with the Bible.

most religions, by nature, tend to 'creep' or gallop into a host of areas, from medicine to geology. IF religions could restrain themselves to religious teachings, the world would be better. i see no intrinsic problem with a belief that X is somehow anointed by God. but of course if X says, 'go slay the fellows in a neighboring country," or "a man should never touch a menstruating woman because of her pollution, and he [she] should be executed if he has sex with her [him]," then problems are created.

the good side of most religions is an ethics component; as an atheist i know, once said, 'most of the ten commandments are pretty good ideas' (excluding the first couple). sometimes some religions have taken a lead in ethics, e.g. some denominations were against slavery [some abolitionists were practicing Christians]; some denominations or churches supported civil rights before it was fashionable. conceding that point, however, the problem of separating the wheat from the chaff, the bad ethical ideas from the good, arises.

religions do SOME self corrections, e.g., the liberal protestants and jews, re gays, but often it's little or late-- or NEVER done by the "traditionalist" wing of a denomination. in our area, the anglican churches are splitting over gay issues, and buildings are being fought over by the two groups.

there's no simple way to resolve the matter, unless a new prophet or inspired minister shows up, who's recognized by all.

the 'traditional' group can point to pretty clear bible passages about gay sex being bad. the only way to argue is rather sweeping: "many of the bible's claims or pieces of advice are wrong, because, whatever the "Godly" source [accepting ftsoa], humans were involved in writing and interpreting the messages, and they sometimes fucked up."

There is so much dissension within the Christian denominations on most of these issues that it's impossible to respond succintly. But let me give a hint of the issues.

There are some Christians (the "fundamentalists") who believe that the Bible, in its translated English version (incluing footnotes) is the infallible word of God. The reasoning is that God in his Almighty power would not permit His Word to be misconstrued, so that, somehow, magically, and chances for human error in the thousands of years that the Bible has been compiled. This is more or less the Protestant version of Papal infallibility. Most other Christians think these people are total nutcases -- an embarassment. Unfortnuately, our current president has and aministration that at least gives lip service to them.

Christians with some semblance of common sense understand that, at a minimum, the original texts of the Bible in their original languages need to be consulted. There is also the issue of what phrases in the Bible were actually meant to say -- what did they mean when they were written, as opposed to our interpretation of them. Mainstream Protestant denomnations have always had this view. More recently, the Emergent movement, which has grown out of the Fundamentalists, has gone back to the basics and discovered that a lot of what the fundies have been preaching is in fact based on bad interpretations of scripture.

Finally, there is the problem of non Biblical beliefs which have been superimposed on the original Christian faith. When the Pope talks about "reason" and religion -- in many cases he is talking about the absurd layers of scholastic speculation that are part of the Catholic tradition. The Reformation attempted to throw a lot of that off -- but still, much of what is accepted as Christian faith -- an almighty, omnicient deity, heaven and hell, the Last Judgment -- have little or no Biblical basis. The anti-sexual bias of the Church is also based on a few, obscure Biblical passages with a strained interpretation.

Of course, many denominations have also broken with scripture on some issues -- ordination of women has been accepted for a while now, and we are moving towards acceptance of ordination of gays and lesbian, and sanctification of same sex unions.

 

[CharleyH]

For those of you with great faith in science, a cautionary tale. A panel of medical "experts" has ignored the facts so badly that they have provoked legal action by the Connecticut Attorney General. Here is the press release. This is not a trivial matter -- this group established guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease that were simply wrong -- with very serious consequences. Doctors who defied these "expert" guidelines had their licences suspended. One was hounded to suicide. Patients suffered -- and insurance companies did not pay.

Which just goes to show that having a bunch of eminent scientists proclaim that something is true does not guarantee it. How many other scientific "truths" are wrapped up in the politics and egotism of human interaction?

Of course, religion takes a lot of heat on this forum for the same reasons -- but let's not forget that scientists are human beings, subject to the same failings that may obscure their objectivity.

Science does not lie. It's ever evolving. Any intelligent person is aware of that fact.

 

[Stella_Omega]

religions do SOME self corrections, e.g., the liberal protestants and jews, re gays, but often it's little or late-- or NEVER done by the "traditionalist" wing of a denomination.

Yes. I challenge you to find a religious proclamation that is disproven within a year of its announcement.

Religious beliefs can only be disagreed with. Scientific theories can be disproven -- or, proven.

 

[rgraham666]

As I understand it, Stella, a scientific theory can only be disproved. Any scientific theory comes with the unspoken caveat 'until we find out something that shows we're full of shit'.

Unfortunately, because the caveat is unspoken many non-scientists don't realize this.