You are here: Home / Archives for Science

Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

Dr. Reuben’s Fraudulent Science and Patient Care

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:00:37 -0400 by

How does a doctor make a mockery of the scientific method?

By telling lies, committing fraud, and endangering patients.

This undermines the scientific method. All of the research that he has done should be questioned, not just the 21 articles listed

According to an article in the on line news journal, Anesthesiology News, Dr. Scott S. Reuben, no relation to Paul Reubens, has admitted to just making the data up. He even made patients up. Maybe his life story will be told by Clifford Irving.

This may not be the biggest scientific fraud. John Darsee behaved similarly a few decades ago. There is a NY Times article, with more detail, here.

Some of the things to watch for in a study are kind of obvious. If it starts out with, Once upon a time . . . you might want to be especially skeptical. But we always need to be skeptical. There is nothing about science that says, This is my final answer. Science is always in a state of development. Science is always changing.

That does not mean that the scientific method is changing, but that the scientific method will continually lead to more information. Science is about never being satisfied with the results. What can we do to confirm/disprove those results. If we are continually confirming the same information, then we need to investigate differently, so that we are obtaining new information, not just confirmation of the same thing over again. If, later on, we find something that leads us to question the original results, even if those results have been repeatedly confirmed, we need to go back and examine that again. We need to find a way to look at the data to see if we missed something. We need to figure out a different way to ask the questions we should be asking. We need to learn what we did wrong.

Something else to watch for is an assumption that does not make sense. A discussion that does not point out many ways that variables could have caused problems with the study. A discussion that does not approach the study skeptically. This is not Moses on Mount Sinai. Nothing in science is carved in stone.

Anesthesia and Analgesia states that they have been removing his research, the research on the list. What about the rest? Should anybody be citing these? Are they worth anything? How much of post-operative pain management is based on Dr. Reuben’s imagination? The amount of damage he has done in this area is tremendous. Then there are the other doctors named Dr. Reuben. One Reuben, S has a lot of research on Guillain-Barre syndrome. Doctors who have done respectable research, but their research will have at least a subconscious asterisk next to their work. *Not that Dr. Reuben.

If people have had inadequate pain management, because of doctors relying on this research, these patients have been tortured by Dr. Scott S. Reuben. He should be in jail.

Here is the list of admitted garbage tainted studies. Among these are some that are from after the time when Dr. Reuben admits to have begun engaging in fraud, but are not on the list. Don’t these by the same Dr. Reuben need to be reexamined, or at least, taken with a Gibraltar sized grain of salt? The studies Dr. Reuben admitted were fakes are in red. All of these are in reverse chronological order, except the last three, which are not listed as by Reuben, SS. The numbers correspond to the numbers on the list at the end of the Anesthesioliogy News article.

All journal articles.Return to follow-up article^ Skip to end of list
3/17/09 02:23 I finally got this to link correctly. 🙂

Preventing the development of chronic pain after thoracic surgery.
Reuben SS, Yalavarthy L.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008 Dec;22(6):890-903. Epub 2008 May 7. No abstract available.
PMID: 18834790 [PubMed – in process]

21. A prospective randomized trial on the role of perioperative celecoxib administration for total knee arthroplasty: improving clinical outcomes.
Reuben SS, Buvenandran A, Katz B, Kroin JS.
Anesth Analg. 2008 Apr;106(4):1258-64, table of contents.
PMID: 18349203 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Update on the role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and coxibs in the management of acute pain.
Reuben SS.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007 Oct;20(5):440-50. Review.
PMID: 17873597 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

20. The effect of initiating a preventive multimodal analgesic regimen on long-term patient outcomes for outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery.
Reuben SS, Ekman EF.
Anesth Analg. 2007 Jul;105(1):228-32.
PMID: 17578979 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

19. Evaluating the analgesic efficacy of administering celecoxib as a component of multimodal analgesia for outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery.
Reuben SS, Ekman EF, Charron D.
Anesth Analg. 2007 Jul;105(1):222-7.
PMID: 17578978 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

The efficacy of postoperative perineural infusion of bupivacaine and clonidine after lower extremity amputation in preventing phantom limb and stump pain.
Madabhushi L, Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Adesioye J.
J Clin Anesth. 2007 May;19(3):226-9.
PMID: 17531734 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Chronic pain after surgery: what can we do to prevent it.
Reuben SS.
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2007 Feb;11(1):5-13. Review.
PMID: 17214915 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

This one is not listed on PubMed:
16. Analgesic efficacy of celecoxib, pregabalin, and their combination for spinal fusion surgery.
Reuben SS, Buvanendran A, Kroin JS, Raghunathan K.
Anesthesiology. 2006; 105:A1194.

15. The analgesic efficacy of celecoxib, pregabalin, and their combination for spinal fusion surgery.
Reuben SS, Buvanendran A, Kroin JS, Raghunathan K.
Anesth Analg. 2006 Nov;103(5):1271-7.
PMID: 17056968 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

COX-2 inhibitors in sports medicine: utility and controversy.
Buvanendran A, Reuben SS.
Br J Sports Med. 2006 Nov;40(11):895-6. Epub 2006 Sep 1. No abstract available.
PMID: 16950884 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Acute post-surgical pain management: a critical appraisal of current practice, December 2-4, 2005.
Rathmell JP, Wu CL, Sinatra RS, Ballantyne JC, Ginsberg B, Gordon DB, Liu SS, Perkins FM, Reuben SS, Rosenquist RW, Viscusi ER.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4 Suppl 1):1-42.
PMID: 16849098 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

17. Postoperative modulation of central nervous system prostaglandin E2 by cyclooxygenase inhibitors after vascular surgery.
Reuben SS, Buvanendran A, Kroin JS, Steinberg RB.
Anesthesiology. 2006 Mar;104(3):411-6.
PMID: 16508386 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

14. The incidence of complex regional pain syndrome after fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture: a prospective observational study of four anesthetic techniques.
Reuben SS, Pristas R, Dixon D, Faruqi S, Madabhushi L, Wenner S.
Anesth Analg. 2006 Feb;102(2):499-503.
PMID: 16428550 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

18. The effect of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on acute and chronic donor-site pain after spinal-fusion surgery.
Reuben SS, Ekman EF, Raghunathan K, Steinberg RB, Blinder JL, Adesioye J.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;31(1):6-13.
PMID: 16418018 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Interscalene block superior to general anesthesia.
Reuben SS.
Anesthesiology. 2006 Jan;104(1):207; author reply 208-9. No abstract available.
PMID: 16394719 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

High dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs compromise spinal fusion.
Reuben SS, Ablett D, Kaye R.
Can J Anaesth. 2005 May;52(5):506-12.
PMID: 15872130 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

The safety of the perioperative administration of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors for post-surgical pain.
Reuben SS.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2005 Mar;49(3):424; author reply 425. No abstract available.
PMID: 15752415 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

This one is not listed on PubMed:
13. Effect of initiating a preventative multimodal analgesic regimen upon long-term patient outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for same-day surgery: a 1200-patient case series.
Reuben SS, Gutta SB, Maciolek H, Sklar J, Redford J.
Acute Pain. 2005; 7:65-73.

12. The effect of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on analgesia and spinal fusion.
Reuben SS, Ekman EF.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Mar;87(3):536-42.
PMID: 15741619 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

The prevention of post-surgical neuralgia.
Reuben SS.
Pain. 2005 Jan;113(1-2):242-3; author reply 243-4. No abstract available.
PMID: 15621388 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

This one is not listed on PubMed
11. The effect of intraoperative valdecoxib administration on PGE2 levels in CSF.
Reuben S.
J Pain6 (suppl 1):S21 Abstract 649.

9. Surgery on the affected upper extremity of patients with a history of complex regional pain syndrome: the use of intravenous regional anesthesia with clonidine.
Reuben SS, Rosenthal EA, Steinberg RB, Faruqi S, Kilaru PA.
J Clin Anesth. 2004 Nov;16(7):517-22.
PMID: 15590255 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

This one is not listed on PubMed:
8. Effect of initiating a multimodal analgesic regimen upon patient outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for same-day surgery: a 1200-patient case series.
Reuben SS, Gutta SB, Sklar J, Maciolek H.
Acute Pain. 2004 16:517-522.

Preventing the development of complex regional pain syndrome after surgery.
Reuben SS.
Anesthesiology. 2004 Nov;101(5):1215-24. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 15505459 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

10. Evaluation of efficacy of the perioperative administration of venlafaxine XR in the prevention of postmastectomy pain syndrome.
Reuben SS, Makari-Judson G, Lurie SD.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004 Feb;27(2):133-9.
PMID: 15157037 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Analgesic effect of clonidine added to bupivacaine 0.125% in paediatric caudal blockade.
Joshi W, Connelly NR, Freeman K, Reuben SS.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2004 Jun;14(6):483-6.
PMID: 15153211 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

The perioperative use of cyclooxygenase-2 selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may offer a safer alternative.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR.
Anesthesiology. 2004 Mar;100(3):748. No abstract available.
PMID: 15109000 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Arthroscopic knee surgery in a patient with Takayasu’s arteritis: the role of intra-articular local anaesthesia.
Reuben SS.
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004 Mar;21(3):242-3. No abstract available.
PMID: 15055903 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

An evaluation of the safety and efficacy of administering rofecoxib for postoperative pain management.
Joshi W, Connelly NR, Reuben SS, Wolckenhaar M, Thakkar N.
Anesth Analg. 2003 Jul;97(1):35-8, table of contents.
PMID: 12818939 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

7. An evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of intravenous regional anesthesia with lidocaine and ketorolac using a forearm versus upper arm tourniquet.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Maciolek H, Manikantan P.
Anesth Analg. 2002 Aug;95(2):457-60, table of contents.
PMID: 12145071 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Preoperative administration of controlled-release oxycodone for the management of pain after ambulatory laparoscopic tubal ligation surgery.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Maciolek H, Joshi W.
J Clin Anesth. 2002 May;14(3):223-7.
PMID: 12031758 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Intravenous regional anesthesia with clonidine in the management of complex regional pain syndrome of the knee.
Reuben SS, Sklar J.
J Clin Anesth. 2002 Mar;14(2):87-91.
PMID: 11943518 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Preemptive multimodal analgesia for anterior cruciate ligament surgery.
Reuben SS, Sklar J.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;27(2):225; author reply 225-6. No abstract available.
PMID: 11915075 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

6. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the perioperative administration of rofecoxib for total knee arthroplasty.
Reuben SS, Fingeroth R, Krushell R, Maciolek H.
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jan;17(1):26-31.
PMID: 11805921 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

The preemptive analgesic effect of rofecoxib after ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery.
Reuben SS, Bhopatkar S, Maciolek H, Joshi W, Sklar J.
Anesth Analg. 2002 Jan;94(1):55-9, table of contents.
PMID: 11772800 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on osteogenesis and spinal fusion.
Reuben SS.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2001 Nov-Dec;26(6):590-1. No abstract available.
PMID: 11707804 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

5. Local administration of morphine for analgesia after iliac bone graft harvest.
Reuben SS, Vieira P, Faruqi S, Verghis A, Kilaru PA, Maciolek H.
Anesthesiology. 2001 Aug;95(2):390-4.
PMID: 11506111 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

A new class of COX-2 inhibitors offer an alternative to NSAIDS in pain management after spinal surgery.
Reuben SS.
Spine. 2001 Jul 1;26(13):1505-6. No abstract available.
PMID: 11458162 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

The preemptive analgesic effect of intraarticular bupivacaine and morphine after ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery.
Reuben SS, Sklar J, El-Mansouri M.
Anesth Analg. 2001 Apr;92(4):923-6.
PMID: 11273927 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Ambulatory anesthesia for knee arthroscopy.
Reuben SS.
Anesth Analg. 2001 Feb;92(2):556. No abstract available.
PMID: 11159269 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Pain management in patients who undergo outpatient arthroscopic surgery of the knee.
Reuben SS, Sklar J.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Dec;82-A(12):1754-66. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 11130650 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Surgery on the affected upper extremity of patients with a history of complex regional pain syndrome: a retrospective study of 100 patients.
Reuben SS, Rosenthal EA, Steinberg RB.
J Hand Surg [Am]. 2000 Nov;25(6):1147-51.
PMID: 11119677 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Continuous shoulder analgesia via an indwelling axillary brachial plexus catheter.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB.
J Clin Anesth. 2000 Sep;12(6):472-5.
PMID: 11090734 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

4. Postoperative analgesic effects of celecoxib or rofecoxib after spinal fusion surgery.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR.
Anesth Analg. 2000 Nov;91(5):1221-5.
PMID: 11049912 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Effect of clonidine on upper extremity tourniquet pain in healthy volunteers.
Lurie SD, Reuben SS, Gibson CS, DeLuca PA, Maciolek HA.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2000 Sep-Oct;25(5):502-5.
PMID: 11009236 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

3. Brachial plexus anesthesia with verapamil and/or morphine.
Reuben SS, Reuben JP.
Anesth Analg. 2000 Aug;91(2):379-83.
PMID: 10910852 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Postoperative analgesia for outpatient arthroscopic knee surgery with intraarticular clonidine and/or morphine.
Joshi W, Reuben SS, Kilaru PR, Sklar J, Maciolek H.
Anesth Analg. 2000 May;90(5):1102-6.
PMID: 10781460 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Gastric perforation associated with the use of celecoxib.
Reuben SS, Steinberg R.
Anesthesiology. 1999 Nov;91(5):1548-9. No abstract available.
PMID: 10551614 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Use of clonidine as a component of the peribulbar block in patients undergoing cataract surgery.
Connelly NR, Camerlenghi G, Bilodeau M, Hall S, Reuben SS, Papale J.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1999 Sep-Oct;24(5):426-9.
PMID: 10499754 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Use of clonidine in hernia patients: intramuscular versus surgical site.
Connelly NR, Reuben SS, Albert M, Page D, Gibson CS, Moineau A, Dixon KL, Maciolek H.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1999 Sep-Oct;24(5):422-5.
PMID: 10499753 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Intravenous regional anesthesia using lidocaine and clonidine.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Klatt JL, Klatt ML.
Anesthesiology. 1999 Sep;91(3):654-8.
PMID: 10485774 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Preemptive analgesia: its role and efficacy in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Reuben SS.
Am J Sports Med. 1999 Jul-Aug;27(4):544-5. No abstract available.
PMID: 10424229 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

A comparison of two concentrations of bupivacaine and adrenaline with and without fentanyl in paediatric inguinal herniorrhaphy.
Joshi W, Connelly NR, Dwyer M, Schwartz D, Kilaru PR, Reuben SS.
Paediatr Anaesth. 1999;9(4):317-20.
PMID: 10411767 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Postoperative analgesia with controlled-release oxycodone for outpatient anterior cruciate ligament surgery.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR, Maciolek H.
Anesth Analg. 1999 Jun;88(6):1286-91.
PMID: 10357331 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

A dose-response study of intravenous regional anesthesia with meperidine.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Lurie SD, Gibson CS.
Anesth Analg. 1999 Apr;88(4):831-5.
PMID: 10195533 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Postoperative analgesia for outpatient arthroscopic knee surgery with intraarticular clonidine.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR.
Anesth Analg. 1999 Apr;88(4):729-33.
PMID: 10195512 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Is there a place for meperidine in intravenous regional anesthesia?
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Lurie SD.
Anesth Analg. 1998 Nov;87(5):1215-6. No abstract available.
PMID: 9806722 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Intravenous regional clonidine in the management of sympathetically maintained pain.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Madabhushi L, Rosenthal E.
Anesthesiology. 1998 Aug;89(2):527-30. No abstract available.
PMID: 9710416 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Peripherally administered NSAIDs provide for patient benefit.
Connelly NR, Reuben SS.
Anesthesiology. 1998 Jul;89(1):276. No abstract available.
PMID: 9667328 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Dose-response of ketorolac as an adjunct to patient-controlled analgesia morphine in patients after spinal fusion surgery.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR, Lurie S, Klatt M, Gibson CS.
Anesth Analg. 1998 Jul;87(1):98-102.
PMID: 9661554 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

The dose-response relationship of ketorolac as a component of intravenous regional anesthesia with lidocaine.
Steinberg RB, Reuben SS, Gardner G.
Anesth Analg. 1998 Apr;86(4):791-3.
PMID: 9539603 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Intraarticular morphine in the multimodal analgesic management of postoperative pain after ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament repair.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Cohen MA, Kilaru PA, Gibson CS.
Anesth Analg. 1998 Feb;86(2):374-8.
PMID: 9459251 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Ketorolac as an adjunct to patient-controlled morphine in postoperative spine surgery patients.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR, Steinberg R.
Reg Anesth. 1997 Jul-Aug;22(4):343-6.
PMID: 9223200 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Local analgesia effect of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR.
Anesth Analg. 1997 May;84(5):1168-9. No abstract available.
PMID: 9141961 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Central nervous system toxicity in a patient receiving continuous intrapleural bupivacaine.
Kreitzer JM, Reuben SS.
J Clin Anesth. 1996 Dec;8(8):666-8.
PMID: 8982897 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Comparison of wound infiltration with ketorolac versus intravenous regional anesthesia with ketorolac for postoperative analgesia following ambulatory hand surgery.
Reuben SS, Duprat KM.
Reg Anesth. 1996 Nov-Dec;21(6):565-8.
PMID: 8956394 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

1. Postarthroscopic meniscus repair analgesia with intraarticular ketorolac or morphine.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR.
Anesth Analg. 1996 May;82(5):1036-9.
PMID: 8610863 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Intravenous regional anesthesia using lidocaine and ketorolac.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Kreitzer JM, Duprat KM.
Anesth Analg. 1995 Jul;81(1):110-3.
PMID: 7598236 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Postoperative analgesia for outpatient arthroscopic knee sugery with intraarticular bupivacaine and ketorolac.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR.
Anesth Analg. 1995 Jun;80(6):1154-7.
PMID: 7762844 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Improving patient-controlled analgesia: adding droperidol to morphine sulfate to reduce nausea and vomiting and potentiate analgesia.
Freedman GM, Kreitzer JM, Reuben SS, Eisenkraft JB.
Mt Sinai J Med. 1995 May;62(3):221-5.
PMID: 7616978 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Sympathetically maintained pain and the use of regional anesthesia.
Reuben SS.
Anesthesiology. 1994 Dec;81(6):1548. No abstract available.
PMID: 7992927 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

An intrathecal fentanyl dose-response study in lower extremity revascularization procedures.
Reuben SS, Dunn SM, Duprat KM, O’Sullivan P.
Anesthesiology. 1994 Dec;81(6):1371-5.
PMID: 7992905 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Update on postoperative pain management.
Kreitzer JM, Reuben SS, Reed AP.
Mt Sinai J Med. 1991 May;58(3):240-6. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 1875962 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Postoperative pain control with methadone following lower abdominal surgery.
Richlin DM, Reuben SS.
J Clin Anesth. 1991 Mar-Apr;3(2):112-6.
PMID: 2039637 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Then there are some listed as just Reuben, S, rather than Reuben, SS. Similar topic – pain management. One with the same institution. One with at least one of Dr. Reuben’s regular coauthors.

Gene \Narcotic Attenuation Program attenuates substance use disorder, a clinical subtype of reward deficiency syndrome.[1]
Chen TJ, Blum K, Waite RL, Meshkin B, Schoolfield J, Downs BW, Braverman EE, Arcuri V, Varshavskiy M, Blum SH, Mengucci J, Reuben C, Palomo T.
Adv Ther. 2007 Mar-Apr;24(2):402-14.
PMID: 17565932 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

More on current issues in pain management for the primary care practitioner. Acute pain: a multi-modal management approach.
Carr DB, Reuben S.
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005;19(1):69-70. No abstract available.
PMID: 15814519 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Intravenous regional anesthesia with ketorolac-lidocaine for the management of sympathetically-mediated pain.
Connelly NR, Reuben S, Brull SJ.
Yale J Biol Med. 1995 May-Aug;68(3-4):95-9.
PMID: 8792601 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Circumcision in children with penile block alone.
Serour F, Reuben S, Ezra S.
J Urol. 1995 Feb;153(2):474-6.
PMID: 7815625 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Footnotes:

^ 1 This was moved 3/15/09 at 22:30, because I had included it in the wrong place.

^ Back to beginning of list

.

Filed Under: Fraud, Heresy, Research, Science Tagged With: , ,

Correlation vs. Causation

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:15:49 -0400 by
Some coverage of research in comics by xkcd:

One of the amusing parts of xkcd is the mouse over text. It does not transfer, but this is what pops up at the xkcd site:

Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’

Correlation is when things happen together. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to try to differentiate among the different correlations. Some will be purely coincidences. Some will be related, but one will not be the cause of what comes after it. And some will be causes.

All of the links in this are from the original article. The author trying to make his point, not me criticizing his points.

Cows with Names Make More Milk
By Robert Roy Britt, Editorial Director
posted: 27 January 2009 09:05 pm ET

Researchers in the UK say cows with names make 3.4 percent more milk in a year than cows that just feel, well, like cows.

There seems to be more than just names involved, however.

This sounds as if it is common sense. Call a cow by name and the cow will be more productive. People seem to prefer to be called by name, so why not cows?

Is this an example of anthropomorphic fallacy? Anthropomorphic fallacy is attributing human qualities to other creatures without any evidence to support these traits. Do cows feel happy, sad, or unique? If they do, which is a big If, how do we recognize that feeling? Does an appearance that resembles a human expression of happiness, or sadness, mean the same on a cow as on a human?

The study, involving 516 dairy farmers and published online Tuesday by the journal Anthrozoos, found that “on farms where each cow was called by her name the overall milk yield was higher than on farms where the cattle were herded as a group,” write researchers Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson of Newcastle University.

Nobody likes to be herded. Even a cow, one might presume. Indeed, the findings in fact point to an overall personal touch that — just a guess here — might say as much about the farmers as it does about the cows.

Precisely. There does not seem to be any attempt to control for variables in this study. Is the only difference between the farms that some farmers called their cows by name, while other farmers did not? I called up Jimmy The Greek and he would not give me any odds on that bet. It seems that this guy, with no scientific research training, is able to recognize a major flaw in this research. And Jimmy The Greek has been dead for a dozen years.

Nobody likes to be herded?

I think that the economy is demonstrating exactly the opposite. There are a lot of people just begging to be herded. Tell us what to do! Save us! Is that not herd mentality? Nobody likes to be herded is what we would like to believe about ourselves, but a lot of people sure do seem as if they like to be herded. That freedom from the responsibility of having to think. They do seem to love it. Even the link provided does not support the claim that nobody likes to be herded.

“Just as people respond better to the personal touch, cows also feel happier and more relaxed if they are given a bit more one-to-one attention,” Douglas said. “By placing more importance on the individual, such as calling a cow by her name or interacting with the animal more as it grows up, we can not only improve the animal’s welfare and her perception of humans, but also increase milk production.”

Improve … her perception of humans?

This is not doing much for my perception of this Douglas human. Excuse me for taking a bit of a speciesist view of this, but what evidence do we have that cows’ perception of humans has anything to do with life as a cow on a farm? Do they view us as benevolent creatures, more so if we call them by name? Do they view us as soft touches, to be manipulated as much as possible? How would we know?

Happy cows. Okay. Well, if you are a farmer (especially one with a small farm that struggles to be profitable by milking only a handful of cows) you probably would not argue with success. Cows, after all (and in case you thinking of judging them as dumb animals) are known to have a magnetic sixth sense and are not as prone to cow-tipping as you might have heard. Who knows what else they are capable of?

A magnetic sixth sense?

Birds have a similar ability to sense magnetic north. Comparing a cow brain to a bird brain is not making a case for intelligent cows.

Not as prone (a pun?) to cow tipping?

Again, this has nothing to do with intelligence. Cows do not sleep standing up. If the cow is standing, the cow is awake. Not being completely oblivious to one’s surroundings correlates with intelligence. Awareness is not the same as intelligence. A Venus Flytrap has enough awareness to catch flies, but that does not make it intelligent.

Dairy farmer Dennis Gibb, who co-owns Eachwick Red House Farm outside Newcastle with his brother Richard,

The Brothers Gibb?

Milkin’ the Cows sung to the tune of Stayin’ Alive. You know, the CPR song.

Well, you can tell by the way I name my cows,
I’m an udder man: no time to talk.
Bowels are loud and teats are warm, I’ve been excreted on
Since I was born.
And now it’s all right. It’s OK.
And you may milk another way.
We can try to understand
Callin’ their name’s effect on cows.

Whether you’re a twister or whether you’re a squeezer,
You’re milkin’ the cows, milkin’ the cows.
Feel methane breakin’ and everybody shakin’,
And were milkin’ the cows, milkin’ the cows.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, milkin’ the cows, milkin’ the cows.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, milkin’ the cows.

Naming cows is one thing, but do they teach them karaoke? Do they teach them to dance? How can you have a proper control group without these groups?

Sorry. I get just a little bit silly at times.

Dairy farmer Dennis Gibb, who co-owns Eachwick Red House Farm outside Newcastle with his brother Richard, says he believes treating every cow as an individual is vitally important. “They aren’t just our livelihood — they’re part of the family,” Gibb said in a statement released by the university. “We love our cows here at Eachwick and every one of them has a name. Collectively we refer to them as ‘our ladies’ but we know every one of them and each one has her own personality.”

See?

The findings:

* 46 percent said the cows on their farm were called by name.
* 66 percent said they “knew all the cows in the herd.”
* 48 percent said positive human contact was more likely to produce cows with a good milking temperament.
* Less than 10 percent said that a fear of humans resulted in a poor milking temperament.

* 66 percent said they “knew all the cows in the herd.”

Isn’t that shepherds. . .

Have I mentioned that you should try the veal? Badump bump.

* Less than 10 percent said that a fear of humans resulted in a poor milking temperament.

Are they claiming that fear results in poor milking temperament?

Or are they claiming that fear of humans results in poor milking temperament?

I don’t have a big problem with categorizing certain responses as indications of fear. We cannot ask the cow what she is feeling, but we can guess. All that this would be is a great big guess. OK, I guess I do have a problem with this. Now, if you take that great big guess, not only take it for granted, but attribute a specific cause to the presumed fear, that’s just silly.

Unless you have John Edwards reading the minds of these cows for you:

John Edwards – I sense something from over here. Something that begins with an M. Is it Moo?

Cow – Yes. That is what my mother, an unnamed cow, always used to say to me.

After all, the lack of continuing success for his show isn’t because John Edwards is a fraud. He’s just misunderstood by the cows in the audience. Yeah. That’s the ticket. He’s just misunderstood. By the cows.

“Our data suggests that on the whole UK dairy farmers regard their cows as intelligent beings capable of experiencing a range of emotions,” Douglass said. “Placing more importance on knowing the individual animals and calling them by name can — at no extra cost to the farmer –— also significantly increase milk production.”

The cows are intelligent beings?

Compared to what? Bacteria?

Maybe these intelligent beings should be allowed to vote.

This is at no extra cost to the farmer?

Clearly, these farmers do not understand cows. You call a cow by the wrong name and no milk for a week.

* Amazing Animal Abilities
* My Big Beef with Cloned Cattle
* Love of Milk Dated Back to 6000 B.C.

Robert Roy Britt is the Editorial Director of Imaginova. In this column, The Water Cooler, he takes a daily look at what people are talking about in the world of science and beyond.

Correlation:

Cows called by name.

AND

Cows produce more milk.

This is a correlation.

Does this equal causation?

Does calling the cow by name mean that the cow will produce more milk, than if you do not call the cow by name?

To quote from the xkcd comic – Well, maybe.

Just because the research does not exclude the obvious, and even less obvious, variables, does not mean that one does not cause the other. It is possible.

However, because of the lack of control of variables, and other flaws, it would be a huge mistake to suggest that there is evidence to support that conclusion. For all we know, it could be an error of measurement – there may not be any real difference.

This isn’t research. This is comedy.

.

Filed Under: Critical Judgment, Heresy, Research, Science Tagged With: , ,

Evidence Based Medicine and Law – Star of Life Law

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:35:39 -0500 by
This is a follow-up to the discussion of MOI (Mechanism Of Injury) begun on Ambulance Driver’s column for EMS1.com – The Cult of Mechanism, which was given a brief introduction at Ambulance Driver’s blog, then hijacked over to here for some commentary, but mainly remaining at AD’s place. Then out of nowhere it is re-hijacked by Star of Life Law. Has he no ethics about this secondary hijacking? Well, he is a lawyer.

What does this lawyer do with his post?

He writes about legal stuff. So predictable. However, a lot of the discussion was about what may land EMS in court, or our patient in the ICU/cemetery. The court room can be scary. Pete Reid writes Star of Life Law and promises to address the legal aspects of EMS on his blog. Of course he starts by picking on the guy with the big yellow head.

From the way we are quoted, it almost seems as if AD and I do not agree on the value of MOI. We do not agree on everything. For example, AD does get a bit carried away when it comes to bacon.

Neither of us seem to have much respect for the abused tool that is MOI. A tool that is held out to the EMS community as a stay out of court free card.

Will you get in trouble for basing your treatment on MOI?

If your medical director knows what the value of MOI is, then Yes. You will probably be questioned on the reason for treatments that are not based on a patient assessment.

Is there a reason to be treating a person based on what does not appear to have injured the patient?

Not really. MOI is a clue. I thought about wording this differently, so that I could write that those basing treatment on MOI don’t have a clue. That would be misrepresenting MOI. MOI is a clue about the patient’s condition, but it is a very weak clue.

What are the MOI criteria?

First let’s look at all of the ACS (American College of Surgeons) trauma triage criteria.

Physiologic criteria:
Systolic blood pressure 29 breaths/min

Anatomic criteria:
Flail chest
≥2 proximal long bone fractures
Penetrating injury (nonextremity)

“Other” criteria:
Age 55 years
Known cardiac or respiratory disease

Mechanism criteria:
Crash speed >20 mph
≥30-inch vehicle deformity
Rearward displacement of front axle
Death of a same-vehicle occupant
Ejection of patient from the vehicle
Opposite-side intrusion >24 inches
Same-side vehicle intrusion >18 inches
Vehicle rollover[1]

The funny thing about these criteria is that you cannot find them on the ACS web site. At least I cannot. I have spent hours searching the site on different occasions. Apparently these are some sort of secret.

This is all I am going to write today. There is a lot about the trauma triage criteria, their application/misapplication, and other stuff to discuss. read what others have written. Welcome Star of Life Law to the EMS blogging community.

Footnotes:

^ 1 Evidence for and impact of selective reporting of trauma triage mechanism criteria.
Burstein JL, Henry MC, Alicandro JM, McFadden K, Thode HC Jr, Hollander JE.
Acad Emerg Med. 1996 Nov;3(11):1011-5.
PMID: 8922006 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

These criteria are from a 1996 study, so they are probably not the most recent, but they do provide a lot to write about.

.

Filed Under: Assessment, Critical Judgment, EBM, Heresy, Research, Science Tagged With: , ,

Confidence Intervals I

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:40:34 -0500 by
In my last post, Evidence Based Medicine Discussion – Hijacked from Ambulance Driver, I wrote about the 95% Confidence Interval (CI). In the comments, Vince wrote:

I’m a little late to the party, since my blog-perusing time has been stolen from me of late. I will not begin heroics on our equine friend with lividity, I just have one comment to your statement,

That is the purpose of the 95% Confidence Interval. Unless it is calculated incorrectly, due to a misunderstanding of what is being measured, or a misunderstanding of what variables are relevant, the research should only have a one-in-twenty chance of misrepresenting the conclusion.

I assume you were just typing at 100 miles/hr but it is a point worth clearing up.

Well, typing faster than I think, perhaps 100 millimeters per hour (one of the reasons I don’t post more often), but I did ponder over the use of the word conclusion. I could not come up with a more appropriate word at the time and I never returned to it, although I should have.

Confidence Intervals are not any type of guarantee of conclusions at all! As I am sure you are aware, CI represents the probability that the data are somehow correlated to a phenomena and not just the result of “statistical randomness”, inasmuch as the selected group will represent (statistically) the larger population.

You are correct. I was trying to qualify that by excluding the things that would lead to incorrectly drawn conclusions. I was giving a bit too much importance to the conclusion. I was trying to make a point about one thing that is not well understood. I was trying to simplify things. I did a poor job.

BY NO MEANS does a CI of 95% (or 99% for that matter) guarantee anything about VALID CONCLUSIONS.*

Unfortunately, many studies with >95% CI’s have 100% chance of misrepresenting conclusions!

This is true. This is one area of research that provides me with so much to write about. When researchers are measuring the wrong thing, or trying to measure the right thing, but not effectively controlling for variables, the results probably will have no more than a random chance of producing information about anything, except How not to do research.

Several factors play a role in the ability to made a valid conclusion from any collection of data. Not least of these are the actual study design, inclusion(exclusion) criteria, experimental methodology,..etc etc ….but just to clarify- Confidence Interval is merely a testament to the chances that the data are related to an observed pattern and not just random- and speaks to how the measured group potentially scales up.

Yes. I tried to work that into my description of conclusions, but I only ended up complicating things. The researchers may claim that the data gives a 95% CI, but they may not be measuring the right things, so, their claim of a 95% CI may be the weakest point of a study. If the researchers do not adequately control for all relevant variables, it may not matter how much data they have, they are not any more likely to be measuring relevant data than would some conspiracy theorist.

To quote one of my favorite curmudgeons,

“There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.”

Was that Jenny Killer McCarthy?

The important thing to point out about the 95% CI is that it does mean that, if the research is properly designed, there is less than a 5% chance that the data are due to chance.

This does not mean that 5% of research will come to the opposite conclusion. This does not even mean that 5% of the research will have data that differs from what accurately represents the observable data. It means that, if the variables are understood, the research is properly designed, the study is carried out without significant deviations from the study protocol, . . . , then the data have less than a 5% chance of coming out as they do purely by chance.

The differences in the size of studies mean that a study can have greater than 95% CI, but be several times smaller than another greater than 95% CI. The idea that 1 in 20 studies will come to the opposite conclusion, is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Confidence Interval.

* [As an aside, if it is the last thing I am going to do I am getting a “Correlation does not equal Causation” tattoo]

You are old enough to make these decisions on your own. I would recommend using this at the appropriate time. Maybe as a bet. And there are several science tattoo blogs that might be interested in having you show a bit of skin. Don’t be offended if they are only interested in the skin with the tattoo.

.

Filed Under: Critical Judgment, Heresy, Math, Research, Science Tagged With: , ,

Evidence Based Medicine Discussion – Hijacked from Ambulance Driver

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:29:08 -0500 by
In a post called For All You EMS Types…, over at A Day In The Life Of An Ambulance Driver there is a bit of a debate going on. In his penultimate comment, Ted wrote,

Your stance on the ethics issue is interesting. Are you seriously advocating that we immediately start actively experimenting on patients regarding every treatment that isn’t firmly grounded in hard data?

In the absence of evidence to support these treatments, we already are actively experimenting on patients. Suggesting that continuing treatments, treatments not supported by evidence, are anything other than experimental, is wrong.

If you cannot show that a treatment leads to an improvement in outcomes, the treatment is experimental.

What I’m hearing is: we haven’t proven that treatment x is any good (there isn’t a lot of good data), so despite years of use and expert recommendations we’re going to stop using treatment x pending further review.

In spite of years of use, all we have are expert recommendations.

Are patients surviving in spite of these treatments?

We do not know.

Are patients dying, or having worse outcomes, because of these treatments?

We do not know.

Are patients made aware of the known risks and benefits of these treatments?

When I have been present, when a patient received information about any risks of treatment for many of these treatments, it has been from me, or one of my students. EMS does a horrible job of obtaining informed consent in stable patients.

What about informed consent?

Informed consent in EMS? Emergency Manipulation Services?

The typical discussion of the use of spinal immobilization is the basic EMT/paramedic telling the patient that the patient could end up paralyzed if not immobilized. Where is the evidence to support that? If the patient hesitates to agree the voice is raised until the basic EMT/paramedic is screaming at the patient, Do You Want To Be Paralyzed? Causing the patient to contract all of the muscles that immobilization is supposed to prevent from moving. Sometimes leaving some spittle and fast food on the face of the Guantanamo inmate who is trying to destroy America patient wondering what the benefit of treatment is. The similarity to waterboarding may not be coincidental, but without research to support that statement, it is only a guess. Just barely less valid than the recommendation to immobilize everyone. Maybe it is more valid. I don’t have enough evidence to tell.

Why do we need to intimidate patients into being treated?

We don’t. We do need to move truly emergent patients to the hospital quickly. when there is no suspicion of immediate life/limb threat, we need to slow down and act as if we know what we are doing. Maybe it is only EMS Theater.

The experts supporting these treatments are becoming less numerous as the absence of evidence becomes harder to justify.

The expert recommendations are decades old. The recommendations are from a time before EMS research was common. We’re not looking at a time when dinosaurs were wandering around, just a time when cellular phones were rare. I was out of school, pretending to be an adult. In the absence of research, the expert recommendations were really only the best guess of the experts of that time. This was a time when resuscitation rates were in the low single digits, everyone dead received calcium and sodium bicarbonate, and IVs required medical command permission – after all we didn’t want to be too aggressive.

We didn’t know any better.

We are finding that the expert recommendations of decades ago, do not compare favorably on most treatments. The treatments that we continue from that time, are mostly the treatments that are not evidence based. The evidence, when it has been done, has largely led to the elimination of the once standard treatments. MAST, requiring On Line Medical Command permission for treatments, high-flow oxygen for everything, Lasix for CHF, coma cocktails[1], steroids for spinal injuries, not treating pain because it might interfere with consent, limiting NTG to 3 doses, and so on. You know I could go on for a while with these one time standards of care, now discredited treatments.

We didn’t know any better.

Why are we treating patients according to what was the expert recommendation 30 years ago? An expert recommendation that has been studied, but not found to improve outcomes should be limited to the controlled experiment. The idea that we need IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval of the ethics of looking at these experimental treatments is completely absurd. We are being forced, by the IRB, to continue large-scale uninformed experimental treatments. This is exactly what the IRB is supposed to prevent.

Where is the consent to these huge uncontrolled and undeclared experiments?

Consent does not exist. The actions of the IRBs prohibit consent.

Enter the imaginary world of the IRB. Just step through the looking-glass. Unexamined treatments are the standard of care. Treatments that have not shown any improved outcomes, in spite of IRB approved studies, are the standard of care. The lack evidence, supporting their safety or their benefit, is not an obstacle to treatment, but a mandate for treatment. You might begin to believe in conspiracy theories.

We did not have to pass through a looking-glass to do that. All we had to do was enter the world of EMS.

I do not believe that conspiracy theories are sane approaches to the evidence. I agree with Heinlein’s comment to conspiracy theorists, You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity. This may be more of a Stupidity Theory, or an Inertia Theory. Too many people claiming that we should not change what has worked perfectly well for decades.

Has it worked perfectly well for decades?

We don’t know. There is no evidence to suggest that it has worked well for decades. Is there?

That statement would apply to c-spine immobilization, fluid resuscitation in trauma, and ALS in cardiac arrest.

Absolutely. We need to study these treatments more. At least enough so that we have more than a hunch about benefits of treatment.

To sum up the current, state of the art research – We don’t know!

I’ll agree completely that further study is needed (multiple prospective studies and meta-analyses are the standard), but until those studies are completed the safest course is to continue to follow the available guidelines, which at this point are based on expert recommendations.

How do you know that this is safe?

Without evidence, is this much different from having a witch doctor do a chicken dance around the patient?

Prove that it is safe, first. Then advocate for treatment.

This is the way science works.

Ted’s last comment is:

RM
Regarding the NEXUS issue, let’s be clear: are you advocating adding c-spine clearance to the Basic curriculum?

To answer the last comment, I cannot do better than this:

Ambulance Driver wrote:

Ted, why not?

Maine has been doing it from First Responder and up for the past several years now with no problems.

During which time, I feel compelled to add, they also dropped consideration of MOI as one of their clearance criteria because it is so unreliable a predictor of injury.

Sorry, man, I couldn’t resist.

I guess I just plagiarized AD’s comment. OK. It was that good, so I will justify the plagiarism with some more plagiarism. Sorry, man, I couldn’t resist. 🙂

Did I mention that, in the original post by AD, the topic was MOI (Mechanism Of Injury)? Oopsy. Well, read Kelly Grayson’s column, The Cult of Mechanism at EMS1.com.

Footnotes:

^ 1 No More Coma Cocktails: Using Science to Dispel and Improve Patient Care.
Bledsoe BE.
Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS).
2002; 27(11):54-60
From www.bryanbledsoe.com/
Free PDF

.

Filed Under: Heresy, NTG, Research, Science Tagged With: , ,

Jenny “Killer” McCarthy Appointed to All Cabinet Posts by President Obama

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:26:25 -0500 by
President Obama surprised everyone today, except contributor Jim Carey, by suddenly announcing a different kind of change. This change will be permanent. No longer will there be a need for anyone who even remotely is qualified to make important decisions. President Obama stated. If she’s good enough for people who want to sacrifice their children, she’s good enough for all of America. Jenny “Killer” McCarthy has been appointed to all of the cabinet posts. Even the ones that have not been created yet.

For the ex-members of the cabinet, Jenny “Killer” McCarthy has asked that they all receive some lovely parting gifts. Autographed copies of her latest book, Phooey On That Nasty Science Stuff! An amazing book that will only be released as a movie. All of Hollywood is gaga over this and The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced, in spite of the lack of suspense, they will be awarding all of this year’s Oscars to Jenny “Killer” McCarthy, even if the movie is never made.

President Obama also wants this appointment to be permanent for all future administrations. If there is any opposition to this, he will send Jenny “Killer” McCarthy to the Senate to filibuster until the Senate surrenders. Although there is no authority for a cabinet member, or potential cabinet member to filibuster the Senate, nobody expects that to stop Jenny “Killer” McCarthy. Why should it. She has never let incompetence stop her before. After that, the House of Representatives may be subject to its first filibuster.

While taking control of the White house in this way initially, Jenny “Killer” McCarthy states that the first time the President steps out of line, she will march back down to the Capitol and have them appoint her Queen, although she may decide that the title of Fairy Princess is what this country really needs. After all, nothing can stop a Fairy Princess.

Jenny “Killer” McCarthy will ban all vaccinations, but cosmetic surgery will be free for everyone. The Fairy Princess cannot possibly govern an unattractive nation.

In her first press conference since the announcement of her appointment to everything, some darn fool asked about the recent outbreak of meningitis in Minnesota.[1] An outbreak that appears to be due to parents’ refusal to vaccinate their children with Haemophilus influenza B vaccine. Jenny “Killer” McCarthy denied that this actually happened, then seemed to change her mind. This was FDA ninja scientist assassins trying to make vaccines look good. Dr. Offit does not have an alibi for every moment of the dead baby’s life. As Attorney General, I sentence him to death as a witch. He will be burned at the stake under the new Jenny! Laws.

In a future press conference (why let even a little bit of reality intrude), Jenny “Killer” McCarthy stated, As Surgeon General, I will eliminate the FDA and CDC. All of that science makes my head hurt. When I get a head ache, I get cranky. When I get cranky, that isn’t good for the people our bombs are pointed at. As Fairy Princess, I need to keep smiling and happy or, oopsy, no more England. I’ll show that Queen what a Fairy Princess can do. It’s a tiny little country and I won’t even have to reload.

Footnotes:

^ 1 Invasive Haemophilus influenzae Type B Disease in Five Young Children — Minnesota, 2008
January 23, 2009 / 58 (Early Release);1-3
Free Full Text . . . . Free PDF

.

Filed Under: Heresy, Science, Vaccines, Yes this is satire Tagged With: ,

Ben Stein Fails Religion, Or Happy Birthday Charles Darwin

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:21:46 -0500 by
 
February 12, 1809. One of the greatest thinkers was born. His thoughts were similar to the gedanken experiments (thought experiments) of Albert Einstein. As with Einstein, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly confirmed as science has progressed. He wrote On the Origin of Species 150 years ago.[1]
 


 

150 years ago. I don’t like dealing with research more than a few years old. Generally the newer research builds on the older research, or contradicts the older research. EMS research tends not to have much of a history. To make up for this, we have a lot of EMS mythology. 150 years. Very impressive.

There is vocal opposition to evolution from many, who do not understand the science. They presume that evolution is in conflict with Genesis. For some reason, Genesis is believed to be completely free of metaphor. Fortunately, most religions do not feel the need to worship a Book, rather than an omnipotent God.

I’m sorry. Chapter A, Verse B states that God may not do C. God serves the Book, the Book does not serve God.

There is even a Commandment that addresses this. The First. Something about worshiping others before God. This is in the Bible. The Bible that Creationists worship, before God.

Why is God incapable of creating evolution? He has to stick to the Book. So much for omniscient and omnipotent. Would an omniscient being have created such a conflict? Would an omnipotent being have abandoned omnipotence?

There is a lecture series available at YouTube Darwin’s Legacy | Lecture 1 and iTunes Darwin’s Legacy | Lecture 1. These lectures can provide far more information than I can. One warning is that they are not short, about two hours each, so get comfortable before you start.
 

[youtube]fysSblKjjvA[/youtube]
 

One reason that so many people have trouble with the concept of evolution, perhaps the greatest reason, is that we have some irrational belief that coincidence is rare. We are unaware of the size and scope of the universe. We are unaware of the many ways that the smallest bits interact. We are unaware of the many ways that the slightly larger bits interact. And so on ad infinitum.

ad infinitum.

That is the hard part to understand. How big is infinity? What is meant by limitless?

Buzz Lightyear presents us with a koan about infinity, To Infinity… and Beyond, or Ad infinitum…and Beyond.

Where does infinity end? If infinity is endless, can it ever end? If you apply these to omnipotence, what is an omnipotent being not capable of?

On a clear night, go outside and look up at the sky. You can see thousands of stars. The light, from some of them, has taken thousands of years to get to your eye. You are looking thousands of years back in time. This coincides with the Creationist view of the universe.

Some of what seem to be individual stars are actually galaxies. The Andromeda Galaxy is almost 3 million years away.[2] If you accept the Creationist time line of the universe, this is impossible. Apparently, in their interpretation, God did not create enough zeroes for the earth, the universe, or anything else except for God, to be older. How can God be older than the Book, That tells Him what He can do? Well, enough about these blasphemers.

Anyway, the Andromeda Galaxy is just one that is close enough, and bright enough, to be seen with the naked eye on a dark enough night. There are other objects much farther away.

Then there is the question of the number of stars. One estimate is 70 sextillion,[3] which is a lot more than a lot. That was just the number that might be observed with telescopes. This is not even more than a hint at the total number. As you can guess, from this, some of them are going to be pretty far away. Billions of light years? Trillions? Apparently, these stars are not aware that they contradict Creationists ideas.

Other confirmation of evolution can be found in DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid). Darwin was not familiar with DNA, which was first isolated when he was 60 years old. DNA has been used to show the evolutionary links among species. The amount of information we have, through DNA, dwarfs what was known when Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection. Yet this information, from a science that was not yet known, confirms evolution. Much of science needs to be discarded, as more is learned and inevitable weaknesses are exposed. Darwin was so revolutionary that parts of what he included, that were later believed to be wrong, are now recognized as correct.[4]

Also born on this day in 1809 was Abraham Lincoln. As an interesting contrast, President Lincoln suppressed a revolution. If he had not, this might be the Balkan States of America. OK, not Balkan, but something similar. Some loose confederation of nations that would require identification papers and fees, just to pass from state to state. That is, assuming that these would not be at war. Some of these states might still allow slavery. These two men did share an understanding of the evil of slavery.

Not coincidentally, The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) was founded 100 years ago, today.

Late addition (00:30 02/13/09) – The Vatican will be holding a conference called, “Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A critical appraisal 150 years after ‘The Origin of Species'”. Rome March 3-7, 2009.
 

“The committee agreed to consider ID as a phenomenon of an ideological and cultural nature, thus worthy of a historic examination, but certainly not to be discussed on scientific, philosophical or theological grounds,” said Saverio Forestiero, a conference organizer and professor of zoology at the University of Rome.[5]

 

Much more about Darwin at Blog For Darwin and over at Scientific Blogging on Darwin Day 2009.

Also Mule Breath adds his perspective with Today in History.
 



 

–

Footnotes:

–

[1] On the Origin of Species
Wikipedia
Many more links can be found there
Article

–

[2] How Far can you See?
Bad Astronomy
by Phil Plait
February 3, 1997
Article

–

[3] Number of visible stars put at 70 sextillion
Bob Beale
ABC Science Online
Friday, 25 July 2003
Article

–

[4] Darwin, Ahead of His Time, Is Still Influential
NY Times
By Nicholas Wade
Published: February 9, 2009
Article

–

[5] Vatican evolution conference to discuss intelligent design, but as cultural issue, not science
By Nicole Winfield
Associated Press
Last update: February 10, 2009 – 12:36 PM
Article

That article is no longer available, but this covers the same story –
 

Vatican to give intelligent design critical study
By Carol Glatz
Source: Catholic News Service
Published: Tuesday, February 10, 2009
AmericanCatholic.org
Article

Updated January 17, 2017 – The above article is now only available from the Internet Archive –

Article
 

VATICAN CITY (CNS)—An upcoming Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution will include critical study of the theory of intelligent design, which, organizers said, represents poor theology and science.

 

A number of presentations will discuss intelligent design’s “long and complex genesis” in a historical context and its impact on society and culture because it is “certainly not discussable in the scientific, philosophic and theological fields,” said Saverio Forestiero, professor of zoology at Rome’s Tor Vergata University and a member of the conference’s organizing committee.

 

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, a professor of theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, said, “No evolutionary mechanism is opposed to the affirmation that God wanted and, therefore, created humankind.”

“Basically, evolution is the way in which God created” the cosmos, he added.

 

.

Filed Under: Creationism, Critical Judgment, Heresy, Science Tagged With: ,

The Problem With Chicken Pox Parties

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:00:01 -0500 by
KevinMD writes about chicken pox parties[1] and links to an article[2] about the idea.

Never heard of a chicken pox party? You probably just move in the wrong social circles.

OK. What is a chicken pox party?

Chicken pox is a disease that usually causes a lot of discomfort. How much discomfort has a lot to do with how long it has been since you were a child and had the disease, assuming that you have had the disease. A chicken pox party is a gathering of a bunch of healthy children, with no known immunity to chicken pox.

How is that a chicken pox party? It seems like a non-chicken pox party.

At least one child infected with chicken pox, advertised as highly infectious, will be there.

Why would parents let their children play with a sick child someone who can infect their child?

They want their children to get sick.

Why?

They are more afraid of the less important things, rather than chicken pox.

What less important things?

These parties will be a way of having the children sick at a predictable time. Before that illness might interfere with work, or a vacation, or some major event, like a wedding.

Why not just get their kid vaccinated?

There is the bigger problem. These parents think that they are protecting their children from the vaccine.

Is the vaccine dangerous?

Everything is dangerous. What is important is to understand the relative risks and benefits of something.

What are the risks of the chicken pox vaccine?

Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine side-effects
What are the risks from chickenpox vaccine?

Getting chickenpox vaccine is much safer than getting chickenpox disease. Most people who get chickenpox vaccine do not have any problems with it.
However, a vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of chickenpox vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

Mild Problems
Soreness or swelling where the shot was given (about 1 out of 5 children and up to 1 out of 3 adolescents and adults)
Fever (1 person out of 10, or less)
Mild rash, up to a month after vaccination (1 person out of 20, or less). It is possible for these people to infect other members of their household, but this is extremely rare.
Note:
MMRV vaccine has been associated with higher rates of fever (up to about 1 person in 5) and measles-like rash (about 1 person in 20) compared with MMR and varicella vaccines given separately.

Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (less than 1 person out of 1,000).

Severe Problems
Pneumonia (very rare)
Other serious problems, including severe neurological problems (brain reactions) and low blood count, have been reported after chickenpox vaccination. These happen so rarely, however, that experts cannot tell whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. If they are, it is extremely rare.
This information was taken directly from the Vaccine Information Statement Adobe Acrobat print-friendly PDF file[3]

Why do parents want their children to get the disease if “Getting chickenpox vaccine is much safer than getting chickenpox disease?”

There is a lack of understanding of the risks of vaccines, which are small, but real risks. There is a lack of understanding of the risks of the illness, which are much larger and more serious risks.

What are the risks of chicken pox?

Varicella (Chickenpox)
Varicella (also known as Chickenpox) is a virus of the herpes family called the varicella-zoster virus. Varicella is spread by contact with the fluid from the blisters on an infected person and by coughing and sneezing. It is highly contagious. Symptoms include a skin rash of blister-like lesions, usually on the face, scalp, or trunk of the body. The rash usually starts on the face and then spreads to other parts of the body. This rash begins as red bumps that progress to blisters which eventually “crust over” before falling off, usually in one to two weeks. It is not unusual for a child to get 300 to 500 blisters during a single chickenpox infection.

Before the vaccine was available in 1995 there were 3 to 4 million cases of chickenpox in the United States per year, mostly in children 10 years of age or younger. Current figures indicating the decline in incidence of varicella infection, complications and deaths are only available from select areas of the United States due to inadequate and inconsistent reporting levels from State to State. In those States where reporting is adequate and consistent there has been a decreased incidence in varicella infection of 67 to 82 percent. Complications are more common among adolescents and adults, and in immunocompromised persons of all ages, than in children. Historically 1 out of every 10,000 cases of chickenpox proved fatal with 23 out of every 10,000 cases progressing to pneumonia.

Chickenpox has also been an important risk factor for developing severe invasive “strep” (group A streptococcal disease), commonly referred to as “flesh-eating disease.” Treatment of this deep infection requires antibiotics and surgery to remove the infected tissue. 1 in 10,000 cases of chickenpox will result in bacterial infections, decreased blood platelets, arthritis, hepatitis, and brain inflammation which may cause a failure of muscular coordination.[4]

“I’m aghast at the thought of these parties,” said Dr. Louis Cooper, a spokesman for the Infectious Disease Society of America and a professor emeritus of pediatrics at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“I deeply regret that parents who are trying to do the right thing just don’t get it,” Cooper said. “The fact is that they’re right, chickenpox for most children is a mild illness. But when you see children who have the misfortune of one of the complications that are possible, you never forget it.” [5]

Offit believes that if the chickenpox vaccine becomes as widely used as the measles vaccine was back in 1963, chickenpox would go the way of the measles: away.

“When we introduced the measles vaccine, which is another virus that gets worse for patients as they get older, in 1963, we dramatically reduced the instance of measles,” Offit said. “That is what will happen here with chickenpox.”[5] (Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician specializing in infectious disease at the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia)

These parents are putting their children at risk of serious illness, to protect them from less significant and less common problems that the vaccine might cause. They are also preventing the eradication of this illness and all of the complications associated with the illness, treatment of the illness, and vaccination against the illness.

As more of their children suffer the more serious complications of natural vaccination, a greater awareness should develop of the dangers of this infection party approach. Too bad the mental shortcomings of the parents are inflicted on the children.

Footnotes:

^ 1 Chickenpox parties and the risk of natural immunity
Kevin,MD.com
Article

^ 2 Doctors Wary of Dangerous Pox Parties
Kids Who Aren’t Vaccinated Could Face Serious Complications, Docs Warn
By Emily Friedman
Feb. 2, 2009
Article

^ 3 Basics and Common Questions:
Possible Side-effects from Vaccines
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Vaccines Home > Basics and Common Questions > Possible Side-effects from Vaccines
Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine side-effects

^ 4 Varicella (Chicken Pox)
ECBT (Every Child By Two)
The Diseases
Article

^ 5 Doctors Wary of Dangerous Pox Parties
Kids Who Aren’t Vaccinated Could Face Serious Complications, Docs Warn
By Emily Friedman
Feb. 2, 2009
Article

.

Filed Under: Children, Critical Judgment, Ethics, Heresy, Science, Unicorn Medicine, Vaccines Tagged With: , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »