aads

Hand washing? Really Libertarians? [denialism blog]

The latest entry in the “OMG really?” wars is brought to us by the libertarians, who, using the example of the brutal oppression of hand washing regulations, make total fools of themselves.



Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the Bipartisan Policy Center on Monday, Tillis related a story from his tenure in the North Carolina legislature to help explain his overarching philosophy on the finer points of hand-washing.


“I was having this discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,” Tillis said, in remarks first reported by the District Sentinel. “Let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment, literature, whatever else. There’s this level of regulations that maybe they’re on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you.”



That’s right folks, now pillars of basic public health and sensible regulation to prevent things like typhoid fever or hepatitis A represents an undue burden on businesses serving the public. I guess we should all have to be our own public health department, and upon entry of any business should have to sign a EULA in tiny print freeing them of responsibility if they have filthy food prep areas, warm refrigerators, and potato salad left at room temperature for days on end. Just imagine this brave new world where every decision you make as a consumer you get to individually vet for basic things like, “will this product poison and sicken me?” or “am I about to die if I consume this?” Because we all have time for such nonsense, or the knowledge, or access to information, and I’m sure we can rely on businesses to always be forthright with consumers about risks of their products.


And we thought anti-vax was bad. At least they’re not denying germ theory, just the last 100 years or so of public health and sanitation measures that have drastically-reduced food-borne illness. I guess freedom means the ability to sell poison and tainted meat, albeit with a disclaimer and the wonderful reassurance that if I die from a tainted taco my family can sue for damages (unsuccessfully if the business has a good lawyer).


Can we please not live in such a world?






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1KezeKw

The latest entry in the “OMG really?” wars is brought to us by the libertarians, who, using the example of the brutal oppression of hand washing regulations, make total fools of themselves.



Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the Bipartisan Policy Center on Monday, Tillis related a story from his tenure in the North Carolina legislature to help explain his overarching philosophy on the finer points of hand-washing.


“I was having this discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,” Tillis said, in remarks first reported by the District Sentinel. “Let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment, literature, whatever else. There’s this level of regulations that maybe they’re on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you.”



That’s right folks, now pillars of basic public health and sensible regulation to prevent things like typhoid fever or hepatitis A represents an undue burden on businesses serving the public. I guess we should all have to be our own public health department, and upon entry of any business should have to sign a EULA in tiny print freeing them of responsibility if they have filthy food prep areas, warm refrigerators, and potato salad left at room temperature for days on end. Just imagine this brave new world where every decision you make as a consumer you get to individually vet for basic things like, “will this product poison and sicken me?” or “am I about to die if I consume this?” Because we all have time for such nonsense, or the knowledge, or access to information, and I’m sure we can rely on businesses to always be forthright with consumers about risks of their products.


And we thought anti-vax was bad. At least they’re not denying germ theory, just the last 100 years or so of public health and sanitation measures that have drastically-reduced food-borne illness. I guess freedom means the ability to sell poison and tainted meat, albeit with a disclaimer and the wonderful reassurance that if I die from a tainted taco my family can sue for damages (unsuccessfully if the business has a good lawyer).


Can we please not live in such a world?






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1KezeKw

Worth reading: Measles, heroin, and unsafe chicken [The Pump Handle]

A few of the recent pieces I’ve liked:


Tara C. Smith at Slate: Measles is Horrible


Jason Cherkis in the Huffington Post: Dying to Be Free (“There’s A Treatment For Heroin Addiction That Actually Works. Why Aren’t We Using It?”)


Sara Ainsworth at RH Reality Check: Lawyers for Fetuses? Yes, It’s Absurd, But It’s Worse Than You Realize


Wil S. Hylton in the New Yorker: A Bug in the System: Why last night’s chicken made you sick


Sarah Goodyear at Citylab: More Women Ride Mass Transit Than Men. Shouldn’t Transit Agencies Be Catering to Them?






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1zgZosg

A few of the recent pieces I’ve liked:


Tara C. Smith at Slate: Measles is Horrible


Jason Cherkis in the Huffington Post: Dying to Be Free (“There’s A Treatment For Heroin Addiction That Actually Works. Why Aren’t We Using It?”)


Sara Ainsworth at RH Reality Check: Lawyers for Fetuses? Yes, It’s Absurd, But It’s Worse Than You Realize


Wil S. Hylton in the New Yorker: A Bug in the System: Why last night’s chicken made you sick


Sarah Goodyear at Citylab: More Women Ride Mass Transit Than Men. Shouldn’t Transit Agencies Be Catering to Them?






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1zgZosg

Ruderhofspitze [Stoat]

September the 10th. After yesterday (was it really only yesterday? I am slow at writing this down) when I failed and we then went across to the Franz Senn I have another chance at the Ruderhofspitze. My exact route is somewhat unplanned – clearly I’m going upvalley, up the Alpeinerferner and then turning E after the icefall, and hoping to pick up the SW ridge somehow. Now I’ve bought “Stubaier Alpen” by Walter Klier I now know I did “Sudwestgrat von der Holltalscharte”, route 2293. As usual, there’s a GPS track.


Up at 6:25, which no longer feels early, in time for first breakfast. Wx is so-so, and that combined with a feeling boosted by yesterday’s fail that I won’t really get up the R, leaves me in no great hurry. I set off at 7:45 with a daysac, 2 ski sticks, a climbing axe, crampons and no waterproof trousers. And, as usual, no food for the day.


DSC_4698


It was like that – could go either way. As it happened, it went to sun, which was great. I saw no-one ahead of me, and steamed up the path nicely, but with appreciation – its lovely, and I’ve been this way before. Past the waterfall to the glacier snout at 2560 after 1:30.


DSC_4703


There’s a choice of paths from here. They tend to path-mark you off to the moraine on the right, but its more beautiful to go onto the river bed and then up the snout; crampons on. The roughish stuff on the skyline is the icefall, 3000 m at the top, and the track goes to the right (W). Its strongly foreshortened in this pic.


DSC_4715


This is the dry portion of the glacier. Above it the not-terribly-dramatic icefall; for scale, there are 6 climbers in the dead centre of the pic, in the shadow, on the edge of snow and ice. I’m catching them up, but then (spoil sports) they stop. It looks like they’re playing in crevasses; probably on a course:


DSC_4721


2900 m, 2:30, resting on some rocks nearly at the top of the icefall. After that its a long way over the gently sloped upper glacier, following some old tracks.


DSC_4723


I feel as usual about the tracks: they are very reassuring – I’m not totally mad, and someone might find me – but it takes the edge off the adventure somewhat. The view here is quite hard to interpret: centre is the second, smaller, icefall. The ridge disappearing off L is the W ridge of the Ruderhofspitze, although as far as I can tell its not, oddly enough, a recommended route. The peak in the centre is the unnamed pt 3260; the skyline ridge to the L is the SW ridge of the Ruderhofspitze; in between them is the upper snow basin.


DSC_4725


Into the upper bowl, avoiding a crevasse. The snow is in that irritating state where you step on it, and it almost holds, but it doesn’t quite, throwing you off balance and wasting energy. Which is partly avoided by using the existing footsteps, but that constrains my stride. To the “col”, the Obere Holltalscharte: 3260 m, 3:45. This particular col looks like one of those nominal cols: its the lowest point between two sides, but that doesn’t mean you’d want to descend the far side: it looks icky. But then again, things always do from above. There’s not the slightest sign of any path marking on the ridge, so the footsteps are reassuring, even if I completely lose them almost immeadiately.


DSC_4727


The ridge looks enormous and sharp from below. The pic above, centered on the summit, totally fails to give any idea of scale.


DSC_4735


This one’s a bit better (and note the weather is closing in a bit, always reassuring). The ridge is in three: a shortish ascent section, perhaps 150 m long, to pt 3326, which I’ve passed by this pic. Then a longer section, perhaps 300 m, nearly level to pt 3368, which I’m pretty sure is the right skyline in this pic (one from 6 mins earlier); then another 300 m section up to the summit at 3473 m (my GPS thought 3479 m), with the upper Ruderhofferner on the right side.


Apart from one move at the start, when I gratuitously did things the hard way, the ridge is all easy enough (as long as you’re fit – don’t even think about this if you’re not) at least step-by-step. Its only the sheer length, and the sense of complete isolation, that makes it hard. And of course the uncertainty of knowing if it will be hard – you can only have that once; treasure the feeling. But I think there is a motto – that these long ridges, which I’ve always rather avoided, aren’t so bad after all.


DSC_4737 DSC_4738 DSC_4739


The summit, which came quite quickly in the end. See, I have the gipfelbuch pic to prove it (and one of me looking smug). “Gruss Gott, Berg Heil”. Very Austrian. The ridge was fun: some just walking, some scrambling, some being rather careful where you put your feet; nearly every step requires concentration, and deciding which drop to veer nearer to. 4:40, 9.7 km.


DSC_4752


View from not much below the summit, heading down (I could tell you to note the total absence of life, but I’d be wrong; its all around if you but look). I’ve sat around for about half an hour getting my breath back, and hoping the cloud might clear, which it has a bit. The col is top centre, and the “three sections” of the ridge reasonably obvious. Alas its even less clear off to the E, which means I don’t get to see the route I should have taken, yesterday.


DSC_4757


Half way down the ridge, and if you look carefully you’ll see the cable between rocks in the centre of this pic. That might be route 2291, or some variant, whereby you join the ridge somewhat later having gone up the rock face from deeper into the upper snow bowl.


DSC_4776


And so back down. Here’s a rather suggestive-looking stream flowing into the glacier; its also snowing, if you look hard. Sine the glacier is dry, this is easy to see and avoid. But it would be pretty dangerous to fall into: completely smooth inside, about 20 feet deep, you’d just wedge in place and get covered in ice cold water.


DSC_4784


And so back to the hutte for cafe und kuche, and to transcribe my timing notes off my hand. That’s nearly it for Austria until next year. I shall return to the usual diet of climate snarking soon enough.


DSC_4785


And in case you’re wondering, this is what the dormitory (matrazenlager) looks like.






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1C1PFpI

September the 10th. After yesterday (was it really only yesterday? I am slow at writing this down) when I failed and we then went across to the Franz Senn I have another chance at the Ruderhofspitze. My exact route is somewhat unplanned – clearly I’m going upvalley, up the Alpeinerferner and then turning E after the icefall, and hoping to pick up the SW ridge somehow. Now I’ve bought “Stubaier Alpen” by Walter Klier I now know I did “Sudwestgrat von der Holltalscharte”, route 2293. As usual, there’s a GPS track.


Up at 6:25, which no longer feels early, in time for first breakfast. Wx is so-so, and that combined with a feeling boosted by yesterday’s fail that I won’t really get up the R, leaves me in no great hurry. I set off at 7:45 with a daysac, 2 ski sticks, a climbing axe, crampons and no waterproof trousers. And, as usual, no food for the day.


DSC_4698


It was like that – could go either way. As it happened, it went to sun, which was great. I saw no-one ahead of me, and steamed up the path nicely, but with appreciation – its lovely, and I’ve been this way before. Past the waterfall to the glacier snout at 2560 after 1:30.


DSC_4703


There’s a choice of paths from here. They tend to path-mark you off to the moraine on the right, but its more beautiful to go onto the river bed and then up the snout; crampons on. The roughish stuff on the skyline is the icefall, 3000 m at the top, and the track goes to the right (W). Its strongly foreshortened in this pic.


DSC_4715


This is the dry portion of the glacier. Above it the not-terribly-dramatic icefall; for scale, there are 6 climbers in the dead centre of the pic, in the shadow, on the edge of snow and ice. I’m catching them up, but then (spoil sports) they stop. It looks like they’re playing in crevasses; probably on a course:


DSC_4721


2900 m, 2:30, resting on some rocks nearly at the top of the icefall. After that its a long way over the gently sloped upper glacier, following some old tracks.


DSC_4723


I feel as usual about the tracks: they are very reassuring – I’m not totally mad, and someone might find me – but it takes the edge off the adventure somewhat. The view here is quite hard to interpret: centre is the second, smaller, icefall. The ridge disappearing off L is the W ridge of the Ruderhofspitze, although as far as I can tell its not, oddly enough, a recommended route. The peak in the centre is the unnamed pt 3260; the skyline ridge to the L is the SW ridge of the Ruderhofspitze; in between them is the upper snow basin.


DSC_4725


Into the upper bowl, avoiding a crevasse. The snow is in that irritating state where you step on it, and it almost holds, but it doesn’t quite, throwing you off balance and wasting energy. Which is partly avoided by using the existing footsteps, but that constrains my stride. To the “col”, the Obere Holltalscharte: 3260 m, 3:45. This particular col looks like one of those nominal cols: its the lowest point between two sides, but that doesn’t mean you’d want to descend the far side: it looks icky. But then again, things always do from above. There’s not the slightest sign of any path marking on the ridge, so the footsteps are reassuring, even if I completely lose them almost immeadiately.


DSC_4727


The ridge looks enormous and sharp from below. The pic above, centered on the summit, totally fails to give any idea of scale.


DSC_4735


This one’s a bit better (and note the weather is closing in a bit, always reassuring). The ridge is in three: a shortish ascent section, perhaps 150 m long, to pt 3326, which I’ve passed by this pic. Then a longer section, perhaps 300 m, nearly level to pt 3368, which I’m pretty sure is the right skyline in this pic (one from 6 mins earlier); then another 300 m section up to the summit at 3473 m (my GPS thought 3479 m), with the upper Ruderhofferner on the right side.


Apart from one move at the start, when I gratuitously did things the hard way, the ridge is all easy enough (as long as you’re fit – don’t even think about this if you’re not) at least step-by-step. Its only the sheer length, and the sense of complete isolation, that makes it hard. And of course the uncertainty of knowing if it will be hard – you can only have that once; treasure the feeling. But I think there is a motto – that these long ridges, which I’ve always rather avoided, aren’t so bad after all.


DSC_4737 DSC_4738 DSC_4739


The summit, which came quite quickly in the end. See, I have the gipfelbuch pic to prove it (and one of me looking smug). “Gruss Gott, Berg Heil”. Very Austrian. The ridge was fun: some just walking, some scrambling, some being rather careful where you put your feet; nearly every step requires concentration, and deciding which drop to veer nearer to. 4:40, 9.7 km.


DSC_4752


View from not much below the summit, heading down (I could tell you to note the total absence of life, but I’d be wrong; its all around if you but look). I’ve sat around for about half an hour getting my breath back, and hoping the cloud might clear, which it has a bit. The col is top centre, and the “three sections” of the ridge reasonably obvious. Alas its even less clear off to the E, which means I don’t get to see the route I should have taken, yesterday.


DSC_4757


Half way down the ridge, and if you look carefully you’ll see the cable between rocks in the centre of this pic. That might be route 2291, or some variant, whereby you join the ridge somewhat later having gone up the rock face from deeper into the upper snow bowl.


DSC_4776


And so back down. Here’s a rather suggestive-looking stream flowing into the glacier; its also snowing, if you look hard. Sine the glacier is dry, this is easy to see and avoid. But it would be pretty dangerous to fall into: completely smooth inside, about 20 feet deep, you’d just wedge in place and get covered in ice cold water.


DSC_4784


And so back to the hutte for cafe und kuche, and to transcribe my timing notes off my hand. That’s nearly it for Austria until next year. I shall return to the usual diet of climate snarking soon enough.


DSC_4785


And in case you’re wondering, this is what the dormitory (matrazenlager) looks like.






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1C1PFpI

New half-life for iron-60 gives astronomers a better clock

Artist's illusration of a supernova via SmithsonianScience.org

Artist’s illusration of a supernova via SmithsonianScience.org. The new measurement for the half-life of iron-60 relates to the dates of certain cosmic events, for example, nearby supernovae.



Scientists at the Australian National University said on February 4, 2015 they’ve now settled a long-running debate about one of the tools astronomers use to measure cosmic time. The tool is a radioactive isotope of iron (iron-60). These scientists say they now have a better, more accurate figure for the time it takes this isotope to decay by half. The team found the half-life of iron-60 to be 2.6 million years.


Iron-60 is produced at the core of large stars and in supernovae, or exploding stars. It’s been known since the 1980s that its half-life was roughly 1.5 million years, and thus abundances of iron-60 have been used to date certain cosmic events; for example, the small amount of iron-60 found in the deep ocean on Earth has been used to trace the history of nearby supernovae. But researchers have disagreed on how long it takes iron-60 to decay by half. There are two measurements most often cited – one from in 1984, and the other from 2009 — but one measurement indicates a half-life for iron-60 nearly twice as long as the other.


The Australian new experiment appears to settle the discrepancy, agreeing well with the 2009 measurement … and thus science marches on.


PhysicsWorld.com called new measurement:



The most accurate measurement yet of the half-life of iron-60 …



Physical Review Letters featured the work as an editor’s highlight, saying:



By comparing this number to the concentration of iron-55, another rare isotope, [the Australian researchers, led by Anton Wallner] were able to ‘cancel out’ some of the systematic errors that plagued earlier experiments and accurately gauge the iron-60 amount. The half-life they find agrees well with the 2009 value; averaging the two together, Wallner et al. report a value of 2.60 million years and a 2% uncertainty.



Anton Wallner of the Australian National University’s Research School of Physics and Engineering said in a press release:



The iron-60 half-life is integral to theories about supernovae and the early solar system.


Because iron-60 is formed predominantly in supernovae its presence on Earth is thought to indicate that there were nearby supernovae in the last 10 million years. These may have had an effect on Earth’s climate or even triggered the birth of the solar system more than 4 billion years ago.



A time-lapse photo showing the Milky Way by Mike Taylor Photography.

Milky Way time-lapse via Mike Taylor Photography.



Bottom line: Researchers have disagreed on the exact measurement for the half-life of iron-60, which is used as a tool to date some cosmic events. Australian researchers now say they have a new, more accurate iron-60’s half-life. The new measurement indicates a half-life of 2.6 million years.


Via Australian National University, Physical Review Letters and Physics World.






from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1xhKP2h
Artist's illusration of a supernova via SmithsonianScience.org

Artist’s illusration of a supernova via SmithsonianScience.org. The new measurement for the half-life of iron-60 relates to the dates of certain cosmic events, for example, nearby supernovae.



Scientists at the Australian National University said on February 4, 2015 they’ve now settled a long-running debate about one of the tools astronomers use to measure cosmic time. The tool is a radioactive isotope of iron (iron-60). These scientists say they now have a better, more accurate figure for the time it takes this isotope to decay by half. The team found the half-life of iron-60 to be 2.6 million years.


Iron-60 is produced at the core of large stars and in supernovae, or exploding stars. It’s been known since the 1980s that its half-life was roughly 1.5 million years, and thus abundances of iron-60 have been used to date certain cosmic events; for example, the small amount of iron-60 found in the deep ocean on Earth has been used to trace the history of nearby supernovae. But researchers have disagreed on how long it takes iron-60 to decay by half. There are two measurements most often cited – one from in 1984, and the other from 2009 — but one measurement indicates a half-life for iron-60 nearly twice as long as the other.


The Australian new experiment appears to settle the discrepancy, agreeing well with the 2009 measurement … and thus science marches on.


PhysicsWorld.com called new measurement:



The most accurate measurement yet of the half-life of iron-60 …



Physical Review Letters featured the work as an editor’s highlight, saying:



By comparing this number to the concentration of iron-55, another rare isotope, [the Australian researchers, led by Anton Wallner] were able to ‘cancel out’ some of the systematic errors that plagued earlier experiments and accurately gauge the iron-60 amount. The half-life they find agrees well with the 2009 value; averaging the two together, Wallner et al. report a value of 2.60 million years and a 2% uncertainty.



Anton Wallner of the Australian National University’s Research School of Physics and Engineering said in a press release:



The iron-60 half-life is integral to theories about supernovae and the early solar system.


Because iron-60 is formed predominantly in supernovae its presence on Earth is thought to indicate that there were nearby supernovae in the last 10 million years. These may have had an effect on Earth’s climate or even triggered the birth of the solar system more than 4 billion years ago.



A time-lapse photo showing the Milky Way by Mike Taylor Photography.

Milky Way time-lapse via Mike Taylor Photography.



Bottom line: Researchers have disagreed on the exact measurement for the half-life of iron-60, which is used as a tool to date some cosmic events. Australian researchers now say they have a new, more accurate iron-60’s half-life. The new measurement indicates a half-life of 2.6 million years.


Via Australian National University, Physical Review Letters and Physics World.






from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1xhKP2h

On Intelligence and Talent [Uncertain Principles]

Probably the dumbest person I’ve ever met in my life was a housemate in grad school. I didn’t do my lab work on campus, so I wasn’t living in a neighborhood where cheap housing was rented to students, but in a place where folks were either genuinely poor, or in the market for very temporary lodgings while they looked for something better. There were low-income housing units across the street, and also an apartment building full of families who didn’t quite qualify for welfare.


This particular guy rented one of the other rooms in the house, and worked a series of unskilled jobs– assistant on a furniture delivery truck, assistant carpenter, pizza delivery. He was the sort of person who didn’t have a checking account because “I don’t want to deal with all that math,” and on one memorable occasion when I told him I was going to visit family on Long Island for the weekend, guessed that Long Island must be located in “either Missouri or England.”


And yet, there were things he could do that I found kind of amazing. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of roads and businesses in the central part of Montgomery County, Maryland– Rockville, Bethesda, etc. And on one occasion when he was working furniture delivery, he bought a giant dresser that I was sure would never make it into his upstairs bedroom. And yet he effortlessly identified a set of rotations that got it up the narrow stairs and around a tight corner without a scratch. Had I attempted that, the dresser probably would’ve ended up forever wedged in the stairway, like the sofa in that one Douglas Adams book.


I think of him now and again when the subject of innate intelligence comes up, as it does more or less every time I talk to people about Eureka. One of the biggest sources of push-back I get on the general argument is of the form “Surely you’re not saying that everyone can be a scientist? Because I know a lot of stupid people…” And, no, I’m saying that everybody has what it takes to make a living as a scientist– being a professional scientist is hard, and involves a lot of specialized technical knowledge that not everybody will have the skill or inclination to acquire. (Also, stop calling me Shirley…)


But then, pretty much any task more complicated than digging holes and filling them back in will involve its own sort of specialized knowledge. And pretty much all of those tasks involve using the same core reasoning process that makes science work. Even my extremely dumb former housemate was capable of scientific reasoning in the process of moving furniture– he looked at that dresser, thought of a set of rotations that would get it up the stairs and into his room without dinging up the walls, and to my amazement, executed it perfectly. Then he gloated about it, because I had said “There’s no way that’s getting into your room.”


As a result, I kind of dance around the issue of innate intelligence in Eureka, because it’s not all that relevant to the argument I am making. I think it’s a mistake to put too much emphasis on raw brain power, because inclination has a big role to play, and because setting scientists off as “really smart” has a kind of distancing effect that I think is ultimately pretty corrosive. If you like, you can read more or less that whole part of the book in this excerpt at the Science of Us. (Though you should buy the book. Buy my book. Buuuyyyy myyyyy boooooook. OK, I’m done now.)


Of course, there’s a second reason to dance around that topic, which is that it’s highly politically charged. In sort of an odd way, as pointed out early in this very long Slate Star Codex post by Scott Alexander (which is the proximate cause of this post; a bit of lede-burying on my part, maybe)– there’s a sense in which the arguments about the role of innate ability reverse the usual political polarity. (Though it’s also entirely possible to recast the argument in a way that makes both sides seem more consistent than it suits Alexander’s purposes to do…) It’s a really tricky subject, and one I’m generally uneasy about, which is why I rarely wade into those arguments here, and tried to avoid it in Eureka.


I’m conflicted about this subject because on the one hand, it’s one of the areas where I think there genuinely is something approaching the oppressive sort of “political correctness” that people often try to invoke in much sillier contexts. There’s a strong push in some quarters to declare the whole subject totally illegitimate, and say that it’s inappropriate to ever bring up arguments relating to innate abilities. Particularly when applied to particular sub-groups of the population. And I’m generally not wild about declaring whole areas of inquiry off-limits in this manner.


At the same time, though, even responsible well-intentioned research in this area is frequently used as political cover for a kind of creepy racism and classism. If you can assign a dominant role to genetics when it comes to intelligence, well, then, the observed correlation between family income and things like standardized test scores (which are proxy measurements for intelligence) isn’t a problem any more. And then we don’t need to worry about doing anything to correct gross iniquities in our educational system that place low-income and minority students at a huge disadvantage. And we don’t need to worry about issues like income inequality, which is really just innate ability reaping its just reward. And a whole bunch of other positions that kind of make my skin crawl. So I totally understand the desire to keep the whole mess at a distance, which again, is part of why I try to stay out of these arguments.


Alexander’s epic post (which also has a follow-up) is largely an attempt to wrestle with this issue by casting things in terms of talent– having high IQ is a talent, like musical ability, and different people have different talents, and we should just embrace that. And there’s certainly a sense in which his argument rings true– many of my colleagues are amazed at my tendency to bang out thousands of words of bloggage daily, but it’s never seemed like a chore to me. I enjoy this, and in fact get a little twitchy when I’m deprived of the opportunity to sit down and type a bunch of words. It’s not too different, on some level, than my argument in Eureka about the role of personal inclinations in determining who becomes a scientist.


At the same time, though, these arguments don’t exist in a social and political vacuum, and it’s hard not to notice that certain kinds of talents are regarded as more worthy of celebration than others. And also that the ones deemed most worthy just happen to correlate very strongly with the talents of groups of people who already have a great deal of social and economic power. There’s also an effort to play up the role of innate intelligence in activities that lead to making shitloads of money, while downplaying the role of the “soft skills” that are often just as important to amassing wealth– Alexander holds up Ramanujan as an examplar of mathematical talent, but it’s worth noting that all his massive brainpower didn’t make him wealthy.


So, you know, I remain conflicted about the whole business. There is a sense in which you could take this basic argument about innate intelligence and talent and turn it into the basis of a robust leftist politics in which celebrating everybody’s various inborn talents justifies economic equality for all– a comfortable basic income for everyone from mathematical prodigies to assistant furniture movers, to let everyone explore and develop their particular talents. Instead, it’s most frequently coupled to a kind of asshole libertarianism– I hasten to add that Alexander does not explicitly do that in this post, though several people I saw linking it on social media do; I haven’t read enough of his blog to say anything sensible about his general politics.


So while there are aspects of the whole intelligence-as-talent notion that I find attractive– unsurprisingly, as it tends to flatter my vanity– I remain pretty suspicious of the whole business. It’s an area where the political payoff to biasing results is so large and blatant that extreme caution is required– as Thoreau wrote a little while back, a lot of articles about this feel less like objective examinations of data than working through pre-existing narratives. And having written this, I will probably resume my general policy of assiduously ducking the issue as much as possible.






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1zfqCQd

Probably the dumbest person I’ve ever met in my life was a housemate in grad school. I didn’t do my lab work on campus, so I wasn’t living in a neighborhood where cheap housing was rented to students, but in a place where folks were either genuinely poor, or in the market for very temporary lodgings while they looked for something better. There were low-income housing units across the street, and also an apartment building full of families who didn’t quite qualify for welfare.


This particular guy rented one of the other rooms in the house, and worked a series of unskilled jobs– assistant on a furniture delivery truck, assistant carpenter, pizza delivery. He was the sort of person who didn’t have a checking account because “I don’t want to deal with all that math,” and on one memorable occasion when I told him I was going to visit family on Long Island for the weekend, guessed that Long Island must be located in “either Missouri or England.”


And yet, there were things he could do that I found kind of amazing. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of roads and businesses in the central part of Montgomery County, Maryland– Rockville, Bethesda, etc. And on one occasion when he was working furniture delivery, he bought a giant dresser that I was sure would never make it into his upstairs bedroom. And yet he effortlessly identified a set of rotations that got it up the narrow stairs and around a tight corner without a scratch. Had I attempted that, the dresser probably would’ve ended up forever wedged in the stairway, like the sofa in that one Douglas Adams book.


I think of him now and again when the subject of innate intelligence comes up, as it does more or less every time I talk to people about Eureka. One of the biggest sources of push-back I get on the general argument is of the form “Surely you’re not saying that everyone can be a scientist? Because I know a lot of stupid people…” And, no, I’m saying that everybody has what it takes to make a living as a scientist– being a professional scientist is hard, and involves a lot of specialized technical knowledge that not everybody will have the skill or inclination to acquire. (Also, stop calling me Shirley…)


But then, pretty much any task more complicated than digging holes and filling them back in will involve its own sort of specialized knowledge. And pretty much all of those tasks involve using the same core reasoning process that makes science work. Even my extremely dumb former housemate was capable of scientific reasoning in the process of moving furniture– he looked at that dresser, thought of a set of rotations that would get it up the stairs and into his room without dinging up the walls, and to my amazement, executed it perfectly. Then he gloated about it, because I had said “There’s no way that’s getting into your room.”


As a result, I kind of dance around the issue of innate intelligence in Eureka, because it’s not all that relevant to the argument I am making. I think it’s a mistake to put too much emphasis on raw brain power, because inclination has a big role to play, and because setting scientists off as “really smart” has a kind of distancing effect that I think is ultimately pretty corrosive. If you like, you can read more or less that whole part of the book in this excerpt at the Science of Us. (Though you should buy the book. Buy my book. Buuuyyyy myyyyy boooooook. OK, I’m done now.)


Of course, there’s a second reason to dance around that topic, which is that it’s highly politically charged. In sort of an odd way, as pointed out early in this very long Slate Star Codex post by Scott Alexander (which is the proximate cause of this post; a bit of lede-burying on my part, maybe)– there’s a sense in which the arguments about the role of innate ability reverse the usual political polarity. (Though it’s also entirely possible to recast the argument in a way that makes both sides seem more consistent than it suits Alexander’s purposes to do…) It’s a really tricky subject, and one I’m generally uneasy about, which is why I rarely wade into those arguments here, and tried to avoid it in Eureka.


I’m conflicted about this subject because on the one hand, it’s one of the areas where I think there genuinely is something approaching the oppressive sort of “political correctness” that people often try to invoke in much sillier contexts. There’s a strong push in some quarters to declare the whole subject totally illegitimate, and say that it’s inappropriate to ever bring up arguments relating to innate abilities. Particularly when applied to particular sub-groups of the population. And I’m generally not wild about declaring whole areas of inquiry off-limits in this manner.


At the same time, though, even responsible well-intentioned research in this area is frequently used as political cover for a kind of creepy racism and classism. If you can assign a dominant role to genetics when it comes to intelligence, well, then, the observed correlation between family income and things like standardized test scores (which are proxy measurements for intelligence) isn’t a problem any more. And then we don’t need to worry about doing anything to correct gross iniquities in our educational system that place low-income and minority students at a huge disadvantage. And we don’t need to worry about issues like income inequality, which is really just innate ability reaping its just reward. And a whole bunch of other positions that kind of make my skin crawl. So I totally understand the desire to keep the whole mess at a distance, which again, is part of why I try to stay out of these arguments.


Alexander’s epic post (which also has a follow-up) is largely an attempt to wrestle with this issue by casting things in terms of talent– having high IQ is a talent, like musical ability, and different people have different talents, and we should just embrace that. And there’s certainly a sense in which his argument rings true– many of my colleagues are amazed at my tendency to bang out thousands of words of bloggage daily, but it’s never seemed like a chore to me. I enjoy this, and in fact get a little twitchy when I’m deprived of the opportunity to sit down and type a bunch of words. It’s not too different, on some level, than my argument in Eureka about the role of personal inclinations in determining who becomes a scientist.


At the same time, though, these arguments don’t exist in a social and political vacuum, and it’s hard not to notice that certain kinds of talents are regarded as more worthy of celebration than others. And also that the ones deemed most worthy just happen to correlate very strongly with the talents of groups of people who already have a great deal of social and economic power. There’s also an effort to play up the role of innate intelligence in activities that lead to making shitloads of money, while downplaying the role of the “soft skills” that are often just as important to amassing wealth– Alexander holds up Ramanujan as an examplar of mathematical talent, but it’s worth noting that all his massive brainpower didn’t make him wealthy.


So, you know, I remain conflicted about the whole business. There is a sense in which you could take this basic argument about innate intelligence and talent and turn it into the basis of a robust leftist politics in which celebrating everybody’s various inborn talents justifies economic equality for all– a comfortable basic income for everyone from mathematical prodigies to assistant furniture movers, to let everyone explore and develop their particular talents. Instead, it’s most frequently coupled to a kind of asshole libertarianism– I hasten to add that Alexander does not explicitly do that in this post, though several people I saw linking it on social media do; I haven’t read enough of his blog to say anything sensible about his general politics.


So while there are aspects of the whole intelligence-as-talent notion that I find attractive– unsurprisingly, as it tends to flatter my vanity– I remain pretty suspicious of the whole business. It’s an area where the political payoff to biasing results is so large and blatant that extreme caution is required– as Thoreau wrote a little while back, a lot of articles about this feel less like objective examinations of data than working through pre-existing narratives. And having written this, I will probably resume my general policy of assiduously ducking the issue as much as possible.






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1zfqCQd

Gordie Howe: How not to report about dubious stem cell therapies [Respectful Insolence]

WDIVHowe


And now for something completely different… (Yes, there’s been enough vaccine blogging for the moment.)


The date of the Kinsman Sports Celebrity Dinner in Saskatoon is fast approaching on February 6. It reminded me of my discussion of how Gordie Howe was flown to Tijuana to undertake a dubious stem cell therapy for his serious stroke that involved the intravenous and intrathecal (into the cerebrospinal fluid) injection of “stem cells,” a treatment that was followed by glowing reports from the family and credulous reporters in the press describing Howe’s “miraculous” recovery from his stroke. Sadly, with only one exception, there has been precious little skepticism about the claims of Howe’s family of an astounding recovery. Even more sadly, no one other than I appears to have dug particularly deeply into the dubious clinical trial being run by Novastem in Tijuana, in which patients are charged $20,000 to $30,000 per treatment and Gordie Howe was not because he’s famous. Indeed, in retrospect the whole thing comes across as a publicity stunt by Dr. Maynard Howe (CEO) and Dave McGuigan (VP) of Stemedica Cell Technologies, the company that supplies stem cell products to Novastem and its Clínica Santa Clarita. After all, they were the ones who contacted the Howes first with an offer to facilitate Gordie’s receiving stem cell therapy, not the other way around.


Before I go on, let me just mention that I wish Gordie Howe nothing but good. He is a genuine sports hero and Detroit sports icon. Just to get an idea of how much Detroiters love their Red Wings, consider this. My next door neighbors sons all play hockey. They named their dog “Gordie” (yes, after Gordie Howe). One of them makes a mockup of the Stanley Cup every year out of garbage cans and shines a red light on it at night. They are not atypical. So, imagining Gordie Howe felled by a serious stroke and dying of it is a sad thing to contemplate here in Detroit and among most hockey fans.



To be honest, I can’t remember a time when I’ve seen a medical story presented so many times in a manner so devoid of basic fact checking. Part of it, I think, has to do with the fact that most stories about Howe’s stem cell treatment were done by sports reporters and home town local news teams, rather than reporters who might have the background to tackle the case properly. As I explained (and so did Paul Knoepfler, who also described Stemedica’s unconvincing response), it’s incredibly unlikely that that injecting mesenchymal stem cells into Gordie Howe’s blood and cerebrospinal fluid would result in such a rapid and significant recovery. Certainly the rapidity of the reported improvement does not fit with a plausible mechanism by which stem cells, even if they were doing what advocates claim they were doing, were rebuilding neurological pathways shattered by the death of large swaths of neural tissue. From what we know, it would take longer. Indeed, the only reports showing a modicum of proper scientific skepticism came from Bradley Fikes in late December and Jesse Singal at NYMAG.com:



“This seems to be a lot about hype for the company, and it’s an anecdotal sample size of one story, which is really hard to interpret,” said Dr. Jack Parent, a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan Medical Center and staff physician at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System. Parent, who has a decade’s worth of experience researching the role of adult stem cells in epilepsy and stroke, said that neither of the two days of treatment consisted of anything that has been shown to be effective in stroke patients.


On the first day, neural stem cells were injected into Howe’s spinal canal, the idea being that those cells would then be delivered to the site of the injury to Howe’s brain. Injecting the cells directly into the spinal fluid would allow them to bypass the blood-brain barrier, which would otherwise prevent them from getting into the brain, but Parent doubted that would be enough for them to actually perform the regenerative work Novastem is claiming. “I am skeptical that enough of the cells make it to the brain from the bottom of the spinal column, penetrate into the substance of the brain itself. and survive for any significant length of time,” he said.



And:



There’s a lurking possibility here that isn’t fun to think about. Maybe the improvement Murray and his family are seeing doesn’t have anything to do with the stem cells but is rather the result of a combination of the natural recovery some people experience after a stroke and the by all accounts very good, very comprehensive care Howe’s family is providing for him (as Murray explained, Gordie has regular appointments with a speech therapist, a physical therapist, and an occupational therapist).


To Parent, the University of Michigan neurologist, this theory makes sense. “There are other reasons for people to get better,” he said. “There are placebo effects, there is concurrent medical care where when you’re treating someone you’re making sure they’re hydrated and they’re taking their other medicines appropriately and things like that. So you really need a control to be able to tell whether the effect you see is really from the treatment or not.”



Exactly. Almost certainly this is what’s going on. Yet none of this has stopped stories like this from appearing in the media:





The whole interview is embarrassing. Keith Olbermann, indeed, should hang his head in shame for this. It’s pathetic, a PR video for Stemedica. Olbermann shows no glimmer of that famous skepticism that he used to direct against conservative opponents. Of course, as I noted before, Olbermann has been taken in before by quacks. Specifically, he was played for a fool by the antivaccine movement back in 2009 when he attacked Brian Deer based on misinformation fed to his staff about him. This is just as bad, if not worse, as Maynard Howe (no relation to the Howe family) is allowed to spout off talking points without even the mildest followup question. For instance, early in the interview, Howe says that Stemedica has an FDA-approved trial that’s going on at “several major universities” in the US. That’s a bit of—shall we say?—an exaggeration, unless two sites, one university and one equals “several” in Howe’s mind, as there are only two sites carrying out the Stemedica trial of stem cells for stroke, as I described in my original post on the subject.


It gets even more embarrassing for Olbermann, who basically slobbers all over Maynard Howe, gushing about how supposedly Gordie Howe has gone from death’s door to doing “everything but the Macarena.” This gushing gives Maynard Howe an opening to gush himself, making claims without evidence about how his stem cells have cured people with “locked in” syndrome, major traumatic brain injury, and serious vegetative state, which he characterized as a “number of very miraculous treatments.” Olbermann then basically feeds Howe questions, like the interviewer on an infomercial, leading him to be able to rattle off all the conditions he is planning on testing Stemedica’s stem cell treatments on. There’s even the obligatory question of, “How do interested people see if they can get your product?” (OK, how can interested people see if they’re eligible for your clinical trials?) and “Are there scammers out there that I should look out for?”


Supplement and snake oil hawkers couldn’t have asked for a better interviewer for one of their infomercials than Keith Olbermann. This question allowed Howe to mention his “four red flags” of what to look out for in dubious stem cell clinics. One “red flag” in particular amused me, and that was the one where Howe said that you should be able to ask the clinic for documentation of the minister of health or other government body’s approval of the clinical trial. My thought upon seeing that was this: How disingenuous can you get? I’m sure Howe knows damned well that in Mexico the government approves clinics to administer stem cells and the clinics can then administer them however they wished based on the physicians’ clinical judgment. Indeed, I documented this in my last post, having learned how Mexico regulates clinical trials of stem cells in an e-mail from Novastem’s director. The short answer is: Basically, the Mexican government doesn’t regulate stem cell clinical trials. Things just don’t work there the way they work here in the US, with the FDA approving clinical trials of new biologics, such as various stem cell treatments. In other words, once a clinic in Mexico is approved to administer stem cell trials it can do so however it wants.


Oh, and it can charge for the privilege. In the case of Novastem, it’s $20,000 to $30,000 a pop. What Howe should have mentioned is that patients interested in participating in a trial of stem cells should not have to pay for them, but then he couldn’t well do that, could he? After all, his company sent Gordie Howe to Novastem, which makes me suspect that Stemedica probably routinely shunts patients not eligible for its FDA-approved clinical trials to Tijuana, to Novastem.


Of course, Olbermann, his nose stuck so far up Howe’s rectum that it’s tickling Howe’s uvula, saw none of this. Truly, Olbermann has fallen far.


Then, just last night, there appeared this story on my local NBC affiliate WDIV this story by sportscaster Hank Winchester:



As you can see, Dr. Murray Howe, Gordie Howe’s son, is still at it:



I wrote his eulogy. We were making his funeral arrangements and didn’t have a whole lot of hope for him,” said Gordie’s son, Dr. Murray Howe.


Murray thought his father’s life was over. A stroke late last year caused a big setback.


“It was to the point where even if you pounded on his chest there would be no response from him,” said Murray.


The one-time hockey great appeared lifeless. He was unable to communicate.


“His eyes were open but there was just kind of nothing there,” said Murray.


As family members scrambled to make funeral arrangements, one phone call changed everything.


“He just said that they had a stem cell company,” said Murray.



Then came the Lazarus-like transformation after the stem cells:



It required flying an almost lifeless Gordie Howe from his daughter’s house in Texas to San Diego. Then he had to travel to Mexico, where the clinical trial already was underway. Just hours after the stem cells were injected, Gordie showed a new sign of life.


“I said, ‘Dad, you can’t walk,’ and he said, ‘The hell I can’t,'” said Murray.


Gordie, who was nearly paralyzed just hours earlier, began to walk.


“It was really funny. He was like, ‘Let’s go,’ you know, ‘I’m outta here.’ He didn’t even want the wheelchair when he left. I said, ‘Dad, you gotta be in the wheelchair, we don’t want you to fall on the way out,'” said Murray.


He started walking and hasn’t stopped. Video recently shot by the Howe family shows Gordie playing floor hockey with his grandson.



“Nearly paralyzed”? What does that mean? Clearly, Howe had motor function before the stem cell treatment and wasn’t completely paralyzed. I understand how Dr. Howe thinks that stem cells caused Gordie’s apparent recovery. Unfortunately, being a physician, Dr. Howe seems unaware of his own weaknesses with respect to his ability to assess his father’s recovery—or lack thereof. Nothing against Dr. Howe, but, as I pointed out before, doctors tend to be very prone to the same sorts of wishful thinking that anyone else is while at the same time tend to overvalue their powers of observation outside of their specialty because, well, they are doctors. Remember, Dr. Howe is a radiologist. He’s not a neurologist. He doesn’t take care of stroke patients; in fact, he doesn’t really take care of patients more than perhaps doing invasive imaging procedures on some of them (surmised from his appearance in scrubs for the camera). When it comes to what should be expected from a stroke patient at various times in their recovery, he is no expert.


Finally, as I mentioned above, there is no plausible biological mechanism whereby infusing stem cells could result in such an immediate and dramatic (and, apparently, permanent) effect. Rebuilding neural pathways would be expected to take days, weeks, or even months, even assuming the stem cells were doing what was claimed for them. As Steve Novella has described to me, doing clinical trials on stroke patients is difficult because measuring function is prone to all sorts of confounders, including how much their caregivers push them to do. It’s not hard to imagine that perhaps Gordie Howe had become depressed after his recent hospitalization for dehydration in early December that had scared the family into thinking he was at death’s door. He then recovered from that and, no doubt, was hydrated well with intravenous fluids before the stem cells were administered, and he perked right up. Certainly that is a far more likely explanation, given what we know about mesenchymal stem cells, than a miraculous recovery within hours. Is it possible that the stem cells are responsible for Howe’s improvement? Sure. Is it likely? Not very.


The only new thing in this video is a very brief shot of Howe shown playing floor hockey with his grandson. It’s rather odd. Mr. Hockey’s face is not shown. He stands in the same place and doesn’t walk. All he does is to shoot the ball a couple of times at the net. One would think that if Gordie Howe had made such a miraculous recovery the family would have had video of him walking, talking, and strutting his stuff, showing just how well he is doing. To me, the 20 seconds or so of video looks highly odd and cherry picked. Again, if Howe is so improved, why not show his face, show him walking, or have him converse with the reporter on camera? It’s hard from the brief snippet of video shown not to conclude that perhaps Gordie Howe is not as improved as is being claimed.


Nobody wishes ill upon Gordie Howe or his family. Nobody. Least of all, me. Nor do I think Howe’s family is being deceptive. It’s very clear that Murray Howe very much believes that stem cells are responsible for his father’s improvement, even though he has some major blind spots about how dubious Novastem’s “clinical trial” is. However, the continued credulous and irresponsible reporting on his “miracle” recovery from stroke due to Stemedica stem cells, administered at the Clínica Santa Clarita via Novastem, continues. The most recent story from local media is utterly devoid of anything that might be described as critical thinking, science, or medicine. With precious few exceptions, in general thus far the reporting on Gordie Howe’s stem cell treatment has been completely without even the minimal level of reasonable scientific skepticism. Indeed, it’s been bordering on advertising for Stemedica, Novastem, and their stem cell treatments. Strike that. It has been advertising; certainly it’s not reporting. For example, neither Keith Olbermann nor Hank Winchester even bothered to interview an actual neurologist or stem cell expert. For WDIV and Hank Winchester, there’s no excuse, given that there’s just such an expert readily available less than 50 miles away at the University of Michigan.


There still remains Gordie Howe’s impending appearance at the Celebrity Sports Dinner on Friday. If he doesn’t show up, it’ll be a strong indication that his condition is not as improved as advertised. If he does, hopefully there will be video. Either way, as Jesse Singal notes, it won’t be enough to make a scientific assessment of whether or not Novastem’s stem cell treatment is responsible for Gordie Howe’s condition. Let no one doubt that I hope Howe is improved. I just still doubt that it was the stem cells that were repsonsible.






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1u8r3vj

WDIVHowe


And now for something completely different… (Yes, there’s been enough vaccine blogging for the moment.)


The date of the Kinsman Sports Celebrity Dinner in Saskatoon is fast approaching on February 6. It reminded me of my discussion of how Gordie Howe was flown to Tijuana to undertake a dubious stem cell therapy for his serious stroke that involved the intravenous and intrathecal (into the cerebrospinal fluid) injection of “stem cells,” a treatment that was followed by glowing reports from the family and credulous reporters in the press describing Howe’s “miraculous” recovery from his stroke. Sadly, with only one exception, there has been precious little skepticism about the claims of Howe’s family of an astounding recovery. Even more sadly, no one other than I appears to have dug particularly deeply into the dubious clinical trial being run by Novastem in Tijuana, in which patients are charged $20,000 to $30,000 per treatment and Gordie Howe was not because he’s famous. Indeed, in retrospect the whole thing comes across as a publicity stunt by Dr. Maynard Howe (CEO) and Dave McGuigan (VP) of Stemedica Cell Technologies, the company that supplies stem cell products to Novastem and its Clínica Santa Clarita. After all, they were the ones who contacted the Howes first with an offer to facilitate Gordie’s receiving stem cell therapy, not the other way around.


Before I go on, let me just mention that I wish Gordie Howe nothing but good. He is a genuine sports hero and Detroit sports icon. Just to get an idea of how much Detroiters love their Red Wings, consider this. My next door neighbors sons all play hockey. They named their dog “Gordie” (yes, after Gordie Howe). One of them makes a mockup of the Stanley Cup every year out of garbage cans and shines a red light on it at night. They are not atypical. So, imagining Gordie Howe felled by a serious stroke and dying of it is a sad thing to contemplate here in Detroit and among most hockey fans.



To be honest, I can’t remember a time when I’ve seen a medical story presented so many times in a manner so devoid of basic fact checking. Part of it, I think, has to do with the fact that most stories about Howe’s stem cell treatment were done by sports reporters and home town local news teams, rather than reporters who might have the background to tackle the case properly. As I explained (and so did Paul Knoepfler, who also described Stemedica’s unconvincing response), it’s incredibly unlikely that that injecting mesenchymal stem cells into Gordie Howe’s blood and cerebrospinal fluid would result in such a rapid and significant recovery. Certainly the rapidity of the reported improvement does not fit with a plausible mechanism by which stem cells, even if they were doing what advocates claim they were doing, were rebuilding neurological pathways shattered by the death of large swaths of neural tissue. From what we know, it would take longer. Indeed, the only reports showing a modicum of proper scientific skepticism came from Bradley Fikes in late December and Jesse Singal at NYMAG.com:



“This seems to be a lot about hype for the company, and it’s an anecdotal sample size of one story, which is really hard to interpret,” said Dr. Jack Parent, a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan Medical Center and staff physician at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System. Parent, who has a decade’s worth of experience researching the role of adult stem cells in epilepsy and stroke, said that neither of the two days of treatment consisted of anything that has been shown to be effective in stroke patients.


On the first day, neural stem cells were injected into Howe’s spinal canal, the idea being that those cells would then be delivered to the site of the injury to Howe’s brain. Injecting the cells directly into the spinal fluid would allow them to bypass the blood-brain barrier, which would otherwise prevent them from getting into the brain, but Parent doubted that would be enough for them to actually perform the regenerative work Novastem is claiming. “I am skeptical that enough of the cells make it to the brain from the bottom of the spinal column, penetrate into the substance of the brain itself. and survive for any significant length of time,” he said.



And:



There’s a lurking possibility here that isn’t fun to think about. Maybe the improvement Murray and his family are seeing doesn’t have anything to do with the stem cells but is rather the result of a combination of the natural recovery some people experience after a stroke and the by all accounts very good, very comprehensive care Howe’s family is providing for him (as Murray explained, Gordie has regular appointments with a speech therapist, a physical therapist, and an occupational therapist).


To Parent, the University of Michigan neurologist, this theory makes sense. “There are other reasons for people to get better,” he said. “There are placebo effects, there is concurrent medical care where when you’re treating someone you’re making sure they’re hydrated and they’re taking their other medicines appropriately and things like that. So you really need a control to be able to tell whether the effect you see is really from the treatment or not.”



Exactly. Almost certainly this is what’s going on. Yet none of this has stopped stories like this from appearing in the media:





The whole interview is embarrassing. Keith Olbermann, indeed, should hang his head in shame for this. It’s pathetic, a PR video for Stemedica. Olbermann shows no glimmer of that famous skepticism that he used to direct against conservative opponents. Of course, as I noted before, Olbermann has been taken in before by quacks. Specifically, he was played for a fool by the antivaccine movement back in 2009 when he attacked Brian Deer based on misinformation fed to his staff about him. This is just as bad, if not worse, as Maynard Howe (no relation to the Howe family) is allowed to spout off talking points without even the mildest followup question. For instance, early in the interview, Howe says that Stemedica has an FDA-approved trial that’s going on at “several major universities” in the US. That’s a bit of—shall we say?—an exaggeration, unless two sites, one university and one equals “several” in Howe’s mind, as there are only two sites carrying out the Stemedica trial of stem cells for stroke, as I described in my original post on the subject.


It gets even more embarrassing for Olbermann, who basically slobbers all over Maynard Howe, gushing about how supposedly Gordie Howe has gone from death’s door to doing “everything but the Macarena.” This gushing gives Maynard Howe an opening to gush himself, making claims without evidence about how his stem cells have cured people with “locked in” syndrome, major traumatic brain injury, and serious vegetative state, which he characterized as a “number of very miraculous treatments.” Olbermann then basically feeds Howe questions, like the interviewer on an infomercial, leading him to be able to rattle off all the conditions he is planning on testing Stemedica’s stem cell treatments on. There’s even the obligatory question of, “How do interested people see if they can get your product?” (OK, how can interested people see if they’re eligible for your clinical trials?) and “Are there scammers out there that I should look out for?”


Supplement and snake oil hawkers couldn’t have asked for a better interviewer for one of their infomercials than Keith Olbermann. This question allowed Howe to mention his “four red flags” of what to look out for in dubious stem cell clinics. One “red flag” in particular amused me, and that was the one where Howe said that you should be able to ask the clinic for documentation of the minister of health or other government body’s approval of the clinical trial. My thought upon seeing that was this: How disingenuous can you get? I’m sure Howe knows damned well that in Mexico the government approves clinics to administer stem cells and the clinics can then administer them however they wished based on the physicians’ clinical judgment. Indeed, I documented this in my last post, having learned how Mexico regulates clinical trials of stem cells in an e-mail from Novastem’s director. The short answer is: Basically, the Mexican government doesn’t regulate stem cell clinical trials. Things just don’t work there the way they work here in the US, with the FDA approving clinical trials of new biologics, such as various stem cell treatments. In other words, once a clinic in Mexico is approved to administer stem cell trials it can do so however it wants.


Oh, and it can charge for the privilege. In the case of Novastem, it’s $20,000 to $30,000 a pop. What Howe should have mentioned is that patients interested in participating in a trial of stem cells should not have to pay for them, but then he couldn’t well do that, could he? After all, his company sent Gordie Howe to Novastem, which makes me suspect that Stemedica probably routinely shunts patients not eligible for its FDA-approved clinical trials to Tijuana, to Novastem.


Of course, Olbermann, his nose stuck so far up Howe’s rectum that it’s tickling Howe’s uvula, saw none of this. Truly, Olbermann has fallen far.


Then, just last night, there appeared this story on my local NBC affiliate WDIV this story by sportscaster Hank Winchester:



As you can see, Dr. Murray Howe, Gordie Howe’s son, is still at it:



I wrote his eulogy. We were making his funeral arrangements and didn’t have a whole lot of hope for him,” said Gordie’s son, Dr. Murray Howe.


Murray thought his father’s life was over. A stroke late last year caused a big setback.


“It was to the point where even if you pounded on his chest there would be no response from him,” said Murray.


The one-time hockey great appeared lifeless. He was unable to communicate.


“His eyes were open but there was just kind of nothing there,” said Murray.


As family members scrambled to make funeral arrangements, one phone call changed everything.


“He just said that they had a stem cell company,” said Murray.



Then came the Lazarus-like transformation after the stem cells:



It required flying an almost lifeless Gordie Howe from his daughter’s house in Texas to San Diego. Then he had to travel to Mexico, where the clinical trial already was underway. Just hours after the stem cells were injected, Gordie showed a new sign of life.


“I said, ‘Dad, you can’t walk,’ and he said, ‘The hell I can’t,'” said Murray.


Gordie, who was nearly paralyzed just hours earlier, began to walk.


“It was really funny. He was like, ‘Let’s go,’ you know, ‘I’m outta here.’ He didn’t even want the wheelchair when he left. I said, ‘Dad, you gotta be in the wheelchair, we don’t want you to fall on the way out,'” said Murray.


He started walking and hasn’t stopped. Video recently shot by the Howe family shows Gordie playing floor hockey with his grandson.



“Nearly paralyzed”? What does that mean? Clearly, Howe had motor function before the stem cell treatment and wasn’t completely paralyzed. I understand how Dr. Howe thinks that stem cells caused Gordie’s apparent recovery. Unfortunately, being a physician, Dr. Howe seems unaware of his own weaknesses with respect to his ability to assess his father’s recovery—or lack thereof. Nothing against Dr. Howe, but, as I pointed out before, doctors tend to be very prone to the same sorts of wishful thinking that anyone else is while at the same time tend to overvalue their powers of observation outside of their specialty because, well, they are doctors. Remember, Dr. Howe is a radiologist. He’s not a neurologist. He doesn’t take care of stroke patients; in fact, he doesn’t really take care of patients more than perhaps doing invasive imaging procedures on some of them (surmised from his appearance in scrubs for the camera). When it comes to what should be expected from a stroke patient at various times in their recovery, he is no expert.


Finally, as I mentioned above, there is no plausible biological mechanism whereby infusing stem cells could result in such an immediate and dramatic (and, apparently, permanent) effect. Rebuilding neural pathways would be expected to take days, weeks, or even months, even assuming the stem cells were doing what was claimed for them. As Steve Novella has described to me, doing clinical trials on stroke patients is difficult because measuring function is prone to all sorts of confounders, including how much their caregivers push them to do. It’s not hard to imagine that perhaps Gordie Howe had become depressed after his recent hospitalization for dehydration in early December that had scared the family into thinking he was at death’s door. He then recovered from that and, no doubt, was hydrated well with intravenous fluids before the stem cells were administered, and he perked right up. Certainly that is a far more likely explanation, given what we know about mesenchymal stem cells, than a miraculous recovery within hours. Is it possible that the stem cells are responsible for Howe’s improvement? Sure. Is it likely? Not very.


The only new thing in this video is a very brief shot of Howe shown playing floor hockey with his grandson. It’s rather odd. Mr. Hockey’s face is not shown. He stands in the same place and doesn’t walk. All he does is to shoot the ball a couple of times at the net. One would think that if Gordie Howe had made such a miraculous recovery the family would have had video of him walking, talking, and strutting his stuff, showing just how well he is doing. To me, the 20 seconds or so of video looks highly odd and cherry picked. Again, if Howe is so improved, why not show his face, show him walking, or have him converse with the reporter on camera? It’s hard from the brief snippet of video shown not to conclude that perhaps Gordie Howe is not as improved as is being claimed.


Nobody wishes ill upon Gordie Howe or his family. Nobody. Least of all, me. Nor do I think Howe’s family is being deceptive. It’s very clear that Murray Howe very much believes that stem cells are responsible for his father’s improvement, even though he has some major blind spots about how dubious Novastem’s “clinical trial” is. However, the continued credulous and irresponsible reporting on his “miracle” recovery from stroke due to Stemedica stem cells, administered at the Clínica Santa Clarita via Novastem, continues. The most recent story from local media is utterly devoid of anything that might be described as critical thinking, science, or medicine. With precious few exceptions, in general thus far the reporting on Gordie Howe’s stem cell treatment has been completely without even the minimal level of reasonable scientific skepticism. Indeed, it’s been bordering on advertising for Stemedica, Novastem, and their stem cell treatments. Strike that. It has been advertising; certainly it’s not reporting. For example, neither Keith Olbermann nor Hank Winchester even bothered to interview an actual neurologist or stem cell expert. For WDIV and Hank Winchester, there’s no excuse, given that there’s just such an expert readily available less than 50 miles away at the University of Michigan.


There still remains Gordie Howe’s impending appearance at the Celebrity Sports Dinner on Friday. If he doesn’t show up, it’ll be a strong indication that his condition is not as improved as advertised. If he does, hopefully there will be video. Either way, as Jesse Singal notes, it won’t be enough to make a scientific assessment of whether or not Novastem’s stem cell treatment is responsible for Gordie Howe’s condition. Let no one doubt that I hope Howe is improved. I just still doubt that it was the stem cells that were repsonsible.






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1u8r3vj

The intriguing cycle of closest and farthest moons


The moon will swing out to apogee – its farthest point from Earth in its orbit – for the second time this year on February 6, 2015. Somewhat less than two weeks later, the moon will sweep to perigee – its nearest point – for the second time this year on February 19, 2015. We list the dates for this year’s 13 apogees and 13 perigees:


2015




























































ApogeePerigee
January 9January 21
February 6February 19
March 5March 19
April 1April 17
April 29May 15
May 26June 10
June 23July 5
July 21August 2
August 18August 30
September 14September 28
October 11October 26
November 7November 23
December 5December 21

Amazingly, in periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates. Let’s look four years ahead, to the year 2019:


2019




























































ApogeePerigee
January 9January 21
February 5February 19
March 4March 19
April 1April 16
April 28May 13
May 26June 7
June 23July 5
July 20August 2
August 17August 30
September 13September 28
October 10October 26
November 7November 23
December 5December 18

Also, in cycles of two years, the calendar dates remain the same, or nearly so, except that the lunar apogees and perigees trade places. For instance, let’s look two years beyond 2015, to the year 2017:


2017




























































ApogeePerigee
January 22January 10
February 18February 6
March 18March 3
April 15March 30
May 12April 27
June 8May 26
July 6June 23
August 2July 21
August 30August 18
September 27September 13
October 25October 9
November 21November 6
December 19December 4

Want to know more? Click here for a complete listing of all lunar perigees and apogees for the 21st century (2001 to 2100).


It is hard to believe that this rather straight-forward and intriguing four-year apogee/perigee cycle is so little known among professional astronomers and lay people alike. Lunar apogees and lunar perigees align on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates every four years, because 53 returns to perigee is nearly commensurate with four calendar years. The mean length of the anomalistic month (perigee to perigee, or apogee to apogee) is 27.55455 days, whereas the average Gregorian year equals 365.2425 days. Hence:


27.55455 x 53 = 1460.3912 days


365.2425 x 4 = 1460.97 days


View larger. | Image via Wikipedia.

View larger. | Image via Wikipedia.



View larger. Image credit: NASA

View larger. Image credit: NASA



Bottom line: in periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates.






from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1C0u8Pv

The moon will swing out to apogee – its farthest point from Earth in its orbit – for the second time this year on February 6, 2015. Somewhat less than two weeks later, the moon will sweep to perigee – its nearest point – for the second time this year on February 19, 2015. We list the dates for this year’s 13 apogees and 13 perigees:


2015




























































ApogeePerigee
January 9January 21
February 6February 19
March 5March 19
April 1April 17
April 29May 15
May 26June 10
June 23July 5
July 21August 2
August 18August 30
September 14September 28
October 11October 26
November 7November 23
December 5December 21

Amazingly, in periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates. Let’s look four years ahead, to the year 2019:


2019




























































ApogeePerigee
January 9January 21
February 5February 19
March 4March 19
April 1April 16
April 28May 13
May 26June 7
June 23July 5
July 20August 2
August 17August 30
September 13September 28
October 10October 26
November 7November 23
December 5December 18

Also, in cycles of two years, the calendar dates remain the same, or nearly so, except that the lunar apogees and perigees trade places. For instance, let’s look two years beyond 2015, to the year 2017:


2017




























































ApogeePerigee
January 22January 10
February 18February 6
March 18March 3
April 15March 30
May 12April 27
June 8May 26
July 6June 23
August 2July 21
August 30August 18
September 27September 13
October 25October 9
November 21November 6
December 19December 4

Want to know more? Click here for a complete listing of all lunar perigees and apogees for the 21st century (2001 to 2100).


It is hard to believe that this rather straight-forward and intriguing four-year apogee/perigee cycle is so little known among professional astronomers and lay people alike. Lunar apogees and lunar perigees align on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates every four years, because 53 returns to perigee is nearly commensurate with four calendar years. The mean length of the anomalistic month (perigee to perigee, or apogee to apogee) is 27.55455 days, whereas the average Gregorian year equals 365.2425 days. Hence:


27.55455 x 53 = 1460.3912 days


365.2425 x 4 = 1460.97 days


View larger. | Image via Wikipedia.

View larger. | Image via Wikipedia.



View larger. Image credit: NASA

View larger. Image credit: NASA



Bottom line: in periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates.






from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1C0u8Pv

adds 2