Michael Specter - Denialism (2009)

Denialism, Wikipedia defines it as human behavior where individuals choose to deny reality as a way to deal with an uncomfortable truth. Science is the ever-growing body of knowledge which seeks to test and measure reality in the—thus far conceived—best possible way, the scientific method. It operates with emotionless impunity, stripping away bias and unrepeatable findings, until the best possible theory to explain observed natural phenomenon is reached by peer-review and consensus. Sometimes science gets corrupted by bias, capitalism, or any number of factors, and we can point to certain instances in history or current events where this is so (take tobacco safety for instance). Even with error, the method razors through, who do you think discovered the harm tobacco actually does, in the end? It certainly wasn't the science denialists or the alt-med quacks. It was the persistence, in the face of substantial corporate pressure, of scientists studying the effects of cigarettes on health and loudly protesting the consensus until it changed.

In Michael Specter's book, Denialism, he takes on several strains of anti-science thinking. Fear of science and critical thinking, the anti-vaccination movement, organic food myths and anti-GMO activism, nutritional supplements and homeopathy cures, and genetics in regards to racial ethnicity. Each topic is well argued with plenty of entertaining interviews, quips, and Specter's personal insights. I could write a lengthy article in agreement with each of these topics, but Specter covers each point quite well already in his book, which I of course highly recommend. This is a strong first book for a writer who's future work I highly anticipate.

Portland is Epically Failing at Science

I have to hand it to Portland, its a nice place to live. It's arts and culture are a vibrant and welcome change of scenery compared to other large metropolitan areas. Its nearly a universal fact here that everyone either plays in a band, is an artist, or has a bohemian lifestyle. Progressive and intellectual thought is encouraged here in Woolandia, just don't go around challenging our tightly-held naturalistic beliefs or there will be hell to pay. We have one of the largest bookstores in the country (it takes up an entire city block for shit's sake) with small independent bookstores catering to all sub-genres and all tastes that can be found everywhere. So, why do we embrace so many anti-science and scientifically illiterate stances? It goes against all common sense. So lets go through all of the things this science class failing city embraces!

#1 - Anti-Fluoridation

Despite being the last of the U.S. top 30 most populated cities to not fluoridate its drinking water [1], Portland defeated (by a substantial margin) the recent measure to fluoridate this year and its been defeated here four times before (once voting in favor, then shortly after reversing the decision). Why would Portlanders defeat such a simple health measure when all of the scientific consensus is firmly in favor of fluoridation? Rampant "chemophobia" (or the irrational fear of chemicals), the appeal to nature (the logical fallacy that because something is natural it is inherently better), manipulative political campaigning combined with internet misinformation (Clean Water Portland, the anti-fluoride lobby here, has a name which contains a fallacious appeal), and—to beat a dead horse—a lack of scientific knowledge by the general public. In defiance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association universally hailing water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century [2], the 65 years of studies in which the overall scientific consensus is that community water fluoridation is as safe as can be measured [3], and its incredibly low cost to high benefit ratio [4], Portland remains fluoride-free (except, of course, the level that already naturally occurs) and has no sign of swaying in favor anytime soon.

I consider anti-fluoridation to be number one on this list because of its widespread acceptance. The last time we voted, the measure was struck down by a 20-point margin [5]. Selected articles for further reading on the topic: Why Portland Is Wrong About Water Fluoridation, Water fluoridation controversy, and The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride... And Why They're Still Wrong

#2 - Anti-GMOs

If there's something else that can inspire a knee-jerk emotional reaction (MONSANTOOOO!) out of people here, just mention GMOs. Thanks to a rigorous campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering from grocery stores like Whole Foods [6] and New Seasons [7], if there's one thing people fear ingesting more than trace amounts of fluoride, its genetically modified organisms. Sure, who doesn't want to conserve the environment and eat good, healthy food? But how does organic food address these issues? Environmentally, growing organic food is a less efficient use of land (numbers are varied, but a fair estimate is that organic food is somewhere around 25% to 35% less productive [8])—food production takes up a substantial portion of the Earth's surface (with estimates as high as 40% [9]). Land use and its maximization is something that organic food will be unable to match with modern agriculture. The fact shatters the idea that organic farming is more environmentally friendly, especially since more and more arable land will be needed for food production due to an ever increasing human population. Are GMOs dangerous or have they caused a single illness or fatality? Are they less healthy than organic food? Its an unequivocal no on all counts, hippies. There is no evidence whatsoever that any GMOs are any more dangerous or unhealthy than organic food [10]. The scientific consensus is broad and clear on this [11].

Often the same companies that mass produce organic food also have products which are produced conventionally so the idea that buying organic is some sort of consumerist rebellion against large corporations and conventional agriculture is a myth. I consider myself to be an environmentalist and I'm strongly interested in preserving the Earth's extremely fragile and varied ecosystem. However, our current methods of organic food production are wasteful and costly to the environment. Its also important to note that I am not entirely arguing against organic food, rather the false modern science verses organic food ideological dichotomy. Obviously, using technology and engineering to splice genes together can have negative consequences and should be researched carefully, but its an option that needs to be explored if we're going to feed the planet and stop global warming. Every technology has risks, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them, especially when the stakes are so high.

Selected articles for further reading: What scares you about GE foods?, More bad science in the service of anti-GMO activism, and Fruitless Endeavors: The False Promises of Organic Agriculture

#3 - "Alternative" Medicine

Welcome to Woolandia, where you can't throw a rock into a crowd without hitting someone who's studying acupuncture, naturopathic medicine, or reflexology. Everyone here is so healthy and supplements their organic, non-GM food with delicious multivitamins, echinacea, and homeopathic wellness pills. Acupuncture doesn't work [12], naturopathic medicine is pseudoscience [13], reflexology is not an effective treatment for any medical condition [14], most people who eat a balanced diet don't need nutritional supplements (they're basically expensive urine coloring) [15], and homeopathy is outright unethical quackery (you're buying pills that have nothing in them) [16]. But never mind all of that science stuff. Evidence doesn't mean anything in Woolandia!

Further reading: ASA Smacks Down Homeopathy, Another Negative Study of Vitamins, and The difference between science-based medicine and CAM

#4 - Anti-Vaccinations

This one is another belief straight out of the appeal to nature file cabinet. There are people here that actually believe vaccines are harmful, cause autism, or whatever despite the mountain (and its a giant fucking mountain) [17] of evidence that points to the contrary. The logic employed to justify these beliefs is often so riddled with fallacies that it becomes incomprehensible to any thinking person. Here in Woolandia, logic means nothing! You think vaccines don't cause autism? Well I got vaccinated and my foot hurts. How about that? Huh?!

Mo' readin': Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On?, Autism And Vaccines: Fears Persist Despite Overwhelming Evidence That The MMR Vaccine Is Safe, One Thing We Know About Autism: Vaccines Aren't to Blame, and The Crash and Burn of an Autism Guru

#5 - Scientology

Greetings Earthlings, it is I, the great lord Xenu, ruler of the Galactic Confederacy! 75 million years ago I brought billions of humans down to Earth in jetliner spacecraft. I stacked them around volcanoes filled with hydrogen bombs, which I detonated, which killed everyone's material bodies but their souls live on in you (they're called thetans) and they're the source of all human misery. You can only get rid of them through auditing (which is extremely expensive) but as you advance up in OT levels (also extremely expensive) you gain powers such as: immunity to disease, mentally increasing your body weight, healing by touch, ESP, telepathy and remote viewing, mentally project illusions into other people's minds, generate electricity with your body, and of course spiritual immortality.

Scientologists actually believe all of this.

Further reading: Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine, Scientology's Space Opera and Confidential Materials, and Scientology controversies

Sources:
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/05/portland_fluoride_vote_will_medical_science_trump_fear_and_doubt.html
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/
[3] http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459459/
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/22/fluoridation-fails-in-portland-by-20-point-margin/ 
[6] http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/environmental-stewardship/genetically-engineered-foods
[7] http://www.newseasonsmarket.com/our-story/welcome#gmo-foods-and-you
[8] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html
[9] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-17/national/35495975_1_organic-food-organic-advocates-organic-agriculture
[10] http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf
[11] http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml
[12] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/
[13] http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html
[14] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19740047
[15] http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/truth-behind-top-10-dietary-supplements?page=2
[16] http://skepticalvegan.com/2011/02/05/homeopathy-unethical-quackery/
[17] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/

Michael Specter - Denialism (2010)

I took a short break from reading heavy non-fiction, but I will be returning to the grind shortly with Michael Specter's Denialism. After watching this lecture, I can expect a grand take-down of leftist science denialism. He takes on anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, and generally anti-science left activists that have taken over progressivism. 

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Impact - Fluoride Panel Discussion (2012)

This roundtable debate on fluoridating Wichita's municipal water supply aired on KPTS.  It included Wichitans for Healthy Teeth members Pamela Amar, a lawyer, and dentist Dr Rob Daken against Dr. Steven L’Hommedieu of Advanced Alternatives for Health and Dr. Charles Hinshaw, the director of the Bio-Center Laboratory at the Riordan Clinic. 

After the opening speeches, the moderator states "So many issues are reduced to 'Who do you believe?' and whether there are any unstated motives that might influence a position or another.  What part does that play in this discussion?"  The lawyer immediately responds, in true lawyer fashion, with "I don't think it plays a part as far as the leading studies showing what [the truth is]."  I agree.  But, I find it enlightening to examine people's professions and expertise to really understand why they might have certain biases against a particular position.  Dr. Steven L'Hommedieu's Advanced Alternative for Health is exactly what it sounds like.  It's an "alternative" medicine center.  Here is a list of their services from their website:

Kinesiology Natural Medicine Nutrition Chiropractic Food and Environmental Sensitivity  Assessment

Heavy Metal and Chemical Detoxification Acupuncture Low Level Cold Laser Therapy Microcurrent Therapy Laboratory Testing and Imaging

Possessing a comprehensive knowledge of kinesiology, natural medicine, nutrition, Chinese medicine and chiropractic, he is able to logically integrate alternative and science-based evaluations and procedures with cutting-edge accuracy [1]. 

Now, you can say that these services are "science-based" all day, but the fact of the matter is that most of these services contain large pseudoscience doses, well above the recommended level.  As Richard Dawkins says, "There is no such thing as alternative medicine.  There's medicine that works and medicine that doesn't."  

Moving on, Dr. Charles Hinshaw works for the Bio-Center Laboratory at the Riordan Clinic.  The Riordan Clinic is a natural health complex in Wichita that provides a holistic approach to medicine.  They have testing, supplements, event-space rentals, lectures. 

The Bio-Center Lab at the Riordan Clinic was established in 1975 and has dedicated itself to providing accurate clinical analysis focusing on nutritional medicine. Our specialties include testing for pyrroles, histamine, spermidine, spermine, cytotoxic food sensitivities, parasitology, analysis of red blood cell fatty acids and minerals, along with many vitamins [2].

Sounds scientific enough, until you investigate an article written by Dr. Charles Hinshaw which is posted on the site.  Entitled Flu Shots? Just the Facts, You Decide supposes that there is a real debate between scientists about whether flu vaccines are safe (there isn't).  And he suggests getting the real "facts" about flu shots from the dreaded pseudoscience/alternative medicine guru http://www.mercola.com.  I plan on writing a full debunking article on Dr. Mercola in the future (because he is often sourced by quack doctors) and will post a link here once its posted. 

Neither of these men are dentists and both are steeped in pseudoscientific thinking.  While this does not invalidate their arguments, its important to know as much information as possible to consider whether personal biases may influence their conclusions.

See also my fluoride mythology blog post, for specific refutations of studies presented against fluoridation.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)