NYT: Follow the Science, Not the Money
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: NYT: Follow the Science, Not the Money
Date: Jan 26, 2010 1:18 PM
SILLY NYT ARTICLE BELOW (WHAT ELSE)
===============================
We agree. Follow the Science.
The Science of the perps says "Lyme
Disease" is a Relapsing Fever organism,
and so do all the patents and so does
the Taxonomy database:
http://www.actionlyme.org/RICOCHRON.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/CENTRAL_LYME_RICO_PATENTS.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/PRIMERSHELLGAME.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/CHP_9_IDSA_REVIEWS.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=138&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
The Science (and the CDC) says Lyme/Borreliosis
is an incurable brain infection and like
Syphilis:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAIN_PERMANENT.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/CHP_9_IDSA_REVIEWS.htm
The Science says that "all psychotropics
are brain damaging," whether they're street
drugs or Rx, and which is why "Mental
Health" and "Addictions" are always together:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAINDAMAGE.htm
And what the Science *doesn't* say is that
Psychiatry is a real, scientifically valid
medical science. Not because statistically,
there aren't correlations, say, to right
hemisphere dominance and visual spatial ability
(and its reverse, lawyers like Scalia). But
because the premise that "the frequency of
a behavior makes what's common, right," is
wrong.
We will give the Times credit for that
one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/science/01tier.html
"You can lie your eyeballs out under oath
about your victim that you want to discredit,
but because you have an MD degree does
not make you either a scholar, an analyst,
an expert, or respectable... except in
your own mind, or in the minds of your
debased peers (or co-perjurers), who share
your delight at beating a malpractice lawsuit.
But the Science says, 'In your heart you know
you did wrong.'"
I would say we're getting under someone's
skin. It would be difficult to admit this
Pam3Cys immune suppression business is
a real thing and the valid science, considering
the entire NIH missed it, but that there
are now applications of this very real
science:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=pam3cys[All%20Fields]&cmd=DetailsSearch&log$=details
means, for one thing, mice are bad models of
Borreliosis. But we already knew that from
the non-interest-conflicted Oscar Felsenfeld:
http://www.actionlyme.org/HOW_RICO_WILL_BE_CHARGED.htm
and that the Tuberculosis vaccines failed
for the same immunosuppression reasons.
Well? DO WE have Tuberculosis vaccines?
We do not.
I would say, "Here, below, is an example of sour
grapes made to look like a scientific analysis."
But then, what would a walking corpse know
about self-awareness, other than the NYTimes
one contribution?
"You may wish you were a real scientist
but in your heart, you're know a bullshitter."
"You may wish you had interviewed Richard
Blumenthal or Anthony Fauci or Sam Donta
on Pam3Cys and the Acquired Immune Deficiencies
or LymeAIDS or ChronicFatigueLyme or GWI-AIDS,...
but you didn't."
"You may wish to say, 'the Pendelum is starting
to swing the other way,' but JPMorgan Chase just
put their Pam3Cys and TLRs money on China, because
their scientists aren't Follow-The-Money-bullshitters,
like Yale."
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
==============================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26tier.html?8dpc
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: January 25, 2010
I find myself in the unfamiliar position of defending Al Gore and his
fellow Nobel laureate, Rajendra K. Pachauri.
Skip to next paragraph
TierneyLab
Have we gone too far in worrying about conflicts of interest? Join the
discussion.
Go to TierneyLab »
RSS Feed
* Get Science News From The New York Times »
When they won the prize in 2007, they were hailed for their selfless
efforts to protect the planet from the ravages of greedy fossil fuel
industries. Since then, though, their selflessness has been
questioned. Journalists started by looking at the money going to
companies and nonprofit groups associated with Mr. Gore, and now they
have turned their attention to Dr. Pauchauri, the chairman of the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The I.P.C.C., which is supposed to be the gold standard of peer-
reviewed climate science, in 2007 warned of a “very high” likelihood
that global warming would cause the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by
2035. When the Indian government subsequently published a paper
concluding there was no solid evidence of Himalayan glaciers shrinking
because of global warming, Dr. Pachauri initially dismissed it as
“voodoo science” beneath the I.P.C.C.’s standards.
But then it came out that the I.P.C.C.’s projection was based not on
the latest peer-reviewed evidence, but on speculative comments made a
decade ago in a magazine interview by Syed Hasnain, a glaciologist who
now works in an Indian research group led by Dr. Pachauri.
Last week, the I.P.C.C apologized for the mistake, which was
embarrassing enough for Dr. Pachauri. But he also had to contend with
accusations of conflict of interest. The Telegraph of London reported
that he had a “worldwide portfolio of business interests,” which
included relationships with carbon-trading companies and his research
group, the Energy and Resources Institute.
Dr. Pachauri responded with a defense of his ethics, saying that he
had not profited personally and that he had directed all revenues to
his nonprofit institute. He denounced his critics’ tactics: “You can’t
attack the science, so attack the chair of the I.P.C.C.”
I can’t defend that entire sentiment, because you obviously can attack
some of the science in the I.P.C.C. report, not to mention other dire
warnings in Dr. Pachauri’s speeches.
But I do agree with his basic insight: Conflict-of-interest
accusations have become the simplest strategy for avoiding a
substantive debate. The growing obsession with following the money too
often leads to nothing but cheap ad hominem attacks.
Sure, money matters to everyone; the more fears that Dr. Pachauri and
Mr. Gore stoke about climate change, the more money is liable to flow
to them and the companies and institutions they are affiliated with.
Given all the accusations they have made about the financial motives
of climate change “deniers,” there is a certain justice in having
their own finances investigated.
But I don’t doubt that Mr. Gore and Dr. Pachauri would be preaching
against fossil fuels even if there were no money in it for them, just
as I don’t doubt that skeptics would be opposing them for no pay. Why
are journalists and ethics boards so quick to assume that money,
particularly corporate money, is the first factor to look at when
evaluating someone’s work?
One reason is laziness. It is simpler to note a corporate connection
than to analyze all the other factors that can bias researchers’ work:
their background and ideology, their yearnings for publicity and
prestige and power, the politics of their profession, the agendas of
the public agencies and foundations and grant committees that finance
so much scientific work.
Another reason is a snobbery akin to the old British aristocracy’s
disdain for people “in trade.” Many scientists, journal editors and
journalists see themselves as a sort of priestly class untainted by
commerce, even when they work at institutions that regularly collect
money from corporations in the form of research grants and
advertising.
We trust our judgments to be uncorrupted by lucre — and we would be
appalled if, say, a national commission to study the publishing
industry were composed only of people who had never made any money in
the business. (How dare those amateurs tell us how to run our
profession!) But we insist that others avoid even “the appearance of
impropriety.”
This snobbery was codified by The Journal of the American Medical
Association in 2005, when it essentially required chaperones for any
researchers receiving corporate money. Citing “concerns about
misleading reporting of industry-sponsored research,” the journal
refused to publish such work unless there was at least one author with
no ties to the industry who would formally vouch for the data.
That policy was called “manifestly unfair” by BMJ (formerly The
British Medical Journal), which criticized JAMA for creating a
“hierarchy of purity among authors.” The hierarchy looked especially
dubious after a team of academic researchers (not financed by
industry) analyzed dozens of large-scale clinical trials in previous
decades and reported that industry-sponsored ones met significantly
higher standards than the nonindustry ones.
The new fetish for disclosing “conflicts” has led some of the best
medical researchers to shun drug company money altogether — not
because they think it leads to bad research, but because they are
tired of that fact being highlighted every time they are identified in
a news story, as if that were the most important thing to know about
their work.
There are, of course, notorious cases of corporate money buying
predetermined conclusions, like the reports once put out by the
Tobacco Institute to rebut concerns about smoking and cancer. But
there has also been dubious work promoted by government agencies and
foundations eager to generate publicity and advance their own agendas.
It’s naïve to caricature scientific disputes as battles between
“industry” and the “public interest,” as if bureaucrats and activists
didn’t have their own selfish interests (and wealthy, powerful allies
like trial lawyers). Too often, corporate conflict-of-interest
accusations have been used as smear tactics to silence scientists who
ended up being correct. (Go to nytimes.com/tierneylab for examples.)
Instead of stigmatizing certain kinds of research grants, perhaps we
should consider the bigger picture. If scientists listed all their
public and private donors on their Web pages, journalists could simply
link to that page and let readers decide which ones are potentially
corrupting. Instead of following rigid rules to report “conflicts,”
journalists could use their judgment and report only the ones that
seem relevant.
Sometimes you can’t understand a debate or a controversy without
knowing who is paying whom. But in general, I’m with Dr. Pachauri:
follow the science, not the money.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci