Those of us, of a
certain age, remember the post-World War II promise of Science. Splitting the
atom would bring us virtually unlimited cheap electrical power; antibiotics and
vaccine technology (a la Salk/Sabin) would eliminate the scourge of infectious
disease; and elucidation of the structure of DNA would lead to a cancer cure.
But 60-odd years
later, we have radioactive waste; terrifying antibiotic resistant pathogens;
and despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars on cancer research and
mapping the human genome, are no closer to that elusive cure. As to DNA, its
greatest contribution has been to forensic science, which no one predicted.
This being April,
and Autism Awareness month, let’s get further aware. Last week’s piece suggested that today’s
“autism” bears little resemblance to the condition described by Leo Kanner, and
is most likely a neuro-immune disease, which can be cured in many cases. How
revelatory that “incurable” is one of the few precepts that the Autism
Mandarins retain from Kanner.
Which brings us to
the definition of “junk science,” courtesy of junkscience.com:
Faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and
hidden agendas.
In the case of
autism, desperate parents seek out expensive and dangerous therapies such as
chelation, embark on bizarre diets, and worst of all—despite mountains of
evidence to the contrary—avoid childhood vaccinations. Moreover, in some
circles, the anti-vax ghouls have achieved a sort of heroic status, presumably
because they have had the “courage” to fight Big Pharma and the medical
establishment.
Ah, yes. “Grain of
truth,” that essential component of all junk science. In this case, anti-vaxers
can invoke the celebrated misdeeds of their opponents, even if unrelated to the
matter at hand. This strategy applies especially well to the promotion of chemophobia,
the most prized weapon in junk science.
The jury is out on
what really started chemophobia. Certainly, an excellent candidate is Rachel
Carson’s execrable Silent Spring, published in 1962. Untold thousands of
poor Africans succumbed to malaria, because of her grotesque and mendacious
vilification of DDT. How ironic that this pitiful spinster, dying of breast
cancer, had to find “something” to blame it on, and what better than
pesticides? Remind you of autism parents?
And if St. Rachel’s
work weren’t enough, there’s always napalm and Agent Orange, both of which date
back much earlier than the Vietnam War. For what it’s worth, napalm was
developed by a Harvard chemist, Louis Fieser, whose storied career had its
share of misadventures. That was well before academia became a haven for career
chemophobes, led by Frederick vom Saal, Shanna Swan, John McLachlan, and Louis
Guillette.
Despite its
widespread use for more than 50 years, with absolutely no documented health
effects on humans, and thousands of research papers attesting to its safety,
the essential chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) has created a cottage
industry—especially for vom Saal. Notably, vom Saal is prone to inflammatory
BPA-themed public statements, warning about the dire effects of touching cash
register receipts; and comparing infant formula in plastic baby bottles to
dosing the child with birth control pills.
How’s this for a
Yogi Berra or Sam Goldwyn inspired malapropism, only vom Saal was not kidding:
When asked in a TV interview in September 2010 about BPA alternatives, he said
there is no way to know how much safer the alternatives will be, because they
haven’t faced nearly the same amount of scrutiny as BPA. D’oh!
Pre-OSHA era issues
with chemical sterilant ethylene oxide (EtO), have led to much safer EtO
sterilizers. Yet, this chemical, also, has been unfairly slandered, resulting
in its ill-advised removal from many healthcare facilities. Quite sadly, EtO’s
loss in popularity and availability for proper sterilization is directly related
to the current outbreaks of superbug Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae
(CRE). Shades of DDT/malaria?
Finally, here’s my
theory on why forensic use of DNA caught everyone by surprise. At first blush,
the notion of a unique identifier for every person would be a no-brainer.
However, such an application of DNA science is eminently practical, and such
considerations are pretty much anathema in academic science. As if to
underscore this point, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the technique that
turbocharged forensic DNA, was perfected by maverick—and decidedly
non-academic—biochemist Kary Mullis.
After receiving his
1993 Nobel Prize (for PCR), Mullis was quoted in an interview in Esquire:
“Science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what
they are going to find out, not for what they actually produce.”
So that’s where the
junk science is coming from.
No comments:
Post a Comment