He spoke tonight at Portland State University, sponsored by the Oregonians for Science and Reason.  The popular assumptions he challenged were the idea that fish fall from the sky because of waterspouts, swamp gasses cause lamplike lights, prevalent anti-government conspiracy theories,  the reliability of polygraph testing and the Myers Briggs personality inventory, the Rohrshach ink blot test, the idea that we repress memories and that vitamin C helps with a cold, the usefulness of alternative medicine, the use of dowsing rods in Iraq to detect bombs, the dangers of nuclear meltdowns, and the origins of the Yeti.  In general I agreed with him but I found his take to be simplistic.  He says a lot of things that I don't believe, and is clearly quite biased.  Don't listen to anyone, including Brian Dunning: do your own damn homework.

I understand that it is necessary to study up on things, figure out where your position must be, and then to move forward.  I do it too. Sometimes things require re-study.  Sometimes new information intrudes and require that the thoughtful person apply critical thinking a second time to update their opinions.  This is where he appears to fall short.  He is so busy producing a weekly podcast that he can't be bothered to rethink anything, he has to keep moving.  He has a fine radio voice though, and 200,000K podcast subscribers if I am to believe what I am told.

Mind you, his science background is that of a computer scientist.  That lady who wrote that pro-homeopathy book that is so popular at NUNM was also a computer scientist.  I just want to say that a computer scientist is NOT A SCIENTIST.  A computer scientist is a programmer, a person who is good at the most basic kind of logic.  Logic is not science.  Science involves the scientific method, and requires a whole different level of neutralization of all our natural cognitive biases than simply applying logic to make a program do what it is supposed to do.  I'm getting pretty tired of being lectured to about science by so-called computer scientists.

I think my biggest beef with Dunning is his simplistic take on medicine.  His opinion jives with all of that in the skeptical world which is that "alternative medicine has failed all tests" and that is why we call it alternative, and by extension I presume that he means that conventional medicine has passed all tests.  This is utter nonsense.  It is obvious that there is plenty of evidence that has bearing on human health that has not been integrated by conventional medicine, and that there is plenty of conventional medicine that is based on outdated notions that were never very scientific to start with.  His worship of MD's and disparagement of herbs is an indication of his ignorance about medicine.

Then I had the bad luck to sit down between a retired MD and a retired nurse for a drink after the talk.  The MD told me about his Catholic upbringing and his X many years in the "skeptical community".  He asked me about vaccines and I told him I didn't agree with the ACIP schedule.   Then he told me about his N=1 experience of getting hep B (because he was not vaccinated) and what a bad experience that was.  I would have vaccinated him because he was a doctor working with needles but somehow he didn't get that done and had to learn the hard way. The RN told me that there is "science" that backs up the use of vaccines and that there is nothing I can say that will change her opinion in the least.  There was ZERO opportunity to have a nuanced discussion about where we do and do not have evidence, which vaccines are effective and which are not, how we can obtain the best herd immunity when it really matters, and how we can protect the people most at risk. They had pegged me for a vaccine denier before I even said a word, based on the fact that I have an ND degree and license.  These people, Dunning included, congratulate themselves on their critical thinking because they have debunked some popular assumptions for themselves, and then they take it no farther.

The truth is complex.  Medicine is a work in progress.  If we can take it to the level of talking about actual science, individual findings and studies about vaccines or vitamin C, then we will be able to talk.  If we can talk, discuss new findings and figure out what to study next, we might be able to devise studies to answer the new questions and eventually to refine our evaluation and treatment approaches.  If we can change those based on evidence, we can most likely improve outcomes.

I have HAD IT with being told that "the science says" WHATEVER by people who never actually read a study. Heck, they don't even read the abstracts or the summaries, they just parrot what they are told.  It's like "Simon Says" more than science.  Have you read a study about that in the last year?  In the last decade??  Have you taken a CE course about vaccines?  Or have you just lived inside that same damn bubble for the last 40 years. All you know is the news headlines, that vaccination rates are down and measles outbreaks are increasing? At least there's a little current events knowledge. That MD and that RN have worked in the field long enough to be brainwashed beyond any chance of critical thinking or new learning.  Now they are retired and they don't even study on it any more. They just know what they know.

This is the problem.  Medical professionals, and Dunning, your blind spots are getting bigger with each new study that comes out.  And all you who think you know the truth about vaccines; how about read up on it a little bit rather than assuming that everyone who disagrees with conventional practice is an idiot.  If we can't disagree and talk about it, then it will never get better.

Finally it is done. I shook when putting in my final IV today, just as I shook when I put in the first one. But now I can remain calm and get the job done, even though my hands are shaking. They don't start shaking until after I have stabbed the vein, and usually not until after I have inserted the catheter into the vein. It is when I am taping the catheter in that the shaking really gets bad. But I've learned. I can do it anyway. I dreaded this class. I do not like needles. But I have come to enjoy the challenge. I have gotten good at palpating veins. My lover has great veins; he is fun to palpate. I look at people on the bus, people in restaurants, people on the street, and I am assessing their veins. I never knew I'd see people in terms of their veins. Saw quite a few injection drug abusers in the clinic---those are some tattered sclerosed veins, surrounded by abscesses. The damage done by needles is nothing next to the emotional pain.

It is a relief to be done with this part of my education. Drawing blood, injecting nutrients, numbing tissues, doing IV pushes and drips..... all these needles. Somehow I made it without sticking myself. My lab partner today stuck herself trying to pull saline from a bag. It is easy to do. The first time I did an IV push was in the clinic--on a patient with Hep C--and I told the doc I hadn't had the class yet but he didn't care, said just do it, so I did. The patient had poppers for veins so it was no problem. No active injection drug use. I think I have scars in both of my antecubital veins now, from repeated venipuncture. By rookies. Some missed, some stabbed all the way through and out the vein to the back. Some yanked upward and tore the vein. Some caught the outer edge of it and stretched it. I have experienced many of the mistakes that one can make when playing with needles. I suppose that is the purpose of this education. I know the story from both sides now. I have scars on my veins to prove it. And I will leave fewer scars as a result.

This class was supposed to be taken in the 3rd year of this education, but I dropped it. I had started out drawing blood in second year with great confidence, but lost my confidence when I began to shake. I didn't shake at first. The shaking started after a few blood draws. I still don't know why. I started having trouble just keeping the needle in the vein while I plugged in the various vacutainers. I did better with a regular syringe; something about working the plunger helps me not shake as badly. I have learned to drink less coffee--or none--on days that I must work with needles. And I seem to do better when I support my endogenous acetylcholine. I often will shake less on subsequent punctures, when I do several in a day. I think if I did it all day long I'd get to where I wasn't bothered at all. It is also possible that my adrenal response to being stuck contributes to my shaking while sticking. Maybe if I didn't have to get stuck so often, and were able to dissociate sticking from being stuck, I'd have less bodily agitation.

ICD-9 572.4
( starter notesCollapse )

Intravenous vitamin C is a very powerful treatment. It is used to successfully treat viral infections (esp hepatitis) and many many many other conditions. It would be a great loss of the pharm biz succeeds in driving this through.

You can get more info and send a message to the FDA through this page:
http://www.anh-usa.org/action-alert-now-the-fda-is-going-after-vitamin-c/

Hep A virus, or "HAV", causes a relatively benign, self-limiting disease.
( moreCollapse )

1. Know why the enzymes on a hepatic panel are not necessarily good indicators of liver function and what tests are better indicators of liver function?
( moreCollapse )