(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...

I note that you dismiss this particular writer without any knowledge
whatsoever of anything she has written, based on nothing more than
your own prejudices.

Not at all - I have read a half dozen of her recent articles and a
number of her not so recent pieces as well. I even provided you with
some remarkable quotes.

No, you provided me with a number of quotes from Ms. Malkin. Here, we
were discussing Ms. Crossen. Different people. To my knowledge, you
have dismissed Ms. Crossens' book without having read anything she's
written.

"Ma'am, this thread started with an account of a pediatrician who had
discharged the patient because the parents objected to a single
vaccination - specifically the Hep B vaccination for their newborn -
not to any and all vaccinations. Specifically, what the article said
was:"

The author I was referring to is Malkin - but you are right, your
reference was back to Ms Crosson. You are also right - I have not
read the book to which you refer. I have read some of her work as a
journalist. I am not a big fan of journalistic exposes - be they
published in hardcover or soft. There is no accountability, there is
no review. I read a few reviews of her work and found some people
less than supportive of the quality of the data - quality in terms of
the facts used in the anecdotes. I am also left with the impression
that the book exposes the media's misuse of data. I hardly believe
that this is the case here.

However - here's a quote from her book that speaks volumes to her
bias:

""Despite the many temptations modern scientists face, they still
believe their discipline is self-correcting because it is open,
verifiable
and subject to close review by scientific peers. In American
medicine,
however, all three of these pillars are deteriorating."

Regardless, much of her expose revolves around interpretation of study
data by the media and politocs, not by scientists.

You
put the malicious spin on what I believe is an undisputed fact.

I dispute your opinion - you allege it's an undisputed fact. Should
have known...


The
members of the CDC committee on vaccine policy are all recipients of
funding from vaccine manufacturers. That makes them 'financially
beholden'. Do you dispute that?

Yes - I do.

But you don't dispute the fact that those financial relationships
exist.

Not at all - in fact, I'll argue that in the absence of the
relationship there wouldn't be a need for this discussion as the
number of medical innovations would shrink dramatically.

That was the undisputed fact I was referring to. The effect
of those relationships is certainly debatable.

You used the term BEHOLDEN to characterize the relationship. That is
what you called undisputed - that the relationship RESULTS in some
sort of obligation - that is what the term beholden means.

Do you understand the context of the financial
relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these
relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They
are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the
character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship.

Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as
they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Sufficient for what?

It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect
of bias due to those relationships.

Try and eliminate bias in an experiment and see how far you get.
Cambell and Stanley suggest to build it into the design - and that is
what transparency does.

If I want advice about something I go to the expert for advice. For
this advice, I pay the expert for his/her time. Does this make the
expert "beholden" to me?

To some extent yes. To what extent they are beholden depends on a
number of different factors, not least of which is the amount of money
you are paying the expert for his/her time. Another factor is how
easily the 'client' can be replaced with another versus how easily the
'expert' can be replaced by another. Small sums of money obtained
from clients that are easily replaced by other clients are not likely
to create much of a problem in the sense of the expert feeling
'beholden' to the client but large sums of money from a client that
cannot be easily replaced do.

The value of a consultant is in objectivity. I have an idea, though -
go to any recently published scientific article in JAMA. Take a look
at the lead author and the sponsorship statement. Then go back in
time with that same author and see what else he has published and look
at the sponsorship. I bet you dollars to donuts that he has worked
for a range of sponsors - all of whom likely compete with each other.
Is this possible under your scenario?

Do you think that blinding as a part
of experimental protocol is done because otherwise experiment
administrators would 'sell their souls for pieces of silver' in order
to achieve the desired results?

Blinded studies are intended to exclude the influence of the knowledge
of treatment assignment has on subjective interpretation of results.
They are not intended to keep the researcher "ethical". They are not
intended to keep policy makers "ethical".

Right. And why do you think that policy makers would be any less
subjective regarding the interpretation of the results of experimental
studies?

Because the data are in?

And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to
differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation
based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide
you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come
to completely different conclusions if you like.

OK - do it.

I can pretty much look at a publication and
figure out what results are significant. Then again, I'm trained to
do this. You?

Yes.

OK - how well?

A subtle unconscious bias can easily occur without presupposing any
lack of integrity by the participants.

You weren't arguing subtle unconscious bias - you said - "financially
beholden"

I'm sorry, but I don't interpret "financially beholden" as lacking in
integrity or "selling one's soul for pieces of silver". To me,
financially beholden means that there will be a subtle unconscious
bias on even those with the highest ethical standards.

That is a bit too nebulous and arbitrary. Measure it and tell me the
impact on decisions using real data.

Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I
don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs
myself.

As far as I can tell, she provides vignettes, not data. The plural of
anecdote (as Jeff is fond of saying) is not data.

Beholden - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted.

Yes. Do you disagree that someone who accepts large amounts of
funding for research they are personally involved in would not feel
graditude and indebtedness to the company providing such funds?

No. In fact, I bet the "beholdenness" is in the other direction.

I suspect it runs both ways.

No, you told me earlier that it is undeniable fact that it runs from
scientist to company. Noqw you only suspect it to be so? And you
suspect that there is counterveiling beholdeness?

This is just as true of policy
making committee members as it is of research study administators.

Everyone has his or her set of biases - that is not necessarily a bad
thing and what is even more relevant is that these biases are put
right out on the table for everyone to see.

It is important that those biases are right out on the table. But
putting them on the table and then pretending they don't have any
effect just because you're aware of them is, well, naive in my
opinion.

I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his
integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a
financial association between the information source and his
evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow
any bias to influence his decision.

LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these
folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by
virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable.

I have faith in the integrity of my peers. Are there those who
violate this ethical/moral/integrity code - no doubt. Do all, many,
some, or few. In my experience it is few and they don't last long.

I
think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as
fallible.

When your livelyhood depends on your integrity it is not a trivial
thing.

Why do you think that just because bias is known that it
doesn't affect the outcome?

Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a
scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community
is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research
goes out the window.

LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to
achieve the results their sponsors want.

You sure do a lot of laughing. I certainly never hired a consultant
to be a yes man.

Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any
more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on.

Chicken. Got a bit too close to home?

Bye.

Which leaves us with what?

No answer to the question of your perspective. What axe are you
grinding?

js