Skeptics Left Doubting Their Own Skepticism

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/06/prweb534297.htm

Skeptics Left Doubting Their Own Skepticism

On June 14th, 2007 at Simon Fraser University, B.C. Skeptics
Colloquium sponsored a lecture by Arthur Grollman, M.D., Professor of
Pharmacological Sciences at the University of New York Stony Brook.
Barry Beyerstein, PhD, a professor of Psychology at S.F.U. and head of
the B.C. Skeptics Society, hosted the event entitled "The Pharmacology
of Herbal Remedies and the Placebo Effect".
Research findings announced today (June 8th ,2007) add to the mounting
evidence in this area. A study published in The American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition found that taking Vitamin D supplements and calcium
substantially reduces all cancer risk

Vancouver, BC (PRWEB) June 20, 2007 -- On June 14th ,2007 at Simon
Fraser University, B.C. Skeptics Colloquium sponsored a lecture by
Arthur Grollman, M.D., Professor of Pharmacological Sciences at the
University of New York Stony Brook. Barry Beyerstein, PhD, a professor
of Psychology at S.F.U. and head of the B.C. Skeptics Society, hosted
the event entitled "The Pharmacology of Herbal Remedies and the
Placebo Effect".

With an audience of about 25 people, mostly students, Grollman
presented a lecture and then fielded questions from the audience. He
addressed science's growing awareness and validation of the tight
mind/body connection, which he referred to as the placebo effect, the
most powerful factor in pharmacology, at 30% efficacy. "Placebo is the
most interesting and understudied factor," admitted Grollman. When
asked specifically how placebo relates to prescription drug trials, he
confessed that in prescription drug trials, with placebo being a known
30%, a drug is called "effective" if it demonstrates 31% efficacy.
That fact in itself was amazing and made attending this event worth
the price of admission: it was free, or at least sponsored by our
taxes toward funding Universities in their quest for greater
knowledge.

Dr. Grollman then tackled the idea that herbs can interfere with
prescription drugs. When asked about prescription drug interactions
with other prescription drugs he admitted that this is a concern, but
physicians have a manual of drug interactions to handle this
possibility. One click on the internet reveals the fact that this
manual is not and couldn't possibly be inclusive of every possibility.

Pharmaceutical drug interactions are of particular concern with regard
to our increasing population of senior citizens. According to Consumer
Reports on Health, "Any new health problem in an older person should
be considered drug induced until proven otherwise." Many seniors take
several prescription drugs daily and are often given new prescription
drugs without thoroughly assessing their other medications. Dangerous
interactions and side affects -- some with disastrous consequences --
can result. It is conservatively estimated that 25% of hospital
admissions of seniors result from medication problems, including
prescription drugs interactions. Grollman failed to address this at
all, preferring to comfort himself with the existence of a partial
manual in the hands of physicians.

When asked about the efficacy of vitamin D as a cancer preventative
supplement, Dr. Grollman voiced his disapproval of it. He was spared
further embarrassment as he was stopped mid-sentence by Dr. Beyerstein
and others in the group of skeptics. Grollman was quickly informed by
the hosts of the event that there was an article published which
highlighted significant research proving that vitamin D is the most
effective supplement in cancer prevention. The research showed a
dramatic 60 percent or greater reduction in cancer risk than those who
did not get vitamin D. In fact, the Canadian Cancer Society now
recommends that all Canadians take this inexpensive and harmless
vitamin on a daily basis.

According to their own website; "The Canadian Cancer Society is
recommending a specific amount of Vitamin D supplementation for
Canadians to consider taking. This first-time recommendation is based
on the growing body of evidence about the link between Vitamin D and
reducing risk for colorectal, breast and prostate cancers.

"The evidence is still growing in this area, but we want to give
guidance to Canadians about this emerging area of cancer prevention
based on what we know now," says Heather Logan, Director, Cancer
Control Policy, Canadian Cancer Society. "As we find out more we will
update our recommendation."

A red-faced Grollman grumbled that the study must have been a small
and insignificant one, suggesting that Canada could not afford to do a
large study. With all due respect to Dr. Grollman, the research cited
was a large randomized study of 1,179 women over a five-year period
conducted at Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska. As
noted on the Canadian Cancer Society's website: "Research findings
announced today (June 8th ,2007) add to the mounting evidence in this
area. A study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
found that taking Vitamin D supplements and calcium substantially
reduces all cancer risk".

This event was presented by university professors to impressionable
students who might be inclined to agree with their views. Grollman
stated in his presentation, "I give this lecture to fourth year
medical students.' Now that's unfortunate indeed. An entire graduating
class of medical doctors feeling pressure to agree with this skewed
view of reality should be a call to action for anyone possessing
rational thought.

Close-minded skeptics are not reliable leaders of change as they are
adverse to modifying their thought patterns. It is beyond shameful
that our universities, which should be at the cutting edge of
progressive thought, are supporting and endorsing such a biased
approach to knowledge and research. Students, intent on their
objective of good grades, are faced with the choice of endorsing this
dominant opinion or opting out of the system. SFU is one of thousands
of institutes of higher learning and skeptics are abound in many,
including the university's research centers. Society's authorities,
such as universities and medical centers with the biggest investment
in traditional thinking on science and medicine, can actually sabotage
open-minded science when reacting from a position of perceived threat,
as any approach which may jeopardize potential research grants is
viewed as threatening.

If Grollman were to broaden his perspective, given his knowledge base
in pharmacology, he could help so many people by focusing on
prescription drug interactions, a significant problem in morbidity and
mortality rates. A university's mandate is to enlighten the medical
doctors of the future by updating them about valid research, such as
the vitamin D study, rather presenting biased beliefs seemingly based
on conflicts of interest and ego considerations. Future doctors are of
interest to everyone, and confidence in them is essential to the
integrative medical system of our future.

###