Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

Jonathan Smith wrote:

Not according to Pubmed. The authors were well known
for their
measles-Crohn's disease link and not until 1997 was
there ever any
mention by that group of the possible MMR - neurologic
link. In
1997, they were already doing the lawyer study as far as
I know.

As far as "*you* know, Jonathan? LOL. Not good enough.
(And to
think, you carp on abacus!) Find out, okay?

You do the math - With a Feb 28 1998 publication date -
when do you
suppose the data collection started? In 1997. Problem
solved.
Lawyers first, then the money, then the patients, then the
results.

He's got you there, JG. If the study was published in 1998
there is no way that data collection did not start by at
least 1997 (more likely 1995 or 1996).


Had the editors known of the funding source and that the
content of
the article misrepresented the methods used, it would
likel;y have
been rejectd - according to them.

Well, then, they did a ****-poor job of (minimal!)
verification,
didn't they? g

Maybe the good doctor is a convincing liar - considering
his fe3llow
researchers were also unaware of the connection - well, at
least
according to quotes in news reports.

How are they to verify that he is not being paid by a bunch
of lawyers if he is willing to lie about it? SHoul The
Lancet have contacted every lawyer (and everyone else who
coul dpossibly have a motive) both int he UK and broad to
ask if they ahd an arrangement with Wakefield? I wouldn't
call the tast minimal.


I like my science transparent. I like research articles
to be
accurate and the conclusions to be supported. I don't
like what the
lay press does to science.

Then take it up with "the lay press," for heaven's sake!

He is taking it up with you for citing the lay press as
"evidence."


I give the lay press no credibility when it comes to
interpreting
science, as you well know. And to have the Rogers foaming
at the
mouth when they can spin off of a NYT article makes it all
the more
humorous.

And she said you have to sense of humor. Maybe the two of
you (and me) just don't find the same things funny.

--
CBI, MD

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

A financial association exists between a sponsor and a researcher
A publication is forthcoming that describes the sponsors innovation in
a favorable light
The author provides disclosure of the relationship.

Are the results, by YOUR definition, tainted?

Well....if not tainted, it is at least justification for suspicion
regarding the results.

Why is it necessary to be suspicious? Isn't it better to read the
study and then derive a conclusion based on the merits of the study as
opposed to jumping to a conclusion that it cannot pssible be
"accurate" because the sponsor has a stake in the outcome?

Particularly if there was a provision that
allowed the sponser to withhold unfavorable results from publication.

That has NOTHING at all to do with what is published. The question of
publication bias (it's the term used to refer to the absence of
negative studies) is a separate and distinct issue.

A financial association exists between a sponsor and a researcher
A publication is forthcoming that describes the sponsors innovation in
a favorable light
The author hides the financial relationship from the journal, his
coathors, and his academic institution

Are these results, be definition, tainted?

It is even greater justification for suspicion regarding the results
that if the relationship had not been hidden.

In the case of the Lancet editor - it is sufficient to have a
manuscript rejected.

Which set of results better allow users to determine how much they are
'worth"?

The first is obviously better for users of the information.

A return analogy:

As a voter, are you better able to decide who to vote for when
politicians disclose their sources of campaign funds versus keep them
secret?

There is no question that knowing the sponsors of a candidate provides
information about the candidate that you might not otherwise have.

As a voter, do you presume that just because a politician discloses
all of his sources of funding that he or she is without bias in regard
to those sources?

As a voter and citizen, I don't trust any politician, be they left,
center, or right. As a scientist, I judge the quality of science
based on the science, not who sponsored it. A politician brings
views, positions, and policy to the table, not data.

Your analogy is a strawman.

Would you presume that his/her congressional votes
will not reflect the interests of the major campaign contributors?

They will reflect the people who support him - clearly. Just
remember, the voters elected him, not the campaign contributions.

If a politician were to NOT accept ANY money from ANYONE, does this
make him a better candidate?

Personally, I presume that those compaign contributions either a) will
have an effect or b) were made because the politician's views were
already in line with those of the contributor. Disclosure of the
sources of funds doesn't eliminate the bias, it only allows me to
assess it more accurately.

Likewise, in your example, disclosure of the sources of funds doesn't
eliminate bias, it only allows the users of the information to assess
it more accurately.

I cannot agree that science and data are equivalent to politicians and
politics.

js

"JG" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"JG" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"JG" wrote in message
...
"CBI" wrote in message
link.net...
JG wrote:

Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Wakefield has a
loooong way to
go to reach the level of research funding/testimony fees
realized by
James Cherry:

First of all - yuor figures below confuse money to fund
reseach, from which the investigator can draw part of his
salary but mostly is spent doing the study, with money that
is completely kept by the researcher.

Hmmm... I think they're pretty straightforward, myself. (Just
what
do
you think "unrestricted grants" means?

They are called "unrestricted educational grants"

The Money article didn't refer to them as such.

UCLA does.

Really? And *you* know this ...because?

I have dealt with the university of california sysem in this context.


IMO, the salient word
is *unrestricted*. Who wouldn't like funding for a pet project
(perhaps
one wholly unrelated to research that would benefit the grant
provider)?

Gee - how about that.

Yeah, how about that? It just heightens the conflict of interest that
Cherry has/had with Lederle.

It doesn't heighten squat. You keep insisting that the presence of a
funding relationship means that the fundee is in debt to the funder -
the Abacus principle we'll call it. I'm quite sure that a letter of
thanks went from the university to the funding source, but it does not
make it a conflict of interest - it may have that potential, but it is
disclosed and you can deal with it any way you want.

and the general
policy across US universities is that the can only be spent on the
educational and research mission of the university. We used to
fund
graduate students this way - either make them RAs, get them
tuition
waivers, send them to conferences, etc. We also used it to pay
for
lab supplies and normal operational costs.

And how did Cherry/UCLA use theirs, hmmm?

in line with university policy.

Bwahahaha ...Please, you gotta stop! PLEASE! My sides are hurtin'!
My keyboard's a mess from spewing coffee on it ...Oh, GAWD!!!! I think
I'm gonna have to killfile you, Jon; the laughing is too painful!
...and costly!!!

Go right ahead. What's so funny? You don't trust scientists and have
no faith in their integrity and now it is a conspiracy with the
universities?

(Five minutes later...) Okay, Jonathan. We all are aware that you
think you walk on water and are the be-all, end-all Master of the
Universe.

I've never suggested it- but I have walked on water. And my life's
experiences include actually doing science.

(Hope you're saving up for you kids' future psych bills!)
Over the years, various unwritten "rules" have been established around
here, and (for the most part) they're adhered to by those on both sides
of just about every issue/topic. You can't (well, okay, *shouldn't*)
post an answer such as yours w/o SOME sort of verifiable evidence. At a
minimum, you should add, "I know this because..." ("My real name is____,
and I work at UCLA"; "I've audited the UCLA Pediatrics Department's
financial accounts"...whatever).

I enjoy the marginal annonymity that Yahoo provides. I know this
because at one time I was in a position to provide funding of this
type to people like Cherry - not to Cherry and not for vaccines, but
nonetheless, to academic researchers at well respected universities
for the purpose of funding their research programs and often their
graduate students. Earlier in my career, I was the recipient of
grants just like this as a graduate student and then as faculty at a
major US univerisity.

The unrestricted part means that there was no specific deliverable
or
project associated with the money.

Exactly. It's left to the discretion of the recipient(s).

good. now you are catching on. These (usually small) grants are often
seed money to investigators for them to pursue basic or exploratory
research. They can come from private industry but often they come
from alumni, foundations, or other philanthropic organizations. In a
previous life, I'd give grants to university faculty to help them pay
for travel to meetings of societies. Why did I do it? because it was
the right thing to do to advance the science. And yes, they
appreciate it and the next time you call to ask them for advice, they
make the time. It doesn't change the advice they give.

Are *you* catching on? It's these types of transfers (in this case, of
money) that give rise to conflicts of interest!

There is always a potential - but it isn't a conflict until it is
hidden.

Or "gifts"? The amount received
for *research* is listed separately from this amount.) Note,
too,
that
the money he (personally) received for research is listed
separately
from that received by his institution (UCLA).

Gifts are discretionary funds.

And so are *unrestricted* grants!

No, they are gifts.

Let A="gifts"
Let B="discretionary funds"
Let C="unrestricted grants"

You say, "A are B." I say. "C are (also) B." You say "No, C are A."
If C are A--if unrestricted grants are gifts--then they ARE
discretionary funds. (Need a Venn diagram?)

Gifts are gifts - grants are grants. How you are allowed to spend
them is different. How much the University takes off in overhead
differs, too. Have you ever done research from a university platform?
f you haven't then you have only a layman interpretaton of
nomenclature - and you've shown that to be error prone.

In many cases, gifts don't include any
institutioal overhead though most deans took a cut - usually a lot
less in terms of percent. Gift money has a little less stringage
attached in terms of how t is spent. Like I said, the dean paid for
golf with his gift money but you couldn't do that with grant money.

These "gifts" taint everything (e.g., research results) that comes out
of the UCLA Pediatrics Department wrt Lederle (Wyeth); what your
"testimony" above does is simply add evidence to any assertion that
Cherry (UCLA) has a conflict of interest when it comes to doing research
for Lederle!

OK - fine. Then paint the NIAID with the same brush beause they paid
for a lot of the work.

Usually the university got a cut but
mostly the faculty was able to pretty much spend it on stuff - not
salaries, but stuff. Computers were a big thing at one time; lab
equipment, telephone equipment, even desks and chairs could be
purchased with this money. The dean even sponsored an annual golf
outing and used gift money to pay green fees for faculty and
students.

And your point would be, what? That such "gifts" couldn't/wouldn't
create a conflict of interest? Get real!

The funding source is disclosed and there is a potential that a
conflict of interst may occur. It is not evidence that there is a
conflict.

JG - you don't understand the difference between a potential conflict
and a real conflict.

Oh, but I most certainly do, Jonathan, from both an ethical and a legal
perspective. Like being "a little pregnant," there's no such thing as a
"potential conflict of interest" ONCE A RELATONSHIP FROM WHICH AN
INDIVIDUAL (e.g., a university researcher) OR SOMEONE WITH WHOM HE/SHE
IS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED/AFFILIATED CONCEIVABLY MIGHT--IN THE EYES OF A
DISINTERESTED (OBJECTIVE) OBSERVER--UNDULY BENEFIT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED

Shouting it doesn't make a difference. You are still wrong. Having
sex doesn't mean you are pregnant.

(e.g., money other assets have been transferred). The only time it's
appropriate to use the term "potential conflict of interest" is BEFORE
any such exchange has occurred; e.g., when a law firm is discussing
whether it should represent "Client B" when it already represents
"Client A," a competitor in the same field as "Client B," or a faculty
department is deciding whether it should undertake research/conduct
testing on behalf of XYZ Corporation, a company that's given
"unrestricted grants" (or "gifts") to either individuals in the
department or to the department/institution.

I disagree - a conflict only exists if it influences the results. If
there is an appearance of a conflict or the potential exists, it is
not necessarily impactful on the results.

Think of it this way - two guys with guns standing across a canyon
from each other - no bullets. No potential for conflict. You give
them both bullets - now you have a potential for conflict. They shoot
at each other - now it is a conflict.

Sure; this is entirely in line with what I stated above.

You said a conflict exists in the presence of bullets but no shots
fired.

Until you show me the smoking
gun, as long as I know there's a potential conflict, I am quite
content.

Okay, in keeping with your hypothetical... Until both (1) assets (e.g.,
"unrestricted grants," "gifts," whatever--"bullets") have been
transferred ("shot") from, say, a pharmaceutical manufacturer to a
university and (2) university employees (faculty members/researchers)
have agreed to conduct research/testing for the manufacturer (have
returned fire, if you will), only a potential conflict of interest
exists. (Both sides are, of course, "armed"; the manufacturer has funds
[bullets] available to spend, and the university has the capacity and
capability [bullets] to conduct research.) Once both conditions are
met--i.e., assets have been transferred and the university has agreed to
undertake the research/testing--a conflict of interest has been created.

You screwed up the analogy big time. Not until the publication is
shown to misrepresent the data because of the funding or the research
design is impacted negatively (unscientific) because of the funding is
there a conflict of interest.

I'll evaluate the merits of the research on the research,
not because of how it was paid for or who wrote it.

That's how it should be. No one's said the research IS
bogus/fraudulent, just that one might wish to question/examine it *more*
closely--with more skepticism--if a conflict of interest exists.

You did. Why subject the research to closer scrutiny because of the
funding source? Why do you think journals use blinded reviews?

In the peer
review process, that is what is required - blinded reviews.

...and no one's said otherwise!

Yet you argue that the reviews should be unblinded - one should know
who the author is and what his financial relationship is and if it is
a potential conflict, then the work is tainted. Your words, not mine.

Besides, you miss the point. Did Cherry hide these
arrangements?

I don't know, did he? You're the one, no doubt, with better
access
to
the journals in which his articles dealing with pertussis
vaccination
have been published.

Grant Support: Dr. Cherry's pertussis studies were supported in
part
by contracts No1AI15124 and No1AI45249 from the National Institute
of
Allergy and Infectious Disease and by grants from Lederle-Praxis
Biologicals.

Cherry's written dozens, if not hundreds, of pro-pertussis
vaccine/vaccination articles. Were his ties to Lederle (American
Home
Products/Wyeth) disclosed in *all* of them?

You tell me. Here is an example from one of the leading journals where
it is clear that his work has industry funding participation.

Here? Where? (I'm assuming you got the above info from his January
'98 editorial, "Pertussis in Adults," that appeared in the "Annals of
Internal Medicine.")

Editorials are not science. Like the lay press, editorials are nothng
more than someones opinions, not fact.

Has he extolled some (profitable) theory with
a vehemence that is not supported by the science in a manner
that suggests he is seeking to maximize publicity?

IMO, yes; he's the "Number One Fan" (promoter) of adult
(pertussis)
vaccination.

Maybe he actually believes in it and has the data to show that his
belief is scientifically supported?

By whom? Apparently not by enough other researchers/medicos to have

effected a recommendation for adult vaccination. (And he's been
exhorting adult vaccination for *years*.)

So then - ACIP isn't the industry spokesperson? Seems to defeat your
argument that vacination policy decisions are purchased through gifts
to Cherry?

Huh? Look, Jon, your inclination for putting words in others'
mouths---for creating straw man arguments--has already been duly noted.

When in the gutter with you, john and Schlafly, it's hard no to stoop
to the same level. Sorry

At no time have I ever said, or even intimated, that "vacination policy
decisions are purchased through gifts to Cherry." (Who knows, maybe the
flak about Cherry that the CDC/ACIP has received from
vaccine/vaccination critics/skeptics over the past 15+ years has made
them [the CDC/ACIP] leery and they're reluctant to listen to
him...perhaps he's been hoist by his own petard.)

So once you sell your integrity, it's tough to get it back - as I have
pointed out, this is the BIG reason why the presence of disclosure
acts as an effective deterent to conflicts of interest. If you know
that everyone else knows that the sponsor of your work has a vested
interest in its outcome you are going to make sure that you remove any
doubt as to your integrity. The first time you scrw this up will be
your last. Think about Wakefield. Do you ever think he'll be able to
walk into a courtroom as an expert witness and NOT have this little
episode come up?

"Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the
University of
California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized
pertussis expert who
has
been a leader on advisory committees that help frame
immunization
policy for
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for
Disease
Control. Back in 1979, at a symposium, he said, "All
physicians are
aware that pertussis occasionally produces severe
reactions and that
these may be associated with permanent sequellae
[complications
caused by the vaccine] or even death." But by 1990,
Cherry had
changed his mind, proclaiming in the Journal of the
American Medical
Association that severe brain damage caused by pertussis
vaccine was
nothing but "a myth." From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got
about
$400,000 in unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts"
from Lederle.
From 1988 through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle
for
pertussis research, and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA
received
$654,418 from Lederle for pertussis research.
Additionally, drug
manufacturers paid Cherry and UCLA $34,058 for his
testimony as an
expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits brought against the
companies."
(Andrea Rock, "Money" article; December 1996. The entire
article is
available at
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/money.txt and
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html.)

The references are telling. Got anything not from a whacko
conspiracy site that hasn't been discredited on a daily
basis in this forum?

Guess JGs answer is no.

Okay, time for an OT constructive criticism: Apostrophes are our
friends, Jon. Your writng would be improved if you learned to use them.
...You're welcome.

This is the internet - you're lucky with me - many posters can't even
spell.

The source is (the highly respected) "Money" magazine,

It is a journalistic piece - not a peer reviewed science piece.

Hyphens are our friends, too. (Sorry; tried to [but couldn't!] resist.
g) You put too much stock in "peer-reviewed" articles, Jon. (I
imagine Wakefield's Lancet article was peer-reviewed.)

Like I said - it's the internet - did you get the point? Good.
Clarity is our friend, as is logic and consistency. Try it.

you friggin'
twits (first Probert, then CBI, and now you, Jonathan ...yes, that's
an
ad hominem attack), NOT Roger's or John's sites. (They've simply
furnished verbatim copies of the article. If you wish to read the
article "direct from the source," go to

https://www.timeinc.net/subs/secure/...neymag_search/
and subscribe.) Sheesh!

I invoke the Schlafly law - if it isn't delivered free of charge to my
door I don't have to read it...nananananahhhhhh.

The "Money" article HAS been delivered (free!) to your computer screen;
it IS (has been made) available. (Thanks, Roger and John!) I'm sorry,
but if you think I--they--have altered it in any way, it's up to YOU to
make an effort to find out.

The link wants my money.


Invoke tha Abacus principle? I know it because its true and I
don't
have the time to prove it?

I've asked you to prove some things, Jonathan (e.g., that Cherry's
funding was *always* disclosed). Better get cracking....

Maybe the best answer is - show me when it wasn't disclosed.

Sorry, Jon, I asked you first (if Cherry's ties to Lederle were
invariably disclosed.)

I have never seen a research paper of Dr. Cherry's published n a major
medical journal that reports data where the funding source of the
study has not been disclosed. I looked.

I have never had a doubt where research funding comes from. I think
that its a great tribute to the collaboration between the private
sector, universities, and the government.

La-de-da. Goody for you. *Yawn*

Goody for all of us.

You go ahead and discount any scientific piece that isn't independent
and unfunded and base all your medical decisions on those two
articles.

Straw man (yet AGAIN! g). It's getting tiresome, Jon. Really.

OK - then don't tell me that anything not done exclusively
independently is tainted - you said i, not me. I ask agai, do you eat
tainted meat?

Meanwhle, the rest of us scientists will get back to making
new knowledge in collaboration with the scientific community - which,
beleive it or not, includes the big bad pharmaceutical industry, the
evil empire of the NIH, and the whoring educational system.

"Us scientists"? Sorry, Jon, but I've seen no evidence, whatsoever,
that you're a scientist. (A scientist *wannabe*, yes.)

I guess you're right - but then again, your judgement is suspect.


JG

P.S. I've only killfiled about half a dozen posters; the last one was
the "enema guy" several months ago. You're joining the list, Jonathan,
not so much because of what you post, but because of your obnoxious
attitude.

You just can't handle it when someone comes right out and challenges
the basic premise for your existance. You have to be right about
everything and you can't use science to support it.

You obviously have an intractable "anyone who disagrees with
and/or challenges me is a contemptible moron" mindset.

Me? Give it a rest. John's a flake. Roger doesn't get along with
anyone. Abacus can't argue so he takes the "high" road. I agree -
the three of you are moronic in what you post a lot of the time. This
last series of threads particularly. You want to insist that all
science is tainted by the presence of funding. I'll give you this -
Wakefield surely gave you a great example of how a scientist can be
corrupted - but that is hardly evidence that it is consistent and
pervasive. I judge science on the merits of the science. I do
science (did) that stands up to scientific review and my peers
scrutiny. Honestly, I don't need a housewife with nothing more than a
dictionary and a keyboard to endorse it - that's what the peer review
process is all about - keeps the wannabees on the sidelines or on
their soapboxes.

You're also,
based on the many posts of yours that I've read, completely devoid of
humor (which I truly find quite sad; life's too short not to laugh at
anything other than those people whom you consider inferior--which, in
your case, appears to be *everyone* ....your poor kids.) So... Ta-ta.
Take care.

Good - let's see how long it lasts. Your silly little gs are hardly
humor.
You can't put together a supportable argument without defering to
editorials in the lay press. Argue your points in science, not based
on what some journalist says is what you should think. Are you really
that much of a sheeple?

I don't generally killfile people - and I will post whenever and
whatever. So, you won't have the priviledge of reading my insightful
banter. Your loss (and you said I don't have a sense of humor g).

js

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

A financial association exists between a sponsor and a researcher
A publication is forthcoming that describes the sponsors innovation in
a favorable light
The author provides disclosure of the relationship.

Are the results, by YOUR definition, tainted?

Well....if not tainted, it is at least justification for suspicion
regarding the results.

Why is it necessary to be suspicious?

It's not necessary to be suspicious of anything. One can accept
whatever one wants without question if one so chooses. However, I
find it useful and appropriate to be suspicious of certain things
rather than accepting them at face value. Study results that promote
a sponsor's interests are one of those things.

Isn't it better to read the
study and then derive a conclusion based on the merits of the study as
opposed to jumping to a conclusion that it cannot pssible be
"accurate" because the sponsor has a stake in the outcome?

Yes, it's better to read the study than jumping to conclusions. When I
say that I am suspicious, that simply means that I am less inclined to
accept the conclusions without first reading the study than I would be
otherwise. Is that really inappropriate? I may, for a study I find of
particular interest, read the original , but I can't read every
scientific study published. I can't even keep up with my own field.
So I usually just read the summarizations in the news media and from
other sources and maintain what I think of as a 'healthy skepticism'
regarding everything I read.

Particularly if there was a provision that
allowed the sponser to withhold unfavorable results from publication.

That has NOTHING at all to do with what is published. The question of
publication bias (it's the term used to refer to the absence of
negative studies) is a separate and distinct issue.

I'll grant you that such a distinction exists, but I don't find it a
particularly useful distinction when I'm evaluating the results of
research outside of my area (which means all health related research
since that isn't my field). I consider the fact that research that
doesn't promote sponsers goals and objectives isn't very likely to be
published (many research grants have clauses that allow them to forbid
publication of results that are not to their liking). I also realize
that research that doesn't promote sponsers goals and objectives isn't
likely to be done at all (no funding). So I keep that in mind when
I'm reading results in the lay press and making health care decisions
for me and my family.

When I say 'suspicious', I don't mean that I'm suspicious that the
science wasn't performed properly. I generally trust the peer-review
process to weed out poorly performed science. What I mean is that I'm
suspicious that recommendations based on that research are necessarily
in the best interest of me or my family. Is a new medication,
surgery, or other health recommendation really the best solution to a
problem, or is an un-scientifically tested herbal remedy or perhaps a
better diet and exercise regime likely to be just as effective and
much less expensive, though not near as profitable for the sponsors?
Is a new vaccination really the best thing for my child, or is it more
appropraite to wait awhile? That's the sort of *suspicion* that runs
through my mind.

As a voter, do you presume that just because a politician discloses
all of his sources of funding that he or she is without bias in regard
to those sources?

As a voter and citizen, I don't trust any politician, be they left,
center, or right. As a scientist, I judge the quality of science
based on the science, not who sponsored it. A politician brings
views, positions, and policy to the table, not data.

Your analogy is a strawman.

Sorry it wasn't to your taste.

Would you presume that his/her congressional votes
will not reflect the interests of the major campaign contributors?

They will reflect the people who support him - clearly. Just
remember, the voters elected him, not the campaign contributions.

That's a debatable position. Campaign contributions have a very real
impact on the election results. A politician who cannot raise money
is a losing politician.

If a politician were to NOT accept ANY money from ANYONE, does this
make him a better candidate?

No. It just makes him a losing candidate.

Personally, I presume that those compaign contributions either a) will
have an effect or b) were made because the politician's views were
already in line with those of the contributor. Disclosure of the
sources of funds doesn't eliminate the bias, it only allows me to
assess it more accurately.

Likewise, in your example, disclosure of the sources of funds doesn't
eliminate bias, it only allows the users of the information to assess
it more accurately.

I cannot agree that science and data are equivalent to politicians and
politics.

No, they are not equivalent. I didn't mean to imply that they were.
It was an analogy, not a metaphor. Politicians and scientists are
both subject to the same human weaknesses. When someone accepts large
sums of money from some source, that person is indebted to the
source. What that will mean in terms of future behavior, credibility,
etc. varies from person to person, but rationalizations that allow a
person to maintain their own sense of integrity and find a position in
line with their sponsors are likely. It doesn't matter whether we're
talking about scientists or politicians. I don't find it
inappropriate to assume that such human failings can occur in
scientists as well as in politicians.

Just as special interest groups are more likely to fund politicians
whose personal beliefs and values are in line with their own, I think
that any company making large funding grants to researchers is going
to select scientists who, for whatever reasons, have interests that
align well with the companies. And just as such campaign
contributions aren't going to change the politicians votes - he can
maintain his integrity and still accept the funds - so also can the
scientist accept such funding and maintain his integrity by making
sure the results are scientifically valid as well as supporting both
his and his sponsors beliefs. But that doesn't mean that either the
politician or the scientist would be considered unbiased from my point
of view.

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

A financial association exists between a sponsor and a researcher
A publication is forthcoming that describes the sponsors innovation in
a favorable light
The author provides disclosure of the relationship.

Are the results, by YOUR definition, tainted?

Well....if not tainted, it is at least justification for suspicion
regarding the results.

Why is it necessary to be suspicious?

It's not necessary to be suspicious of anything. One can accept
whatever one wants without question if one so chooses.

It's not that one should accept data at face value, but to evaluate it
based on the data not presume that the data must be wrong because the
researcher was funded by an organization that you don't agree with.

However, I
find it useful and appropriate to be suspicious of certain things
rather than accepting them at face value. Study results that promote
a sponsor's interests are one of those things.

Evaluate science on the basis of the science. Read the science, not
the soundbite.

Isn't it better to read the
study and then derive a conclusion based on the merits of the study as
opposed to jumping to a conclusion that it cannot pssible be
"accurate" because the sponsor has a stake in the outcome?

Yes, it's better to read the study than jumping to conclusions. When I
say that I am suspicious, that simply means that I am less inclined to
accept the conclusions without first reading the study than I would be
otherwise. Is that really inappropriate?

Do you actual accept what a newspaper says about a scientific article
at face value?

I may, for a study I find of
particular interest, read the original , but I can't read every
scientific study published. I can't even keep up with my own field.
So I usually just read the summarizations in the news media and from
other sources and maintain what I think of as a 'healthy skepticism'
regarding everything I read.

So, you discount the validity of data because it happens to be
sponsored by someone who actually has an interest in the results? And
then accept at face value what some third party says about it? A
third party that has NO obligation to detail its potential conflicts
of interest?

Particularly if there was a provision that
allowed the sponser to withhold unfavorable results from publication.

That has NOTHING at all to do with what is published. The question of
publication bias (it's the term used to refer to the absence of
negative studies) is a separate and distinct issue.

I'll grant you that such a distinction exists, but I don't find it a
particularly useful distinction when I'm evaluating the results of
research outside of my area (which means all health related research
since that isn't my field). I consider the fact that research that
doesn't promote sponsers goals and objectives isn't very likely to be
published (many research grants have clauses that allow them to forbid
publication of results that are not to their liking).

There is not a single research grant that I have been involved with
that has ever limited the publication rights of the investigator other
than delaying the publication of those results because of intellectual
property considerations. Not one. I would never sign one, my
university would never allow it, and later in my career my employers
never required it. The only clause is the right to review and comment
prior to submission. And that is only fair.

I also realize
that research that doesn't promote sponsers goals and objectives isn't
likely to be done at all (no funding).

And this is a problem? Remember, the private sector isn't the only
source of research funding. And, also note that the private sector
does fund quite a bit of basic and exploratory research on an
unrtestricted grant basis and through foundations.

So I keep that in mind when
I'm reading results in the lay press and making health care decisions
for me and my family.

If you rely on the lay press to make health decisions, you are doing
yourself a disservice. Do you rely on the lay press to amke decisions
about what candidate to vote for?

When I say 'suspicious', I don't mean that I'm suspicious that the
science wasn't performed properly. I generally trust the peer-review
process to weed out poorly performed science. What I mean is that I'm
suspicious that recommendations based on that research are necessarily
in the best interest of me or my family.

The transfer of data to policy is suspect because the interests of the
translators are rarely made explicit. I trust the ACIP a lot more
than the CDC.

Is a new medication,
surgery, or other health recommendation really the best solution to a
problem, or is an un-scientifically tested herbal remedy

Don't even go there with me.

or perhaps a
better diet and exercise regime likely to be just as effective and
much less expensive, though not near as profitable for the sponsors?

You have choices, you have a brain. Use them.

Is a new vaccination really the best thing for my child, or is it more
appropraite to wait awhile? That's the sort of *suspicion* that runs
through my mind.

And that has nothing to do with whether the data are credible or the
researcher is ethical or even if the potential of conflict of interest
exists - that's just a natural skepticism of something new.

As a voter, do you presume that just because a politician discloses
all of his sources of funding that he or she is without bias in regard
to those sources?

As a voter and citizen, I don't trust any politician, be they left,
center, or right. As a scientist, I judge the quality of science
based on the science, not who sponsored it. A politician brings
views, positions, and policy to the table, not data.

Your analogy is a strawman.

Sorry it wasn't to your taste.

I don't equate politics with science.

Would you presume that his/her congressional votes
will not reflect the interests of the major campaign contributors?

They will reflect the people who support him - clearly. Just
remember, the voters elected him, not the campaign contributions.

That's a debatable position. Campaign contributions have a very real
impact on the election results. A politician who cannot raise money
is a losing politician.

Because he can't get his word out? Ten million people each donating
$10 is no different than one person donating 100 million. Plus, the
ten million will also vote for you.

If a politician were to NOT accept ANY money from ANYONE, does this
make him a better candidate?

No. It just makes him a losing candidate.

You bet. And so it should be. If no one is willing to put their
money where their mouth is, what makes you think the have any value as
a representative?

Personally, I presume that those compaign contributions either a) will
have an effect or b) were made because the politician's views were
already in line with those of the contributor. Disclosure of the
sources of funds doesn't eliminate the bias, it only allows me to
assess it more accurately.

Likewise, in your example, disclosure of the sources of funds doesn't
eliminate bias, it only allows the users of the information to assess
it more accurately.

I cannot agree that science and data are equivalent to politicians and
politics.

No, they are not equivalent.

And that makes the return analogy problematic.

I didn't mean to imply that they were.
It was an analogy, not a metaphor.

So you want to quibble semantics. Goody.

Politicians and scientists are
both subject to the same human weaknesses. When someone accepts large
sums of money from some source, that person is indebted to the
source.

When someone accepts payment for services, what then? Take a look at
what these grants and contracts pay for - they pay for services
rendered, time spent, advice given, papers written. What does a
politician sell? Votes?

What that will mean in terms of future behavior, credibility,
etc. varies from person to person, but rationalizations that allow a
person to maintain their own sense of integrity and find a position in
line with their sponsors are likely. It doesn't matter whether we're
talking about scientists or politicians. I don't find it
inappropriate to assume that such human failings can occur in
scientists as well as in politicians.

I have no doubt and I point to Andrew Wakefield as a classic example.
Fortunately, these are few and far between.

Just as special interest groups are more likely to fund politicians
whose personal beliefs and values are in line with their own, I think
that any company making large funding grants to researchers is going
to select scientists who, for whatever reasons, have interests that
align well with the companies.

You are only half right, actually. Funding of clinical research is
predicated on the abiluity to deliver quality data quickly. Funding
of exploratory or discovery research is predicated on the ability to
create new knowledge. If a company is interested in pursuing diabetes
research I would expect an endocrinologist would be a better
collaborator than a cardiologist.

And just as such campaign
contributions aren't going to change the politicians votes - he can
maintain his integrity and still accept the funds - so also can the
scientist accept such funding and maintain his integrity by making
sure the results are scientifically valid as well as supporting both
his and his sponsors beliefs. But that doesn't mean that either the
politician or the scientist would be considered unbiased from my point
of view.

The individual may have personal convictions you call bias - but the
data do not. Politicians deliver votes, not data. Scientists deliver
data, not votes - in spite of what Roger may suggest about the ACIP.

I appreciate your position, Beth, but it is naive. As you yourself
admit, you are not expert in health care research and you rely on the
news media to keep you informed. I find data to be the root of all
science and the media to be the wart on the nose of good science.

js

"Jonathan Smith" wrote...............

I find data to be the root of all
science and the media to be the wart on the nose of good science.

js

That is one of the more refreshing statements I have read here.

carabelli

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

But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
problem.

It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these are
readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict and
the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.

Sir, I must respectfully disagree with this position. Yes, it is
necessary that such associations be disclosed, but such disclosures
do not completely mitigate the effects of such conflicts of interest.

Mitigate - defined as "To moderate (a quality or condition) in force
or intensity; alleviate" What is "completely mitigate"?

Disclosure allows the USER of the information to understand the
context in which the data were derived and the conclusions made.
Hence, the EFFECT of the potential conflict is mitigated. The
disclosure makes the provider accountable and the user aware. That's
what science is all about - accountability and transparency.

You keep arguing that the only information worth considering is one in
which no potential conflicts exist. Guess what - there is no such
case. That doesn't mean that the data aren't actionable. If one is
informed of the potential conflicts that may exist, and one is
informed of the methods and statistics used to collect and analyze the
data, then one can make an informed decision about the quality of the
data and the veracity of the conclusions.

You are absolute correct sir, about everything but my argument.
Apparently I have failed to make myself clear in that respect.

Is it the JG argument that funding is the single necessary and
sufficient condition to guarantee that data are tainted?

"In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an agency of the
federal government. The schedule is based primarily on recommendations
of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)."

ACIP makes recommendations to the CDC, it does not set policy. Only
the CDC can set policy. The FDA operates in a similar fashion. This
happens across government on a regular basis.

This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

Why?

If all members of a committee are biased in a common direction, it is
to be expected that the discussion, recommendations, and decisions
made by such a committee will be affected by that bias.

You mean to tell me that these experienced thought leaders in the
medical community can't make scientifically valid assessments of
technologies?

No, that's not what I meant to tell you.

It is what you said. Unless you didn't mean to use the word bias or
that the term does not refer to unobjectivity of the conclusion?
Scientific validity requires unbiased estimates. Journalism does not.

I believe such a distortion
is generally called a straw man argument.

Twice now you have been unclear. If you insist on semantic games and
require me to guess what you mean, don't be surprised if you are
misunderstood.

And you know this because nine of the ten actually DO
the science and as part of DOING the science, they rely on funding
from a variety of sources INCLUDING government and private industry?

Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action. The ACIP is charged with the responsibility to review
data (not produce it) and provide a recommendation.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

The argument is not about the quality of science but how the science
is used by the administrative branch of the US government. That would
be akin to the ACIP recommended that a vaccine NOT be used and having
the CDC include it in the schedule anyway.

Back to the old tricks?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It borders on a personal attack,
but no matter.

You did the same thing with Crossens book, Abacus. You proposed that
it was evidence of one thing when in truth it wasn't that at all. In
the case of the report referenced above, what you proport it to be, it
is not.

Given that you have failed to grasp the rather unsubtle nuance of my
argument

Now that makes three times I failed to read in between the lines.

and haven't actually read the book in question, I find this
statement more amusing than insulting.

I have read the book. I went to the library and checked it out. Now,
tell me, Abacus, have YOU read the book?

But thank you for taking the
time and trouble to explain yourself.

No trouble.

Here's what you said:

"That isn't the problem at all, you've set and demolished a strawman
argument here. I don't expect anyone to be an altruist 24/7. The
idea that accepting funding for research won't taint the results is
IMO a big part of the problem. For more information on this
particular issue and how it can bias results, may I suggest the book
"Tainted Truth : The Manipulation of Fact In America" by Cynthia
Crossen, a reporter and editor for the Wall Street Journal."

And I said:

"A "reporter"? That's the last source I would go to for credible.
Using NYT, WSJ, Time Magazine etc as a credible source of scientific
information is just a hair short of whaleto."

And I posted a quote from her:

"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."

And I asked for the proof - to which you replied:

"Yes, of course. The reason she made such a statement must be due to
her own bias. It can't possibly be because what she says is true."

Well, in terms of the chapter titled "Drugs and Money", what she says
is at best biased anecdote, incomplete information, and incredible
conclusions. In context, what she concludes is in fact untrue.

She uses three primary anecdotes. I'll use the first as the example
how she screwed it up royally - I'll leave it to you to figure out the
rest.

The first is the Amoxicillin study by Bluestone. She argues that
Cantekin was right - there was no drug effect and Bluestone's
publication was wrong where he concludes that the drug worked. She
missed the point of the research.

But she didn't miss the opportunity to make him a martyr - here is
what she wrote elsewhere -

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail...ry/000733.html

"Fifteen years later, Dr. Cantekin is broke, his career is in
shambles,
and he is widely known in his field as a "troublemaking
whistle-blower,"
as he puts it."

"It was a fraudulent study," says Dr. Cantekin, who was Dr.
Bluestone's
co-investigator on the project. "This isn't a question of scientific
interpretation. They made certain changes to make the drugs look
better." Partly as a result of this compromised research, he argues,
millions of children have been taking antibiotics unnecessarily,
spawning a population of antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" that
threaten
everyone."

Here's a link to the abstract of the original study publication in the
NEJM.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/8/432

In the book, Crossen The issue between Cantekin and Bluestone wasn't
related to the quality of the data at all, they argued over what
endpoint was appropriate as the primary efficacy measure. The study
included otoscopic evidence of resolution of the infection as the
primary endpoint and tympanometry as one of a series of secondary
endpoints. Bluestone presents efficacy based on clinical impression
(otoscopy) - the way that docs ACTUALLY treated patients. Amoxicillin
was readily available and prescribed by docs in 1984, when the study
was done. This was NOT a registration study. When you do work like
this, if you want the results to be generalizable, you do it
consistent with clinical practice. Even today, the diagnostic
accuracy of pneumo-otoscopy beats that of tympanometry.

Here is how Crossen describes it:

"Bluestone chose to use otoscopic measurements, in which an observer
looks into the ear through an instrument and assesses the amount of
fluid buildup in the ear. Cantekin argued that the more objective
measure of tympanometry should be used."

Tympanometry is NOT more objective (actually is more error prone
especially if it isn't routinely used and in 1984 that was EXACTLY the
case) and the fact that the study was double-blind, any measurement
error would be randomized across groups.

The second point of contention is when the efficacy measure is made.
Bluestone used a 4-week endpoint. Clinically this is the correct
interval. It is sgtill in the antibiotic efficacy guidelines that FDA
insists are to be used in URI studies. The endpoints are consistent
with medical practicve and FDA guidelines - Bluestone was right in
insisting that the primary endpoint as specified in the protocol was
to be used. The issue of interim analysis and subsequent protocol
ammendment is also a non-issue. With over 500 patients enrolled, the
scheduled interim analysis suggested that more information could be
obtained by adding other antibiotic regimens to the protocol.

"Among the subjects without effusion at the four-week end point,
recurrent effusion developed in approximately half those in both the
amoxicillin and placebo groups during the subsequent three months. We
conclude that in infants and children with otitis media with effusion,
amoxicillin treatment increases to some extent the likelihood of
resolution."

Efficacy as measured by clinical resolution at 4 weeks was shown. The
initial study achieved its endpoint.

The third point she uses to discredit Bluestone and to support her
conclusion of tainted research is: "And finally there was the the
important question of hearing loss. Bluestone did not address it;
Cantekin did."

That isn't true at all - on two counts. First, single episode hearing
loss is not a readily measurable endpoint - it is chronic OME that
impacts on this - where hearing impairment results in developmental
delay. Therefore, one would not expect any changes and when none
occured it shouldn't have come as a surprise, except to Crossen.

In here continued expose's and articles (to sell her book?), Crossen
writes:

" But as the dispute has moved slowly through these tribunals, medical
science has gradually come to its own conclusions about antibiotics
and ear
infections -- and they are in line with Dr. Cantekin's."

Bull. This isn't true at all. AOM recommendations include
antibiotics. ABs in OME of duration (chronicity) are recommended.
The only thing not currently recommended is ABs in initial OME.
Medical science has moved to a more judicious use of ABs in these
populations, not an elimination of ABs.

Crossen writes further on in her later exposes (not in the book) that:

"In the past few years, some pediatricians have begun to prescribe
shorter courses of antibiotics, or even to take a different tack
entirely: so-called watchful waiting. If the infection doesn't clear
up in a few days, then antibiotics are used."

Of course, she just confused AOM and OME. These are two different
conditions though associated by their location (in the ear) and that
one can follow the other.

Do you understand WHY a journalist should NOT be making prescribing
decisions?

Here's the differential diagnosis for OME and AOM:

"The diagnosis of otitis media with effusion (OME) is distinguished
from AOM by the presence of an effusion with a lack of signs or
symptoms of inflammation or pressure behind the eardrum."

Here is a VERY simple treatment paradigm endorsed by a medical system
in a country that values cost savings on drugs - Canada. It's the
last place in the world you'd expect any prescribing influence from
commercial interests.

http://www.cpsbc.bc.ca/policymanual/guidelines/ome.htm

The use of antibiotics in OME is still the subject of extensive debate
and varying systems of care have different approaches. Even after 20
years, there isn't concensus BUT Crossen insists that Cantekin was
right.

ile I do enjoy vigorous debate about many varied
subjects, I'm afraid that I have not the time or inclination to
indulge my taste for a lengthy discussion right now. I'll pop in
again when I get the chace.

Honestly, I don't care if or when. You are hardly a worthy adversary.

And I've shown you why. You cite Crossen as evidence yet cannot
understand that scientific journalism is the highest order of
oxymoron.

"Bias is a fact of life in research"

She uses Chalmers 1983 work on bias based on trial design. I read it
and fell over laughing. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H, Jr.
Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J
Med 1983; 309:1358-61.

What she concludes and what Chalmers concludes are two differnt
things. Of course, that doesn't stop her.

"The reason most doctors do not realize that cheaper existing drugs
might be as good as new expensive ones is partly because the drug
companies do not always test their drugs against other drugs."

Another example of Crossen either being stupid or naive. FDA
regulation requires placebo controlled studies (in most cases) for
registration. Subsequent comparator trials are conducted against the
market leading products - for obvious reasons.

One page 173, she quotes Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park - you know,
the novel about dinosaurs) as evidence of the falling pillars!

"Drug companies got the picture. They did not have to filter their
drug research through doctors and medical journals. They did not have
to wait for FDA approval. They could market their drugs directly to
the consumer by way of the news media."

And this is exactly what I said - the media get it wrong. She is part
of the problem, in fact, I would argue, she IS the problem

"Clinical studies are expensive, time-consuming, and virtually
impossible to replicate, making untruth harder to uncover."

With rare exceptions, a single, unreplicated clinical trial CANNOT
support an NDA. Period. In most cases, NDAs include dozens of
studies in thousands of patients, all in support of the product. If
you file with a negative study (and this can happen) it needs to be
thouroughly evaluated and reasons - scienticfic reasons - given. And,
it will impact on your label.

Retin-A and the WSJ article are provided as examples of media misuse
of science. She suggests it would be years if ever for the product to
receive FDA approval for cosmetic use in adults. It was approved in
1995 - ONE year after her remark was published. See page 176.

On page 178 she poopoos the peer review process arguing that "...peer
review is biased in favor of well-known professors.."

What a load of manure that statement is - or is she too naive to
recognize that the reviews are done blind? I do this stuff and I have
never gotten a manuscript to review with the author's name on it - in
fact, I routinely get reviews where the institution where it was done
has been blinded and references that could even give a hint, were
obscured or deleted.

On page 81 she writes about the media reporting of two almost
identical articles in a 1991 JAMA. The positive article (the one that
was remarkable in its result) was covered exclusively in 9 media
oputlets, both were covered in 10 additionmal outlets and not one
covered the negative piece in the absence of covering the ;positive
piece. In other words, headline grabbing is a standard practice of
the MEDIA, not the science.

On page 187 she starts in on her imitation of Ilena - and with that,
I'm done. TYou want to read the rest, again, go right ahead.

I stand by my previous statement - Crossen proved nothing other than
she doesn't understand science, can't interpret a study to save her
life, but can grab at headlines with the best of them - them being
journalists, not scientists.

I have argued and argued - do not use media reports as the basis for
medical information. It is unreliable. it is often inaccurate. It
is never, yes never, complete.

Read the original research.

As you wish sir. I never disagree when someone makes such an
assessment about me. They are always judging according to their own
personal standards, not mine. At any rate, you strike as someone who
has never personally experienced having a 'worthy adversary'. In
fact, I suspect you rather consider the phrase an oxymoron.

You do remind me of rather amusing young lady though. You can take a
look at her at http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2004/om20040219.html

Here's a little something you can work on.
http://www.improbable.com/teach/less...o-billion.html

And Hoffer had you pegged when you commented:

"Naïveté in grownups is often charming; but when coupled with vanity
it is indistinguishable from stupidity."

js

(Beth) wrote in
om:

Yes, I think that it is. For example, I'd like to see legitimate
scientific health care research funded for inexpensive alternative
treatments. But without a reasonable expectation of profit, no one
funds them. Without funding, no scientific research gets done.
Without the research, alternative treatments remain outside of
mainstream western medicine. Is that a problem? Given our current
spiraling health care system costs, I think that it is. You may
disagree.

But there you're wrong. Such funding *is* available through the NCCAM.
And yet the NCCAM's budget for grants actually *exceeds* the amount of all
grants applied for each year. So the problem isn't a lack of funding; the
problem is the unwillingness of the promoters of "inexpensive alternative
treatments" to investigate them scientifically. Somehow they expect
*others* to apply for the grants and do the actual work. Or they expect to
be able to receive grants to do nothing but put together a bunch of
testimonials. Sorry, neither of those is science. In science, he who
makes the claim is the one who has to test the claim, and the testing has
do be done according to the principles of scientific method, among which is
the principle that one can't simply "cherry-pick" those results that are
most favorable to one's hypothesis. They're being offered money to play by
the rules, and they're turning it down.

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
(Beth) wrote in
om:

Yes, I think that it is. For example, I'd like to see legitimate
scientific health care research funded for inexpensive alternative
treatments. But without a reasonable expectation of profit, no one
funds them. Without funding, no scientific research gets done.
Without the research, alternative treatments remain outside of
mainstream western medicine. Is that a problem? Given our current
spiraling health care system costs, I think that it is. You may
disagree.

But there you're wrong. Such funding *is* available through the NCCAM.
And yet the NCCAM's budget for grants actually *exceeds* the amount of all
grants applied for each year. So the problem isn't a lack of funding; the
problem is the unwillingness of the promoters of "inexpensive alternative
treatments" to investigate them scientifically. Somehow they expect
*others* to apply for the grants and do the actual work. Or they expect
to
be able to receive grants to do nothing but put together a bunch of
testimonials. Sorry, neither of those is science. In science, he who
makes the claim is the one who has to test the claim, and the testing has
do be done according to the principles of scientific method, among which
is
the principle that one can't simply "cherry-pick" those results that are
most favorable to one's hypothesis. They're being offered money to play
by
the rules, and they're turning it down.

As best as I can see, these alties who do not bother to apply for the $$$
can only have one reason for not doing so, i.e., they are afraid the results
will show that their concotions, etc. are useless and the results would be
bad for business.

Eric Bohlman wrote in message . 4...
(Beth) wrote in
om:

Yes, I think that it is. For example, I'd like to see legitimate
scientific health care research funded for inexpensive alternative
treatments. But without a reasonable expectation of profit, no one
funds them. Without funding, no scientific research gets done.
Without the research, alternative treatments remain outside of
mainstream western medicine. Is that a problem? Given our current
spiraling health care system costs, I think that it is. You may
disagree.

But there you're wrong. Such funding *is* available through the NCCAM.
And yet the NCCAM's budget for grants actually *exceeds* the amount of all
grants applied for each year. So the problem isn't a lack of funding;

That's an interesting claim. If true, it's information I wasn't aware
of. Could you provide a link or site?