When Evidence Suggests OtherwiseMay 20, 2009 by Bradley Schmidt I’ve always heard that toxic bacteria in the Komodo Dragon’s mouth is what kills its prey. Turns out this is incorrect. University of California researchers have discovered that during attacks, “effects of deep wounds inflicted are potentiated through venom with toxic activities including anticoagulation and shock induction.” A theory overturned with reasoned analysis. Simple enough to believe, right? Well, what if I told you that: • Cough syrup doesn’t work?
• Antibiotics for ear infections, sinusitis, bronchitis and sore throats…unnecessary.
• Athroscopic knee surgery and back surgery…no better than non-surgical treatment. “Nah. Can’t be true,” you say. Denying those statements is my knee-jerk reaction as well. The treatments all seem logical enough. They all sound as if they should work to cure the ailments for which they are designed. However, empirical evidence just does not support their use. In “Believing in Treatments That Don’t Work,” David H. Newman highlights this very scenario, discussing whether, in the face of prevailing medical ideology, minds can be changed. “Pills and surgery are potent symbols of healing power, but our faith in these symbols has often blinded us to truths,” Newman says. “Somewhere along the line, theory trumped reality. Administering a medicine or performing a surgery became more important than its effect.” With $1.1 billion allocated to comparative effectiveness research as part of President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this issue will take center stage in the years to come as the labors initiated by this funding begin to bear fruit. Most likely the results will be politicized by those both that stand to lose and gain (Americans undergo 600,000 back surgeries each year at a cost of $20 billion), however, despite the inevitable jockeying and lobbying, Newman cites one example showing that the studies should produce cold, hard facts, thus saving billions on errors and wasted treatments: “During the first week of 2009, in what may be a hopeful sign, hospital administrators around the country received a short, unceremonious e-mail from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The e-mail explained that, due to recent evidence, immediate beta-blocker treatment will be retired as a government indicator of quality care, beginning April 1, 2009. After years of advocacy that cemented immediate beta-blockers in the treatment protocols of virtually every hospital in the country, the agency has demonstrated that minds can be changed.” In truth though, who is in favor of unnecessary treatments? No one's going to admit that. What then to make of a topic where there isn't a true consensus? Take this article profiling John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville. Christy, “a veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries,” posits that surface temperature readings are distorted by urbanization and in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, presented daytime and nighttime temperature trends for Central California’s “developed San Joaquin Valley and the largely undeveloped Sierra foothills.” Based on atmospheric readings from NOAA and NASA satellites, Christy found that for daytime temperatures, there was “virtually no change over the past 100 years” while “nearly all the increases in average surface temperatures are related to nighttime readings” and the man-made structures that retain heat. In light of Chrity’s evidence, take a just-released MIT study, published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, that indicates “a median probability of surface warming of 5.2°C by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.” While this study was based on a host of factors including deep ocean temperature rises and “past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes,” co-author Ronald Prinn freely admits that the researchers are dependent “on the accuracy of this current knowledge.” What then if Christy is right and temperature readings are being skewed by sprawling urban centers, how would that affect the results of the MIT study? My real question is: if current knowledge is not accurate as Christy suggests, and warming fears were found to be overemphasized because of it, will we be ready for that truth?
|