Cosmic terror: Why Neil deGrasse Tyson has religious fundamentalists so freaked

[billh58]

[center][/center]

- Snip -

Thanks to the unsubstantiated fear-mongering of celebrities with no medical or scientific credentials, vaccination rates are declining and herd immunity has weakened—with the entirely predictable consequence that highly contagious diseases like measles and whooping cough have reemerged, including in cities and countries that had long been free of them. Vaccination is one of the simplest, safest and most effective medical interventions ever invented, and the diseases it prevents are killers (yes, even chicken pox). There’s no reason whatsoever why people (mostly children) should still suffer and die from them, other than a foolish and tragic lack of trust in scientific knowledge.

These stories go on and on, from antichoice groups pushing the pseudoscientific myth that IUDs and other contraceptive methods cause abortions or spreading falsehoods about the health risks of abortion, to the gun paranoia lobby demanding prohibitions on using public money to study gun violence. But no matter the field or the discovery, the ideologically driven rejection of science diminishes and impoverishes us in ways even beyond the immediate, practical harm it causes.

Science is the most powerful tool ever invented for the expansion of our intellectual horizon, and even besides its concrete benefits, it’s done us the immeasurable service of helping reveal our place in a vast, ancient and wondrous universe. Through following the scientific method, we’ve learned that we are congealed stardust, the heavy elements of our bodies forged in supernovae; we’ve learned that we were shaped by evolution, our DNA reaching back in an unbroken chain of descent to the origin of life on Earth, expanding outward to bind us to every other living organism in a tree of kinship.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/cosmic_terror_why_neil_degrasse_tyson_has_religious_fundamentalists_so_freaked_partner/

The Tea Party, the NRA, ALEC, and the Koch Brothers are buying right-wing politicians to stifle legitimate research into gun violence and its causes. They attempt to stifle almost anything that will benefit the general public welfare, and their fanatical support of the right-wing gun lobby is distinctly un-American, and borders on gun fanaticism similar to their extreme religious fundamentalist views.

We Liberal Democrats must work to separate the radical right from the important issues facing this nation (including rational gun violence research aimed at solutions) and take back this country from the extremists who would impose their narrow views on everyone. We can only accomplish this by voting like our future depends on it, because it absolutely does.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. But there is another side to that coin--

Profit-driven distortions of scientific results, particularly in the field of pharmacology.

See, for example,

Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy

Erick H. Turner, M.D., Annette M. Matthews, M.D., Eftihia Linardatos, B.S., Robert A. Tell, L.C.S.W., and Robert Rosenthal, Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2008; 358:252-260January 17, 2008DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa065779

Background

Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials — and the outcomes within those trials — can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk–benefit ratio.

Full Text of Background...
Methods

We obtained reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for studies of 12 antidepressant agents involving 12,564 patients. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify matching publications. For trials that were reported in the literature, we compared the published outcomes with the FDA outcomes. We also compared the effect size derived from the published reports with the effect size derived from the entire FDA data set.

Full Text of Methods...
Results

Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsa065779

There is also

Open Access
Essay

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis

Published: August 30, 2005
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Abstract
Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

[Shivering Jemmy]

2. Not the other side of the coin

Maybe the thin edge of the coin at worst

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Brilliant rebuttal. Insightful critique of the methodology of both papers I cited.

I sit in awe of your demolition of the point I feebly tried to make.

[billh58]

4. Of course the results of any study can be skewed

and manipulated, but when the right-wing does not allow research, there are no results to be dealt with in any fashion. I don't believe that you are advocating discontinuing scientific research because some researchers are either incompetent or unscrupulous, are you?

The right wing denial of evolution, climate change, genetic homosexuality, and other scientifically proven facts is driven by fanaticism and for no other reason. Right-wing gun extremism and denial that there is a gun violence problem in this country is no different.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Of COURSE I think research needs to be continued. But I also see the need

for an awareness of what can go wrong, deliberately or not. I want to see reforms, not termination, of research methodologies, and particularly of research publication methodologies. I think this is pretty much the opposite of what the Right Wing wants; they want No science, and I want BETTER science.

[billh58]

8. I totally agree, and

we definitely need to separate the right-wing greed and profit motives from all areas of scientific research.

[Gothmog]

5. I love NDT and Cosmos

Science is a good thing and the GOP/conservatives hate science.

[billh58]

9. Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence?

From a link in the OP article:

- Snip -

That, of course, is the point. In a study published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that the presence of a gun in a home significantly increased the risks of homicide and suicide. (A finding seemingly borne out in the case of Nancy Lanza, the mother of the Newtown killer, who was murdered with her own gun.) The study was compelling, thought-provoking and attention-grabbing. Was it conclusive? Hardly. But rather than trust in scientific principle and a free marketplace of ideas to sort through the data, the gun lobby mobilized to snuff out such research altogether.

The effort was remarkably successful. In 1996, Republican Representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas pushed an amendment cutting $2.6 million from the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The import of the amendment was lost on no one. The CDC had spent $2.6 million on gun research the year before. Thereafter, the CDC was expressly prohibited from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control.” A subsequent effort, by Republican Representative Denny Rehberg of Montana, applied similar restrictions to the National Institutes of Health.

These are the results of the gun lobby’s storied political muscle. They are not, however, the actions of a political movement confident that history, data or reason itself can support its agenda. Truth doesn’t fear information.

The Newtown massacre may mark a turning point in America’s tragic gun politics. Yet even under the most optimistic scenario, the quest for reasonable gun laws will be a lengthy, difficult battle. It’s best if all sides are well-armed with facts.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-12-20/why-does-the-nra-fear-the-truth-about-gun-violence-

The right-wing gun lobby doesn't like research that doesn't support its views that guns are not a problem in this country, but that people are the problem. "If people would just stop committing suicide, there would be no problem at all" -- and who needs any stinking "scientific research" to agree with that Second Amendment absolutist gem of wisdom?

[wandy]

10. The right wings use of this type of misinformation must serve some porpous...........

Like the fear of you're children being taken away to some 'camp' if you are foolish enough to send them to public schools,
the propaganda involving vaccination fits well within the GOP game plan.

Be afraid. Gubberment bad! Be very afraid!

Vaccine-Induced Tissue Scurvy Globally Misdiagnosed as Child Abuse

The father of the child in our published photo was jailed for life for child abuse. Many of you looking at the terrible injuries on this small child will immediately assume, as did the doctors who examined him, that he was viciously attacked and it was right to jail his father.

http://vactruth.com/2014/03/19/tissue-scurvy-not-child-abuse/

You have to wonder what they are trying to accomplish.
You have to wonder how people can be so foolish as to believe these ravings.

[defacto7]

11. Because they believe there is no future

because of the apocalypse and the return of a non-existent prophet from 2000 years ago who will either rejuvenate or destroy the earth depending on their interpretation.

They don't believe in a terrestrial future to protect or that their children need the concoctions of human research. It's all some god's will. See Dominionism.

[wandy]

12. Yes there is that. You will get no argument from me on apocalypse insanity..........

There is also the good old fashion greed for dominance.
Foster the belief in magic rather than fact.
Disparage any effort given for the common good.
Pay the minimum you can for any service provided to you.
Make people "subservient" to a higher power, all along laughing that it is YOU'RE higher power they are slaves to.

Power, Dominance, The Seven Mountains, same root meaning.