Vincent J. Curtis
28 Apr 15
My hometown newspaper recently ran an article about a small, new store in the city. It was a puff-piece intended to promote the store and tell the story of the people behind it. Being a big lead story in one of the inside sections, the Spectator gave the story serious weight.
The new store sells privately made chemical preparations for skin care and for other health purposes. The justification for patronizing this store as opposed to a regular pharmacy was the safety and purity of the preparations as compared to the toxic materials found in the items sold in regular pharmacies. A variation of the comfortable, left-wing attack on plutocracy was the theme of the story. According to the story, the female protagonist knew better than Big Pharma, who were knowingly selling toxic materials to an unsuspecting public. Your safety and the superior effectiveness of the products made by this unqualified woman were the reasons her store should be patronized over a chain pharmacy.
It never occurred to the writer or to the editor that a scientific dispute was being raised by the story. How was it possible for an essentially untrained person to know better than all the MD's and Ph.D's who work in the same field, on the same problem, and have a far greater array of chemicals, instrumentation, money, etc. than she does?
The Spectator fell into the trap of taking an anti-science view just so that it could combine an example of comfortable, left-wing prejudice, and be nice to a nice lady.
The Spectator has editorially attacked Prime Minster Stephen Harper for being “anti-science.” The label of “anti-science” was attached to Mr. Harper particularly for his handling of the overly intrusive questioning in the 2011 Census, the abuse of the government’s powers of punishment in order to coerce answers to those overly intrusive questions, and his personal intervention to curtail the abuse of those powers.
One may therefore assume that, editorially at least, the Spectator stands on the ramparts of science. In adopting such a position, it is implicit that The Spectator stands for knowledge over ignorance, method over mysticism, and reason over emotion.
It ought to find the campaign against GMO foods to be silly,
if not outrageous. It should reject the
anti-vaccination campaign for not being founded upon science. The various campaigns against the chemical de jure should all be rejected as fear
campaigns masquerading as science. The
question of the addition of fluoride to drinking water is not one of science,
but of irrational fear-mongering.
If one relies on science.
All that said, the puff-piece in Wednesday’s paper headlined, “Natural Selection” is inexplicable. It makes The Spectator’s position on the question of science incoherent. It is a story of about how a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
The article maintains that Modern apothecaries are the ones that are stocked with privately made witch’s brews, and that these witch’s brews take the ‘toxicity’ out of skin care. Presumably, all those apothecaries that are staffed by credentialed pharmacists and that sell modern medicines developed by the world’s great pharmaceutical companies with the most modern science, and under careful scrutiny of government agencies, are old-fashioned, and are selling toxic substances to an unsuspecting public. Such a position is, implicitly, a straight-up ad hominem attack on the motives of real scientists. This ad hominem attack was scripted to justify reading the article further.
The list of chemicals in the sidebar to the main piece I am familiar with from my long career in chemistry. The repeated statements declaring, “could cause cancer,” “could cause genetic mutations,” could cause hormone dysfunction,” and “could cause infertility,” are extreme statements written by lawyers that are intended to protect the manufacturer in frivolous lawsuits; these warnings bear no relation to the actual facts when these products and chemicals are used in the manner intended. To warn against the use of Vaseline because it might contain polyaromatic hydrocarbons leading to cancer and skin irritation and allergies is an especially egregious misuse of warnings. Petrolatum is used precisely to reduce skin irritation, and has been used for that purpose for over 130 years!
The very commonality of the chemicals warned against shows how badly the warning information was misused. The fact that the data was supplied by that most unscientific organization, the David Suzuki Foundation, ought to have served as a caution against too great a reliance upon it. The Foundation has an agenda, and it is not the advancement of science.
The article relates the story of how the heroine of the piece, upon discovering that her baby had eczema and psoriasis, and not “feeling comfortable” with the recommendation of a credentialed specialist, namely, a doctor, decided to develop her own medicine. A doctor will tell you that eczema and psoriasis are auto-immune disorders for which there are no known cures. These disorders “have minds of their own, and come and go as they please.” The only treatment, at present, is to alleviate the symptoms. Not accepting the doctor’s prescription for corticosteroids, the heroine treated her baby with something else, and the eczema disappeared. She did not cure the baby; all she did was treat symptoms. The auto-immune disorder is still there; it has just gone dormant. The disorder might very well have disappeared on its own without treatment. But since the heroine’s work was not scientific, her success has no real scientific basis. Her treatment is not a case of cause and effect, but of mere co-incidence. In logic, this fallacy is called “affirming the consequent.”
All that said, the puff-piece in Wednesday’s paper headlined, “Natural Selection” is inexplicable. It makes The Spectator’s position on the question of science incoherent. It is a story of about how a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
The article maintains that Modern apothecaries are the ones that are stocked with privately made witch’s brews, and that these witch’s brews take the ‘toxicity’ out of skin care. Presumably, all those apothecaries that are staffed by credentialed pharmacists and that sell modern medicines developed by the world’s great pharmaceutical companies with the most modern science, and under careful scrutiny of government agencies, are old-fashioned, and are selling toxic substances to an unsuspecting public. Such a position is, implicitly, a straight-up ad hominem attack on the motives of real scientists. This ad hominem attack was scripted to justify reading the article further.
The list of chemicals in the sidebar to the main piece I am familiar with from my long career in chemistry. The repeated statements declaring, “could cause cancer,” “could cause genetic mutations,” could cause hormone dysfunction,” and “could cause infertility,” are extreme statements written by lawyers that are intended to protect the manufacturer in frivolous lawsuits; these warnings bear no relation to the actual facts when these products and chemicals are used in the manner intended. To warn against the use of Vaseline because it might contain polyaromatic hydrocarbons leading to cancer and skin irritation and allergies is an especially egregious misuse of warnings. Petrolatum is used precisely to reduce skin irritation, and has been used for that purpose for over 130 years!
The very commonality of the chemicals warned against shows how badly the warning information was misused. The fact that the data was supplied by that most unscientific organization, the David Suzuki Foundation, ought to have served as a caution against too great a reliance upon it. The Foundation has an agenda, and it is not the advancement of science.
The article relates the story of how the heroine of the piece, upon discovering that her baby had eczema and psoriasis, and not “feeling comfortable” with the recommendation of a credentialed specialist, namely, a doctor, decided to develop her own medicine. A doctor will tell you that eczema and psoriasis are auto-immune disorders for which there are no known cures. These disorders “have minds of their own, and come and go as they please.” The only treatment, at present, is to alleviate the symptoms. Not accepting the doctor’s prescription for corticosteroids, the heroine treated her baby with something else, and the eczema disappeared. She did not cure the baby; all she did was treat symptoms. The auto-immune disorder is still there; it has just gone dormant. The disorder might very well have disappeared on its own without treatment. But since the heroine’s work was not scientific, her success has no real scientific basis. Her treatment is not a case of cause and effect, but of mere co-incidence. In logic, this fallacy is called “affirming the consequent.”
If there was real science to her treatment, Big Pharma would know it by
now. Oh, but Big Pharma is not in the business of selling good medicine,
it is in the business of selling toxicity; I forgot.
Let’s not forget that the chemicals that the heroine does use to make her brews are only salable because the same government body that regulates and controls the ones she uses also regulate and control the sale of chemicals and drugs in Canada that are said to be carcinogenic and toxic.
Upon her success with her baby, the heroine went to the bother of getting accreditations of her own, in aromatherapy, iridology, and Reiki (whatever that is). These so-called accreditations are farcical, and do not amount to a Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Science or to a doctor’s MD. Yet they are offered in the story as adding value of some kind to the truth of her discoveries. Forget the B.Pharm; get credentialed in Reiki if you want to know the real truth!
I’m glad the protagonists in the story have been able to make a successful business out of selling specious preparations, and a few of limited value. I’m glad they are able to impart to their customers a sense of well-being that they may not get out of shopping at a Rexall’s.
However, science is not found in aromatherapy, iridology, Reiki, or in witch’s brews concocted ad hoc. If you truly believe in science, you must stick with real doctors and real pharmacists, the ones subjected to ad hominem attacks and discredited as not knowing their business.
-30-
See also:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418176/stupid-strategy-sweepstakes-home-depot-vs-lowes-jeff-stier-henry-i-miller
Let’s not forget that the chemicals that the heroine does use to make her brews are only salable because the same government body that regulates and controls the ones she uses also regulate and control the sale of chemicals and drugs in Canada that are said to be carcinogenic and toxic.
Upon her success with her baby, the heroine went to the bother of getting accreditations of her own, in aromatherapy, iridology, and Reiki (whatever that is). These so-called accreditations are farcical, and do not amount to a Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Science or to a doctor’s MD. Yet they are offered in the story as adding value of some kind to the truth of her discoveries. Forget the B.Pharm; get credentialed in Reiki if you want to know the real truth!
I’m glad the protagonists in the story have been able to make a successful business out of selling specious preparations, and a few of limited value. I’m glad they are able to impart to their customers a sense of well-being that they may not get out of shopping at a Rexall’s.
However, science is not found in aromatherapy, iridology, Reiki, or in witch’s brews concocted ad hoc. If you truly believe in science, you must stick with real doctors and real pharmacists, the ones subjected to ad hominem attacks and discredited as not knowing their business.
-30-
See also:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418176/stupid-strategy-sweepstakes-home-depot-vs-lowes-jeff-stier-henry-i-miller
No comments:
Post a Comment