'Settled Science' Is Going the Way of BuzzFeed (Good Stuff)

American Thinker ^ | Brian Joondeph

[RoosterRedux]

Barack Obama in 2014 told Congress, "The debate is settled, climate change is a fact."

Someone with a bit more science knowledge than the community organizer from Chicago, physician and author Michael Crichton, said this about settled science: "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

The latest bit of unsettled science is something few of us are thinking about in the midst of global warming-induced winter storms and piles of snow – namely, sunscreen.

A recent article in Outside magazine sums it up: "Current guidelines for sun exposure are unhealthy and unscientific, controversial new research suggests – and quite possibly even racist. How did we get it so wrong?"

...

Enter the settled science that sun exposure is bad. Excessive sun exposure, particularly sunburn, increases the risk of skin cancer. Dermatologists recommend absolute protection from the sun, even on cloudy days. Use sunscreen, the higher the SPF rating the better, and apply it multiple times a day, even if you are just going to work and back.

Easy enough. Just take a vitamin D supplement every day, stay out of the sun, and all will be well. Or will it?

"Vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials" according to the Outside article. Five years of high-dose vitamin D had "[n]o impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke."

Maybe simply taking vitamin D as a pill isn't the same as getting it naturally from sun exposure. Perhaps the low blood levels of vitamin D in the unhealthy weren't the actual cause of health problems, but instead just a marker.

This is the scientific conundrum of causation versus association. Does having blue hair cause elderly ladies to play bingo, or is this just an association?

[RoosterRedux]

My sister in law is a Liberal and a retired cardiac nurse. I told her years ago that settled science was a fallacy.

She asked for an example.

I told her at that time that, as much as fat was being derided as deadly by the medical profession, one day that sentiment would swing in the opposite direction.

She laughed (which actually meant "you Conservatives are idiots").

I haven't had a chance to mention this to her since we no longer talk, but last I heard, she was on a high protein, HIGH FAT, low carb diet.

[MustKnowHistory]

I am a ginger. I stay out of the sun during the middle of the day, use sun screen especially around pools and beaches, and take vitamin d.

Sunburns and blisters are no fun.

[Shady]

Having watched my first wife die of melanoma, I take sun exposure very seriously. Period.

[RoosterRedux]

I am a ginger also (light blond actually), but I get a little bit of sun in the summer (even in mid-day). I just never go beyond the very slight pink level.

Has never been a problem.

[RoosterRedux]

Sorry for your loss.:-(

[monkeyshine]

Artificial vitamins (man made analogues of vitamins) are probably bunk, as this article about Vitamin D touches on. Natural vitamins extracted from fruits and vegetables might be the better choice but not many clinical trials prove it out. There is a fish oil drug, I think it’s called Vascepa, that has proved short and long term benefits to the heart in Phase 3 clinical trials but it is a drug, not a supplement. You can’t buy it but with an RX and it’s expensive. Whether other fish oils prove out is an open question.

Anyway, in this solar system, of which we come, we need the sun to survive. There is no substitute and it’s not just about Vitamin D. It’s about immunity and healthy living as denizens of the Milky Way that brought us to existence and dominance of all species, and soon of the solar system itself. That’s not an endorsement to sunbathe too much, but adequate sun exposure is an important component of our very existence. It’s stupid to deny it.

As for global warming, there is argument to suggest the planet would thrive with a little more heat on average. Not scorching crops heat just more heat and humidity on average. More robust plant life, more O2 in the atmosphere, heartier crops. AFAIK, we’re still on the back end of the last ice age or ‘little ice age’ as it were. Planet may in fact be healing a lot while alarmists cry that the sky is falling.

[MustKnowHistory]

I have had blistering sunburns. Any reflective surface will greatly exacerbate the effects of the sun....metal awnings, sandy shores, swimming pools, etc..

[monkeyshine]

And of course there is no such thing as ‘settled science’. That idea, that phrase, is heretical to science. Science is about gathering more knowledge and challenging precepts, not about ‘settling’ on a theory nor allocating funding to prove, post hoc and anecdotally, old theories.

[j. earl carter]

She asked for an example.

Ernest Rutherford: He figured out that atoms have nuclei. The conventional wisdom was that protons repel each other so they would be spaced throughout the atom. People laughed at Rutherford for many years.

[exDemMom]

This article brings up a couple of different points.

First, it is difficult to know exactly what the clinical trials were testing. Were they merely supplementing Vitamin D? How did the blood serum levels of Vitamin D compare in the cohorts studied? I take Vitamin D because of tested low levels in my blood. I do not understand the low levels because I usually do get a little sun regularly. Vitamin D is made in the body from cholesterol; I’ve heard from a physician that in the winter, our bodies make more cholesterol to try to increase Vitamin D levels which have dropped because of decreased exposure to sunlight. This brings us to another question—there is a correlation between elevated blood serum cholesterol and heart disease. But is the elevated cholesterol a symptom or a cause? And this leads to questions about the rationale for the Vitamin D studies, as well as the accepted biology of heart disease.

The relationship between correlation and causation is a complicated one. Too many people believe that correlation is causation, which it is not. But then, people who are able to grasp that correlation is not causation immediately go too far and assume that correlation is never causation. Not really. If the underlying mechanism that causes X and Y to exhibit correlation is elucidated through solid controlled scientific studies, then it may turn out that for X and Y, correlation *is* indicative of causation. In too many clinical studies, correlation is taken as causation without any effort to find underlying mechanisms that might link the correlated factors. Does high blood serum cholesterol cause heart disease? Or does it indicate that another process is going on, which both damages the heart and causes elevation of cholesterol?

[kearnyirish2]

Yes, at one time “settled science” insisted the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Just the fact that they use “climate change” instead of “global warming” is an indication of how quickly the latter fell apart with any degree of scrutiny; while some areas are warmer, others are colder.

“Settled science” today is composed of gems such as “gays are better parents than heteros” and other politicized BS...outright lies.

[RoosterRedux]

I limit my exposure to 10 to 15 minutes unless the it is winter or early morning or late in the day.

[monkeyshine]

Very sorry to hear that. Not wishing to diminish that pain, but there is very little proof of what causes cancer. There is correlation of course. Smoking correlates to apx 30% greater higher likelihood of lung cancer. But many non smokers get lung cancer, and when you break it down 30% greater likelihood of a small number of cases is more of a risk management issue than a direct cause-effect. Could be related to type of additives used in a smoker’s brand more than just the tobacco. Of course lung cancer is only one of many issues smokers are more likely to face, heart disease and emphasyma rates also increase so I don’t doubt smoking has a causal relationship, but it’s still just statistics. At the same time, see an old Frenchman who smokes hardcore French brand cigs - their teeth look like those of a meth addict.

My wife just underwent breast cancer therapy. She’s still healing, still doing physical therapy from mastectomy.
Impossible to know why or how she got it. Our tissue cells reproduce constantly and over time the odds of one of the reproductions of cells going sideways increases. Some say that it’s like a xerox of a xerox of a xerox, over time as the cells reproduce the ‘image’ degrades. There are genetic tests that can predict likelihood or likelihood of recurrence based on DNA, but it’s really just statistical - none of it means any certain outcome. 1 in 40 odds of recurrence of Breast Cancer each year for people who had previous BC removed, and that is without treatment other than surgery.

[monkeyshine]

The first major study of cholesterol was done using post hoc analysis of many different studies. There was no real control, they just noticed an increase in heart disease among those who eat more red meat. But in such a post hoc analysis, the controls are all over the place. Are people who eat more red meat more or less likely to also eat more sugar? That was the first major question challenging the cholesterol paradigm. That said, I have had heart issues myself - starting as a young man, too young to expect it. I had a heart attack at 37. They call those the widowmakers because they don’t even really expect it that young, and don’t or didn’t do a lot of testing. I actually went to the doctor complaining of horrible chest pains over a period of weeks - he prescribed me Prevacid! 3 weeks later I laid code blue in the hospital ER - they tell me they hit me with the paddles 3 times to bring me back, and I had the paddle scars for many months. So I take 80mg Lipitor daily - I’m not convinced of its benefit but not convinced it’s going to do much harm to take it either. I should be taking CoQ10 to offset some of the side-effects but haven’t been as disciplined about that.

And I fired my doctor! :-)

[monkeyshine]

The first major study of cholesterol was done using post hoc analysis of many different studies. There was no real control, they just noticed an increase in heart disease among those who eat more red meat. But in such a post hoc analysis, the controls are all over the place. Are people who eat more red meat more or less likely to also eat more sugar? That was the first major question challenging the cholesterol paradigm. That said, I have had heart issues myself - starting as a young man, too young to expect it. I had a heart attack at 37. They call those the widowmakers because they don’t even really expect it that young, and don’t or didn’t do a lot of testing. I actually went to the doctor complaining of horrible chest pains over a period of weeks - he prescribed me Prevacid! 3 weeks later I laid code blue in the hospital ER - they tell me they hit me with the paddles 3 times to bring me back, and I had the paddle scars for many months. So I take 80mg Lipitor daily - I’m not convinced of its benefit but not convinced it’s going to do much harm to take it either. I should be taking CoQ10 to offset some of the side-effects but haven’t been as disciplined about that.

And I fired my doctor! :-)

[Lee'sGhost]

NOBODY denies the existence of climate change. It began changing the first moment gas from the earth was emitted and will continue to change until the earth ceases to exist. That said, the science showing that we are entering a global cooling stage is far more compelling than the global warming scam. The term “climate deniers” is not only non-applicable, it is a mix between a Malaprop and a neologism.

[exDemMom]

You are so fortunate to have survived that. Congenital heart disease is so difficult to diagnose before a heart attack happens.

A little over a year ago, one of my employees died suddenly of a heart attack. He felt unwell and drove himself to the emergency room. While there, he had a heart attack and they could not revive him. He was fifty years old.

Heart disease runs in my family, and that means I kind of expect to develop it at some point. But I am now in the same boat as your wife, while my heart is perfectly fine.

[poconopundit]

Great to here your genuine scientific analysis of Vitamins and sunshine, exDemMom. Seems like the crossing-point of science and human psychology is where many of our problems lie today. This week I listened to an unusual book, The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds, by Michael Lewis. Here's the dust jacket promo: Forty years ago, Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky wrote a series of breathtakingly original studies undoing our assumptions about the decision-making process. Their papers showed the ways in which the human mind erred, systematically, when forced to make judgments in uncertain situations. Their work created the field of behavioral economics. It's hard to explain scientific exploration and make it interesting. The author succeeds by intermingling the fascinating lives of these two men. Their joint research work eventually led to Kahneman being awarded the Nobel Prize after Tversky had died a few years before. The book is 9 CD's long. I got through 6 CD before it got a little tiresome. But I would still recommend it. The book illuminates the common errors in reasoning that scientists, doctors, and others in authority make all the time. So I would double down on the idea that "settled science" is an oxymoron.

[Liz]

Sorry to hear you have a (gag) liberal in the family.

AFA fat consumption goes.....even on a stringent diet, people who plateau are advised to add fats to their diet....
b/c fats move out body fat.