The danger of science denial: It happens even on Science-Based blogs.

Poor Benjamin Franklin. I know how he felt! ;-)

I do not believe that he wanted to be doing that!

This post will be highly critical of Dr. David Gorski MD, as some of his comments have been either trolling, downright stupid, or both. They're definitely in denial of science. This post is intended to encourage Dr Gorski to leave comments here, as I will never leave any further comments on any blogs that he edits, for reasons mentioned previously. I will be copying comments from his blogs and pasting them here, with my comments after. If this is considered to be "bad form", I really don't care. Leaving derogatory comments about me on blogs on which the commenters know that I will never return (because I told them so) is definitely "bad form".

I will also be quoting other commenters on Dr Gorski's blog, for the same reason. Everyone is free to leave comments here, that meet my fairly lax moderation criteria. In Vitamin D, cancer, cliques and flouncing. , a commenter from Dr Gorski's blog called flip was initially whitelisted, to allow his comments to appear without me having to moderate them. I eventually blacklisted flip after I detected intellectual dishonesty. That's how I roll. If you don't like my rules, don't let the door hit you on the way out! By the way, calling me a liar on here is a sure-fire way to get yourself blacklisted.

I've just turned Blogger word verification back on, as although Disqus automatically deletes anonymous comments containing links, I still get email notification of them. I've been getting a lot of email notifications. This may or may not have an effect on commenters.

Firstly, please read http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-closer-look-at-vitamin-injections/#comment-127850 , as it's my "letter of resignation" from that blog. With that in mind, read on.

# David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 9:49 am
Regarding Lappe et al, one notes that that study is not the be-all and end-all of vitamin D research. It’s an old study, for one thing. Also, cancer was not its primary endpoint. Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.
There is a recent review of the literature from the Endocrine Society, which includes Lappe et al and puts it into context:
*quoted text redacted*

# Nigel Kinbrum on 27 May 2013 at 11:16 am
David Gorski said…

Regarding Lappe et al, one notes that that study is not the be-all and end-all of vitamin D research. It’s an old study, for one thing.

Irrelevant.

Also, cancer was not its primary endpoint.

Irrelevant.

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

# David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 12:28 pm

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

How so? It’s actually very, very relevant, as is the issue of cancer not being a primary outcome measure of the study. That you don’t understand why these issues are so relevant indicates to me that you don’t understand clinical research very well.

#Nigel Kinbrumon 27 May 2013 at 1:42 pm
David Gorski said…

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

How so? It’s actually very, very relevant, as is the issue of cancer not being a primary outcome measure of the study. That you don’t understand why these issues are so relevant indicates to me that you don’t understand clinical research very well.

1) The RCT used Ca + D. Therefore, the conclusions apply to Ca + D. If they’d wanted to test D alone, they would have. They didn’t. Why don’t you write a letter of complaint to Joan M Lappe about it?

2) Whether the outcome was primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is irrelevant because the parameter in question (all-cancer diagnoses) was still accurately recorded. That you can’t understand such a simple concept boggles my imagination.

#David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 2:34 pm

As I’m leaving permanently, what’s the point?

Ah, flouncing off again. It’s probably long overdue. I’ve been getting a few complaints about you here as well. Perhaps you should ask yourself why complaints seem to follow you wherever you go.

“Whether the outcome was primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is irrelevant because the parameter in question (all-cancer diagnoses) was still accurately recorded. That you can’t understand such a simple concept boggles my imagination.”

I rest my case that you do not understand clinical trial methodology and interpretation. I couldn’t have demonstrated it better myself to anyone who actually does understand clinical trial methodology and interpretation. Thanks!

You sir, are an asshole. I spelled it the American way, just for you!

I rest my case that you're either trolling, or stupid, or both. Whether the outcome is primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is completely and utterly irrelevant. It always has been and it always will be. You're effectively saying that only the first item in a shopping list should be bought because all of the other items in the shopping list are irrelevant. Bullshit!

Denice Walter May 27, 2013
@ Marc Stevens Is Insane:
I believe that Nigel is like two bright guys I know: they are well educated and professional in fields outside of SBM/ life sciences (business). Thus they read alt med ‘research’ (also see today’s post by Orac) and don’t get how it DOESN’T work in reality. It sounds like nutrients can do all of these wonderful things – that they can’t- at least not in RL. But the woo-meisters don’t tell you that part. We do.

So of course they think that these products are very useful- and they need celtic salt or ground organic flaxseed- as I know all too well.

However, if they’re smart- we can talk to them:
explaining how that *in vitro/ in vivo* thing works.
Or- as I often do- illustrating how much of the so-called science they read ( woo) is actually more accurately called “advertising copy”.

Businessmen seem to grok that.

Denice, seriously? I'm disappointed. I thought that you were one of the few reasonable posters on Gorski's blog and then you go and write that crap?

I do not read "alt med ‘research’", unless you're calling what's on PubMed "alt med ‘research’"? I've been reading studies on PubMed for years, so I know about the use of shoddy methodology to fudge results. The Lappe study doesn't use shoddy methodology. It's a Randomised Controlled Trial using double-blinded placebos and randomly-selected subjects who were post-menopausal women. Try to pick holes in it.

flip May 29, 2013
Hmmm… it occurs to me I probably haven’t been that overt about one other thing:

Lilady, I am sorry that you were called those things, and I certainly don’t think you should have been called names. I do think Nigel was wrong and do think he should be called out for it.

And I’m sorry for not making that clearer before.

flip, I'm not going to question your intelligence. However, why you're apologising to lilady boggles the imagination. lilady is a despicable human being. She pushed me to the point where I called her rude names, names that were not misogynist and for which I apologised. I explained about "twat" on SBM. I even posted a link to Wiktionary! You don't read things thoroughly before commenting.

Marc Stephens Is Insane May 31, 2013
Oooooh, Nigeepoo is ANGRY! He’s pulled a DJT, posting a “rebuttal” to all the comments here and on SBM. I’m suprised it’s taken him this long.

He’s calling Orac an a**hole and stupid, among other things. He’s invited us all to comment on his blog because he has an “open moderation policy” and “allows all comments.”

http://nigeepoo.blogspot.com.au/

I see that you idiots on RI are still reading my blog. I'm not the slightest bit angry, so you can give the projection crap a rest. For the record, most of you come across as assholes. You can't even quote me correctly. I said that I have fairly lax moderation criteria. Do try to get something right, for once in your miserable lives.

Anyway, you lot are now boring me with your never-ending inability to discuss things either accurately or rationally, so I'm not going to bother polluting my blog with any more of your crap.

P.S. I still occasionally read the comments on Gorski's blogs, so for the benefit of you peeps who read mine:-
1) "Black-list" means exactly what it says. It means that you're banned from posting comments.
2) The Lappe et al 2007 study was a good study. Just because some Messiah-like person says that it's a bad study and applies false reasoning to back himself up, doesn't make him right and me wrong. As I've previously pointed out, surgery's not exactly rocket science is it? I designed complicated electronic communications systems for 29 years. Just saying! ;-) Denice, I've got nothing against you. You've just been drinking Gorski's Kool-Aid for way too long. That's not a euphemism, by the way! :-D

Look what I just found. Exposing Dr. David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. who believes he can use a cloak of anonymity and character assaults to discredit opposing views. Sorry Doc, but your game is up.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! :-D