The argument from buttsex

I know we just established that gays don’t exist. In case that didn’t convince you, a random commenter has a great explanation for why homosexuality is unnatural:

I don’t understand why some people try hard to demonstrate that gays are just gays, and they have nothing whatsoever to do about it! Poor them, they are just attracted to other men and they can’t fight it. they can’t prevent themselves from not acting on it. period. Why would they subject themselves to social rejection, and injustice if it were easy to deny being gay!! Well, I don’t agree, if this is the case, then…then, we can also rationalize J Sandusky or any pedophile for that matter. Poor him, he is just attracted to young biys, he can’t do anything about, and he can;t prevent himslef from acting on it. or, maybe …incest, the father, is just attracted to his girl…and if she consenting, that s completely ok, actually in some societies, it is. the only difference between gay men and pedophiles is that one has a consenting partner, and the other doesn’t (you cant call kids a consenting partner), but the same deviate sexual urge is there. so then , why do we punch pedophile. we can just say that poor them, they can’t do anything about it. we do we punish incest? we can rationalize it the same way.  The key here is learned behaviour…you learn to hold yourself from a ceratin behavior, and not act on it because it is wrong. someone would argue that homosexuality is natural. well I argue that it is not…as a matter of fact, there is no natural lubrication available for sodomy! …there are tons of reason why homosexuality is not normal.

Oh, well then. Because obviously vaginas are always well lubricated, gays only have anal sex, straights never have anal sex, and no one ever has oral sex. Man, such airtight logic. This guy could be a theologian.

Car hits atheist; car breaks

Proof that atheists are made of steel: Brendan Murphy, Secular Student Alliance Board member and good friend of mine, was hit by a car while biking tonight. You all remember Brendan – he’s the one who photographed me for the Skepticon calendar and taught me how to ride a bike. Thankfully us atheists gain the power of invincibility after we sell our soul to Satan, so Brendan is fine.* He came out with some soreness and an ibuprofen prescription, while the car left with a destroyed windshield and missing side mirror.

Car: 0; Brendan: 1

He may not have gained any battle scars (other than a beaten up bike…), but we can make his life a little more entertaining as he recuperates in front of his computer in a drug-addled state. I’m sure he’d appreciate a comment section full of miscellaneous internet memes and silliness to cheer him up.

*Wearing a helmet also helps.

Being a woman on twitter

Twitter makes it easy for people to spread their bile. For example, here are some recent tweets I received from @whprax222:

First:

Second:

Is it bad that I’m so used to the rape part of the threat that my first reaction is “Why Mexicans?”

But this individual wasn’t just targeting me. He aimed the majority of his tweets at female atheists, tweeting terrible things at Greta Christina, Jamila Bey,  Maryam Namazie, Melody Hensley, Jafsica, Cristina Rad, Catherine Deveney, and Angie Jackson. He also targeted a couple other female writers, including Christie Wilcox. I have screen shots of all of the threats here, which are really worth a look to get the full extent of how gruesome they are.

Why am I writing about this? Because this isn’t a rare occurence. Outspoken women are frequently threatened with rape as a way of silencing them.  But the way this individual responded once called out was also pretty telling of the mindset behind these attacks (screen cap):

“not a THREAT just a HOPE. i live nowhere near any of these people and they live all over the world. i dont have time or money to take an airplane to kill somebody! nor would i want to! just expressing my opinion, absolutely no threat intended”

Oh, well then. You just hope we’re raped and murdered, you’re too lazy to actually do it yourself. Definitely not a threat then!

“i am a gentle soul really :)”

“yep that is just my opinion. i would never rape a woman, that’s illegal!”

So you’d do it if it was legal? That certainly reassures me about your moral compass.

“i have no intention of harming ANYBODY! for all of u that are taking this seriously… grow up! its the internet!”

Ah yes, the “it’s the internet” excuse.  Leave it to the person threatening women with rape and murder to tell us we need to grow up.

Before you tell anyone “it’s the internet,” remember what kind of individuals hide behind that excuse.

Still looking for Christmas cards?

Don’t forget I have some evolution themed Christmas cards for sale!

Christmas Tree of Life:

Evolution of Christmas:

Have no idea what to actually write in your godless Christmas cards? Digital Cuttlefish has oodles of atheist Christmas poems.

And if you still need to buy a gift for PZ, you can bid on this awesomely blasphemous piece of art by Joshua Bennett:

He’s auctioning off the piece, and all proceeds go to the American Humanist Association.

Women for Herman Cain

To offset the increasing number of women who are accusing him of sexual harassment and/or affairs, Herman Cain has launched a new website: Women for Herman Cain. Female supporters can share their insights as to why they support Cain, such as:

Dear Mrs. Cain, don’t pay attention to these pathetic husbandless women who are jealous of women like you in happy long-term marriages. These vindictive women can’t find a husband or keep one. They are like stalkers who try to latch on to any man who shows a bit of kindness or attention to them. When these unstable women come out of the woodwork to make accusations about Herman just say, ‘Honey, get a life, I believe my husband.’ We want you to be our First Lady Mrs. Cain!

And

Now because of scheming women that can be swayed by money, attention or whatever else the reason may be, your reputation is at stake – not theirs as it should be. I do not believe these women are victims…I believe you are.

And

Don’t let Satan and his demons win. Stay true to the Lord’s will and stay in this race. Remember Philippians 4:13! CAIN TRAIN is chugging!

I have to wonder how many of these submissions are actually from women and not MRAs. Non-Americans, aren’t you glad you’re not a part of this political nonsense?

The cherry on top  is that the banner for his site is women from a German stock photo website. Finding real supporters was apparently too difficult.

My Skepticon talk: Skeptical Genetics

My talk from Skepticon is now online! If you ever wanted a quick and dirty summary of basic genetic concepts, now’s your chance. I try to address a lot of common misconceptions about genetics and address some of the shoddy ways genetics is portrayed by the media:

That was my first time giving that talk. From the Q&A and questions I got afterward, I certainly know what sort of stuff I need to add, subtract, or explain better. If there’s still anything you don’t quite get about genetics, feel free to leave a question in a comments.

More damning revelations about Burzynski’s “research”

Yesterday I picked apart the Burzynski clinic’s list of “scientific studies supporting antineoplason research since 2006.” Unsurprisingly, a majority of these citations were just abstracts of conference presentations lacking peer review, and a couple studies published in terrible (and even sketchy) journals. I wasn’t able to comment on specifics about the papers since I didn’t have access through my university.

A reader sent me a pdf of the first paper from Pediatric Drugs, which is even more incriminating. For one, it’s a review paper. Review papers summarize the current state of scientific knowledge about a certain topic. Sometimes they perform meta analysis on multiple papers, but they don’t always add any new information. Burzynski’s review falls into the latter – that is, it does not have any new peer reviewed data. And the studies about antineoplastons that the paper cites are from multiple conference abstracts, a patent from 1995, his report to the FDA, and an entry in a book by Nova Science Publishers (aka, also all not peer reviewed).

The only peer reviewed research paper the review cites was on the previous list – it was the one published in the crappy alternative medicine journal. I haven’t gotten hold of the paper, but commenter joshtriska summarized it thusly:

[2] A report on 18 patients with “High-Grade, Recurrent, and Progressive Brainstem Glioma” picked from 4 of his clinical trials. The conclusion states that typically less than 10% of patients with this condition survive 2 years, but in his group 22% (or four whole people) survived past 5 years. The conclusion also states that “Because a small number of patients have been evaluated, a larger study is required to confirm these results”. No kidding!

And that final paper – the one published in the sketchy as hell “Cancer Therapy” journal, was also a review:

[3] A review paper, not a study. Antineoplastons are mentioned and a line of data from one of Burzynski’s trials is included in a table. The discussion states that the data concerning antineoplastons was from from conference abstracts, and not peer-reviewed.

The Burzynski clinic is claiming that it’s libelous to say “There are no scientific studies supporting antineoplaston treatment since 2006.” But it’s not libelous because it is true. Results that lack peer review cannot be said to support something. Abstracts at conferences are not peer reviewed. Review papers do not include new, peer-reviewed data. The only published paper he has itself states that it is inconclusive without a larger study to confirm the results.

Plus, they don’t even understand what the phrase “since 2006” means. It means published starting in 2007. From that alone we throw out the first two papers. You’re left with a review paper that cites conference abstracts, and conference abstracts.

So no, Burzynski clinic. There aren’t any scientific studies supporting antineoplaston treatment since 2006. But there are plenty falsifying it.

A look at the Burzynski clinic’s publications

The Burzynski clinic has responded to the flood of skeptical bloggers with a press release. They’ve apparently fired (in so many words) Marc Stephens for his harassment, yet still plan to send attorneys after UK bloggers. I’m not sure if the targeting of UK bloggers has to do with UK libel laws, or if the Burzynski clinic is oblivious to the dozens of American bloggers also pointing out their harmful pseudoscience.

But the part of the press release that intrigued me was that they finally attempt to give some evidence for all that scientific research Burzynski has to back up his claims. Wow, a list of citations! To a non-scientist, it certainly seems impressive, what with its big words and journal names and such. But as a scientist, I was still skeptical, and decided to do some digging.

Why was I skeptical? Because not all journals are created equal. Lay people know this to an extent. It’s much more prestigious to get into journals like Science and Nature because the peer review process is way more rigorous. Your research not only has to be pretty damn air tight, but it has to make a significant contribution to scientific knowledge. We can measure how good a journal is by a metric known as an “impact factor.” It’s complicated, but generally the higher the impact factor, the better the journal.

So let’s have a look at Burzynski’s research, shall we?

1. Burzynski, SR. Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Chiìdren: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006; 8: l67-178.

Pediatric Drugs: No impact factor.

Off to a great start! (Hint: That’s sarcasm)

2. Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, RA., Burzynski, B. Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and of high grade, recurrent, and progressive breínstem gliome. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006; 5(1):40­47.

Integrative Cancer Therapies has an impact factor of 1.716. What does this number mean? Compared to other journals in the category of Integrative & Complementary Medicine, it’s ranked 6 out of 21. Not bad, but “Integrative medicine” sets off my Pseudoscience Alarms. Suspicions confirmed, the  journal describes itself as emphasizing “scientific understanding of alternative medicine and traditional medicine therapies.”

To quote the brilliant Tim Minchin:

“By definition … alternative medicine … has either not been proved to work, or has been proved not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? Medicine.”

What happens when you compare this journal in a more legitimate category, like Oncology? Its rank unsurprisingly drops to an abysmal 134 out of 185.

3. Burzynski, SR. Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma. Cancer Therapy 2007;5, 379-390.

When this journal’s website loaded, I started laughing and dragged my laptop to my fellow-scientist roommate. It looks like a relic from the 90s. Even more sketchy and unprofessional than the white-text-on-black-background and ugly use of frames is its repeated mentioning of its “rapid review process.” I couldn’t find out anything about the editorial board other than there’s some guy in Greece you should submit things to. And after a lot of digging, I couldn’t find an impact factor at all.

Super sketchy.

4. Burzynski, SR., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T.J., Jufida, G.F., Szymkowskì, B,G., Kubove, E. Phase Il studies of Antineoplasîons A10 and AS 2-1 (ANP) in chiìdren with newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliornas. Neuro-Oncology 2007;9:206.

[etc]

The final nine of his citations all seem to come from the Journal of Neuro-Oncology. Upon first glance, it seems legit. It has a relatively high impact factor of 5.483, which makes it 24 out of 184 in Oncology. Not bad at all, especially for a specialized oncology journal (the neuro part).

Not bad until you search the journal for articles by Burzynski. The result?

Burzynski has not published a single paper in this journal. Every single citation is an abstract from a presentation made at a conference. For those of you not in academia, we like to hold conferences where people can present their research and network. However, you’re allowed to present preliminary results that haven’t been published yet. Any scientist can submit abstracts in order to speak at conferences, and if that single paragraph sounds interesting, you get to give a talk. It’s pretty much impossible to judge how legitimate research is from an abstract (or presentation) alone, and some conferences are not competitive at all when it comes to who gets to speak – they have plenty of spaces to accept all presenters. Journals often act as archives for conferences they’re affiliated with, and will list those abstracts.

This means that none of Burzynski’s research from this journal has actually been peer-reviewed by the journal. The fact that he never actually published this data says a lot. Seriously – if you legitimately found something that helped cure cancer, prestigious journals would be tripping over themselves to have you publish in them. The fact that you can’t publish your research anywhere except in the occasional bottom-of-the-barrel shady journal means your research is terrible.

There was a final citation that stood out to me. It was the only citation that wasn’t research that Burzynski himself had done. Another key facet of science that makes it robust is that other scientists must be able to confirm your findings. And if they falsify your hypothesis, it’s back to the drawing board. So lets look at this one last citation:

11. Ogata, Y., Shirouzu, K., Matono, M., Ushìjima, M., Uchida, S., Tsuda, H. Randomized phase H study of hepatic arterial infusion with or without antíneoplastons as adjuvant therapy after hepatectomy for liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2010;21:víiî221 .

Again, this was a presentation made at a conference, specifically the 2010 European Society for Medical Oncology. Again, that means this research has not been peer-reviewed at all. In addition to the lack of non-Burzynski studies replicating his results, the National Cancer Institute also points out multiple studies (in legitimate journals) that are not able to replicate his results.

I would really like someone to take a look at the few papers Burzynski has published to see what the science looks like. One, I can’t access the couple of journal articles he actually does have because the journals are so crappy that my university doesn’t bother subscribing to them. But two, my area is population genetics and evolution, so I’m not really equipped to do an in-depth analysis of cancer research. But as a biologist I can safely remark on the quality of the journals his research was published in, and what that means.

So, Burzynski. Do you have any actual science to support your claims?

Update: I discuss further damning revelations about Burzynski’s research in this newer post.