Illumination 2.0

I discontinued use of Twitter on June 19, 2019.  The account was deactivated, which means I had 30 days to re-activate it before it is permanently deleted.  The clock was winding down, and I had to do a cost/benefit analysis of Twitter.  Certainly p ermanent deletion would mean no more harassment through the medium (that I'd know about). There are about six people and a few 'bots that no longer would harass me.  The problem is that I'd break a connection with 22,000 people that volunteered to receive content.   Today, two days out from permanent deactivation I have a nice article at AgDaily , and a sweet one coming out in The Conversation.  I'd love to share those widely.  The podcast is reaching 1 million downloads with 3,500 per week and almost 200 episodes.  New episodes are not downloaded as much without the Twitter push.  Best of Both Worlds? So it is a necessary evil and I'll have to live with it, but I have to play ...

My entire life I always questioned people that would take their own life or hurt others in rage.  It did not compute for me.  It seems no problem is that big, and there are so many ways to find solutions between the law, social services, and other mechanisms.  But after enduring endless daily harassment from Michael Balter and GM Watch, I deeply empathize with these feelings. It is a dark part of human psychology, and a program in the brain that is triggered from feeling helpless.  It is a reptile brain taking over; backed into a corner with no other choice.  It is the extremes of fight and the extremes of flight, life and death, and I'm feeling that.  I have so much to be grateful for.  I have a wonderful wife, and we hope to have a child on the way soon.  We both were robbed of that opportunity in previous relationships by combinations of tragedies and apathies, and now we are fixing that.  I have a great job, wonderful students, re...

Five years ago today I started the Talking Biotech Podcast.    Everywhere I go I'm amazed to find listeners.  When I don't post an episode exactly at 5AM EST on Saturday morning I get emails complaining. There have been greater than 935,000 downloads.  One guest (who knows me pretty well) learned about the podcast from someone at a wedding, and didn't know that I was the host. Another person stopped me in the airport and asked if I was the host of Talking Biotech-- because he recognized my voice!   Back in 2014 it was a questionable experiment in a new medium.  I didn't want to do it.  But looking back I'm glad I did.  We have created a durable archive that shows where we were, made predictions about where we are going, and then closed the loop with seeing those predictions become realities in many cases.  So thank you to the listeners, the guests, and everyone that shared this experiment with friends.  I appreciate ...

When you teach an inconvenient science there are many that don't want that story heard. Their arguments fall flat, they have no basis for their beliefs- so how does someone derail the freight train of factual information, especially when delivered by a compelling and trusted speaker? It is a special kind of ad hominem -- disqualify the speaker by eroding their earned trust.  And it is easy to do. Trust is an important basis for communication, and it takes a long time to earn.  There are strategies to build trust, and I teach these strategies to fifty audiences a year.  It starts with the Trust Equation.  I didn't make this up, this is well known by psychologists and sociologists.  Trust is a perception an audience feels based on a speaker's competence, reliability, and intimacy-- divided by self-motivation or self-interest.  Different aspects are targeted by those that want to harm a speaker's trust with an audience. How do they do tha...

The internet if filled with unsubstantiated health claims. The bottom line is that in evidence-based medicine we resort to the gold standard of peer-reviewed findings in quality journals, interpreting data derived from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with significant numbers of participants. The results are reproduced between independent (and frequently competing) research groups, and if they are not, this is reported as well and the original result is held to scrutiny by the field at large. This is the only way to demonstrate efficacy in the absence of human sensory and psychological overlays. Real medicine stands up to this gold standard. Of course, there are those that believe that their homespun remedies and concoctions probably have stronger effects then researched medicines, so those should be offered as alternatives. They tell us that Big Pharma crushes alternatives, just like those scoundrels that accept evidence for the science of evolution conspire to crush Crea...

Today we'll talk about the first paper, a freshly accepted paper to the Journal of Toxicology. As you recall, this is a journal with no impact factor, meaning that the work is likely communicated by referees hand picked by the authors. Referees that support their claims and are not necessarily evaluating the science with due rigor. The paper. The Severity of Autism Is Associated With Toxic Metal Body Burden and Red Blood Cell Glutathione Levels by Adams et al.. Sounds spooky, doesn't it? You can download it here. This paper is so fresh that it is still in the manuscript form- that's why it is not formally typeset. Before starting, let's consider this piece of work within the framework of the anti-vax standpoint. The title alone says that toxic metals in subjects are associated with autism. Going in, this has got to be mercury. This is THE culprit if you read their websites, coming in via thimerisol that has been removed from all childhood vaccines, but they...

When someone pro or against vaccines gives you a piece of scientific literature to assess, how do you know if it is good? How do you know if it is excellent work or just an opinion wrapped in some tables? A warning: Just because it is published in what appears to be a credible journal does not mean it is good work! Literally, there are dozens of crap journals in alternative and complementary medicine, new earth creation and other bogus disciplines. In the days of the internet a journal is easy to produce, so you need to know what is real and what is junk. Start with where it is published. Let's start with two examples given to me this week by an anti-vax friend. These are three articles that she claims support the position that vaccinations are dangerous. Are these valid peer-reviewed, top-tier research papers? Let's see! The two papers are 1. Adams et al., 2009 The Severity of Autism Is Associated With Toxic Metal Body Burden and Red Blood Cell Glutathione Levels. ...