Illumination 2.0

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 that?  If you lo

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.

Social media has been noisy with folks referring to me as a drunk wife abuser and teen harasser.  This is especially prevalent on Twitter from Michael Balter and Paul Thacker (read their threads!) as well as GM Watch.  These three will do anything to block my mission of participation in public outreach around science communication and biotechnology.  They've said it before, they'll do it again.  If you have any concerns about the things you read about me, please reach out and contact me directly. Debating hostile allegations online just gives visibility to something that does not deserve it. The good news is that they have a nice little love circle where they retweet/share each others' filth.  But that's it.  These guys are even too slimy for the usual mudslingers to endorse.  I've made the strategic decision to not engage it , not give it any oxygen.  That's the best move.  The problem is that it leaves questions unanswered for those that have concerns

I'm in my eleventh day in Europe.  I taught a wonderful science communication workshop, enjoyed time with many students and postdocs.  I mentored early-career faculty and reviewed the work and provided guidance to shape the future of a rising-star of an institution.  I was honored to speak at Brain Bar, a wonderful conference about the future.  All of this came on my departure from social media, particularly Twitter. I've been watching and reading.  I also took down the majority of this blog.  I need to get my head down.  My mental health is taking a hit and the personal and professional inconvenience of being doxed and harassed is getting extreme. Here's what is happening now.  Bank Accounts, Retirement Doxxed. Somehow a former journalist turned hate-monger named Michael Balter obtained my personal records.  It is not hard to do.  Paul Thacker and University of California San Francisco posted my social security number a few months ago.  Once you have that, you find m

Where do I go from here?   A good direction for sure.  I will continue to host the podcast and post weekly episodes here and on Twitter.  I will no longer be engaging in social media. I'll be creating a lot more media and sharing a lot of innovative research.  Stay tuned.  Here are some parting thoughts on the topics du jour .  Posting Private Information and Hacked Documents Throughout my professional career I have been asked to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. I must abide by those agreements. The problem is that others will use FOIA, hacking, stealing, or other methods to obtain your confidential files and distribute them-- breaking confidentiality and also screaming non-transparency. So when people are somehow acquiring private documents you never shared and making your personal banking information known, it is time to back away from the discussion. My address is being posted next to phrases like "poison peddler" and "he gives children canc