National Children's Health Study

[LordDon]

Salt Lake is one of the 7 pilot sites for the National Children's Health Study (http://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/Pages/default.aspx). They're trying to collect a broad range of data to find out what causes childhood obesity, asthma, and autism among other things. The study will run for 21 years following children from birth through their 21st birthday.

My girlfriend and I opted into the study because we're both big proponents of science and hope to help any advances in children's health with information found about our little one on the way. The local paper ran a brief story (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13985371) on the study, which was cool to see, but then I hopped into the comments.

I understand a newspaper comment feed isn't the best sample of general public opinion but this particular newspaper is the "liberal" slanted viewpoint in Utah. The anti-science, conspiracy lunacy on display is so disheartening. How people can rant and rave on their computers in their temperature-controlled homes eating their refrigerated food just astounds me.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

The public is prey to anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-science based medicine, lying morons like Jenny McCarthy, Suzanne Somers, Jim Carey, and the hundreds of other people that give people medical advice and 'skepticism' of the 'I am not qualified in anyway to give' variety. The public laps this shit up for some reason and views modern medicine as some horrible bad guy that hasn't saved billions of lives. It's disgusting.

[Kelegacy]

The public is prey to anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-science based medicine, lying morons like Jenny McCarthy, Suzanne Somers, Jim Carey, and the hundreds of other people that give people medical advice and 'skepticism' of the 'I am not qualified in anyway to give' variety. The public laps this shit up for some reason and views modern medicine as some horrible bad guy that hasn't saved billions of lives. It's disgusting.

I'm pro-science of course, but I think the FDA is also too close to the pharmaceutical industry. The chunk of people that buy into the anti-science stuff believe they cannot trust the FDA completely to tell them what is safe and what is not because they've seen too many instances of drug recalls, deaths, or other severe incidents even when they state a drug or treatment is safe. And doctors "know" stuff because the reading material they have to study-up on is usually put out there by the drug companies. I also believe current FDA folks have been pharmaceutical guys at one time as well, and vice versa.

We have drug companies come to our offices and give free lunches just so they can sit and talk with the physicians about a drug. Lobbying at it's most subtlest. Why wouldn't you listen to a guy blab when a nice, free upscale lunch is involved? I work in the health industry and I am not 100% trusting. That doesn't mean I don't treat my family, but I'm always going to be skeptical of big drug companies, the FDA, and the link between them and my physician.

I also think a lot of what Suzanne Somers says is realistic. She says there are many different treatments for cancer and it's up to you to decide which might be best. Do you want to go holistic, all natural or experimental, or chemo and traditional medicine--it's a personal decision whether the doctor is "controversial" or not. She also commented that cancer medicine is a huge business. There are many treatments for it, but no cure. I have always believed that drug companies don't want true cures for these big diseases---there is too much money to be made in on-going treatments. Curing it could hurt their bottom line, while putting out drugs that you need to keep buying rakes in the dough.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I also think a lot of what Suzanne Somers says is realistic. She says there are many different treatments for cancer and it's up to you to decide which might be best. Do you want to go holistic, all natural or experimental, or chemo and traditional medicine--it's a personal decision whether the doctor is "controversial" or not. She also commented that cancer medicine is a huge business. There are many treatments for it, but no cure. I have always believed that drug companies don't want true cures for these big diseases---there is too much money to be made in on-going treatments. Curing it could hurt their bottom line, while putting out drugs that you need to keep buying rakes in the dough.

If someone had the cure to all cancer's they'd be way more rich than if they just sold drugs to treat it. We are starting to see vaccine's that prevent types of cancers, those wouldn't exist if people were trying to sell money off drugs to treat them.

There is absolutely zero evidence (peer reviewed, double blinded studies) to support holistic, or 'alternative' approaches to treating cancer (and other terminal illness, in fact studies say they will kill you faster (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=298). Or that the biggest proponents of these things in fact, die from cancer (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/requiem_for_a_quack_part_ii.php)). When you (as a celebrity with a lot of people listening to what you say) tell someone to not seek proven, effective treatments to potentially terminal illness, that is wrong. When you lie to prove your points, that is wrong.

It's also worth noting, that the holistic and alternative methods are not covered by the FDA. In fact, there is absolutely zero regulation of them.

There's too much money in people preying on people desperate for miracle cures. If they're so determined on helping people, maybe they shouldn't be making so much money from it, right? Conflict of interest or something right?

There is right to be concern from lobbyists, but it's also important to understand that these cases of failed drugs are not the majority of stories about drugs. They are just the most prolific. There are hundreds and thousands of proven drugs that have been used for years, suggesting someone forgo proven ideas is just stupid and dangerous.

[Kelegacy]

That's the thing I'm talking about--the FDA and trust. Because other forms of cancer treatment aren't evaluated by them--like Vitamin C therapy--we write the doctor's off as quacks? I think the FDA has fucked us over too much, put too much faith in the drug companies bullshit (like their studies and tests) and has therefore been compromised in some circumstances. There is a serious conflict of interest with the FDA in some respects, I believe.

If the FDA wanted to, they could evaluate these other treatments. But there probably isn't as much money to be made by drug companies so it isn't as much of a priority.

[ShivaX]

That's the thing I'm talking about--the FDA and trust. Because other forms of cancer treatment aren't evaluated by them--like Vitamin C therapy--we write the doctor's off as quacks? I think the FDA has fucked us over too much, put too much faith in the drug companies bullshit (like their studies and tests) and has therefore been compromised in some circumstances. There is a serious conflict of interest with the FDA in some respects, I believe.

If the FDA wanted to, they could evaluate these other treatments. But there probably isn't as much money to be made by drug companies so it isn't as much of a priority.

You make a compelling case.
http://i6.tinypic.com/7xv7pro.jpg

[Kelegacy]

Hey, look at the drug recalls and other missteps. The FDA as an all-knowing, trusting department? It's impossible to buy it.

Again, I'm pro-science, but being skeptical of the FDA is not equivalent of wearing a tinfoil hat.

[Doogie2K]

They're actually looking for the causes of childhood obesity?

The vending machines in the school hallways, the cutting of PE classes, and the fact that no one plays outside anymore because they're all playing video games or watching TV (because their helicopter parents would shit their pants if the kids scraped their knees -- that shit's dangerous, yo) didn't tip them off already? I thought we'd kind of established now why (most) kids get fat: too much junk food and fast food, not enough physical activity.

[ShivaX]

Hey, look at the drug recalls and other missteps. The FDA as an all-knowing, trusting department? It's impossible to buy it.

Again, I'm pro-science, but being skeptical of the FDA is not equivalent of wearing a tinfoil hat.

Well we could make every drug require 20 years of testing to be sure nothing bad will happen. A huge amount of drugs are made every year and very few of them ever get recalled. Hell some get recalled for really no reason at all.

Being skeptical of the FDA is one thing. Saying this:
If the FDA wanted to, they could evaluate these other treatments. But there probably isn't as much money to be made by drug companies so it isn't as much of a priority.
Earns you tinfoil.

Theres a reason most holistic medicine doesn't get tested by the FDA: They don't want to be tested. If your whole business is based on some horseshit placebo the last thing you want is scientists mucking around and proving its worthless.

[Panthera]

Plus, big Pharm is already making billions by selling unreliable or useless herbal and alternate remedies. If they really did work, it wouldn't be alternative medicine, it'd be just medicine.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Because other forms of cancer treatment aren't evaluated by them--like Vitamin C therapy--we write the doctor's off as quacks?

I'm assuming that you mean we write the doctor's who propose Vitamin C therapy off as quacks, if so, there is good reason. It is water soluble. When your body has too much Vitamin C, you piss it out. Simple as that. Your body doesn't respond to lots of Vitamin C. It doesn't collect or accumulate in your body. The more you take in, the less you absorb. It just becomes waste.

Plus, big Pharm is already making billions by selling unreliable or useless herbal and alternate remedies. If they really did work, it wouldn't be alternative medicine, it'd be just medicine.

This is true. They already have their hand in both baskets.

They're actually looking for the causes of childhood obesity?

The vending machines in the school hallways, the cutting of PE classes, and the fact that no one plays outside anymore because they're all playing video games or watching TV (because their helicopter parents would shit their pants if the kids scraped their knees -- that shit's dangerous, yo) didn't tip them off already? I thought we'd kind of established now why (most) kids get fat: too much junk food and fast food, not enough physical activity.

I'd imagine they're looking for actual medical causes of obesity. Obviously if you eat a lot and don't exercise, you'll get fat. They might be looking for complimentary effects or disorders, or maybe social causes.

[Kielaran]

Don't sweat the comments. Just remember that the general populous is for the most part a bunch of ill informed people who are so stuck on their own ideas that they cannot think positively about something that breaks their stereotype of right or wrong. Though I would bet that none of them would turn down treatments for their families that would come from the study.

Good on you for undertaking this. I hope it works out well for your family.

[Kelegacy]

I'm assuming that you mean we write the doctor's who propose Vitamin C therapy off as quacks, if so, there is good reason. It is water soluble. When your body has too much Vitamin C, you piss it out. Simple as that. Your body doesn't respond to lots of Vitamin C. It doesn't collect or accumulate in your body. The more you take in, the less you absorb. It just becomes waste.

We know this. I'm not saying I buy into it, but I'm not going to refute it either. And it's not about normal doses, it's about mega-doses. I'm not a doctor, but if even a couple doctors believe in it, they must have a reason. There have even been stories, not just the Vitamin C stuff but other "quack" medicine, where the outcome is positive.

Science is like religion when you think about it. If you go against the grain you are a heretic and will be ostracized and ridiculed by other scientists. You try something new and you'll be laughed out of the fold. And then, when you're dead, they'll discover you were right all along or that a part of your theory was correct. It's been like that throughout history and will continue to be that way as well.

[Hawkzombie]

I take everything with a grain of salt. Science is not infallible, by any means, and neither is the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies stand to lose billions if any 'miracle' cure is found to ANY disease. Sure they will get a burst of cash as the cure is sold and made public, but after the disease is eradicated?

Bankruptcy as they no longer need to manufacture the drug, and certainly not in the quantities as original thought. It may sound conspiracy theorist, but it makes sense: Pharmaceuticals don't answer to sick people, the answer to stock holders and the board of trustees.

On the other hand, holistic drug treatments can be incredibly risky, as there may be an unknow adverse reaction to not only the different things in the 'miracle cures' but their COMBINED reaction.

I dunno, I honestly don't think either side is as evil or sneaky as people make them out to be, even with what I said above.

Personally? I only take meds when it's life or death. When I was 6 my mom took me to a child psychologist. He diagnosed me with SEVERAL types of childhood mental disorders (Tourette Syndrome, Autism, Schizophrenia, etc) and gave my mom a laundry list of medications I should be taking if I wanted to have 'any hope' of being a normal member of society, and even then said my chances were 'dicey' and more than likely would spend the rest of my life either under their strict care or in a group home.

She refused and I'm as normal as most people. I have my issues, but I'm not exactly a candidate for mental institutions. I'm married, live out on my own, and am a supportive husband and father. Had I taken the drugs who knows what might have happened.

I take everything with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism. I research every choice when it comes to my, and my family's health. Anyone who doesn't is just as bad as those who wear tin foil hats for real.

Science is like religion when you think about it.

I 100% agree with this statement.

[Superman's Dead]

Kids who sit inside and play videogames and don't play sports aren't always fat. We just grow up bitter. Some of us, bitter and almost sickly-thin.

[Panthera]

Science is like religion when you think about it.

This is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[Kelegacy]

This is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Live a sheltered life, do we, in a basement away from human conversation? Must, if that's the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard.

Science is parallel to religion in the sense that if you do something different or "crazy", the rest of the "church" will blacklist you. It doesn't matter if what you are doing has promise or not. If the majority disagree with you, prepare to have a hard time of it. I'm not talking about the worshipping God part, I'm talking about the organization as a whole.

[Panthera]

Live a sheltered life, do we, in a basement away from human conversation? Must, if that's the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard.

How sheltered do you have to be to have never heard of hyperbole? ;)

Science is parallel to religion in the sense that if you do something different or "crazy", the rest of the "church" will blacklist you. It doesn't matter if what you are doing has promise or not. If the majority disagree with you, prepare to have a hard time of it. I'm not talking about the worshipping God part, I'm talking about the organization as a whole.

No, that's not how science works. Not that you'll ever lack people who want to explain away the rejection of their bad science with conspiracy theory.

[Kelegacy]

No, that's not how science works. Not that you'll ever lack people who want to explain away the rejection of their bad science with conspiracy theory.
I think that could also serve as a convenient excuse for the scientists suppressing other scientists. Calling them conspiracy theorists is just another way of attempting to smear them by the scientists w/in the accepted theory or scientific fold.

To say this isn't done in the science field, like any field of industry, is a bit naive, I think.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Science is the continuous improvement of facts and knowledge. Religion is blind faith. Scientists are human, and that causes them to make human mistakes. Science comes through though, through human mistakes and tribulations.

A lot of the scientist infighting and putting down of other ideas happened before the 20th century. We have a very firm grasp on many areas of science and understanding now. There aren't many examples of this happening today or in the recent past.

The things you're speaking of though, are ridiculous because THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE. Doctor's are free and welcome to hypothesize new ideas for treatments of cancer and whatnot, but if they do not hold up to the rigors of the scientific method, peer review or double blind experiments, they DO NOT WORK. If they did, they would be science and therefore medicine.

"The scientific treatments are hundreds or thousands of times more effective than the alternatives. (And even when the alternatives seem to work, we don't actually know that they played any role: Spontaneous remissions, even of cholera and schizophrenia, can occur without prayer and without psychoanalysis.)"

I just took that out of Carl Sagan's book 'The Demon Haunted World', which I started rereading and came across that quote, which is of oddly good timing.

If a doctor is telling a patient to NOT take the, proven by science and the thousands of others it has helped, treatments for their cancer, and instead telling them to take some alternative course of action (that doesn't hold up to the methods of science), that doctor is robbing a person of their chance at life. It is disgusting. They are vultures that are preying on the needy and desperate.

[ShivaX]

This is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I was going to say that myself, but I didn't want to go down the dark road of ignorance and conspiracy, so I'll let you guys do it.

[Doogie2K]

I'd imagine they're looking for actual medical causes of obesity. Obviously if you eat a lot and don't exercise, you'll get fat. They might be looking for complimentary effects or disorders, or maybe social causes.

Well, I think I pinpointed a couple of big social causes already ;) but point taken. Obviously, the poor kids with metabolic disorders and the like should have every opportunity to develop normally, but I bet if we were to turn back the clock 20 years and get kids more active and less addicted to McDonald's and screen time we'd save a lot of people a lot of time and money before they even started.

As for the other stuff, there's a researcher here at the U of C who's dedicated just to looking at environmental design and its interaction with obesity, looking at things like walkable communities. It's underrated, I think, how important it is to be able to walk to the store to buy milk and bread and not have to pile into the car and drive for fifteen minutes. Or for the little ones to be able to walk down to a park a couple of minutes away and play with the other neighbourhood kids. Hell, I lived in a cul-de-sac with a big median/field in the middle, and that was our playground; you'd play road hockey or ride bikes around it, or baseball or football within it.

Kids who sit inside and play videogames and don't play sports aren't always fat. We just grow up bitter. Some of us, bitter and almost sickly-thin.

Of course not. It's more the interaction of little to no physical activity with increased caloric consumption (especially of junk foods and fatty foods) that causes the obesity.