The Ides of March

"Et tu Brute'? " Julius Caesar was warned and yet he came to give his "politically incorrect" speech at the Forum. And yes, his friend Brutus was amongst the conspirators. I am reminded of this affair, certainly on this date, as I read about many issues currently in the public forum, from the "bailout" of various economic institutions, to plans to change the very complexion of health care here in the USA. What troubles me most however, since I know so little about economics or national health care delivery, is the cavalier use of what is labeled "scientific evidence" to justify a particular strategy. Associations found between various events are being equated to causality; ie, cause and effect. "The reason why the government should......" Causality is invoked to pronounce prescriptions or remedies. So it was recently announced that after 10 years of project "Sure Start" in the UK, a comprehensive all age effort to effect the rising incidence of Obesity in one health district including several towns, after millions of Pounds Sterling spent, no impact. The National Health Service Director said the study was undertaken only after obtaining "scientific evidence" that the programs used were effective. Then why didn't the programs yield the outcome promised? Because, the "scientific evidence" was a product of a "consensus conference", a group think. Selection of the participants of the group predetermines the "consensus." The nominating committee is the real power behind the throne, behind the economic direction, behind the selection of the "science" used to justify a particular idea or event. So who is selecting the "science" to justify a Cap and Trade CO2 policy being advocated by our government? I think it is important to know since there will be far reaching ramifications and unforeseen costs. What is the "science" that is being put forward as justification for such a policy? Does it matter that the measured global temperatures were rising before the industrial revolution? Does it matter that CO2 rise, man made or otherwise followed the rise in measured global temperatures? Does it matter that as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, that the last decade's global temperatures have actually declined? The hypothesis does not explain the historical measurements. Time for a new, improved hypothesis. I suggest, my family, that you Google " global temperature CO2" and choose the 2008 article "The Environmental Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO2" by Robinson Robinson & Soon, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and read the article in its entirety. Certainly these authors were not invited to the table to discuss Anthropogenic Global Warming, or a Carbon Cap & Trade policy. There are many scientists who say the "science" is just not there to say what is being said publicly, stridently. They are not "deniers," they are skeptics; fair enough. By their comments, I don't think any of the authors I have read had voted for George Bush.

Besides Global Warming, there are many other instances where public policy is being shaped by media invoking "scientific evidence." Recently there was a report that after a 2 year comprehensive interventional effort to assess weight loss programs, high fat high meat, low fat, high carbohydrate, Mediterranean, South Beach diets, after 2 years, guess what? the only important factor leading to weight loss was decreased calories. All diets decreased weight and blood cholesterols during the dieting process, but after two years, the average weight kept off, was 4 pounds. Think of all the billions and billions of dollars spent on weight loss products, gyms, gurus, etc. and for a few million, the answer is: "eat less" if you want to loose weight. Eat less McDonalds, eat less vegetarian, eat less pasta and sauce. The media, "Supersize" and a host of other guilt "exposes" are just entertainment, otherwise, of no value. According to a recent survey, of the Top 10 most nutritious chain restaurants in the World, McDonalds comes in # 8. Who'd a thunk it? You can look up the survey and see who the raters were; surprising. Within hours of bariatric surgery for obesity, obese patients no long have Type II diabetes. Startling? You bet. Unexpected? Unexplained? Yes. So the next time you hear about obesity and the rising specter of a nation of diabetics, watch out. Observational studies do not give causality results. There is more to this issue than "fat people get diabetes."

There are other popular topics that have politically correct solutions: HIV&AIDS, home foreclosures, the education of inner city children, etc. etc. etc. "We can't just sit around and wait for the answer, we have to do something!" I don't mind trying something, intervening, make some sort of effort. If that is what one is doing, say so. We are trying this or that and we will assess the outcome in so many days, weeks, months, years. Just don't say there is "scientific evidence" behind what we are doing when all it is is a "consensus" of presumably knowledgeable people, hand picked for their particular viewpoint.

Too many times, what is "politically correct" has taken on a life of its own, and become the dogma, a religion with its own zealots. And we all know, from our Bill of Rights, our government shouldn't be messin' around with religion.