Ensatina

So, anyone familiar with evolutionary biology has probably heard about the Ensatina superspecies complex of lungless salamanders. This wouldn’t be interesting were it not for some relatively new research (and continuous production of research) indicating that this is much more complex than previously thought. Populations seem to have been geographically split and reunited in several locations, maybe. This is evident by the genetic discontinuities and divergence responsible for the color patterns observed. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) points to reproductive isolation and returning to low level gene flow between populations (termed “gene leakage” in the paper). Secondary contact seems to be the reason this superspecies did not completely diverge into multiple species. Indeed, at the far southern end of one sympatric region, it could be said that two subspecies have diverged enough to be considered distinct species were it not for the northern portions having low frequency hybridization (<20% hydbridization).

Previous mitochondrial evidence indicated that while reproductive isolation was historically important for these salamanders, new research suggests only one small area has achieved reproductive isolation. However, the authors then go on to explain something a bit interesting about the misleading nature of mitochondrial evidence in this case.

Furthermore, if migration is mainly led by males, as suggested by field estimates in Ensatina (Staub et al. 1995), the admixture rate would also be higher in markers carried by both sexes, which could further enhance the differential effect of genetic drift. Therefore, these results call for caution in the interpretation of species boundaries based solely on mitochondrial markers, which could be misleading especially in cases of organisms that are philopatric and that have sex-biased dispersal and/or low vagility.

What the authors are trying to say here can be summarized as “males do not pass mitochondria to offspring; since males are the primary cause of migration in this species, there may be more nuclear gene flow than indicated by mitochondrial evidence.”

If you thought that was the interesting part, you’re still missing quite a bit. Evolutionarily, fertile hybrids alone do not mean the two semi-isolated populations will not diverge. If, for example, the individuals rarely backcross (for any reason; untimely demise, mate preference, etc) with the parental population, gene flow between the two populations is still prevented. This would result in a stable hybrid zone where the two populations overlap, but allow genetic drift and selection to still result in the populations diverging. This seems to be the case in some of the regions, but also, it seems the differentiation and divergence has been completely stopped in some regions, and partially reversed with high levels of gene flow between populations due to stable and successful hybrids. Some areas are even DOMINATED by hybrids, and not only were most of them hybrids in these areas, but they were backcrossed hybrids! The two populations had merged in this area!

So it would seem that, not only is Ensatina a superspecies and still a ring species, but gives us amazing insight into new possibilities for speciation to occur. We basically see sympatric and allopatric divergence occurring as well as divergence REVERSAL. I leave you with the final sentence from this research:

Although prized as an example of evolutionary clarity, Ensatina presents a pattern of taxonomic irresolution (different systematists might recognize from one to many species, depending on what criteria they choose) that one expects from Darwinian species formation.

Refs:

Genetic Leakage After Adaptive and Nonadaptive Divergence in the Ensatina eschscholtzii Ring Species. Pereira, Ricardo and David B. Wake. Evolution.

Atheism, what is it?

Strictly speaking, atheism is the lack of any deity or supernatural power. It does not, strictly speaking, preclude the existence of souls, nor does it prevent the belief in pretty much anything else other than deities. Indeed, there are atheists that I would consider among the least reality-based and most prejudiced people in the world; Maher comes to mind. Atheism is, strictly, a statement of what one is does not believe in. As such, it is often viewed as a negative. What then, does atheism have to do with science, morality, relationships, sexuality, or anything else? Simply put, only parts of those which would include belief in a deity.

Where, then, do the arguments against science as a supposed attack on atheism come from? More importantly, where do the arguments against atheism as a supposed argument against science come from?* I think it stems, partially, from a response to the questions of “well, where do you think the universe came from?” or “well, how can you be moral without god(s)?” Aside from the nonsensical nature of these questions, as if the evidence for the origin of the universe proves the existence of their deity. Ignoring the blatant idiocy of arguing that religion gives morality, what does specific ethics have to do with science? Ethics are informed by culture, science is informed by evidence, and religion ignores evidence in favor of ancient cultural tradition.

But these arguments illustrate a point, creationists and the pompously pious do the same things: when arguing one point, they immediately shift to another, and when that is proven fallacious, they shift once again. This “Gish Gallop” is most notable when discussing something such as evolutionary biology with a group of creationists. You will notice they shift, immediately, and as frequently as possible, to other topics.

A blast from the past

I found this rather old post which was, strangely enough, randomly associated with one of my blog posts. I have a bit of a long response to it, so I’ll be kind and post it here. Feel free to read the blog post, then my comments.

But, I deliberately left out “macroevolution,” or the evolution of different species from one another. It’s quite a bit harder to discuss scientifically, in my opinion, because it is limited to analysis of historical events.

Interesting to discuss it this way; I only use the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” to describe such concepts to the lay person. It is, frankly, not difficult at all to discuss macroevolution, because it is happening right now, all over the world, in any species with distinctive and isolated populations. All you need to do is look. Ring species make wonderful examples, but there are others. So to say it is limited ONLY to historical analysis is to indicate ignorance of modern research.

This individual then puts up the DNA sequence as “code” falsehood… Again, the sequence IS NOT THE CODE. The term “DNA code” is reserved for the sequences which are templates which produce proteins. Not all of them do, the whole thing is not code, moving along. I understand this subtlety may elude many people, but it is significant. The DNA strands are not code, the “code” is the sequence of RNA which results in a specific protein sequence.

The notion that mutations can be beneficial, dangerous, or irrelevant misses the point that a mutation can be both beneficial AND dangerous (sickle cell trait and Plasmodium).

The insertion of teleology into evolution indicates, once again, ignoring the research which indicates identical conditions and circumstances do not result in the same mutations or even evolutionary outcomes in separate populations. Sorry, but evolution is not teleological, it follows selective pressures, founder effects (sample bias), and genetic drift (also an example of sample bias), as well as a few other mechanisms like selective migration and population death due to regional destruction (read: “subspecies wiped out by a volcano or other major natural disaster”).

While this individual does seem to be genuinely educated in evolutionary biology, the way he or she is explaining these matters is quite poor, and seems mostly informed by 1970s evolutionary biology. It needs updating.

A new metaphor

So, I’m sure my loyal readers (all ten of them) are familiar with the “DNA sequence as information” metaphor, but a recent publication brought to my attention by ERV has illustrated a point that template molecules (in this case, prions) which catalyze reactions (folding of a protein) is capable of “mutation” by minor changes in conformation. DNA sequences similarly change conformation quite frequently (such as “TATA boxes” binding TBP causing the DNA to partially unwind and bend). We can refer to DNA sequences, because of this, as a reactive mold (mould) for new synthesis of new molecules. Like any mold, occasionally “imperfections” (mutations or one component where something else should be) are present. This mold is capable of reproducing itself because the master mold and the master pattern go back together once used and can be used to make replicas of each other. Similar to the molding process, errors or imperfections in the mold are passed on through progressive “generations” of the reproduction of additional molds and patterns.

We can take this metaphor a bit further before it breaks down. The imperfections in this mold alter the function of the part which is made from this mold. These imperfections can make the part work better, worse, or have no effect. For instance, a bump in the tooth of a gear will make the gear wear faster, but dimples in the corresponding gear can result in this problem being resolved.

Another interesting result is that we have the option of referring to RNA as a “lost wax” or the interim mold or the product, depending, of course, on the destination of this RNA.

Questions, comments, observations, criticisms?

Hey, this is kind of cool

Check this out. It’s live, you should be there now.

HT: Greg Laden

Another lawyer

pretending to be a bioethicist, this time, it’s Wesley J. Smith. I stumbled across a blog of his quite accidentally in which there is this post. I figured it deserves dismantling.

Misanthropy is all the rage these days, Daahling.

I suppose it’s a bit of cynicism combined with a distaste for reality being a popularity contest, but sure, I’m a bit misanthropic at times.

We have the animal rights crowd and bioethicists disdaining human exceptionalism as “speciesist.”

Well, human exceptionalism is one thing, but the “speciesist” notion is quite another. Humans are, in no way, exceptional in terms of biology and physiology, however, to then make the argument that because we are so similar to other organisms, we should not use other organisms to understand biology, medicine, and so forth misses the point of these explorations entirely. To equivocate a lack of human exceptionalism to the anti-animal research crowd is blatantly dishonest at best.

The Darwinists think species distinctions are really fiction since we all evolved out of the ooze. The radical environmentalists take it further, branding us as the villains of the planet.

Since when are those of us grounded in science “Darwinists.” I prefer the a description of these individuals, including myself, as follows: “in agreement with observed facts and not trying to include unjustified or unsubstantiated ideas within a scientific framework.” Equating the modern evolutionary synthesis to Darwin’s original theory indicates your unfamiliarity with the work of Gould, “Stephen Dawkins” (i.e. Richard Dawkins), Ernst Mayr, Lenski, Dobzhansky, R.A. Fisher, and many, many others. Please feel free to read a book on evolutionary biology before making claims such as this. As far as considering me a “radical environmentalist,” sure, I speak out when I spot bullshit, I suppose that makes me radical. I’m a radical/militant atheist, my weapons are words. Remind me, what kind of weapons do radical/militant religious fanatics use?

And now the atheists apparently are jumping on the human unexceptionalism bandwagon. From an atheist blog, “Why I Am Not a Humanist:”

The cult of Man with a capital M is only a slight improvement on the cult of God. It still leaves a lot to be desired, women for instance. If the Christians’ idea that they belong to the same exclusive club as the creator of the universe sounds to us infidels as monstrous conceit, I can only add that I find almost as pompous and egotistical the notion that man is some marvellous pinnacle of evolution; that because Homo sapiens has produced Einstein and Michelangelo we can forget about the Nazis, the Crusaders and the Khmer Rouge; or that a Gothic cathedral, an air-conditioned office block or the mausoleum of some ancient megalomaniac justify our destruction of the world’s forests, some of the most biologically valuable and breath-takingly beautiful places on earth.

Reads like a cautionary tale about the broad spectrum of human behaviors and dangerous ideas, not a hatred of humanity. I didn’t read the rest of the post, but this doesn’t seem terribly misanthropic.

Worse still, the adulation by some humanists of the human intellect (unique as it appears to be) encourages the old-fashioned nonsense that men and women are specially set apart from other living organisms and, worst of all, that the human race has an evolutionary destiny (formerly God’s permission) to conquer and subdue nature.

It’s stating that, evolutionarily, we are the result of the same evolutionary processes which produced all other organisms. We are not “above” other organisms, but relatives.

“Glory to Man in the highest! for Man is the master of things” wrote Swinburne, my favourite poet. The words are marvellous rhetoric, intended to shock mid-nineteenth century piety, but today, if taken seriously, they would be a recipe for an ecological nightmare. If any other species of animal had caused a quarter as much destruction of life (including annihilation of whole species), degradation of landscape, fouling of the seas and pollution of the air as humanity has, we would have declared such an animal – however smart and intelligent – to be dangerous vermin and would be spending vast resources on destroying it.

Well, here is makes an error stating that other animal species don’t contribute to the extinction of others. This is patently false, as anyone familiar with the destruction caused by invasive species can attest. As far as our pollution and manipulation of landscapes, we should try to minimize our pollution levels and ecological damage. I think this individual is being a bit reactionary here.

Oh, yawn. At first thought this might be something different. But it’s just the same old, “human hubris will destroy the planet “claptrap,

I’m more worried about human greed to result in our own destruction, the planet will still be here.

but believing we are “just part of nature” will convince us to be humble and usher in a new Eden. (See the last paragraph.)

Eden? No, understanding we are just as intertwined with the rest of the planet will give us reason to be careful when exploiting a resource beyond the limit at which it is sustainable.

But if we are not exceptional, why should we care what we do to the planet?

Because we are very closely connected to this planet and the other organisms within it.

Or to put it another way, if being human is not what gives us the duty to treat the planet responsibly, what on earth does? Hmmmm?

Our own self-serving nature and desire to survive. How about that for a motive? It doesn’t require you to ignore all evidence that indicates humans are not special among animals and it doesn’t require a deity, and it doesn’t allow you to make up excuses for exploitation of resources beyond sustainability.

Oh boy

Brother Paul Stein seems to be a bit ignorant when it comes to biology, so let’s explore what he thinks about evolution, shall we?

The Gregorian University in Rome recently held a congress on “Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories.” It unveiled two mistaken views on evolution.

Good on them…

On the one hand there is the creationist who claims that the world began only 10,000 years ago. He denies an incredible amount of scientifically discovered facts because they do not fit into his mental structure of the universe and his views about God. He sees a foe in evolution, and has not realized that if God made the world, He would not have made it contradictory to Himself.

Good so far…

On the other hand there are the unscientific scientists whose sacred rule states that anything not understandable by the mathematical and physical sciences is illusionary or irrelevant.

Those darn scientists with their requirement for evidence, how unscientific of them. I mean, if you have no evidence to support a claim, that claim is just as valid as the null, right?

It really is a “scientist creed” that they follow, a philosophy and a metaphysics masquerading as true science.

So, tell me, what is “true science” if it doesn’t involve tangible, measurable reality?

The result is that the Stephen Dawkins’ of the world start doing a biological metaphysics and talking about how evolution ‘proves’ there is no God.

Who? Do you mean Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins? I’ll assume Richard Dawkins, but his argument isn’t that such a thing doesn’t exist, but that we have as much reason to think it exists as we do faeries, sentient pasta, and celestial teapots.

It is because of scientists like these that the creationists have created a fissure: if evolution means no God, believers are forced into rejecting evolution completely.

Really? I thought many religious people were doing that LONG before those scientists were around. They rejected the non-teleological nature of natural selection. I believe you made one of them a saint. (Mivart)

The truth is that both of these positions are fanatical.

Yes, I’m so crazy to want evidence for scientific claims. Put me in an asylum.

One bases everything on a personal interpretation of a book inspired by God, the other on the observations of a limited scientific field extrapolated to the whole of reality.

Wait, what? You mean extrapolating biological observations in mice to use as models for human diseases goes too far? How is the field limited? Certainly not in evolutionary biology.

As Simon Conway Morris, professor of Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge, told me during the congress, we are not fighting to see which side wins the evolution war. We are looking for the truth. How did the world come to exist? Why does it exist? Any one who is doing scientific politics is in the wrong boat. Truth is not a two-party system.

I actually like this quote.

One of the most important aspects brought to the light by the congress at the Gregorian was the difference between the systems of evolution proposed by Darwin, Chardain, and Werner.

Nope, I ignore Chardin and Werner. I prefer Fisher, Mayr, Dobzhanzky, and Haldane… I ignore them for the same reason I mostly ignore Ken Miller; their ideas tends to be seeping with claims lacking any evidence. Oh, there I go again with my need for evidence (ANY evidence) when someone makes an extraordinary claim, like “we have a soul” or “we are special” when biochemically, neurologically, cellularly, and genetically, we are very similar to all other organisms to varying degrees.

The natural tendency is to throw all of these together under a generic title: but that’s nothing less than an injustice to many and a boon to few. It is equivalent to sticking Jews, Christians, Catholics, Moslems, Hindus, and Buddhists under one label and saying they believe the same thing.

But I never claimed Darwin, Chardin, and Werner were saying the same thing, I just said that Chardin and Werner were full of shit, Darwin admitted his ignorance, the other two made up answers to what was unknown. I’m OK with ignorance, I’m not OK with fabrication. Also, comparing theology to science really pisses me off. And another thing, learn to spell; it’s “Muslim.”

If we are ever going to get past the name calling that today’s evolution debate so often boils down to, we need to study the facts. The true facts.

Yay, let’s do it, facts, I like facts, numbers, images, you know, EVIDENCE. That silly thing you tried to dismiss earlier.

As an example of how much evolutionary theories diverge, all we need to ask is which “tools” the theory says nature uses in order to evolve.

Good idea, there’s genetic drift, selection, mutation, migration bias, among others. Which would you like to start with?

Then again, the role of finality, directionality, predictability, and chance in evolution are open ended questions.

Do you mean teleology? Well, that’s simple, evolution isn’t teleological, there is no finality unless a lineage goes extinct. It is predictable if there is selection or migration bias acting on a certain population and we know what it is and the magnitude of it. We also need to know about gene flow, possible sample bias, and present allelic frequencies, but yes, in the short term, we can predict it. We can also predict it in the very long term given certain circumstances. We can also predict what other organisms exist retrospectively given specializations of other organisms; particularly flowers pollinated by only one species or animals with only a single food source. (e.g. Xanthopan morganii praedicta was expected to exist because of the specialization of the flower of Angraecum sesquipedale) The role of chance in evolution deals with events such as storm-dispersion of plants and animals, specific mutation probabilities, and variability in presently insignificant traits.

What this means that while most are agreed on the law,

What law?

no one is certain about the mechanism of the law.

Again, what law?

It is similar to agreeing that there is a universal law of gravity but without agreeing on the formula.

Evolution isn’t a law, it is a theory, there is also the theory of gravitation in addition to the law of gravitational forces. Laws predict VERY specific things, theories are general, like the germ theory of disease or the cell theory.

If that’s the case, however, the disagreement is really about what gravity, and evolution, really are.

No, it’s about ways to PREDICT them, the disagreements over formulas are about how we predict these things, not if they exist or what they are. Theories are models, laws are formulas. Biology has very few laws because organisms and populations tend to have many compounding factors in their interactions.

What conclusion can we draw from all this? Evolution is real: there are organisms that evolve.

Yes…

Evolution is not a fact, however, because a law is never a fact, but a rule describing the facts.

No, the modern theory of evolution is not a rule, it is a theory which both predicts additional facts AND explains existing facts. Evolution is also a fact in that evolution does happen. Equating the theory of evolution (how evolution happens) to the fact of evolution (that animals evolve) is grounds for revocation of your thought privileges, although it seems you’ve already lost this.

Evolution has not been proven because we still need a lot more work done

Yep, there is, for example: which speciation model is the most frequently occurring and how does sympatric speciation occur. In other words, must physical isolation exist or can populations diverge based upon novel alleles or behaviors (color or food preference in specific lineages).

on the subject of macroevolution: the jump to a new species.

Jump? What jump? There is no saltation between one species and another, it’s gradual, the demarcation of interbreeding is similarly quite fuzzy. Biology isn’t cut and dry, black and white; deal with it.

What is known for certain is that we have no other theory that can better describe the biological facts that we possess.

Well, that and a lack of contrary evidence…

Looking at it from the opposite angle, we can say that God is not outside nature working against it or in spite of it;

Can you? How do you know? If this deity is not outside of nature, then that means we should be able to observe this deity and find out where he or she or it has been hiding all this time. Now be a good boy and go find some evidence.

He works with it and through it.

How? How does this deity interfere with the natural processes? More importantly, why? Even more importantly, couldn’t this deity have done a better job guiding the evolution of our eyes?

So the proposition of God does not rule out evolution, while evolution in general remains the best and most convincing explanation we have if we look at the facts.

This could be read: “if a deity exists, evolution can still be real, but if a deity doesn’t exist, evolution is still real”

The decision is no longer about which school one belongs to or which side comes out on top.

It never was, reality isn’t a popularity contest. Facts should not be voted upon and the objective data indicate very strongly “evolution.”

We must discuss what it is that the particular evolution theory being used really proclaims and what rules and principles it uses.

Got a few weeks?

We must look for the truth without prejudice or narrow-mindedness to discover the reality of our world.

Yes, we must; when you have some reality to present with your frivolity, let me know.

Google Trends

In case you’re wondering what the hell this has to do with biology or why I’m interested, I would encourage you to go there and look at the search volumes for the following:

genetics, genomics, gene, adhd, histone, protease, physiology, histology, etc.

You’ll notice an interesting pattern, there are decreases in search volume during the summer months and at the end of December. I ask you, what does this correlate to? It’s actually a rather nice fit with when classes are going on. Compare this with a baseline with a relatively static rate of searches such as “porche” or “lexus” depending upon search volumes. (I chose high end automobiles with poor fuel economy here for a reason.) These comparative statistics allow us to see what news stories actually did generate interest in various science-related subjects when you exclude the baseline fluctuations observed as a result of being in school versus on break.

Have fun with it and share your observations.

Ideas

I have a few ideas bouncing around inside of my skull which I may elaborate on later, but here are some subject lines

On the technology and business end

1. Automation as a means to eliminate human errors in medical and chemical analysis in the lab
2. Automation as a means to decrease costs of manufacturing complex machines and equipment
3. Standardized component modularity as a means to increase competition
4. 3D printers capable of producing parts in a variety of materials for component replacement (metals, plastics, and silicates)

On the science and research end

1. Incorporation of new techniques such as rapid genome sequencing equipment for research rather than using older techniques with lower throughput. This would save a considerable deal of time; I know grad students work for cheap, but this would allow for faster results.
2. Establishing a means of incorporating science into popular culture through having the scientifically literate informing television and film producers.
3. Open access publishing.
4. Review articles published separately in special open access formats.
5. Having the scientists conducting research to write the press releases, or at least have the final say in their printing.

Social and political ideas

1. Politicians cannot receive income from companies or individuals. Campaign finances should remain separate from the individual’s other income sources.
2. Any politician voting on a matter he or she is not thoroughly familiar should be removed from the office he or she holds.
3. Educational systems (secondary) should be nationalized with educators trained in the field they teach, not required to hold a bachelor’s in “education” but also a bachelor’s or higher in mathematics, English, chemistry, physics, psychology, biology, world geography, political science, economics, etc.
4. Utilizing the collegiate style education in high schools with only a single lecture for all students of the class with multiple lab-type classes for supplemental instruction.

I’m a scientist, not a physician

But this website thoroughly pisses me off. I was feeling a little masochistic and decided to go through my spam folder looking for those occasional gems of woo. Here is what I found:

Strengths of the Medical Profession

First, gain a healthy perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of those we depend upon for guidance.

Very woo sounding, let’s see?

The medical profession has a good record of accomplishment in trauma intervention. It does not have such a good record in the treatment of degenerative diseases such as cancer, coronary heart disease, and arthritis. Harvard-trained M.D., Andrew Weil, in his 1995 bestselling book Spontaneous Healing,

Andrew Weil? This guy? Great source for reliable information…

summarizes what conventional medicine can and cannot do for you:

Awesome, let’s see.

Can

Manage trauma better than any other system of medicine;

First of all, what other “system of medicine” is there other than MEDICINE. I know, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Quackery will object, but seriously, can we get some evidence?

diagnose and treat many medical and surgical emergencies; treat acute bacterial infections with modern antibiotics; treat some parasitic and fungal infections; prevent many infectious diseases by immunization; diagnose complex medical problems; replace damaged hips and knees; get good results with cosmetic and reconstructive surgery, and it can diagnose and correct hormonal deficiencies.

Ok, let’s see what wool he’s pulling over our eyes…

Cannot

Treat viral infections;

In other words, antiviral drugs don’t exist?

cure most chronic degenerative diseases;

You forgot to include the word “yet” in there. Many scientists and physicians are working on treating and curing many of these diseases. I even wrote about one type of treatment for the canine form of muscular dystrophy.

effectively manage most kinds of mental illness; cure most forms of allergy or autoimmune disease; effectively manage psychosomatic illnesses, or cure most forms of cancer.”

Pretty much every type of cancer is very different. Treatments for each of them vary. Once these cells metastasize, it becomes very difficult to find and selectively kill them. We are developing a number of techniques to treat this problem ranging from antimetastatic drugs, highly specific apoptotic agents, and other types of treatments which only affect the cancerous cells. But let’s go back to the claim that evidence-based medicine cannot cure most forms of cancer. Are you talking about the most common forms of cancer? Bladder, skin, breast, colonorectal, endometrial, lung, leukemia, and prostate cancers have VERY high survival rates. Of these, lung cancer is perhaps the most lethal at around 30% survival rate and non-melanoma skin cancer having the lowest lethality with a survival rate of 99.9%. Overall cancer survival rates among the ten most common cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) is slightly over 70%. If you want to go by how many types of cancer we can treat, then yes, obviously, we can’t cure most of them because they are TOO RARE to merit substantial research when the common forms still need additional research.

Doctor Weil also holds this opinion:

I don’t really care about opinions…

“Do not seek help from a conventional doctor for a condition that conventional medicine cannot treat, and do not rely on an alternative provider for a condition that conventional medicine can manage well.”

So, if they can only treat the symptoms and make life easier, I should go to a guy that has no understanding of medicine and hope his magic pills work?

Even after adjustment for age, the percentage of Americans dying from cancer is about the same as it was in 1950.²

Probably because “natural causes” includes cancer, but hell, just make up statistics and pretend they mean something if that makes you feel better.

Despite this fact, the medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research that underpins its approach to cancer treatment today.

It’s an artificially skewed number. If you decide to use inaccurate data to support your conclusion, that conclusion is a result of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive bias.

This Report contains numerous statements and conclusions from medical and scientific publications as well as highly qualified experts in the field regarding cancer treatment today. You must discuss them with your doctor. I have no doubt these assertions will surprise and unsettle you, but they will be extremely useful as you and your doctor search for additional knowledge to beat your cancer.

Yea, it’s an attempt to get people to buy into your woo. I prefer my medicine with evidence.