During each of the past ten years, an average of 32,000 people died from the flu. This certainly qualifies influenza as a major threat to public health. The federal government has responded in kind, spending approximately $430 million on flu research, vaccinations, and education every year. Given this high fatality rate, it's hard to imagine anyone arguing that such funding is undeserved.It makes perfect sense that the NRA and their fanatical adherents would want to prevent these types of studies. What do you think?
What if there were a second public health threat that killed an equal number of Americans each year, but instead of combating it, Congress explicitly banned research into its causes?
This seems absurd and irresponsible, but it is exactly what happened nearly two decades ago with research on gun violence. In 1996 Republicans in Congress imposed a ban on federal funding to support research into the underlying causes and prevention of gun violence, which kills more than 30,000 Americans a year.
This is why when Congress reconvenes after the presidential inauguration, House Republicans should immediately bring President Obama's gun safety plan to a vote.
In the same way that research into motor vehicle accidents led to safer cars and a dramatic reduction in traffic fatalities, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should study gun violence as the public health crisis that it is. But the National Rifle Association protested when the CDC, prior to the ban, determined that homes with guns had a significantly greater risk of gun-related homicide and suicide than those without firearms present.
Please leave a comment.
Mike Jimmy Carter tried that it proved him wrong. http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/#sW4iqit6KETxdPow.01
ReplyDeleteDo you even think about this stuff or just repeat what your betters have told you?
DeleteThe study you're referring to looked at the existing laws which were wholly inadequate. Of course they didn't have a positive effect. Proper gun control, which we've never had, would. It's that simple.
Otherwise, why isn't the NRA and the gun lobby pushing for more studies? Why are they blocking them if they would prove the pro-gun position right?
It isn't that simple. You have no evidence to guarantee that your proposals would do what you claim. We're not willing to give up our rights for your guesses.
DeleteYour side can do all the studies you want--just not with my tax dollars. Feel free to waste your money as you choose.
ReplyDeleteAre you also opposed to the influenza studies which save lives?
DeleteHe is afflicted with the perpetuity of ignorance. Like most of today's Americans, he opposes what he cannot conceive of.
DeleteI pronounced E, an pronounced N, you love to make vague claims. Be specific.
DeleteMikeb, money spent to fight influenza violates no one's rights. The flu virus has no good use, outside of research and making vaccines, and working with it requires specialized skill. Firearms, by contrast, have many legitimate uses and can be used proficiently with only a little study.
This again comes back to the question of trust. Because we can't trust your side, we can't give you anything. We know you won't give anything in return.
Kellerman and other epidemiologists have conclusively shown that there is a danger to a gun in the house, that it makes you more likely to be a murder victim. Of course the NRA would try to suppress this excellent research. But we will have it again. CDC will be issuing grants on this score. I will be applying for one.
ReplyDeleteAnd depending on how low their standards are, you might get one. If you think Kellerman's work was excellent research, this tells me everything I need to know about your scientific judgement.
DeleteYeah? What's a case-control study, Greg? YOu know anything about epidemiology? Logistic regression? Odds ratios? What's the difference between an odds ratio and a risk ratio?
DeleteActually, the underlying problems with utilizing the public health/epidemiology model are a significant part of the problems with the work by both Kellerman and others. It also played a part in the restrictions placed on the CDC, as did the statements by some within the CDC that suggested a biased agenda. While there are other sources that discuss this, here's a good place to start (be advised, these articles cover more than just Kellerman and the CDC):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/article.asp?issn=2152-7806;year=2012;volume=3;issue=1;spage=133;epage=133;aulast=Faria
The second part is here:
http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/article.asp?issn=2152-7806;year=2012;volume=3;issue=1;spage=135;epage=135;aulast=Faria
Those articles are editorials, written by a physician. Most physicians are not scientists. They are best regarded as mechanics. So, don't reference editorials. No one reviews editorials, and the editor can say anything he wants. Most editorials are worthless crap.
DeleteIt was indeed an editorial. It did not pretend to be any form of original research. It also sited a number of sources that I'd hope people might actually read. All that said, I'd be glad to toss out all editorials as well as articles that descend to editorializing. Fair enough?
DeleteI acknowledge that many physicians are not the best researchers. So, based on your comments. I presume we can dispense with all the "firearms as a public health issue" nonsense? Make up your mind as to how you want to proceed, but please be consistent.
There are amazing lies and total distortions in those "discussions". It's straight propaganda. When you are the editor, you can publish any shit you want and no one can tell you not to.
DeleteWhat's even funnier is that this "journal" is one of the new "predatory" publication journals. This crap was published in Volume 3, 2012. A huge number of journals have been started recently to get stupid people to pay HUGE fees for publication. This journal is one of these. This is not a real science journal, it's a scam journal. And of course gunsucks believe any shit they read where guns are considered good. Retired Mustang, you should try to learn something. You're just ignorant.
Kellermann is an epidemiologist and an emergency doc. He's a scientist.
Delete90% of docs are mechanics. As I noted, "Most physicians". That is not all physicians. Some small percentage of physicians are scientists. Most are not.
Nice try. I, too, noticed the age of the journal. Thus my suggestion that people read the sources cited as well as to perform their own evaluation of the original research, when available. It takes a while, but it's worth it. And please, calling me, or anyone else names, is a sign of weakness. You could, as an alternative, actually analyze the sources and give us the benefit of your analysis. I'd certainly like to see it.
DeleteWell, even with an older, more established journal, I always suggest people go to the sources cited. It's just a good idea. After all, we are all subject to being misinformed by others, even by those who might mean well.
DeleteThe tendency to obey "The First Law of Graduate Work" (make sure your findings support your conclusions) is an ever present danger in all research.
DeleteThere's a fellow who studies and follows the predatory publishing world. We might be able to get a lot of editors to resign from this piece of trash. So thanks for that.
DeletePerhaps so. I'm still interested in your analysis of the cited sources.
DeleteAdmittedly, it's been several years since I did any work in epidemiology, but I'm willing to dive back in on a limited time basis if you are.
DeleteInterestingly, unless I've missed it (which is entirely possible), I don't find this journal on Beall's List of Predatory Publishers or listed there as an individual journal. Perhaps you could point out where I overlooked it?
DeleteHere's a note:
DeleteThanks a million for forwarding me this. I am going to share this news (not your email) with my librarian colleagues. Having examples like these helps my case a lot, so thanks much.
It was in the face of poorly designed studies and a clear bias on the part of those conducting such studies that the restrictions were instituted. The testimony before congress is a matter of public record. Why not look at it?
ReplyDeleteWe are supposed to be cutting back on spending now. How much tax payer money did the CDC spend to say "people who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide with a gun"? If they are committed to doing unbiased research that examines violent crime and murder rates, or also examines positive uses of guns I wouldn't mind them doing some studies for us to point to. Many of us on the side of liberty have already assembled raw correlation data. I'll send them my stuff for free to keep the cost down.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of Retired Mustang pointing me to the grotesque prostitution of science by the surgical clown, I am going to get this guy in more trouble than he realizes. Here's an interesting case:
ReplyDeletehttp://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?s=surgery+editorial+semen
Surgeons are often considered the clowns of medicine. You need to have a specific personality as a surgeon - a bull-headed moron who never sees the stupid things he is doing.
I've sent off notes to a couple people, and we'll see if stirring this pot has any effect.
I filed a complaint with Pubmed. Maybe I can get this journal delisted.
DeleteNext I am doing plagarism detection. Looks like it may be a high prob of cheating.
DeleteI'm sure your efforts will receive all the attention they so richly deserve. Do keep us apprised of your progress.
DeleteTo all who commented on this topic,
ReplyDeleteYesterday, I allowed myself to be drawn into an infantile "who can get in the last word" type argument. It was disrespectful of your time, Mike the blog owner and the topic. So, I offer my apologies to all of you. I'll endeavor to be more appropriate in my comments in the future.
No problem.
Delete