> A toxicological screening of the “white curdled material” had detected codeine but not morphine. But Koren had claimed that the gastric contents “exhibited high morphine” levels—with no mention of codeine—“ruling out administration of Tylenol-3 to the baby.”
> “I don’t know what happened in that house, on that night, but I do know that someone gave this baby crushed Tylenol-3,” likely mixed in breast milk or formula. “That’s the only way these numbers make sense.”
Does no one care that this is potentially a murder case?
I'd guess that everybody involved (including the coroner's office) tacitly understands that even if the baby was deliberately or negligently killed, there's very little chance after 20 years of finding evidence of who did it, in order to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And if there's no chance of a conviction, there's no benefit to anybody from reopening the investigation.
The scientific case about infant opioid poisoning in general is a separate issue, of course. But assigning blame in this particular case doesn't have any bearing on that.
> And if there's no chance of a conviction, there's no benefit to anybody from reopening the investigation.
It's probably true that without a chance of conviction, standard protocol dictates that public resources should not be expended on reopening the investigation. But I was also heavily distracted while reading the article, scanning optimistically for the happy (under the circumstances) ending where justice is served. I certainly don't think there is "no benefit to anybody".
Serious question: if the chance of evidence leading to a convistion is very very small, what would be the benefit of opening an investigation? Just to go through the motions on principle? And what would they even investigate?
One benefit is demonstrating at least a facade of seeking justice. Also, obscuring a crime for personal benefit is itself a crime.
> Does no one care that this is potentially a murder case?
Did we read the same article? Why are you so quick to jump the gun here?
> Koren obtained a sample of Rani’s breast milk, which she had kept in her freezer. His lab measured its morphine concentration at eighty-seven nanograms per millilitre.
If this is in the breastmilk, it will end up in the stomach, and it may end up in gastric contents. I don't understand this urge to demonize the parents, who on top of having lost a child, have to stand these witchtrials.
Are you Koren? Did we read the same article? The one that calls into question anything Koren says or claims?
From the article I read:
"A twelve-day-old infant cannot crawl. It cannot grab, and it cannot put something into its own mouth. “It also cannot swallow a Tylenol-3 pill,” Juurlink told me. “I don’t know what happened in that house, on that night, but I do know that someone gave this baby crushed Tylenol-3,” likely mixed in breast milk or formula. “That’s the only way these numbers make sense.”"
Also relevant to the quote selected by 'steelbrain:
> Recently, Parvaz Madadi has undergone a painful process of revisiting her past work and memories. [...] She added that she had no confidence in the measurement of Rani’s breast-milk sample, because it had been handled by Koren’s lab.
There is a lot to process in this long article. The quote selected by 'steelbrain, concerning Koren's measurement occurs very, very early on, and much of the rest of the article is about contrasting Koren's early presentations of the material against others' testimony. It's worth reading the whole thing
To 'steelbrain: cherry-picking one single quote out of a nuanced article does the journalism here a dire disservice. It's okay for different people to have different beliefs and takeaways from the article. However, your own defense of the biological mechanism here is directly argued against in the "same article" you are admonishing others over reading. That is not conducive to a discussion in good faith.
> If this is in the breastmilk, ...
Note that you and GP are talking about different values of "this." GP is talking about codeine, you're talking about morphine. The difference between the two is at the crux of this article.
> I don't understand this urge to demonize the parents, who on top of having lost a child, have to stand these witchtrials.
Neither the article nor the commenter you replied to has demonized the parents. Yes, both the evidence discussed in the article and the opinions of those interviewed indicate direct administration of a pharmaceutical; it is appropriate to discuss this. Nobody has pointed the finger at anyone; it would indeed be quite inappropriate for such a discussion to be held in this forum.
The article goes into detail about how this level of morphine in the breastmilk could not have given the baby a lethal (or even clinically effective) dose.
Furthermore, Koren lied about what the tests showed the stomach contents to be: he omitted codeine entirely. Codeine (per the article) would not be expected to be transferred by breastmilk -- it's metabolized into morphine to be effective.
Such a distressing yet believable story where ambition overtook integrity … I hope Lancet improves its handling of such case studies.
The idea of an opioid OD from breast milk immensely strains credulity in the first place. Such a claim should really have been put under much more of a microscope.
Great read.
> He asked Rieder about the case.
> “Oh, we made it up,” Rieder replied.
Interesting anecdote. Something to keep in mind.
I'd just like to invoke Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
I'd just like to invoke the principle to "not judge a book by its cover".
The article here is very well written and does a great job of conveying the perspectives and opinions of many parties. I would recommend reading the article in spite of its headline.
I would suggest that when there's a possible crime, as there would be in this case, even a clearly guilty murderer caught red-handed holding a knife and screaming "I DID IT" will be an "alleged" perpetrator.
The article clearly lays out that the answer is yes. It points to specific ways the researcher adjusted their reporting to mislead readers. I think the key here is where Koren attempts to specifically account for the stomach content explanation: he misrepresents the lab results and claimed they showed the opposite of what they did.
It's a rhetorical device.
Humans are fallible. Humans have egos. Humans can be intentionally dishonest.
But the Scientific Method is the only functional bullshit detection system we have. When it is allowed to work, science corrects itself and excises the falsehoods.
It’s a shame that outsized egos within The Lancet and other orgs are still very much in play.
the Scientific Method is really just one method of science. It's a very good one, but it has strict requirements that can't be met in all studies.
This is a nuanced point that anti-science people often get wrong.
The existence of fraudulent studies, dishonest researchers, the replication crisis, etc. does not invalidate science as an institution. It just means we need to be careful about distinguishing between individual opinions and the scientific consensus. We also need to keep in mind that the consensus is never 100% correct; it's always subject to change and we need to update our beliefs as new evidence comes in.
It means we need to be careful about distinguishing scientific consensus, and truth. Science can be used to find truth, but that is the science itself, not the consensus.
Ironically, being anti-science is pro-science. Skepticism of institutions and consensus is the scientific method.
The main reason being scientific consensus can lag reality significantly, especially when career incentives discourage dissent. The history of science includes many cases where consensus was wrong and critics were marginalized rather than engaged.
Deference to science as an authority is the opposite.
Feynman has a quote on this:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says, 'Science teaches such and such,' he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, 'Science has shown such and such,' you might ask, 'How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?' It should not be 'science has shown' but 'this experiment, this effect, has shown.' And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments — but be patient and listen to all the evidence — to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at."
Somewhere there's a quote about how the old guard has to literally die out before certain new ideas can take root; even if the new idea is obviously correct.
I think we've been pampered by a few hundred years of rapid "scientific advancement" and now we're firmly in the area where things are not grade-school science fair easy to see or prove.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
>Ironically, being anti-science is pro-science. Skepticism of institutions and consensus is the scientific method
skepticism is necessary, but not sufficient.
if they merely nay-say institutions and then go with their gut, it's certainly not.
only when someone attempts to rationally disprove a position, offering alternate testable theories and actually performing those tests is science done.
if you suspect an institution is wrong, that's fine, but it's just a hunch until someone does a test.
> Skepticism of institutions and consensus is the scientific method.
Which is why one of the core tenets of practicing Science is “trust, but verify”.
Science is based on the trust of what came before.
But the fallible, ego-driven, and dishonest nature of humanity means that trust alone cannot be relied upon. Hence the “but verify”. That is why replication studies and falsification tests exist - to cull that which cannot be reliably replicated.
Unfortunately, capitalism has stepped in and f*ked up even that, when for-profit universities who rely on public funding place “publish or die” mandates on researchers. This makes any repeat experiments untenable because it takes researchers away from publishing new data. So they just cite prior papers and chase the latest shiny -- because their continued employment is predicated upon publishing.
We have perverse incentives in place that have distorted science, sure. And almost all of these distortions come directly down to a violently coercive economic system that forces you to be profitable to someone else least you suffer homelessness, destitution, and even death.
But what else is there? Belief in an insane, evil, and omnicidal sky-daddy?
Sorry, but no. We should counteract the sources of distortions by crushing capitalism and the corrosive influence of money, not switching over to systems that have always proven themselves to be supremely untrustworthy.
Skepticism needs to be calibrated based on the weight of the evidence. There's a broad spectrum from being skeptical about the latest overhyped study in subfield X to being skeptical about quantum mechanics. If you want to challenge established science, you need to bring the receipts. To quote Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Science as an "institution" serves only to protect egos, fraudsters, and politicians.
When citizen science is ridiculed and "the institution of science" is glorified this is what you get.
And anyone who dares to profess this, is a loony, a conspiracy theorist, an anti-scientific person, etc.
obviously the scientific method is perfect , but i think i remember reading that the majority of studies are non reproducible, so things clearly arent perfect in practice. if one truly believes in the fallibility of humans, they also believe in the fallibility of the applying the scientific method - how could the output of of a fallible process ever be non fallible? confounding variables, hidden variables, incomplete sample spaces, etc ... these cannot ever be accounted for with certainty , thus i trust the scientific method as much as any human lol
Doing a PhD, I got to see a tension first hand that clarifies the reproducibility question: most of the papers I read were visibly garbage, but reading papers was a necessary step in achieving tasks. Every student at some point tries to achieve their concrete tasks without sifting through the dung heap to see how other people lied about their approach to the tasks, and it doesn't work- the garbage is a necessary ingredient and or enough authors are truthful.
The best media representation I've seen of this process is the youtube channel Explosions&Fire, which attempts to replicate entertaining-looking chemistry papers. He's often mad at the authors of the papers he's using in any given episode, but following their breadcrumbs is still effective enough (compared to I guess mixing acids and stuff based on vibes?) that he keeps at it.