Injecting Botox Into Stomach Does Not Promote Weight Loss

Injecting botulinum toxin A (BTA), or Botox, in to the stomach had been believed to hold off emptying of the belly, increase feelings of fullness and reduce bodyweight. Researchers enrolled 60 obese patients in a 24-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, hidden allocation trial to compare the consequences of BTA to placebo. They discovered that the shot slowed movement of food through the abdomen, but it did not cause weight reduction. Mark Topazian, lead writer of the analysis and teacher of medication in the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. A prior study experienced indicated that Botox was an encouraging weight loss option. This scholarly research invalidates those findings since it is bigger, used ultrasound to ensure injections were properly placed, and limited bias by ensuring that neither doctors nor patients understood who received Botox and who received placebo injections.

Next, Posner transforms his attention to Europa, repeating the now tiresome intimation that Hoagland has tried to take credit for the task of Cassen, Peale and Reynolds on a liquid water sea under the ice crust of Europa. Within this he cites once more the obsessive campaign of Ralph Greenberg, a mathematician at the University of Washington with CSICOP ties who has made something of another career out of pushing this notion.

  • Appetite reduction
  • 06/05 383.8 (-2.2) Lost 3 pounds at WW meeting
  • Only Doing Long Sessions Of Cardio Exercise
  • Consultant fees – as necessary
  • The application suggests calories per meal based on your plan to encourage well informed meal choices
  • 1:Cardiovascular fitness 2: Muscular strength 3: Flexibility 4:Muscular endurance
  • Eat Less but gain weight

The problem of course is that Hoagland hasn’t claimed any such thing, and he has cited Cassen, Reynolds, and Peale in his original paper on the Enterprise web site and frequently in his on air performances. So again, we raise the relevant question, if Hoagland was seeking to take false credit, why would he cite the task of Cassen, Peale, and Reynolds, and then put it on his own web site for all the world to see? Hoagland is also widely believed to have been the first ever to deduce the tantalizing notion of an ocean, possibly harboring life, flowing under the icy crust of Europa (right), one of the moons of Jupiter.

This quite excellent idea has been taken seriously by a number of astronomers (notably NASA’s Institute of Space Studies, Dr. Robert Jastrow), and could provide among the best motives for the projected GALILEO Mission. Now, maybe it’s just me, but isn’t Clarke which make it clear above that Hoagland’s model is about life in the Europan oceans?

Isn’t that what Hoagland has said all along? I don’t see anything in Clarke’s statement that provides credit to Hoagland for anything apart from a model forever. Then, in early 1997, Greenberg occurred to see articles in Science News mentioning that the thought of a liquid-water ocean under the glaciers of Europa experienced first been suggested in 1971 by John S. Lewis. These next handful of paragraphs are pure CSICOP-serving pap. Posner makes it sound like Greenberg is some sort of independent entity, who “just occurred” to come quickly to his attention, when I understand for a known fact that Greenberg is within frequent connection with CSICOP users, if not a member himself.

And the idea that Greenberg in turn “just happened” to find articles on Europa is genuine nonsense. By his own admission, after hearing that Hoagland had a preeminent state to the model for life on Europa, Greenberg spent “dozens and dozens of hours” looking for any recommendations to overturn Hoagland’s claim. He has continued to push the theory that Hoagland is declaring to be the first ever to propose a liquid water sea there, when in fact it has never been Hoagland’s state.

Posner here admits that Hoagland does give credit to Cassen, Reynolds, and Peale, but this still evidently isn’t good enough. How can Hoagland be claiming false credit for the essential idea and at the same time be providing appropriate credit? This is another case, like the Pioneer plaque, where the historical academic record supports Hoagland clearly.