In a presentation made at the
2nd Global Symposium on IGRAs Professor Tony Catanzaro
said that
The science tells us QFT should be more predictive
and then supplied the evidence supporting the science. After reviewing the evidence he then asks the audience to
tell me in what area are there solid data, information supportable by facts (as distinct by tradition) to support the preferential use of the TST application?
In his
closing remarks Dr Lee Reichman referenced comments made on the traditional skin test*
“ I am constantly astounded by the faith that clinicians have in this procedure…
…Under the best of circumstances these tests are worthless, and under the worst of circumstances they’re delusional.”
RE Chaisson, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1996; 22:668
Parallels can be made with the current debate on climate change; whilst the evidence from scientific bodies such as
NASA,
CSIRO,
Bureau of Meterology and the
American Academy of Scientists (amongst many others) is compelling and irrefutable there are those that continue to deny both the science and the evidence.
Senator Nick Minchin is on record denying that there is any link between the activities of man and climate change. After reading Senator Minchin's letter on the subject former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman said
"I am worried that a federal minister would believe this crap."
Senator Minchin is also
on record as denying the science linking tobacco smoke with addiction and cancer;
Senator Minchin wishes to record his dissent from the Committee’s statements that it believes cigarettes are addictive (1.25) and that passive smoking causes a number of adverse health effects for non-smokers
Senator Minchin was unable to provide
any credible evidence and his points were dismissed.
It is of concern when politicians are peddle junk science as truth for political gain.
*Update: this remark was made for anergy testing using the skin test