Showing posts with label Pseudoscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pseudoscience. Show all posts

Thursday, 15 April 2010

What a day it has been

Much of western Europe has had to close airspace because of volcanic dust from Iceland. I do not belittle this event. It serves as a reminder that the Earth is much bigger than we are.

Tonight we get the first ever live debate between the main contenders for prime ministerial office in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This will probably have one of the highest viewing figures ever recorded in the UK, for about 15-30 minutes. I am listening on the radio rather than viewing so I can do something else at the same time - blog and then probably fall asleep.

The British Chiropractic Association has dropped it's libel case against Simon Singh. That's good, a courtroom is not the place to decide scientific validity. Now the BCA should continue and provide a scientific reasoning for the treatments they practice. Otherwise it's still "bogus".

Then the best thing of all today. I just discovered The Merseyside Skeptics Society. And they have a podcast, and it's spot on! Even better is their spoof panel game InKredulous where they take "a satirical look at science and pseudoscience news".

Not a bad day after all :) Grow into these trousers... >>

Friday, 12 February 2010

Singh it loud, Singh it clear

Last summer I posted about Simon Singh’s court battle with the British Chiropractic Association. In an article in the Guardian, Singh was critical of unsubstantiated claims by chiropractic practitioners for its effectiveness in treating ailments far distant from bone and joint problems. The BCA did not respond with rational arguments to back up their claims but rather, sued Singh for libel and initiated a purging of their websites and public literature. This alone says much.

The UK’s libel law places the requirement for proof on Singh to demonstrate his claim of ‘bogus’ vs the BCA’s claim of effectiveness.

Singh is a single individual, chiropractic in the UK is huge. Surely such an organisation would not run scared from the truth? In the interests of their patients would they not be willing to examine their practices for the benefit of all? It seems not, and something is wrong when the law places corporate interests above the common good.

The libel laws themselves, in the UK, need to be re-examined.

If you are a blogger based in the UK go sign this petition. If you are outside the UK, sign it anyway to register your concern. It will not give you the right to slag things off as you wish, but it may go part way towards enabling your freedom of expression.

Asking for scientific evidence should not make you a defendant in court. Grow into these trousers... >>

Wednesday, 23 September 2009

Remove radioactive dirt 2½ times better

Here's one for nursemyra, if she's surviving the dust storms in Australia (and the post Rapture tribulation).

OK, take some everyday dirt and make it "radioactive" (OMFSM, I shudder to think what isotope). Now apply it to a young lady's face and clean it off with different soaps, cleansing and cold creams.

Take measurements with a Geiger counter which ticks at a constant rate.

Announce the efficacy of your product to the world! It's easy...

Shocking 1950's Commercial! [1:34]

-------------------------------------
via the all knowing Orac. Grow into these trousers... >>

Wednesday, 29 July 2009

Beware the spinal trap

Along with half the blogsphere today, I join in reposting Simon Singh's article from The Guardian which got him sued by the British Chiropractic Association. For the lowdown read Orac.


Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae". In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: "Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck."

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.


Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Grow into these trousers... >>

Thursday, 23 July 2009

Dara O'Briain on science, or not

LMAO!

Homeopathy & Nutritionists vs Real Science!

-------------------
Via PZ Myers. Grow into these trousers... >>

Thursday, 9 April 2009

This is too good to miss

My feelings exactly.

From Hell's News Stand - where you can download a poster size version - via Respectful Insolence. Grow into these trousers... >>

Wednesday, 18 March 2009

Amanda Gefter - How to spot a hidden religious agenda

Last month I posted about a New Scientist article by Amanda Gefter reminding us all How to spot a hidden religious agenda. If you visit that NS link now you see this:
New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.
What? This was good article and deserves to be read by a wide audience, especially in the UK where the ill conceived idea of 'Intelligent Design' is creeping into the science teaching of some schools.

The internet wins again because the article is now re-posted all over. Read it, and beware the next time you open a newspaper, view television, or review your kid's school curriculum. I wait to see who (note the singular) has made the 'legal complaint' and why.
------------------------
Via everyone in science blogosphere. Grow into these trousers... >>

Sunday, 15 March 2009

MMR and autism / Reality FTW

Ben Goldacre, Guardian columnist and blogger of Bad Science fame, had a spot on ITV London news last week. I'll re-post it here for the rational amongst us.

The story goes back to early this year when LBC Radio presenter Jeni Barnett paraded her ignorance live on air with a mind numbing, hour long, screech against MMR vaccination. Ben posted the audio but was swiftly ordered to delete it by LBC's lawyers. Of course, in true internet fashion, it then spread even more widely. I heard it via The Lay Scientist (whose blog page features in Ben's report - kudos Martin), and blogged about the issues here and here. You can currently listen to Jeni's diatribe on YouTube, where are the lawyers now?

Anyway back to the point, Ben made this clip to respond to the irresponsible, scaremongering, poorly educated Jeni Barnett's of this world, enjoy:



Tips for mainstream media:
  1. A balanced argument is not about giving equal air time to the guy with the 'portents of doom' sandwich board.
  2. The plural of anecdote is not data.
  3. Measles is not a trivial childhood illness - MEASLES KILLS.
Grow into these trousers... >>

Saturday, 28 February 2009

It needs saying - keep on the lookout

Amanda Gefter at New Scientist:

How to spot a hidden religious agenda

Quote:
Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
Grow into these trousers... >>

Monday, 9 February 2009

There is some sanity.

In the comments to yesterday's post on MMR vaccine, Liz Ditz sent a link to her overview of web responses to the Wakefield issue. It's an impressive list and well worth a visit. It's good to know there are so many people who will speak up for evidence and reason.

One thing I'd like to know though, and not to put too fine a point on it, why do anti-vaxers invariably come across as nutjobs? Grow into these trousers... >>

Sunday, 8 February 2009

MMR / autism - Original data fraudulent?

After last Friday's report of the worrying rise in cases of measles in the UK, the Times Online today publishes an investigation into the doctor responsible for causing the initial fears about the MMR vaccine and its (non-existent) link to autism.

In February 1998 Andrew Wakefield published a paper in The Lancet following 12 children after their MMR jabs. The Times Online continues:
It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.
However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.
This is damning stuff if true. Following Wakefield's paper children's vaccination rates fell from over 90% to less than 80%. About 95% is needed to ensure group immunity, hence the increase in cases of measles.

However the end of BBC link above reveals:
Dr Wakefield is still adamant that the scientific results of his 1998 study are still valid. In a statement, he said: "The clinical and pathological findings in these children stand as reported." He has welcomed moves by the General Medical Council to examine how he carried out his research. "I not only welcome this, I insist on it," he said.
Good, nothing to worry about then. Except the findings reported by the Times.
For more, see the full Times article, and read Orac's response at Respectful Insolence.
Grow into these trousers... >>

Tuesday, 6 January 2009

I could be shocked, but maybe not

After the dubious medicine of yesterday, here comes the dubious medicine of yesteryear.

My mind boggles at the conversations Victorian gentlemen may have had about this utility belt:


"Go on, try it"
"Egads sir you first"
"Do you keep it on whilst...?"

Go to Cracked.com for The 10 Most Insane Medical Practices in History and don't miss page 2.

Note: there is no 'below the belt' link for this post. I value my family jewels too much! Grow into these trousers... >>

Monday, 5 January 2009

And you think you need medical treatment

It's true that high quality medical treatments have developed over the years, but we all still need to be aware of quackery and pseudoscience. Thus I was transfixed to hear Ben Goldacre on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning, and I had to sit half dressed on the edge of the bed and listen. The interview was about the benefits of ‘post holiday detoxification’ and could very easily have descended into bullshit, except for Dr Ben.

Go over to Bad Science where Ben has the audio of the interview. Listen first! Then read the rest of the post.

Ben nails them! Grow into these trousers... >>