Yay it's time for homeopathy research with Dana Ullman!

So the good ol' Dana Ullman was arguing about homeopathy on twitter again. (I know tell you something new right?) and I asked for what he calls “good science” published in a peer review journal. He provided two links so for:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27460/

Which is a “Review of 4 high quality studies on respiratory allergies” according to him and “To test the hypothesis that homoeopathy is a placebo by examining its effect in patients with allergic rhinitis and so contest the evidence from three previous trials in this series.” according to the study objective. Sure why not, totally a review of 4 studies. Lets look at the paper though:

The intervention was “Random assignment to an oral 30c homoeopathic preparation of principal inhalant allergen or to placebo.” Alright, makes sense. What next? My favorite part:

“This trial, the fourth in a series, was designed in response to a challenge from an independent clinical team to contest the evidence from the three preceding trials that homoeopathic dilutions seem to differ from placebo”

Designed to contest evidence from THREE preceding trials. So why link to this one? No idea.

“These were not trials of treatments; they were designed to address the placebo hypothesis, using allergy as a model. In this study, as before, patients with atopic inhalant allergies received, randomly and double blind, either an oral 30c homoeopathic preparation of their principal allergen or a placebo. The previous trials studied effects in atopic patients with hay fever1,2 and asthma,3whereas this study focused on perennial allergic rhinitis. We report the results of this fourth trial and an overview of the series.”

Ohhhh so it also has an overview of the other studies. Good to know. Still not exactly a review of 4 studies but still. Now we know that the study was double blind and randomized right? Welll..... it's more complicated than that.

“At the start of the qualification period the doctor assessed each patient's history, allergy status, and nasal obstruction. The principal allergen determining the prescription was then chosen on the basis of the largest skin test weal concordant with the allergy history. In seven cases in which the prescriber had difficulty in determining the principal allergen, telephone advice was given by a doctor experienced in prescribing homoeopathic immunotherapy. The first of three phials of placebo corresponding to the principal allergen was then administered by the doctor on to the patient's tongue. Patients were unaware that the phials contained placebo, although the researchers were not blinded.
The following two weeks served jointly as the qualification and baseline period. At the second visit, qualifying patients were randomised by a restricted technique of permuted blocks of two,7 generated from random number tables and stratified for the indicated allergen. A double blinded prescription was immediately dispensed. The trial ended with a follow up visit four weeks later.”

(Bolding mine) So... not entirely double blinded then right? Why would you, in a double blinded study single blind the first round? Again, no idea. Also while the qualifications make sense why did they keep in the 7 cases that were difficult to determine? How valid was this telephone advice? I am wary of that personally but moving on.

“At the same time each morning and evening patients recorded three successive nasal inspiratory peak flow measurements. Before making these measurements patients oriented themselves by noting each morning (on a 0 to 4 integer scale) how their symptoms had interfered with their sleep and, each night, rating blocked, runny, or itchy nose symptoms, sneezing, and any eye and chest symptoms. Patients then recorded their daily overall visual analogue scale score. To allow comparison with our previous trials1–3 the identical wording was used: “Overall today I felt . . .” on a scale of 0-100 mm, where 0 is fine and 100 is terrible. Visual analogue scale scores are a recommended measure of the severity of rhinitis.16 Adverse events, including initial aggravations of symptoms as observed in our previous rhinitis trial,2 were documented by the patients, clarified by the doctor, and recorded on standard adverse experience report forms. Any use of conventional drugs was also noted.”

Any use of “conventional drugs” being noted? Why is that? Oh yeah because patients were allowed to use conventional medicine during the trial. Maybe that made some sort of difference? I would think so but then again, I am not a doctor, I am a psychologist.

Moving on to the analysis I loved this part:

“With a choice of 5% significance and 80% power, we estimated that 60 patients would be required in each group to avoid false negative results.” 60 patients would be required. But wait... lets go back up to the top of this very study to find... “51 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.” Well. No avoiding false negative results then. Moving on “To summarise our results, the original data19 from all four trials were pooled and analysed by an independent worker using Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis software” Wait. So this wasn't an independent study? It was more of an, we didn't like the results of the first trials so we're going to jimmy in some more patients rather than use the data like we said we would? “Statistical heterogeneity was assumed to be present when the P value for heterogeneity was less than 0.10, and therefore the random effects model was used “ Ohhhh well. Lets use a P=.10 because that's totally acceptable in most trials where at least P=.05 is the norm. Alright, whatever you say.

Into the results section. Maybe they explain why they didn't even get their own stated significance levels:

“Fifty one patients successfully completed qualification screening and were randomised (fig ​ (fig1).1). Because of the exacting screening, strict qualification criteria, and the prospectively defined requirement to stop enrolment before the pollen season, we did not recruit the number of patients that the power calculation had estimated we required.”

We did not recruit the number of patients that we required. So why are you continuing the study? Why didn't you screen enough people to get at least the 60 people you knew you required. Nonsense.

“Initial aggravations of rhinitis symptoms were provoked more by homoeopathy than by placebo. By 48 hours after randomisation seven (29%) patients in the homoeopathy group reported a worsening of rhinitis, two with wheeze, compared with two (7%) patients in the placebo group, neither of whom had wheezing (P=0.04, Fisher's exact test). By 14 days, 11 (46%) patients in the homoeopathy group had reported adverse events, 10 of whom had rhinitis related aggravations, compared with seven (26%) in the placebo group, five of whom had rhinitis related aggravations (χ2=3.28, P=0.07). In general, most aggravations were short lived, averaging four days, and all had resolved by day 16. Aggravations of rhinitis in patients who received homoeopathy seemed to point to a good outcome. Initial deterioration was followed by subjective improvement and a corresponding improvement in nasal inspiratory peak flow. Only one patient in each group resorted to conventional rhinitis drugs, and both took them for less than four days.”

Believe it or not I can see a reason this pattern may have occurred. Why? Because the first randomization set was not double blinded. It makes sense that the homeopathy group would report a worsening of symptoms since that is what patients are told to expect with homeopathy. The standard line is “you'll get worse before you get better” I should know. I used that line many times while I was in school for this stuff. Also the whole “aggravations of rhinitis in patients who received homeopathy seemed to point to a good outcome” thing makes perfect sense because it's likely that short lived events like rhinitis aggravations would regress to the mean quickly and because the initial sweep of treatments was not double blinded so over time the self induced symptoms would disappear just like the way homeopaths say they should since the person likely believes in it. Why do I say that? Because way back up at the top of the study there was this little line that mentioned that they were recruiting people that were familiar with homeopathy. Hmmmm that may have an impact when the blinding isn't exactly as is claimed.

“On average, over the last two weeks after randomisation, patients who received homoeopathy had a 28% improvement compared with 3% among those in the placebo group”

Well, given that in the first two weeks, as we have already seen, the homeopathy group had an increase in symptoms they had further to go to improve than the placebo group did. This change makes sense and DOESN'T make homeopathy different than placebo.

I am going to quote out much of the discussion here because it's fantastic:

“Although the objective measure consistently improved in all five centres, the subjective results were better than placebo in only four of the five centres and overall there was no difference between the groups. If the objective results are valid the discrepancy in the subjective measurements may be partly due to under recruitment compounded by aggravations and possible initial placebo responses during the run-in period in both groups, perhaps reflecting the positive expectations of the participants.23 Patients with rhinitis are keen to enter studies in their quest for better symptom control.24Subjective improvement began before the end of the placebo run-in phase in both groups, and this lessened the chance of distinguishing between the groups.25,26 A larger sample size may have shown a subjective difference between the groups. More initial aggravations occurred in patients who received homoeopathy, and this may have further complicated the subjective results. The pattern of temporary worsening followed by improvement, seen in this trial and observed in clinical homoeopathy for over 200 years,27,28 is not typical of placebo.”

So... objective measures are the same while subjective measures show no difference. Alright, I can buy that ignoring my previous issues with this. Did you catch the fantastic part? “ If the objective results are valid the discrepancy in the subjective measurements may be partly due to under recruitment compounded by aggravations and possible initial placebo responses during the run-in period in both groups, perhaps reflecting the positive expectations of the participants.23 Patients with rhinitis are keen to enter studies in their quest for better symptom control” That's right. The results may be partially due to under recruitment. Which the study had despite that last line there. Patients are keen to enter studies. So why did this one have under recruitment I wonder? Hmm.

There are no declared conflicts of interest for this study and I am curious to see if there is any link to homeopathy that I can find with a quick google search of the authors. Here I go:

Morag A Taylor, research associate:

I found a Morag Taylor that is a Neuroscience research assistant that seems to do falls and balance research. Doesn't seem right, but then neither does the only other Morag Taylor I can find involved in research: the one from the University of Leeds who, according tho their linked-in profile “I work as part of a large team within the colorectal cancer (CRC) research team. I am involved in several different projects looking at biomarkers of CRC both pre and post patient diagnosis, to better understand both disease progression and response to treatment respectively.” Again doesn't exactly seem like they would do a homeopathy study like this. Curious.

David Reilly, honorary senior lecturer in medicine:

Ohhh Score here:

“Dr David Reilly, Scottish Government's Lead Clinician for Integrative Care & Director of TheWEL and The Healing Shift Programmes.
Honorary Senior Lecturer in Medicine, The University of Glasgow.
Consultant Physician, The NHS Centre for Integrative Care. - See more at: http://www.gcph.co.uk/events/125#sthash.yNnc2GiH.dpuf”

I am leaving that link in because frankly it's too fantastic to pass up. He works in integrative care, I poked at his webpage and low and behold... he's a homeopath!

Robert H Llewellyn-Jones,lecturer:

He's a psychologist focusing on dementia, depression and other mood disorders What this has to do with allergies I have no idea. Apart from the two homeopathy trials he participated in I don't see anything else in his work that points to any reason to be participating in this research.

 Charles McSharry, principal immunologist :

Oh hey someone relevant! An immunologist that deals with asthma!

Tom C Aitchison, senior lecturer in statistics :

I can't find much on this guy except links to stuff he's published which seem to be on a range of mobility issues. Maybe he works with the Morag Taylor that works in falls and balance research. Or Robert Llewellyn-jones's work with aging people with dementia. No idea to be honest.

Overall I am not impressed with good ol' Dana Ullman's “research” here. He sent me a second one but I feel no need to take that piece of work apart as it was done for me by the lovely guys over at Skeptics with a K way back in about the second episode of their podcast. Bah Dana. Do better. 

Oh, here is the second link. Just for fun. Review of 3 high quality studies on childhood diarrhea: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634583 

Update

Update jul 30

I'm starting to feel better and while I'm far from 100% I am working regularly again and am getting out a bit. The deep depression I've been in is fading back away so I feel like I should be around again. I've been working through some posts for asexy on sex, and am working on ideas for queer transformations and a good night for science. I'll be trying to write a post during work for at least one of my blogs every day. I may resurrect on dread more to write about games. I am actually feeling excited to write for y'all so look for content soon

I love my readers and can't wait to get you some content. More importantly I can't wait to write

It feels good.

In the mind of a former believer

I was recently listening to the Skeptics with a K podcast and was interested in their bit about the recent psychic challenge they did. Now, if you are curious about that check out their podcast and website and such for details. No, it's the question they raised about what goes on in the mind if someone who believes they are psychic. As some know I used to be a believer in many different things - I was a huge proponent of pseudo-medicine, especially herbal medicine, I believed in fairies, spirits, mystical energy, chi, gods and more. I also did tarot readings and very much believed they could tell you a possible path. I believed I could see and feel auras and that they could tell me something about a person.

This gives me some insight into what a believer may be thinking and feeling when they do readings. Mind you this is one anecdote but I think it may be interesting to those who have never been in that position.

I could actually see the things I believed in. I saw fairies, spirits, and more. This is what led me to believe in them. I would follow a ritual to see the fairies, know what I should see and then proceed to be able to see it. This is a known psychological possibility but at the time it seemed too real to be an illusion. I spoke with them, danced with them, and some were even afraid of. The emotions provoked by these apparitions were real to me. I had no reason then to believe they were a product of my mind. Moreover my friends, who were also believers could see them too and corroborated my experiences. When I spoke to them I heard them out loud or in my head - depending on what seamed to be the whim of what I was speaking to. If I heard them out loud it really did seen like they were standing in front of me and taking to me as a person would. If they were in my head it was a distinct feeling of another mind, with its own personality, voice, accent etc. they really did seem to exist as an other.

I wasn't able to see auras or energy for quite a while, my brain just didn't seem to be able to do it. It took over a year of hard work and belief for me to actually see them. I could feel them - much like feeling a slight draft from an open door down the hall - and could sense them that way but there were no visual effects until I had put the effort in. After that I could see energy, chi and auras. They were often vivid in color though if they were muted it could tell you something as well. Even to this day I can choose to see moving swaths of color in time to music. I essentially can create my own mental light show. Now this isn't just in my minds eye feeling this looks like I am actually looking at something in front of me, something real and moving around and, while ephemeral, still real. Just as real as a beam of light hitting dust in the air. Nothing you can touch but something you can see. Auras seemed to exist surrounding anything alive and they came in a vivid array of colors and textures.

Tarot readings were something different though, I studied the meanings of the cards, the meanings of the symbols on them and I practiced over and over until I had a sense of what each card could represent. When I did a reading I would allow the person their privacy on how it relates to them and simply explain what each position and each card could represent. If it didn't resonate with them then it may be an aspect of the card that isn't its main, overall aspect. The tower can be destruction, a catastrophic end, and an unwanted event or if you take just the symbol of the tower being torn down it can be the removal of your barrier keeping an opportunity away, or a reminder that everything must end - even a fortress made of stone will someday crumble. All varied things and what I know now is that I was learning to cold read, to use this prop of cards that could mean so very many things to tell a person something in a way they hadn't heard or to confirm what is in their own mind. I do still believe that tarot, especially the oracle style decks, can be extremely useful as a tool to give your mind more props to see another side of a situation, but unlike when I was a practitioner, I don't believe they are or should be used for more than that.

Looking back now after three years of being a skeptic I know the varied ways and reasons for why I believed what I did but at the time it was very convincing. We ask for evidence but to someone like me when I believed I couldn't understand why you wouldn't believe. If seeing fairies was as simple as asking them to come and play why didn't non-believers just try. I had never realized that not everyone had the over active imagination that was needed for that kind of sight. Even in the faery faith community I wasn't the norm. I was gifted with the sight to be able to see them so easily. Many others I knew had gone years of study and faith without getting more than a feeling and a glimpse out of the corner of the eye. If I hadn't done the 180 to skepticism I would likely be still in that world - teaching others to feel and see as I did. I am grateful that I have come to this community however. A place where the majesty of the universe is celebrated and where I can strive to figure out what is real and what is there by suggestion and an over active imagination.

Update

So what is new in the life of me? I am sick as all get out. I caught the postCon cold and have been laid up coughing like crazy. It is obnoxious. I have however been writing -a lot- It just is not really blog material. I have written up three erotica scenes. Much fun ^_^ nothing to do with the book I am writing but still fun to write. The not so fun part? I sent them to the person who inspired them. At his request >.> Not my usual MO but should be interesting anyway.... <.< 

More later when I am not so drugged up. 

Some thoughts on TAM9

I will do a longer more exhaustive post later when I am not quite as sleep deprived as I still am now but here are my thoughts a mere 24 hours after arriving home from TAM...

Tuesday -
The day I arrived was frankly, a nightmare. I couldn't find an ATM to deposit the money I needed to pay for my room and ended up having to walk 3 mi round trip to the bank at 1300 in 100 deg F heat (around 37C) only to have my card declined when I tried (again) to check in. Two pissed off phone calls later and the lovely lady at the Southpoint canceled my whole stay except one night to get my card to accept. She then told me to come back Wends once the funds cleared and she would put it all back on for the conference price. (which I did and it all worked out)

What made it better? I didn't make it off the tile in the lobby when the wonderful Janice ran up and gave me a hug to say hi. What an awesome welcome to TAM. I went to the Del Mar after dropping my bags for a much needed drink and was met by none other than the Amazing Randi himself who shook my hand and gestured to sit next to him. I spent an enjoyable time with Randi, DJ Grothe and was eventually joined by Banachek as well. There were around 15 in our little circle of laughter and stories. A better welcome back I can't fathom. Definitely made up for the start. The pub was hopping that night with friends, laughter and good times.

Wends -
I am not a morning person on the best of days so I got up around noon and wandered down for some breakfast as per usual at Seattle's Best. Tea and a bagel in hand I found my fellow TAM people in the Del Mar and started my favorite TAM tradition - chatting and drinking. This is how I spent my day and it was lovely. The topics we covered were wide and varied but I was very happy to feel completely accepted admitting I am gender-fluid, asexual and do BDSM. I got lots of questions on what asexuality is and will be doing a blog post about that shortly. I had a lot of conversation about human sexuality, the idiosyncrasies of our behavior and more. It was great. I am feeling more and more accepted by the skeptical community and I love it. I actually feel like I belong when I am in our community. If I remember correctly we got our badges that afternoon (which were quite swank with pockets and the like) and Ellen and I squeed and bought Richard Wiseman's new book Paranormality (I will review this once I finish it)

Thursday -
The conference officially started with workshops all day. Again, I slept in, but I hear the morning workshop set was wonderful. I went to the SBM workshop as is my wont and loved it. The overarching themes of pseudo-medicine from the humunculus (sp?) to energy and more. My second workshop, after lunch, was my favorite of the conference: grassroots skeptical activism. Holy shit Desiree Schell, Lyz Liddell, and Brian Thompson rocked my socks off with an *actual* workshop (rather than a panel) and a kick-ass take home booklet as well. Words can not describe how awesome this is and the book is available from grassroots skeptic - how fucking awesome is that.

Dinner as per usual for Vegas was greasy and gross - vegi's don't have a huge selection in the casino. The conversation was spectacular and I got to meet all sorts of super cool people - like more PDX people! Two awesome peeps that live right down the road from me that I needed to go to Vegas to meet. Go figure.

Oh yeah - Drinking Skeptically was fun, got yelled at by security (who knew you weren't allowed to stand on chairs), flirted, drank and talked. A lot.

Friday -
I had homework to do and as per usual slept in so I missed all of the morning talks (really want to know? go read someone who is actually interested in the lectures blog, I am not) but I got some of my homework done then headed upstairs to catch up with one of my favorite TAM people Richard Saunders who was fresh off the plane from Oz. Poor guy, arrived 1230 Fri and leaves 1630 Sunday. Still good to see him. Very good to see him. Then again I have a thing for smart professor looking types who make good conversation. (side note - finally watched The One. Interesting and not what I expected for some reason) Caught part of Pamela Gay's talk (she's also awesome) but my first full lecture well, wasn't a lecture. It was the panel I had been waiting for - Our Future in Space. Pamela Gay, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson moderated by Phil Plait. Does it get cooler? seriously just go watch this - it will be online soon, DJ said so. This panel was followed by Tysons keynote - which was super-cool and followed by dinner time. I went to the pub then met up with Richard, Dr. Rachael Dunlop (aka Dr. Rachie), Brian and Lisa Dunning, Pamela Gay and two really nice gentlemen whose names I have unfortunately forgot. Needless to say it was fun. I then went back to the pub, said goodnight to Richard and Rachael who were beat and then changed into my clothes for that night's party. Ellen was awesome to act as my ladies maid to get me into my corset and we were off to Penn Jillettes private Bacon and Doughnuts party featuring the No God band. I danced, I screamed, I sang and overall had an amazingly super awesome time. After a small set-back requiring an inhaler to breath I headed back to the Del Mar for some awesome convos till around 4 am. Oh yeah and Brad had gotten in to room with me but unfortunately I have now learned that he snores. Loudly. You rock Brad but I am never rooming with you again, I need all the precious sleep I can get...

Saturday-
I dragged my sleep deprived bum out of bed to catch Professor Richard Wisemans talk - my hero, funny, smart, and a great speaker it was - of course, awesome. Watched part of the SGU recording, hung out with Dale and Travis Roy, Richard, Rachie, Brian and Lisa at the Skeptoid/Aus Skeptics table. Helped sell Placebo Bands and generally had fun. Again - great conversation, met new people and had a ball. SitP that night rocked and I set myself up to play a game of Race for the Galaxy on Sunday. Happy Panda.

Sunday -
Slept in, but woke up in time to catch another lecture I was excited about by Desiree Schell. Great lecture on the history of activism and how we can learn from it. Again - have I mentioned how awesome she is? And AND I got to chat with her - Happy me. Dr. Novella did an awesome lecture on mental illness denial and I went back to the pub. The Del Mar is always hopping during TAM so there were people galore to chat with. I lost three games of RftG in a row and socialized till about 1. Early bed since I was BEAT. I also said goodbye to Richard and Rachie and took a midterm - apparently classes don't stop when you're at TAM. Go figure.

Monday -
Oh happy day - nothing planned, read some, napped, wandered down to the Del Mar after getting my usual sweet tea and bagel. Nommed a musk stick. Yay. Drinks, conversation and meeting the super sexy and smart Per Johan - of course he was just the sexy part when the mention of hitting the strip was made. five hours of wandering and talking later and I am really glad I got to meet him. Another instance of loving TAM. I spent an entire evening chatting with a Swedish professor turned mentalist about everything under the sun. <3 People wonder why I go to TAM. It was a late late night (read 4am) and I still had to pack so upstairs I went, packed and attempted to sleep.

Tuesday -
My last day in Vegas was bitter sweet. One hand - homesick, the other hand - TAM was officially over. I woke up WAY too early (8am should not exist) and couldn't get back to sleep so I opted to check up early and head to the Del Mar. I didn't expect anyone to be there really since it was early and I know a lot of people had gone to red rock that day. Tea and Bagel in hand I found a seat (not hard, the pub was empty) and proceeded to check my variety of social networks and lament the fact that for the first time in a week - I was alone in the Del Mar. Not long however and people showed up. It was great. More and more people came and then I got a free buffet lunch with the awesome zooterkin from the UK (can not for the life of me remember his given name - I have never admitted to being good at that...). More talk on relationships, sexuality and the like ensued and we were back to the Del Mar. As the evening wore on more and more people left for the airport and it came down to just Per Johan and I. Despite his flight being an hour and a half later than mine he joined me for the trip to the airport and kept me company. It was awesome, great conversation and some card tricks to pass the time. My airport luck continues unabaited and my plane was delayed again and again. In fact he ended up leaving for New York before me when I should have landed in PDX before his plane even took off. Ah well. We finally got on the plane and in the air by around 2300 and I made it home to PDX around 1. Thankfully the boyo picked me up (I had missed the last train) and I finally got to bed around 3. Poor Kevin - he had to work Wends morning.

Lessons from TAM in short -
1. Plan your activism, look at your goal, audience, and message and design your behavior to reflect what needs to get done.
2. Skeptics are super open minded - gender, sexuality, sexual behavior, experiences and more are all open to discussion and no real condemnation. While we don't all agree - that doesn't mean we won't learn something.
3. We need people willing to report unwanted behavior. Issues from a past TAM were continued to this one and likely wouldn't have had it been reported. (an FYI - if you have -anyone- make you uncomfortable tell them clearly that you don't want the behavior and if they persist then report it. If you are not comfortable reporting it to staff yourself, you are welcome to talk to me and I will report it on your behalf - anonymously or not as you choose. Or I will go with you to report it if that is what is needed.)
4. I will miss my TAM friends even more this year. Damnit people, we need to keep in touch better.

A note:
You will notice I did not talk about the drama myself and some of the other women were involved in. I don't wish to talk about it here and so I won't talk about it here. Know however that if the person did something to you, said something to you or in anyway made you uncomfortable you can email me (skepticalpirate(at)gmail(dot)com) or find me on twitter/facebook/g+ to talk about it. Also if you are willing to report it that would help make it so the person can not do that behavior again and potentially not attend next year. Email your report to events@randi.org citing what happened, when, with whom. Put TAM9 Incident Report in the subject line. Questions? feel free to ask.

Freaking homeopaths!

So I know it has been a long long while since I have blogged on here and I am sorry for that but I am back with a vengeance! It is time for the homeopath complaint saga to begin I am afraid. See I was poking around the inter webs as I do when I have nothing better to do and I found some homeopaths in Portland's websites. First thing to do? Look at what they claim to treat of course. I found cancer claims everywhere it was crazy! So I poked around some more and found the FTC Complaints website. (found here) and have submitted my first complaint.

So what do you need to submit a complaint? It's quite easy actually - get the name of the company, the address, phone and email, website URL, and what you are complaining about. It only takes like 5 min total and poof it is there. Not sure what happens next though. I will have to wait and see really but I hope it does something. Have one other site I am debating on reporting, I may just wait to see what happens with the homeopath.

I have a PDF of my complaint if anyone is interested - email me skepticalpirate@gmail.com

Andrew Wakefield found to have Acted Unethically

I am sure that people have heard of Wakefield's Lancet study that sparked the MMR 'debate' which was recently shot down by the GMC in an investigation. (if you don't know what was going on with this check out my article over at examiner.com) But what I wanted to share was some of the lovely comments I got namely that from Age of Autism. My day was made with this - I came to the attention of Age of Autism! yay! Anyway - the comment -

In 2006, the Daily Mail published the comments by Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer in the UK concerning the MMR.
"[Fletcher] said he has seen a 'steady accumulation of evidence' from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.
"But he added: 'There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.'
" 'It is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There's far too much to ignore. ... authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so.' "
The GMC decision proves that 'very powerful people' are in control.
Anne Dachel
Age of Autism

To begin with for this comment - heard of a conspiracy theory? Wow, "very powerful people are in control." Yes they are, that is the point, being in control gives you power but I digress. This is a straw man - what research is she talking about? I have evidence that the MMR is not correlated with autism and that vaccination is safe... she offered no research to back this up and in fact it is against the consensus in the scientific community. I asked her to provide the research for me to see, but I seriously doubt that she will provide.

Templeton nonsense

So in a recent (ish) post on Richard Dawkins website led me to find some of the exams and such offered by Templeton. I have to concur with everyone over there that some of the requirements for both undergrad and masters students make the ID trolls comments make much more sense. Mainly because the requirement - for 20% of the grade - is to post at least 10 comments on 'hostile' website. Holy monkey people. 20% of your final to make comments? I no longer wonder at some of the idiotic comments that can be found on the more popular blogs regarding ID/Creationism. Seriously this blew my mind. I wish I had requirements as easy as these.

Win for evolution

So imagine my surprise when I ran into this on the discovery institute. "Peloza v. Capistrano Independent Unified School District: Evolution May Be Taught Even if it Conflicts With Religious Beliefs" Apparently the discotute is just getting to reporting on this case, which was in the nineth court of appeals. This case decided that a teacher can be ordered to teach evolution, even if the theory conflicts with his or her religious beliefs. So what does that mean? It makes it so that even if the teacher is a young earth creationist they still have to teach the science in biology. woo hoo for that case I just find it entertaining that it took sixteen years for them to finally talk about it...

Huzzah?

Well ladies and gents, good news and bad - I am now unemployed (woo.) and yes that was the bad news. ^_^;; I also got myself into the psu fencing club (yay) and found that there is no SCA on campus (boo) but there is a medieval fighting club that I am going to check out and possibly start one (yay) I am going to see about getting a locker today after class, wish me luck! ^^ I am checking out the discotute tonight so watch for that update later.

watch out for the storm

Watch out over the next few days because I will be posting a new article about climate change over on examiner. Part one will be what is climate change/global warming Part two will be what the science says and part three will be what the "sceptics" say. I plan on getting these out friday, saturday and sunday between work and homework. Please let me know what you think of these (ill post linkage) and help me combat the comments I am likely to get because I am finally making a stand on the issue.

Merry Christmas!

Wishing all of you a Merry Christmas! Hope you enjoy yourselves fully and stay safe!

The Sword of Truth novels scare me.

I am in the process of re-reading the Sword of Truth novels by Terry Goodkind (They start with Wizards First Rule) and really, the books scare me. No they aren't horror, they are brilliant fantasy but wow. Goodkind is truly able to represent the nature of human mind, social psychology and the nature of faith in a stark and wonderful way. Any skeptic or atheist who reads these books will draw striking parallels to the world we live in today, not in any world context but in the rational of the wizards rules and the thinking that is behind the Imperial Order's insane beliefs. I have read the series many times and each time find something else that chills me to the bone. Frankly the things that people believe and the so called reasons for these beliefs scares me quite a bit. I don't usually advocate on here but seriously. Read these books.

Mercury fillings debate

Those of you who follow my examiner articles will know that I recently wrote about the safety of amalgam fillings. This article started off a firing of anti-amalgam comments and even hate mail. While I understand that people would be passionate about safety the lack of intelligence of these commentators astounds me. Each comment is a personal anecdote and is usually punctuated by ad hominem attacks one my intelligence. For example Marie Flowers said "this is one of the most ignorant articles I have ever read on amalgam fillings." All I did was present what the FDA and ADA said. I also used the wonderful article at Quackwatch to fill in about the other side. Said Marie Flowers also recommended mercurypoisoned.com, which is when I realized that she was not only against mercury fillings, but is an anti-vaccer. This load of crap is right up there with anything else that the anti-vac people come out with. For example on the website they have good old Alex Jones! From the wonderfully wacky prisonplanet.com. Whats Alex talking about today? Oh yeah, vaccines, flu shots, autism, and Alzheimer's. In the same video. BAH!

Reprint of the libalous Simon Singh article

Here is the full unedited version, as published by The Guardian, of Simon Singh’s article that was critical of chiropractors and is subject to legal threats by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) as reported by Holfordwatch and the Quackometer.

To help support Simon's case head over to Sense about Science
Be sure to sign the support statement





Beware the spinal trap ~written by Simon Singh

This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let’s be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, 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 they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus 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 Professor 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.

Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week – 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.

How much is most?

The word most is used many times in speech. Mira Ariel of Tel Aviv University’s department of linguistics has been studying just how much people mean when they use the word ‘most.’ Using various research methods including questionnaires and looking at previous studies done in both America and the UK Prof. Ariel has come up with an answer. According to Ariel’s findings when people use the word ‘most’ they appear to mean 80-95% of whatever sample being discussed.

This appears to be independent of what the objects are; human, animals or inanimate objects, as well as who is using the word. Most linguists until this research had believed that the range fell between 51 and 99% and had the possibility to include 100%. Mira Ariel disagrees with this although her research does fall within these bounds.

While these results appear to be true for now, professor Ariel believes that the range could shift over the next 100 years. This is part of how language works however and the colloquial definition of ‘most’ is different now than it was in the past. Previously the word could easily have meant less than fifty percent; the word ‘most’ merely meant who had the larger portion. This could be a portion of 50% or even less depending on the situation. Linguistic ambiguity seems to be exemplified by a word like ‘most’ but Professor Ariel is working to show that the ambiguity of these words is for the most part in people’s heads.

For information about Mira Ariel's work visit here.

NE6E65ETCDWM

Scientists Create RNA Chains in the Lab

Cross-posted here

A group of Italian scientists have reconstructed a possible early step in evolution. Ernesto Di Mauro and his team used cyclic nucleotides to create long strands of RNA from individual units using primarily water. Many evolutionary biologists believe that RNA was one of the first biological molecules to be present on Earth. The nucleotides used by the scientists merged together in water to form polymers over 100 nucleotides long.

The nucleotides that would have been present on prebiotic Earth would have been based upon simple chemicals and would have been quite easy to form chains. It has been previously shown that RNA precursors can self-assemble into linear polymers but scientists as of yet do not know the origin of informational polymers. Formamide chemistry has the potential to gather all of the precursors needed to form pregenetic informational polymers.

Di Mauro and his team thought that “the solution must have relied on a simple but robust process.” This ideal is why a formamide solution was utilized; it is simple and relatively stable yet still is reactive. The processes used by the team show that the formation of cyclic monophosphate nucleosides is chemically simple and prebiotically plausible. Like prebiotic Earth the solution temperatures used were around 40-60 °C. These nucleotides are similar to those that make up individual pieces of RNA or DNA (A, T, G, and C) with the difference of an extra chemical bond and a ring-like shape. The chains that were made in the lab were done without the use of enzymes or inorganic catalysts to set off the reactions as prebiotic conditions would require.

The non-enzymatic pregenetic polymerization done in this study could have taken place in warm little pond conditions like those depicted by Darwin in Origin of Species. As more information is studied in labs like those of Di Mauro and his collegues the closer scientists are to understanding not only the conditions of prebiotic Earth but the chemical processes which gave rise to biological life. Continuing research into chemical biology will help scientists know just how rare of an even life arising is and help determine the likelihood of it arising elsewhere in the universe as well.

Quick update

Ok, first off an apology for my absence from the blog I have been crazy busy. I am writing for an online essay group, working, going to school and the big exciting news! I am the Portland science writer for the examiner now! check it out! Go me! ^_^ sorry for the self promotion but everyone should read my articles. I will be keeping the science there and the woo here so look for my science news over there. Ill be posting something relevant as soon as I get a chance.

Book review! Phil Plait's Death from the Skies!

The wonderful, talented and amazing Phil Plait awes readers yet again with his book Death from the Skies! Phil Plait is the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, Discovery Magazine blogger, author and astronomer. In Death from the Skies! Phil walks his readers though some of the ways the universe is trying to kill us. This covers everything from getting hit with a meteor to what the fate of the universe may be. Turns out the universe's demise isn't going to be as spectacular as Douglas Adams portrays it in The Restraunt at the End of the Universe. That is too bad but in other news, Phil tells us in no uncertain terms that at some point the universe will succeed in trying to kill us and we won't be there to stare out into the nothingness anyway. This book is a must read for any science or astronomy fan out there, regardless of skill. Phil presents the scenario's in loving detail but which is still easy to follow. From the average reader to the astrophysics PhD. this book will be a favorite for sure.

Free Will

Having recently read Richard Dawkins excellent book The God Delusion and then finding the Scientific American article on free will (Found here) I find myself doing some thinking on the concept of free will. Human experience leads us to believe that we are in control of our actions, desires, and above all which choices we make. I have begun to wonder about if this is true. While I would like to think that the choices I have made are truly mine; it does seem that science has no way to tell me this is true. What in our brains makes humans able to choose for ourselves? It seems to me that from a materialistic point of view our decisions are nothing more than cause and effect. A stimuli leads our brains to trigger a function which causes us to act in accordance to past experience. This leaves the concept of free will as a figment of the mind. A happy coincidence so to speak. We feel that we are really effecting our lives and making our own decisions, why should this be true? Does some outside force give us supernatural abilities to supplant what our brains do? Is the mysterious soul where the seat of our choices lies? If the soul is where free will enters the equation then it can effect the physical realm therefore it can not be incorporeal. If that is the case then we should be able to subject it to testing, although science thus far has shown no evidence of this effervescent soul. As much as I hate to think it, after all I like to think I am in charge of my own path just like anyone else, science has shown me no reason for this to be true. All in all however, despite the lack of scientific evidence for free will, I find myself agnostic about it. I am inclined to believe humans have free will, even if it is just a figment of imagination, and as such I think there is a chance for science to agree with my assessment if only we could design an experiment to show it.