Skeptico

Apologies to The Puffington Host

In my recent post commenting on the anti-vaccine hysteria promoted by The Huffington Post, I referred to that site (in what I fondly imagined was cutting edge wit), as The Puffington Host. I find I must therefore apologize to The real Puffington Host for in any way implying their organ is The Huffington Post. Or, as their site proclaims:

Life at the intersection of Politics and Entertainment. NOT affiliated with The Huffington Post. Unless, of course, you count us ridiculing them loudly and abusively as being affiliated with them.

Nuff said.

And apparently I can’t refer to Huffington’s Toast either, for the same reasons.

What am I going to use for bad puns in future? The Huffing and Roast? The Huff and I’ll Puff the Most? What is an honest blogger to do?

Shields hits back at Cruise

Good for Brook Shields. She has responded to Tom Cruise’s ludicrous suggestion that her postpartum depression could be successfully treated with vitamins. Of course, Cruise was referring to Scientology’s Narconon program which was essentially dreamed up by L. Ron Hubbard based on incorrect assumptions and without any reference to scientific verification. Shields hits back:

Tom Cruise’s comments are irresponsible and dangerous… Tom should stick to saving the world from aliens and let women who are experiencing postpartum depression decide what treatment options are best for them.

Saving the world from aliens? Could she be referring to the core Scientology belief that all humans are infected with the souls of space aliens murdered 75 million years ago by the alien ruler of the galaxy, Xenu? (El Ron was a really bad science fiction writer too.) Wow, an informed celebrity! 

Oh I see, she was referring to Cruise’s latest film, the War of the Worlds. 

Or was she?

Huffington Post huffs and puffs

Today Orac has another piece on the Puffington Host’s anti-vaccination obsession. After several anti-vax pieces, the “Host” allowed one pro-vax rebuttal piece by Dr. Mark Strassburg, which was promptly followed by a content-free fallacy ridden “response” from Dr. Jay Gordon.

Gordon notes that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other pro-vax authors have “a very cozy relationship with the vaccine industry”, as though that is actually an argument against vaccines. Of course, this is just ad Hominen – attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. If he had any actual arguments refuting the research presented by the AAP or other organizations, he would presumably have presented them. I guess it’s easier to smear the source than provide any actual evidence.

Orac also points out the hypocrisy:

…why, then, does it not seem to bother Dr. Gordon in the least that David Geier and Dr. Mark Geier, whose research he once again singles out to cite approvingly and both of whom make a significant part of their livings providing legal counsel and consulting and expert witness services to parents pursuing legal action for alleged "injuries" due to vaccination? Doesn't that count as a financial conflict of interest? Yet Dr. Gordon thinks their research is "excellent." Or why doesn't it bother him that their work has been criticized for sloppiness and methodological flaws and they've been rebuked for risking patient confidentiality while mining the CDC's database.

Good questions I’d like to see Gordon answer.

The rest of Gordon’s post is equally bizarre. First, he dismisses Strassburg’s argument comparing birth rates and stork populations:

Dr. Strasburg’s reductio ad absurdum story about storks in Belgium is distracting and not germane to this discussion.

Huh? Reductio ad absurdum is defined as:

a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable

Strassburg’s point was that correlation is not causation and is totally germane to the discussion. Calling this reduction ad absurdum is, well, absurd. I guess Gordon has never heard that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, or he would have understood Strassburg’s point.

Even more absurd is this:

The Institute of Medicine chose to ignore excellent research supporting a link between thimerosal and autism. Look at Dr. Geier’s presentation in particular.

Okey dokey, I clicked on the Geier’s presentation link and clicked on the study abstract, which concluded:

Conclusions. With the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via DTP/DT vaccines causes neurodevelopmental disorders.

Get that? The study concludes there is no evidence of neuro-developmental disorders from thimerosal (apart from – just possibly – tics). No evidence of a link. And this is Gordon’s “excellent research” supporting his position. It’s his best shot.

Well, I posted a comment to Gordon’s piece:

A completely worthless and content-free post from Jay Gordon. Stating that he AAP has a “cozy relationship with the vaccine industry” is nothing more than a poisoning of the well ad Hominem – insulting the messenger instead of providing any evidence of wrongdoing.

You should check out the work of some real bloggers who have commented on these ridiculous stories this site has been promoting

Orac provides sound commentary, and a rebuttal to Jay Gordon’s latest post, with evidence:

(With links to Orac, Autism Diva and Skeptico

I got the message that all comments are read before they are posted. It’ll be interesting to see if the Huffington Post is a real blog and allows my comment to be posted.

PS: I guess it is a real blog - they posted it.

More on Autism, mercury and chelation

Following from yesterday’s article, a couple more items on autism and mercury.

First, according to the CDC, symptoms of organic mercury poisoning might include:

paresthesias (pins and needles), headaches, ataxia (loss of the ability to coordinate muscular movement), dysarthria (difficulty in articulating words, caused by impairment of the muscles used in speech), visual field constriction, blindness, and hearing impairment.

While symptoms of autism usually include:

Abnormal reactions to sensory stimuli (i.e., senses may be over- or underactive). Touches may be experienced as painful, smells may be overwhelmingly unpleasant, and ordinary daily noises may be painful. Loud noises (e.g., motorcycle going by, vacuum cleaner) and bright lights may cause inconsolable crying.

Other signs of the disorder in infants include the following:

• Appears indifferent to surroundings
• Appears content to be alone, happier to play alone
• Displays lack of interest in toys
• Displays lack of response to others
• Does not point out objects of interest to others (called protodeclarative pointing)
• Marked reduction or increase in activity level
• Resists cuddling

They don’t look much alike to me.

Next, an article by James R. Laidler, MD, who was once an impassioned supporter of chelation therapy for autism, but who examined the actual evidence and changed his mind:

There were more treatments for autism than I could ever hope to try on my son, and every one of them had passionate promoters claiming that it had cured at least one autistic child—usually their own. There were blood tests, urine test, hair tests, saliva tests, brain wave tests and eye tests, all claiming to be able to find the specific cause for a child’s autism. And they had specific treatments for each of those causes. Sure, some of them were contradictory, but nobody seemed to mind that. What really caught my interest was the proposition that thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative in vaccines, caused autism and chelation therapy could cure it. Advocates of this idea spoke authoritatively, with impressive lists of references and well-designed PowerPoint slides. I was intrigued even though the children I had seen with mercury poisoning did not behave like my autistic son and the recommended dosage for the chelating agents made no sense to me.

(Snip)

In the following months, we stopped every treatment except speech and occupational therapy for both boys. They did not deteriorate and, in fact, continued to improve at the same rate as before—or faster. Our bank balance improved, and the circles under our eyes started to fade. And quite frankly, I began to get mad at myself for being so gullible and for misleading other parents of autistic children.

Looking back on my experiences with "alternate" autism therapies, they seem almost unreal, like Alice's adventures in Wonderland. Utter nonsense treated like scientific data, people nodding in sage agreement with blatant contradictions, and theories made out of thin air and unrelated facts—and all of it happening right here and now, not in some book. Real people are being deceived and hurt, and there won't be a happy ending unless enough of us get together and write one.

(My bold.)

He could be describing much of alternative medicine, of course.

Finally, an item today on the effects the anti-vaxers have, supported by celebrity idiots and the press, from the Guardian’s Bad Science guy. I wish I could write like that.

Skeptic' Circle

Circular reasoning and other fallacies are exposed today at the ninth skeptics’ Circle. Hosted by its founder Saint Nate, it looks like a really interesting group of posts. Take a look – more than enough skeptical blogging to keep you busy for a while.

Mercury in vaccines and chelation therapy

A Californian couple is convinced chelation therapy has alleviated the symptoms of their autistic son, who they believe got his autism from mercury in the thimerosal preservative in a vaccine. Chelation therapy is a lotion or pill that strips the body of such heavy metals, and when supposedly treating autism is typically combined with severe dietary restrictions plus multiple vitamin and mineral supplements.  The story goes:

Jamie Handley was a happy, healthy baby who reached all his developmental milestones until he turned 18 months, his parents said. Then, he started spinning in circles and standing on his toes and no longer responded to his name. They were eventually told he was autistic

(Snip)

For Jamie's parents, the proof they need is in front of them: Jamie, now 3 years old and several months into treatment, is plump and playing baseball. His smile has returned.

"Every day brings small, steady gains," said Lisa Handley of Lafayette "Our life is filled with hope and the conviction that Jamie won't just improve, but will completely recover."

Hum. It seems to me there are several questionable things about this story.

The first is that there is no evidence of a link between mercury in vaccines and autism. More to the point, there is even evidence of no link:

Denmark mandated removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 1992. Even allowing for continued use of thimerosal-containing stocks of vaccine, Danish children were thimerosal-free by 1995. Autism prevalence in Denmark has risen in exactly the same fashion as in the United States and the United Kingdom.

(Study here.)

Secondly, as I reported Michael Fitzpatrick writing a couple of days ago, the symptoms of mercury poisoning and those of autism, are different.

The third puzzle is why is this kid’s autism linked to thimerosal? According to Quackwatch, manufacturers stopped using thimerosal in children’s vaccines in 2000, and so few children now under age four have ever received a thimerosal-containing vaccine. However, this child is stated to be three years old. He could have been one of the “few”, I suppose.

But the thing that really puzzles me is this. Even if thimerosal does cause the neurological damage related to autism, and even if chelation removes all the thimerosal, why would this child be getting better? Surely the damage has already been done? I could see that perhaps he wouldn’t get any worse, but how would he be getting better? If someone can explain how chelation therapy can repair neurological damage already done, I’d be really interested.

Why do this child’s parents think chelation made him better? Impossible to say, but incorrect initial diagnosis of autism springs to mind. Or maybe they are over-optimistic in reporting improvements. In any case, you can’t draw any conclusions from just one story or from anecdotes in general.

I guess it is good to stop putting thimerosal in vaccines if it means more parents will vaccinate their children. And if thimerosal is part of the problem, the numbers of cases should begin to drop. Alternatively, the Danish results may be replicated, and autism may continue to rise regardless. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’d bet autism will continue to rise. And I’ll also bet that won’t stop the peddlers of chelation and other dubious cures from continuing in business.

By the way, I’ve just noticed Orac today has an excellent and more detailed article on vaccines and autism.  In addition, Autism Diva has more information on autism, mercury in vaccines, chelation therapy and related subjects than you can shake a stick at. A recommended read.

Candace Pert’s Molecules of Emotion

In my skeptical review of “What The (Bleep) Do We Know!?” I mentioned Candace Pert and her book "Molecules of Emotion: The Science Behind Mind-Body Medicine, and stated “Pert is a talented scientist who went woo woo many years ago for reasons I don’t have time to go into here”. I thought I should explain what I meant.

The title of the book is related to Pert’s claim that short chains of amino acids called peptides, and their receptors, are the "biochemical correlate of emotion." Peptides are found in the brain, but also in the stomach, muscles, glands and all the major organs. Her conclusion is that peptides in these other organs have memories – what she calls “the unconscious mind”. In “What the Bleep” she goes further and claims “each cell has a consciousness”.

I first heard about Pert’s book when a Reiki practitioner I know (what can I say - I live in San Francisco), told me I needed to read it because it was by a scientist who supports alternative "medicine". Apparently she had discovered a cure for AIDS but that somehow this discovery was being repressed. (As an aside, don’t you just love it when woo woos find a scientist who they think supports their beliefs? This is always triumphally presented as “proof” or something that their altie therapies work, although these very same people will parrot “science doesn’t know everything” when confronted with something they don’t like. Hilarious.) I usually find books like this either don’t support the view claimed for them or the science is garbage. This book is in the former category.

But I should start with the good – the science. The book is a great description of the scientific method in action, and really brings the whole process to life. Pert describes how as a PhD candidate, and over objections and even the cancellation of the project by her supervisor Sol Snyder, she discovered the opiate receptor and endorphins - clearly an incredible discovery for someone still completing her PhD. Pert explained the whole process: the theoretical underpinning that initiated the experiments followed by the detailed experiments through to publication. It’s notable that all of Pert's discoveries, and those of all the other scientists described in her book, were achieved using the scientific method, and it seems unlikely they would have been achieved any other way. It also seems clear that Pert is smarter than just about everyone else around her (although remember, she is the one doing the writing).

Unfortunately, after getting her PhD and moving to the NIH, things started to go downhill. First, she learned that Snyder and two other scientists were being given The Lasker Award for discovering the opiate receptor. (Snyder, as Pert’s supervisor, naturally had his name on the opiate receptor papers, and the two other scientists, Hughes and Kosterlitz, had made complementary discoveries about the opiate receptor at around the same time). Naturally Pert felt she should have been included in this award. She was especially angry feeling she was being discriminated against because she was a woman, and she may well have been right. (The name Rosalind Franklin was mentioned.) Pert made enough of a fuss that the story got noticed, although she was still excluded from the award.

Next was the Nobel Prize. A large percentage of Lasker recipients go on to win the Nobel, but the controversy about excluding Pert from the Lasker had cast some doubt over this. Pert was asked to help complete the papers for Snyder, Hughes and Kosterlitz to be nominated for the Nobel Prize (which can only go to a maximum of three people), to smooth things over. When I read the book, at this point I was saying to myself “no, you can’t refuse!” but of course she did. Whether this refusal and the controversy swayed the Nobel committee, no one can be sure, but we do know Snyder didn’t get his Nobel and many people blamed Pert for it. Pert describes the isolation that followed, how she was shunned by former colleagues, and even asked to stay away from scientific conferences. It must have been miserable for her.

There is a huge disconnect between this first section, and the rest of the book. In the first half she discovers the opiate receptors and endorphins using the scientific method. In the second half she still works in science, but also makes numerous unsupported claims about alternative therapies and mind-body connections for no good reason I could see. It’s almost schizophrenic: this second half is full of “I believe” and “what seems to be going” on type statements, instead of hard evidence presented in the first half.

Michael Shermer in his book "Why People Believe in Weird Things" (one of my recommended books), describes why smart people believe in weird things. Smart people believe in weird things because they are very good at defending positions they arrived at through non-smart reasons. It’s an explainable phenomenon. And it’s clear that Pert arrived at her many “alternative” non-scientific beliefs for non-smart reasons. She explains it herself: the rejection by the scientific community was in stark contrast to the welcoming she received from the alternative groups she started to hang out with. Perhaps not surprising she started advocating alternative therapies. And although she makes this connection herself, she misses the obvious conclusion that the altie therapies have no basis in reality.

Just because someone is successful in her own field, this does not mean she is right when she steps out of that area into another. (Twice Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling springs to mind here.) Appearing in “what the bleep” should be viewed as a low point it her career. Funnily enough, I recommend the book. It’s a good read, explains the realities of doing science (the experiments and the politics), and shows the alternative world in sharp contrast. Just don’t expect to have any alternative therapies justified by science.

Incidentally Pert’s Peptide T discovery was found not to be a cure for AIDS, although it did seem like a possibility at one time.

Ark who’s talking

Here’s a good one. Archeologist Dr. Vendyl Jones (allegedly the inspiration for Indiana Jones), claims he knows the location of the Ark of the Covenant and plans to excavate it by August 14, 2005. And get this - his reasoning for this date is it was prophesied, according to the Israel National News:

He believes the ark will be discovered by Tisha B'Av (Aug. 14), a day of repeated tragedy in Jewish history. Most notably, it is the anniversary of the destruction of both the First and Second Holy Temples.

Noahide guru Jones says that the State of Israel is passing through the same biblical straights as the generation that first entered Israel after the exodus from Egypt. “If history repeats itself, the history itself is prophecy,” Jones says.

“Israel is different from all other nations in a lot of ways, but more than anything else, Israel is the only nation whose history was written before it  happened.”

That would make Israel different, it’s true. Apparently Jones has made successful prophesies before, based on interpretation of biblical texts. It’s claimed he:

Predict(ed) the precise outbreak of the Six Day War, based on his analysis of the period from the Exodus from Egypt up until the First Temple Period. He says that applying biblical analysis to modern times points to major events that will “turn the world right-side-up.”

Jones calculated the war in 1967 by analyzing the sequence of events in the First Temple Period and transposing them onto the "Third Temple Period” – the period beginning with the Jews’ foundation of an independent State in the Land of Israel in 1948.

Sure he did. I wonder how much “interpretation” post-hoc (a-la Nostradamus) was required to make the prediction fit actual events. For example, this piece seemingly by Jones entitled please excuse my miscalculations, seems to allow considerable wiggle room based on which calendar you use and what you decide is the start date. Of course if he already knows where the arc is, “discovering” it on his “predicted” date should be a breeze. Jones says:

the discovery of the lost ark will “flip the whole world right-side-up.”

“I just gotta drill a bore-hole into the chamber, drop a pin-camera in and there it is. And everything is gonna change, believe me. The Jewish people are gonna come back.”

That’s all he gotta do.  OK, everybody mark your calendars for August 14^th. Look out the window and see if the world looks a different side up from the way it looked on August 13^th. You can probably guess which way up I think it will look.

No evidence of harm

There is a new book by David Kirby, called Evidence of Harm, apparently supportive of the idea that mercury in vaccines causes autism in children. Of course, there is no evidence for this, but that hasn’t stopped the anti-vaxers. Refreshingly, Michael Fitzpatrick, a doctor, parent of an autistic child and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know, has written a critical review of Kirby’s book, entitled Mercury and autism: a damaging delusion. A couple of relevant quotes:

It is true that mercury is potentially toxic to the developing infant brain and that, as babies were given more vaccines, the total dose of mercury received increased (though it remained at trace level, and it has now fallen as immunisation authorities have, in deference to popular anxieties, shifted to non-mercury vaccines). Yet, exhaustive studies, carried out in the USA, the UK and elsewhere, and surveyed by the US Institute of Medicine in an authoritative report last year, have failed to reveal any link between exposure to thimerosal and autism (3). The so-called 'epidemic of autism', which some parents blame on vaccines, is better explained by the increased recognition of the condition among both parents and professionals and by the expansion of diagnostic categories. Though campaigners claim that the symptoms of mercury toxicity are similar to those of autism, on closer inspection, they are quite distinct. Mercury poisoning typically causes an unsteady gait and slurred speech, visual disturbances and numbness in fingers and toes. None of these features is characteristic of autism.

(Snip)

Though the increasingly unpopular drug companies provide a convenient focus for parental anger, there is little evidence to support the wild allegations made by campaigners and no reason why companies should pay damages in relation to unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, the real problem facing the government is supply shortages resulting from the reluctance of pharmaceutical companies to continue producing vaccines. For some time an area of low investment and low profitability, vaccine production is increasingly threatened by the climate of risk aversion and litigiousness - as the anti-mercury campaign aptly illustrates.

(My bold.)

As well as frightening parents into not vaccinating their kids, the anti-vaxers are frightening corporations, who fear costly and time-consuming lawsuits, from making the stuff anyway. And all because of an ingredient that doesn’t produce symptoms anything like those of the thing they're using to do the frightening.

Evolution and John Q. Creationist

Here is a great article at Canadian Cynic debunking the anti-evolutionist plea that "If you can't directly observe it, it can't be part of science.” Very amusingly debunked, too! Funnily enough, as an example of this type of idiocy he cites the same Brian McNicoll article I wrote about yesterday.

A little honesty, please

From Secular Blasphemy I found this ridiculous defense of the IDiots attempt to put evolution on trial, by Brian McNicoll, called “A little humility, please”.

This piece is so bad – so chock full of fallacies – that it’s hard to be sure if McNicoll is badly informed, really stupid, or just dishonest. (It’s not funny enough to be a spoof, although you can’t be sure these days.) He claims to be a journalist so he shouldn’t be misinformed (OK maybe that’s a stretch. Work with me.) And I don’t see how he could be that stupid so I hope for his sake he’s dishonest. The piece is so hilariously bad I just can’t help breaking it down point by point. (It’s a hobby. Some people go windsurfing. I’m doing it because I can.) And I’m emailing him and his editor the link to this piece to see if he wants to respond.

(Admittedly this is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s Sunday, I’m taking things easy today.)

Here goes. Be prepared to be amazed at McNicoll’s dishonesty (or stupidity – your call).

The Darwinists

BZZTT! –Origin of Species was published in 1859. Things have moved on a bit lot since then. It’s called the theory of evolution now and contains masses of evidence Darwin would never even have dreamed about.

Oh no, I can smell straw:

have a lawyer in the proceedings named Pedro Irigonegaray, and he cross-examined some opposing witnesses. But so far, the scientific community of Kansas and surrounding areas has refused to participate. This proceeding, they say, is beneath them because all issues regarding the origin of life are settled.

Bwaahahaah, no scientist would say all issues regarding the origin of life are settled.

They might say that evolution is backed by huge amounts of evidence. They might say it is the only explanation that fits the observations. They might say there is absolutely zero evidence for ID. They might. But they would not say all the issues are settled, no. McNicoll made up a ridiculous position, assigned it to evolutionists, and then attacked that position. Classic Straw Man fallacy.

Oh, and the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Didn’t get much right did you Brian?

When I hear such talk, I can’t help but think of the distinguished members of the scientific community who killed George Washington by using leeches to cure him of what amounted to a bad case of the flu. Or the study that came out just this week saying that a procedure performed a million times a year in this country on women during childbirth not only doesn’t help them but makes things worse.

Five Apples No. 8. Thank you. Don’t mention it.

How do we know not to leech people, and who figured it out? We know through scientists practicing science. It is a strength of science that it continues to examine what we thought true and continues to challenge and test previous assumptions. Scientists have been wrong before, but that does not mean any idea you can think of is likely to be right. Saying that science has been wrong before does nothing to hide the fact that there is no evidence for ID. None! There is nothing to test, and so no new knowledge can ever be found. It’s a dead end.

Or the sad treatment of Galileo, a distinguished scientist who spent the last years of his life under what amounted to house arrest because he’d been convicted of heresy for asserting that the earth orbited the sun, rather than the other way around.

Oh boy. I love this analogy. Galileo was a scientist who collected evidence that the Earth orbited the Sun, and was censored by the church because this view didn’t agree with the Bible. And McNicoll casts the ID proponents in the role of Galileo? Wow! McNicoll, your new word for the day.

In each of these cases, the scientists of the day assumed that they knew the truth, that they had incontrovertible proof and that no instruments ever would appear that could disprove their thinking. All those assumptions, of course, proved to be wrong. Now, with equal certainty, a similar group asserts that we can close the book on the subject of the origin of life, even though none of us was there and what’s observable now – or even during Darwin’s time – is only a small fraction of what’s been observable over the history of the earth.

Isn’t that straw man dead yet?

Further complicating the situation is that people of faith have, for the most part, lined up on one side of the issue, and people who seem to want to discredit faith have lined up on the other. The problem is that while people of faith certainly aren’t always right on these issues – it seems pretty clear that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, for instance – neither are they always wrong.

They’re against passing out condoms in schools, and it turns out that’s smart. We’re passing out more condoms than ever in this country, yet, somehow, the incidence of sexually transmitted disease continues to rise.

Obviously no one ever told McNicoll that correlation is not causation.

In sex education, religious people want to go heavy on the abstinence and light on the “comprehensive.” Turns out kids who have received a strong abstinence message have less teen pregnancy, fewer STDs, less suicide, less depression and a host of other desirable outcomes.

No one told him about this study either:

“Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are more likely to take chances with other kinds of sex that increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, a study of 12,000 adolescents suggests.

“The report by Yale and Columbia University researchers could help explain their earlier findings that teens who pledged abstinence are just as likely to have STDs as their peers.”

(My bold.)

On the other hand, if Darwin was off the mark, he wasn’t far off. I personally think the question is merely where in the process God intervened or, rather, stopped intervening and let nature run its course. But then, I believe in God. Again, that doesn’t make me right, but it doesn’t make me wrong either.

It just makes you unscientific. Which is not OK if you’re deciding what to teach in science classes.

I guess what I’m asking for here is a little humility from the “scientific community,” a little acknowledgement that you’ve been wrong before and will be again.

Er, I guess what I’m asking for here is a little humility from the “religious community,” a little acknowledgement that you’ve been wrong before and will be again. Here’s a crazy idea - perhaps if you followed the scientific method?

It’s hard to believe that Darwin, a seminarian before his voyage on the Beagle, would endorse the God v. Darwin tone that emanates from so much of this debate any more than would Galileo, who wrote extensively for the church on how Copernican theory could be squared with the Bible.

It’s always amusing when an ID apologist uses Darwin in an Argument From Authority.

The “scientific community” frequently cites the slimy evasions of creationists and intelligent-design advocates when they get “nailed” with some question about amino acids or whatnot.

Scientists do criticize creationists’ lies, that’s true. Hey, I think McNicoll got one right.

You want to see slimy evasion? Put this to a dedicated Darwinist:

How did two apes, two animals driven by nothing but instinct to survive, mate and produce a thinking, discerning, right-from-wrong-knowing human being? Two of them, actually – one boy and one girl, in more or less the same neighborhood, travel not being as convenient then as it is now.

You’ll hear all manner of stammering and yammering about how it’s not that simple, how saying we have a common ancestor doesn’t exactly mean that, at some point, two animals mated and produced a free-thinking person. But the fact is, it is exactly that simple. Show me how this could’ve occurred, shoe me the “missing link,” and I’m foursquare on your side.

OK, I’ll try to say it without the stammering and yammering. It’s not that simple, we have a common ancestor, but this doesn’t mean that two apes gave birth to a human. (Phew, I did it!)

Show you the missing link, you say? OK:

(From here.)

Now suppose you tell me what’s missing.

Otherwise, open your minds and admit you have not answered all the relevant questions.

I suggest you open your mind and admit you have not asked or answered any relevant questions, but have just written a load of nonsense. To put it another way: a little honesty please.

Mumps epidemic in UK

There is a Mumps epidemic in the UK, according to the BBC:

Cases are being seen in people born before MMR became routine in 1988 and children who have not been vaccinated, possibly due to vaccine safety fears.

(Snip)

The World Health Organization recommends that at least 90% of all those eligible receive the vaccine.

However, Dr Gupta's group said uptake of MMR among two-year-olds in the UK fell from around 92% in early 1995 to around 80% in 2003/4.

"In some areas of London, as few as 60% of two-year-olds had received a first dose of MMR.

"This would account for our recent experience with mumps in younger children," they said.

(My bold.)

Risks of disease v. risks of immunization:

Mumps

Cases: 200,000 per year before vaccine became available, currently 3,000-5,000 per year

Encephalitis: 2 in 100,000
Testicular swelling: 1 in 5 adults
Deafness: 1 in 20,000
Death: 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 10,000

MMR Vaccine (Mumps Component):

Severe allergic reaction: less than 1 in 1,000,000

Sigh.

Astrology as psycho-analysis

It’s been a month: time for an astrology post.

Several people have suggested that even if astrology isn’t accurate, it encourages introspection and self-examination. For example a horoscope might tell a person he is rude or thoughtless of the views of others. He uses this as an aid to understanding himself better, and changes his rude behavior.

The obvious response is that most believers view astrology as real, and not a false-but-useful method of self-analysis. The thousands of astrologers charging for their services certainly make this assumption.

But let’s ignore this for now. Let’s consider if astrology could encourage people to examine themselves and change bad habits when they otherwise wouldn’t.

I can think of two arguments against this. The first is that since personality characteristics predicted by astrology bear no relation to the actual personality characteristics, astrology is not much use as an aide to self-awareness. For example, if the horoscope tells the person he is rude or thoughtless of the views of others, but his actual problem is (say) laziness, astrology will have him fixing the wrong problem. His real problem will remain.

The second argument is that most people use astrology as an excuse for bad behavior rather than an opportunity to change it. For example, for many years I thought my being a Libra meant I would always have difficulty making decisions, and used this as an excuse to delay decision making. Of course, I realize now I have no more trouble making decisions than anyone else. I don’t allow myself that excuse anymore, but that is because I stopped using astrology, not because it helped me understand myself better. Belief in astrology actually held me back for many years.

Introspection is a lame excuse for using astrology. Astrology supports magical thinking and opposes rationality and science, which is bad enough. But it also reinforces and even encourages behavior the person might not even engage in but for their chart telling them that’s the way they are.

Astrology is wrong, it doesn’t work, and in my view it’s worse than useless for self-examination.

Skeptics’ Circle

Just published at Pharyngula, the Skeptics’ Circle is a blog carnival with links to the best skeptical blogging from the last two weeks. Don’t take my word for it, though: as skeptics, you should always check the evidence. So check it out, read the skeptical blogs. I think you’ll find extraordinary evidence of good skeptical writing.

Let the kids decide

Red State Rabble’s excellent coverage of the Kansas hearings today reports on the views of some of the candidates running for the Greencastle-Antrim School Board (Georgia). I was taken by this quote from Charles McClain:

I'm in favor of teaching (ID)… We need to give kids both sides of the equation and let them make up their own mind.

Of course – let the kids decide! How could I have forgotten about these vital final steps in the scientific method? How silly of me. This is, of course, how science works (simplified):

1. Testable hypothesis is developed by scientists
2. Hypothesis is tested by scientists
3. Results written up and submitted for peer review
4. Paper passes peer review and is published
5. Other scientists repeat the experiments and confirm results
6. New theory is eventually accepted by scientists
7. Theory is presented to schoolchildren for evaluation
8. Theory passes schoolchildren review and is new scientific theory

Now you might have thought that kids go to school to learn the latest scientific theories. How outdated! No, children are actually the final arbiters in the scientific method. Let the kids make up their minds what is correct. Natch.

I see a couple of problems, though. First, the IDiots are missing steps 1 through 6, and want to go straight to 7 and 8. Second, steps 7 and 8 don’t make sense anyway. Maybe this needs a rethink?

Good Bad Astronomer

Superb piece today from Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer. It’s a landmark article on why scientists provide real information while astrologers, homeopaths etc provide nothing useful.

More Oxygen drinks

Following my post Oxygen – it’s a drink! I was reminded of FEMO2 “water with more”. More what? I hear you ask. Well, they it’s “loaded with oxygen”. Also it’s “the energized alternative” to ordinary bottled water. Wow! I’m always looking for an alternative, and one that’s energized as well seems like a surefire winner. So how do they keep the oxygen in the water, and what does “energized” mean. Let’s check out their FAQ's:

3. How do you keep the oxygen in the water? Answer coming soon.
4. What is energization? Answer coming soon.
5. What is magnetization? Answer coming soon.

No answers to the FAQs. Oh well. 

Regarding its oxygen content, they claim:

FEMO2 infuses the filtered, energized and magnetized water with pure food-grade oxygen to levels up to 120mg/litre.

“Food-grade oxygen”! Well, of course. I wouldn’t expect just any old oxygen, it would have to be “food grade” oxygen. If you search around, they do say about energization:

The water is forced through a Reformer Chamber where a patented process breaks down the water molecules into smaller clusters permitting better absorption of the oxygen when digested.

Of course, the water molecules are in “smaller clusters” to allow faster hydration. (Where have I heard that before?) And it’s a patented process so that means it must work. Oh wait, no it doesn’t! Even if it did work, the extra oxygen in the water would just be an expensive burp:

I highly recommend it if you happen to be a fish, but if you have lungs that breathe air, then forget about it!

(Snip)

But what happens when you open the bottle? That's right, the extra oxygen goes right back out— but not immediately, so by drinking oxygenated water, you can still take in a bit more oxygen. But can any oxygen molecules that don't get burped back out actually find their way into your bloodstream through absorption in the stomach or intestine? I don't pretend to know, but I very much doubt it; the lungs are exquisitely adapted to this function, while your digestive system is specialized for absorbing other nutrients. Suppose, instead, that you simply breathe in an extra liter of air (much easier to do than drinking a liter of water!)

Actually, even if you did, you won’t get any extra oxygen into your blood, according to The Harvard Medical School:

when red blood cells pass through the lungs, 95%-100% of them are loaded, or "saturated," with oxygen

So a healthy person will not be able to absorb much extra oxygen anyway.

Great looking web page though.

Intelligent Design on trial

And so it should be.

You may have read how Christians in Kansas have organized a series of courtroom-style hearings to determine if that children should be taught Intelligent Design in their science classes. Their idea was to put evolution on trial – get scientists to defend evolution under cross-examination. Scientists rightly rejected the premise (science isn’t decided this way), and refused to take part. The ID proponents presented their side anyway.

Well, it seems the idea is backfiring on the IDiots. Since this is a courtroom-style debate, the ID witnesses could be cross-examined. Unusually, ID proponents are having to defend their claims and answer direct questions designed to expose the flaws in their “theory”. The result is that attorney Pedro Irigonegaray’s cross-examination of the ID witnesses is actually putting ID, not evolution, on trial.

Via Pharyngula I found Red State Rabble who has spent several days at the hearings and reports on the ID witnesses’ clueless responses. Thoughts From Kansas also reports.

Some of my favorite clueless ID responses include:

Is it possible that life evolved from inanimate chemical molecules?

"Utterly impossible," says Nancy Bryson, an instructor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia.

OK, that settles it then. It’s impossible. Thanks for clearing that up. Then there’s this:

(Stephen) Meyer (director of the Discovery Institute, the ID think tank) stonewalled Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray's cross-examination, refusing repeatedly to answer his questions. Irigonegaray several times asked board chairman Steve Abrams to compel Meyer to answer, but to no avail.

Meyer's stonewalling is curious in a man who is arguing that the Kansas Science standards limit inquiry. After all, how is public policy discussion or scientific investigation possible if the ideas or theories under discussion are kept secret?

And this:

During cross-examination, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray has forced each intelligent design witness to go on record about their opinion on the age of the earth, common descent, and whether human beings have evolved from pre-hominids.

So far, not one witness has said they believe the evidence supports a belief that all living things share a common ancestor or that they believe that human have evolved from pre-hominids.

Professional scientists who are monitoring the hearings commented that this position commits the witnesses to a belief in special creation for each plant and animal species now in existence.

This summary by Thoughts From Kansas shows where this has all been going:

The press conference was a bit disorganized, since every scientist wanted to answer every question. And we did so very well. The press was interested in our opinion, and really seemed to be learning about the topic.

Quick summary: The boycott worked, and the IDolators didn't put on much of a case. They also got tripped up too many times to declare any sort of victory. Stupid missteps by the subcommittee and the witnesses made it easy to see that this really was a kangaroo court, not a serious attempt to explore the subject.

Hardly surprising since ID proponents don’t have anything to back up their claims except their own incredulity that it could have happened that way. Eventually even the press may begin to get this.

On a related matter, Pharyngula also reports on the letters in the Star Tribune following his Op-Ed piece a couple of weeks ago. They published eight pro and only three anti-evolution letters. Didn’t publish either of Skeptico’s offerings though. Good job Skeptico has a blog then or those pearls of wisdom would be wasted.

Oxygen – it’s a drink!

I was in the checkout line at Whole Foods (well, it’s all natural and organic you know), just starting to get my groceries priced, and this woman behind me in the line leans over and asks the checker:

Woman (Holding bottled water) Is that stuff good?

Checker It tastes OK, yes

Woman But does it make you feel better?

(At this point I started to get interested.)

Me What’s in it?

Woman Oxygen

Me (Puzzled look) What?

Woman Oxygen

Me What’s the point of that?

Woman Oxygen’s good for you

Me Yes but I think you are supposed to breathe it

Woman (Puzzled) What do you mean?

Me I usually get mine by breathing.

Woman (Puzzled)

Me Through the nose (demonstrates exaggerated breathing through the nose)

(I swear it looked like this was the first time she had been given this information.)

Woman Really?
Me (Laughing now) You won’t get any extra oxygen by drinking this stuff; you only get oxygen by breathing. You know... (More exaggerated breathing through the nose.)

Woman (Stares at bottle.)

At that point my groceries were checked and I had to go.

I’m pretty sure you don’t get any oxygen into your system by drinking oxygenated water. And even if you could, our bodies evolved over millions of years to function in an atmosphere of about 21 percent oxygen, so people with healthy lungs don't need (and can’t absorb), additional oxygen anyway.

Although I do believe it’s possible this woman’s brain was seriously starved of oxygen at least once in her life.

Polio rises – thanks anti-vaxers!

Thanks to religious anti-vaccination propaganda, Polio is on the increase:

Nearly two years after radical Islamic preachers told parents to refuse to have their children vaccinated against polio for fear it was part of a U.S. plot against Muslims, the repercussions are still being felt: A Nigerian strain of the virus that causes the crippling disease has cropped up as far away as Indonesia.

In this case it is Islamic preachers who have been causing the problems. We shouldn’t feel too smug though: the West has its own anti-vaxers who also rely on ignorance to oppose such proven solutions. These range from quacks such as Naturopaths to celebrity idiots like Bill Maher. Whatever its source, it results in unnecessary suffering. Polio is a horrible crippling disease that has been eliminated in the Western world.

The same old fallacies are being employed, including:

I do not agree that we exported polio to any country. If these countries were carrying out vaccinations ... they should not have had any cases.

Wrong. Vaccination is not always 100% effective; it relies on what is known as “herd immunity”.  That is, if a sufficiently large proportion of the population is immune through vaccination, few people will get the disease because it can't gain a foothold.  However, there will always be people who cannot be vaccinated or for whom vaccines will be ineffective, for example people who are:

• Receiving immunosuppressive treatment, perhaps for cancer
• Allergic to the vaccine
• Too young to be vaccinated
• Unable to mount an immune response to the vaccine
• Inflicted with immunosuppressive diseases like AIDS.

These people need the herd immunity, it is their only protection. A small number of healthy people can freeload in this group also. But once more than a few start doing it, the whole thing breaks down. The lack of vaccination in Nigeria allowed the disease to gain hold and it spread to other countries where the disease had been eradicated, and presumably they had ceased full vaccination:

Fifteen other countries where polio had been eradicated have been re-infected from Nigeria since 2003, when northern Islamic leaders led a vaccine boycott.

(My bold.)

All thanks to anti-vaccination propaganda.  Good job.

Tangled Bank

The Tangled Bank blog carnival for science blogging is up.

One of my favorites was this explanation for why we need science, which starts:

In a recent experiment, subjects played a computer `game' where points were scored completely randomly, having nothing to do with what the players did. One group randomly got points 33% of the time, the other group 66% of the time. After 50 or 100 trials, the players were asked, amongst other things, for helpful tips for incoming players to score more points. Most of the players -- including even those who only got points 33% of the time! -- had helpful tips for incoming players, stuff that had `worked for them'.

(Snip)

How could the subjects in the above experiment have gotten it so wrong?  Their actions had no impact on the results, yet they had crafted theories about how the point-scoring worked in the game, and believed that they had tested those theories.

It goes on to explain why the easiest person to fool is yourself, and why we need the scientific method to control for our innate biases.

Acupuncture – it really really doesn't work

Fake acupuncture reduces migraine pain:

Fake acupuncture works just as well as the real thing in relieving migraines, scientists have found.

In a study of more than 300 patients, both genuine and sham acupuncture reduced the intensity of headache compared to (sic) no treatment at all.

But real acupuncture was no better than needles placed at non-acupuncture points on the body, the Journal of the American Medical Association reports.

It goes against recent research showing acupuncture works in its own right.

(My bold.)

Of course, recent research does not show acupuncture working in its own right. Never mind, an important point has been made, namely that it doesn’t matter where the needles go. So any reported benefit can’t be due to releasing the flow of “qi” at specific points on the specific meridians (see picture), to balance yin and yang as claimed by the ancient Chinese and numerous new age bozos.

Acupuncture doesn’t work. Any benefit from sticking needles in people is due to some other effect. All the detailed training acupuncturists go through to learn about all these special magic points on the body, is a waste of time. You could train a nurse in probably about half an hour to stick needles in a patient at a fraction of the cost for the same benefit.

Grand Rounds

At Tales of a MD/PhD student, is the latest “Grand Rounds”, the carnival of medical bloggers. Interesting posts from some real doctors, people.

IDiots at it again

A great article by Jason at Evolutionblog about how ID proponents like William Dembski “routinely quote scientists out of context in order to distort their intended meaning”. As well as debunking Dembski, the article gives a good explanation of why the Cambrian Explosion is not a problem for evolution.

It’s worth being reminded how ID proponents need to lie to make their case. Or as Jason concludes:

The next time you read someone whining about the strong rhetoric from people on my side of this issue, think about this case. Then think about whether maybe it's perfectly reasonable to refer to the major proponents of ID as frauds and liars.

OK, thought about it. It is.

GM rice benefits poor farmers

A recent study published in the journal Science, seems to show GM rice is a benefit to poor farmers, the BBC reports:

Chinese farmers using rice engineered to resist insect pests made huge savings on insecticides, compared with their neighbours who had planted ordinary hybrid strains.

This had nothing to do with any specialist guidance the farmers received, because they were left to manage their crops as they saw fit.

As well as cutting costs, the researchers say, the farmers benefited from better health.

Pesticides in China are cheap and widely used, but poison an estimated 50,000 farmers a year, up to 500 fatally.

The researchers looked at farms in eight villages in three categories: full adopters, partial adopters and non-adopters. Farmers carried out their normal practice of applying insecticide only when they thought it necessary. The researchers found that unmodified rice required eight to ten times as much insecticide as modified rice and cost farmers an extra 200 Yuan ($25) a hectare. Yields were 9% higher with the Bt-based strain. No full adopters were adversely affected by pesticide during the course of the trial; 11% of non-adopters were.

Seems like a win all round – less environmentally harmful pesticide run-off, higher yields so less land farmed for the same output, and safer for poor farmers. Who could object? Predictably, Greenpeace retains its religious objections:

the Science study provided further evidence of the failure to control GM rice trials in China.

(Snip)

We should not be risking long-term health and environmental impacts, as well as international consumer rejection of Chinese rice when we don't need [genetic engineering] in the first place.

The “international consumer rejection” of GM foods is fueled by disinformation from Greenpeace, rather than any actual problems with GM food, and only an organization like Greenpeace would describe this study a “failure”. Rich Greenpeace supporters in western counties may feel they don’t “need” GM foods, but clearly these GM strains have the potential to be an environmental good. Studies like this, if replicated, should be welcomed by true environmentalists. Greenpeace, as usual, seem more interested in posturing.

Still no evidence acupuncture works

What is wrong with the reporters at the BBC? In an article today under a headline Acupuncture 'more than a placebo', they state that scientists have “proof” that acupuncture works. But the study, they way they report it, says no such thing.

Here’s what they report. Researchers used PET scans to see what was happening in the brains of 14 people during three types of treatment:

1. Blunt needles the patients knew would not pierce the skin
2. Sham (“trick”) acupuncture needles that gave the impression that the skin was being pierced although it wasn’t
3. Real acupuncture needles

They found:

Only the brain areas associated with the sensation of touch were activated when the volunteers were touched with the blunt needles.

During the trick needle treatment, an area of the brain associated with the production of natural opiates - substances that act in a non-specific way to relieve pain - were activated.

This same area was activated with the real acupuncture but, in addition, another region of the brain, the insular, was excited by the treatment.

This was a pathway known to be associated with acupuncture treatment and thought to be involved in pain modulation.

Before we go any further, a reminder of what acupuncture is. Acupuncture is the manipulation of “qi” (oddly, pronounced “chi”) by inserting needles at key points in 12 “meridians” to restore the flow of vital energy and balance yin and yang. This is supposed to restore health to the whole body. And the points are very specific: NCCAM states that the body has more than 2,000 acupuncture points; the ones you use depend on the illness you are trying to fix.

Hold on to that definition and look again at the study. It does absolutely nothing to show that acupuncture, as defined, works. All it shows is that if you stick needles in someone, a part of the brain “involved in pain modulation” is stimulated. Well whoopi-do, big surprise! I would certainly hope sticking a needle in someone would stimulate a part of the brain “involved in pain modulation”. If it didn’t you should be worried. I can think of easier ways to do this, though. For example, I would guess a good kick in the balls would also stimulate a part of the brain “involved in pain modulation”, although I doubt I would need a PET scan to prove it. This study does not even attempt to determine if anyone was cured of anything by the treatment. And remember, all that is being discussed is pain modulation: nothing about making the whole body well.

The BBC does end with:

Professor Henry McQuay, professor of pain relief at the University of Oxford and member of the Bandolier group that looks at the evidence behind different medical treatments, said: "The great bulk of the randomised controlled trials to date do not provide convincing evidence of pain relief over placebo".

(My bold.)

Precisely. So why do the BBC start by saying this is “proof” acupuncture works. It’s not even evidence it works, let alone any kind of proof.