Skeptico

Where’s the journalism?

Where is the journalistic skepticism in this terrible Alternet article on homeopathy? The tag-line for their article is “Are homeopathic remedies more effective than flu shots? According to 1918 figures, they may be.” Really?

The article starts with several paragraphs about how flu shots aren’t really all that effective, and how people get the flu anyway. Now, much of this is probably true – the flu virus frequently mutates to a version not covered by the vaccine, and so the shot often isn’t as effective as we would like. But the authors seem to conclude from this that homeopathy works, and they go on to repeat numerous baseless claims about its efficacy.

The authors of this article are confusing two things:

1) Whether the flu vaccine is as effective as we’d like, and

2) Whether homeopathy works.

The authors imply a false dilemma – if the flu vaccine is not always effective then homeopathy must be better. But this is just flawed logic. Sure, the flu vaccine doesn’t always work, but that doesn’t mean homeopathy does.

But as well as the fallacious logic, there is a total lack of skepticism or journalistic professionalism in the way they report the homeopaths’ survey:

During the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, which killed up to 50 million people worldwide, homeopathic physicians in the United States reported very low mortality rates among their patients, while flu patients treated by conventional physicians faced mortality rates of around 30 percent. Dr. W.A. Dewey gathered data from homeopathic physicians treating flu patients around the country in 1918 and published his findings in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy in 1920. Homeopathic physicians in Philadelphia, for example, reported a mortality rate of just over 1 percent for the more than 26,000 flu patients they treated during the pandemic.

(My bold.)

OK, I’ll accept the homeopaths reported low mortality. But was this independently checked? Did the homeopaths ignore patients who died, or did they perhaps assume they died of something else? Did the homeopaths even check to see if any of their patients died? I’m sure they didn’t do a complete survey. Would they even know how many of their patients had died? How representative were the homeopathic patients anyway? Of course, we don’t know the answers to any of these questions. The flaws in this self-selecting “study” should be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of how scientific tests should be run. The article in this homeopathic journal is nothing but a load of anecdotes from a biased source. And anecdotes are not data.

Homeopathy is unmitigated pseudoscientific nonsense that was simply made up by its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, 200 years ago. It’s based upon two false premises:

The Law of Similars

Hahnemann noticed that quinine, a treatment for malaria, gave symptoms similar to malaria itself in a healthy person. He concluded, for absolutely no reason at all, that anything that gives the symptoms of a disease to a healthy person would cure that disease in a sick person. He didn’t derive this by experiment. He didn’t test it. No one has ever shown this to be true, and in fact it is patently false.

Unfortunately, giving sick people something that “gives the symptoms of a disease to a healthy person”, also made sick people sicker. So Hahnemann decided to dilute the “remedies” so they didn’t make the patients sicker. But surely, (I hear you say), if you dilute them, won’t they be less effective? This led Hahnemann to make up his second law:

Diluting makes the remedy stronger

Homeopathic remedies typically have less than a 50% probability that there is even one molecule of the ingredient left. (Seriously – I’m not making this up.) Essentially there is nothing left but water. So how did Hahnemann explain this? He decided water must somehow retain a memory of the remedy – it must remember the properties of the remedy although nothing is left except but pure water. Again, there is no reason to suppose this is true. Hahnemann didn’t derive it, he just made it up. It was never tested, and it goes against everything we know about chemistry. And we know it’s false.

Homeopathy stems from these two false ideas. Treat the symptoms with symptom-like remedies, and dilute until nothing is left. The fact that this was never tested, and goes against all science tells us, does not necessarily mean it is wrong. But it does mean the evidence it works needs to be stronger than the evidence we demand for other things. But believers in homeopathy expect us to believe what they say based on weaker evidence, such as this lame 88 year old survey of homeopaths.

A recent review of 110 homeopathy trials, published in The Lancet, found no convincing evidence the treatment worked any better than a placebo. In 200 years homeopathy has not progressed beyond badly run (and often dishonest) bogus “trials” and the opinions of homeopaths and their patients. There is a reason we use double-blind trials to determine the efficacy of any new therapy – it is because this has proven to be the only way to determine what really works. Why should homeopathy not be required to demonstrate that it works to the same standards of real medicine? Why is it that this magic water defies the simple procedures of testing that works with everything else?

The Alternet report was absolutely the worst article on homeopathy I have ever read in any independent media outlet (ie outside of homeopathic or “Alt.Med” journals and the like). Homeopathy does not work. The authors should be ashamed that they applied no journalistic skepticism to this story.

More Chopra drivel

Where does he get it from? It seems Deepak Chopra has an endless supply of meaningless drivel to churn out when anyone gives him a forum. His latest piece of verbal diarrhea can be found here on the Huffington Post blog, that haven for anti-science screed. Let’s dip in and see what gems he has to share with the unwashed:

Some concept of a "subtle body" is accepted widely throughout the East, but it hasn't made major headway in the West for one obvious reason: Whatever is invisible has little standing in a materialistic culture where reality is defined by science.

Yes, science has no time for invisible things like radio waves, atoms, MRIs etc. – all things discovered by science incidentally, not by drips like Chopra. Of course, what he means is that science is only interested in things that have a measurable effect – things that can be tested. If something has no measurable effect (for example, this "subtle body" he’s talking about), then it might just as well not exist. So does his "subtle body" have a measurable effect or is it just too damn subtle to measure?

This is really a fallacious appeal to other ways of knowing. Other ways than science, that is. But science has proven to be the most (only?) reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If Chopra is claiming that there is a better method, it is up to him to explain what that method would be: something he hasn’t done.

On the periphery of official wisdom, if we can use that term to describe orthodox ways of thinking, millions of people have experienced and believe in the following propositions:

(Snipped list of woo beliefs)

What these diverse things have in common -- besides being excluded from official wisdom -- is that they imply an invisible connection.

No, what most of them have in common is that there is no evidence that they are real.

By which I don't mean a mystical one. Just as the material world is connected invisibly at the quantum level, the subtle world is connected by a field of consciousness. A prayer, a desire to be healed, a wish for peace, hope for reassurance about the dead -- each impulse enters the field of consciousness and is responded to, just as every material event enters the quantum field and is responded to, down to the least quark and photon.

Meaningless gibberish with the word “quantum” thrown in (twice), as well as a quark and a photon for good measure. This is standard Chopra: he quotes quantum mechanics safe in the knowledge that that few people will know he’s talking garbage. In reality, he just wants to hijack the mantle of science to give this gibberish some respectability. It’s sold a lot of books.

So much evidence exists already about everything on the list

Yes, evidence that they are nonsense, don’t exist or don’t work.

that there is no longer a need to try and adapt to the scientific world view as if it were the only valid one.

Another appeal to other ways of knowing. He still hasn’t explained his better way though. Wonder why not?

Consciousness is still a cottage industry. As such, there is a wild mixture of truth and speculation, projection and verification. Anyone's experience could be real or imaginary. Anyone's explanation could be valid or eccentric.

I suppose that paragraph is technically correct. Meaningless though.

This is the best one of the lot:

For a new world view to emerge it must be coherent. It cannot be built up from entirely personal experiences, because sometimes these experiences are so intense that we can't see beyond them.

You know, he’s right. We need a method to evaluate the claims of this “new world view”, a way to objectively test these “experiences” so that we don’t fool ourselves into thinking something is true when it is not. A method where others replicate and confirm our results before they are accepted. A reliable method with a proven track record of success. If only we had such a method.

Imagine being in a room where a clairvoyant medium, a channeler, a faith healer, and an acupuncturist are trying to reach agreement while all around them radios blare messages about UFOs, alien abductions, reincarnation, near-death experiences, etc. The Babel of voices is so intense as to be unintelligible.

Yes, I imagine that a room with a clairvoyant medium, a channeler, a faith healer, and an acupuncturist all babbling together would be pretty unintelligible. Rather an obvious statement to make though.

The first steps have to be taken, however, despite this welter of confusion. A culture of consciousness is possible. In fact, present-day science is such a culture, although it is based, ironically enough, on the premise that consciousness has no validity except as an emergent property of matter. One can foresee the next culture of consciousness based on connections, which would overturn the whole scientific prejudice against the subtle body, invisible realities, and the primacy of consciousness in general.

Maybe. But I don’t foresee Chopra leading us there with this load of waffle.

People ignore facts when making decisions

That’s hardly a surprise to any skeptic who has ever debated a believer. But I am talking here just about ignoring facts when making political decisions. New research shows that people are adept at making political decisions without letting the facts get in the way, and they have the brain scans to prove it. A summary is reported in Live Science (all bold mine):

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

…

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," … "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

The subjects eventually rationalized what they had been told, reaching a biased conclusion based on their prior political preference. Their brains continued to be monitored:

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

This shouldn’t be too surprising to anyone who has debated politics either, but it is interesting to see which parts of the brain are being used (or not) and when. I find it especially interesting that the reward circuits in the brain light up when the data the person doesn’t like, has been rationalized away.

Of course, there is a general lesson here for critical thinkers: we should try to be aware of our own biases when being presented with political (and other) information, and should try to evaluate information honestly, even if it challenges our political views (whatever they may be). This is hard, of course. I try to do this but like everyone else I know that I engage in some of the rationalization activities described above at least some of the time. Half the battle, if you want to be a critical thinker, is to be aware of your own biases and of your own rationalization processes – or “the art of thinking about thinking with a view to improving it” as criticalthinking.org puts it. Something we should all try to do.

Of course, if you didn’t come by your opinions through reason you’re unlikely to change them through reason either, which is why woo beliefs are virtually immune to contradictory evidence. Perhaps with some woos, the “part of the brain normally engaged during reasoning” never gets much of a work-out.

Acupuncture 'deactivates brain'

That’s the headline from this BBC report. Unfortunately the brains being deactivated are clearly those of BBC reporters writing about acupuncture. To see what I mean, read this (all bold is mine):

Acupuncture works by deactivating the area of the brain governing pain, a TV show will claim.

Tuesday's programme - the first of three on complementary medicine - will show researchers carrying out brain scans on people having acupuncture.

The BBC Two show will also feature heart surgery done using acupuncture instead of a general anaesthetic.

Wow, really? Acupuncture instead of a general anesthetic.  I thought all these surgeries in China supposedly done using acupuncture and not general anesthetics were actually shown to have been performed using anesthetics (ie there was more involved than acupuncture). Could the BBC have found some surgery that really was performed using acupuncture only? Er, actually no, because the very next sentence reads:

The patient is conscious during the operation in China, but she was given sedatives and a local anaesthetic.

Well if the patient was given sedatives and a local anesthetic, the surgery was not done using acupuncture was it? Sheesh.

Still, the research seems to have come up with some interesting data. Volunteers had “deep needling”: needles inserted 1cm into the back of the hand. A control group had needles placed only 1mm deep. During these two procedures, the volunteers underwent brain scans to see what effect there was in the brain. They found that the superficial needling resulted in activation of the motor areas of the cortex, a normal reaction to pain. However, the deep needling deactivated a part of the brain, specifically the limbic system. This was surprising because it is usually suggested that acupuncture activates the brain – usually the part that produces endorphins.

Of course, there is no suggestion that this result is due to the balancing of yin and yang by releasing blocked qi in one of the specific 2,000 acupuncture points of the body. In fact, there is no evidence from this study that it matters where the needles are placed, and other studies have shown it makes no difference where they are placed as long as the person receiving the acupuncture believes the needles are being placed in the special magic positions. There is still no reason to suppose that there is any value in the detailed training acupuncturists have to complete to learn where to stick the needles, or that there is any value in most acupuncture treatments at all.

Or to quote Professor Tony Wildsmith, a pain relief expert at the University of Dundee:

The thing about acupuncture is that it does not work on everyone. It is more likely to be effective if you believe it.

I think it is a psychological manipulation technique, a distraction. We are not going to get to the stage where this could be used instead of a general anaesthetic.

Still, if independently confirmed, this is useful data. One day, when we understand what if anything acupuncture really does, we might be able to obtain some of its benefits without all the mystical nonsense about qi.  Maybe.

Skeptics’ Circle

The 26^th Skeptics' Circle is now up at Skeptic Rant. If you’re like me you might have to view the plain text version if you want to see anything.

There are a couple of posts on that Newage phenomenon, Indigo Children. For example, look at this post and then read the comments – one guy doesn’t like the skeptical analysis at all. (I may have to reply to him when I get some time.) 

South Park pulls Scientology episode

According to Ananova Tom Cruise finally came out of the closet to threaten South Park:

TV bosses have axed an episode of South Park which 'outs' a fictional Tom Cruise character as gay.

They are scared the real Tom Cruise might sue them, according to the Sun.

…

An insider was quoted as saying: “Tom is famously very litigious and will go to great lengths to protect his reputation.

“Tom was said not to like the episode and Paramount just didn’t dare risk showing it again. It’s a shame that UK audiences will never see it because it’s very funny.”

Yes it would be a shame, assuming this story is true. As I wrote here, the episode makes fun of Scientology, as well as of Cruise who gets locked in a closet. The line, “Tom Cruise won’t come out of the closet” is repeated continuously. It is a good episode, ending with the Stan character looking at the camera and repeatedly saying “go on, sue me”. Clearly the TV company wasn’t as brave as South Park creators Matt and Trey. (Or, as the final credits have it, John and Jane Smith.)

If the story is true I declare Tom Cruise to be officially a humorless pussy. Although that’s not really news.

Prove you’re not a ghost

Reader Thomas emailed me this story about a man who apparently has been told he has to prove he’s not a ghost:

An Indian man believed dead by his family and fellow villagers caused panic when he returned over fears he had come back as a ghost, the Times of India reported on Monday.

Children screamed “Ghost! Ghost!” and villagers locked their doors when Raju Raghuvanshi returned from jail earlier this month to his village in Mandla district in the central state of Madhya Pradesh.

Raghuvanshi’s brothers, who had shaved their heads to mourn his death in line with Hindu tradition, fled when he appeared, the paper reported.

Villagers and family members have ostracised him, forcing Raghuvanshi to file a complaint with local police. The village council has demanded he prove he is not a ghost, but the paper did not say what kind of proof the elders wanted.

Raghuvanshi’s troubles arose after he was jailed last year. In prison, he was admitted to hospital with a stomach ailment from which he recovered but a distant relative told his family he had died.

(My bold.)

Funny how these people believed he was dead just on the word of one person (what – didn’t they want to see the body, or a death certificate?), but need “proof” that he’s not a ghost. “Prove I died” is what I think I would have responded. 

On second thoughts, perhaps I might find it more fun to scare people.

He’s a lumberjack and…

According to Ananova, a Croatian lumberjack is suing his local health authority because he says his life has changed since he was given a woman’s kidney:

He says his life changed from enjoying heavy drinking sessions with pals to prefering housework after the operation.

…

"I have developed a strange passion for female jobs like ironing, sewing, washing dishes, sorting clothes in wardrobes and even knitting."

He pointed out that before the kidney transplant he would not have been seen dead doing the housework, and expected his wife to do it all, but now found it both relaxing and fulfilling.

All together now:

I cut down trees, I skip and jump, I like to press wild flowers

I put on women's clothing, and hang around in bars

I cut down trees, I wear high heels, suspenders and a bra

I wish I'd been a girlie, just like my dear papa

Nah, the lawsuit doesn’t stand a chance.

Intelligent Evolution

Via Pharyngula and Thoughts From Kansas I learn of the next re-branding iteration of creationism.

Remember how creationism became “Creation Science”, which then became “Intelligent Design”? (Except that Intelligent Design has now been ruled religion in disguise by a judge.) Apparently William Dembski is proposing creationism’s next iteration – Intelligent Evolution. 

It’s also crystal clear from Dembski’s post that all these name changes are just politics and PR:

I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE). The evolution here would be reconceived not as blind evolution but as technological evolution. Nor would it be committed to Darwin’s idea of descent with modification. But, hey, it would still be evolution, and evolution can be taught in schools.

(My bold.)

You’ll note he admits it’s nothing more than a name change to squeak his religiously inspired pseudoscience into school science classes. Remember that when we have the inevitable court cases in a couple of years to teach “IE” in school science classes. Note to Dembski – it takes more than changing one word in a name to make something science. Or as Thoughts From Kansas concludes:

…what IDC … really needs isn't motivational speeches and infomercials … but peer-reviewed research consistently showing promise in IDC.

Well duh! But hilariously, Dembski even has this point covered by this wonderful piece of rationalization:

Don’t be distracted by the “thousands” of articles being published in the research journals that purport to support evolutionary theory — this is an artifact of overfunding an underachieving theory.

Yes, all those “thousands of articles” (note the sneer quotes around “thousands”), are merely evidence of over funding of an “underachieving theory”. Obviously. Presumably the total lack of scientific articles supporting ID is evidence of its strength. Or something.

Call for Skeptics’ Circle submissions

The next Skeptics' Circle will be held this Thursday, January 19^th at the appropriately named Skeptic Rant. Please email the details of your best skeptical blogging by Wednesday night.