Primum Non Nocere

House, M.D.

2011-09-14T19:47:00.006+02:00

Ever since St. Elsewhere -yes, I am really, really old- I am addicted to hospital series, from ER to Grey's Anatomy. My favourite, since I like caricature, and the overt references to the House of God, is Scrubs. There are more series, and one of them is annoying beyond description: House, M.D.. Apparently nobody shares my dislike.

Why do I have a problem with this particular series?

House simultaneously works as a paediatrician, gynaecologist, nefrologist, gastro-enterologist, radiologist, surgeon, et cetera. For some reason his hospital does not need medical specialists. Internists do know alot but those I have met never attempt to be any other type of physician.
Oddly enough, his diagnosis will ignore more obvious possibilities, and instantly requires us to accept a more unlikely scenario.

The first point should be self-evident, the second I will explain in more detail. Let me be absolutely clear, in no way am I suggesting the presented diagnoses are incorrect. One can argue that technically every episode is medically possible. Whether the sequence of events is plausible is something else.

From experience I can tell you that the series explores medical conditions that rarely, at initial presentation, offer sufficient information to instantly suggest their highly unusual diagnoses. The list of enigmas, i.e. uncommon diagnoses, I encountered consists of:

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), initial presentation: severe thrombopenia
Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP), initial presentation: severe thrombopenia
Glanzmann's thrombasthenia
Autoimmune hepatitis
Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT)
Transfusion Related Acute Lung Injury (TRALI)
Ogilvie syndrome
Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS) which, within four hours after being admitted to A & E, developed into Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS)
Stevens–Johnson syndrome
Irreversible brain damage because of prolonged hypoxaemia following acute and severe carbon monoxide poisoning
Carotenaemia evaluation jaundice after visit to the tropics
Fièvre boutonneuse evaluation after visit to the tropics, GP thought of malaria (in case of fever + tropics malaria should be the first in your DD)
Lassa fever
Wolff–Parkinson–White syndrome (WPW)
Dissectio aortae requiring a Bentall procedure

Only carotenaemia (jaundice without yellow eyes), and fièvre boutonneuse (eschar), were an on-the-spot-diagnosis, the others involved extendsive investigations. Eventhough I worked in highly regarded hospitals, no physician was able to pull any rabbit out of his hat. House, of course, would have known the answer within seconds. Utterly unrealistic, especially those that invlove a diagnosis per exclusionem, it is ridiculous to let House skip the exclusionem part.

Add to that the convoluted, and at times incomprehensible, decisions and you understand my being underwelmed. In all honesty, his diagnostic and therapeutic approach are so aberrant it immediately removes any credibility for me. Even the caricature Scrubs has an air of authenticity.

His Asperger-like antisocial personality I find less offensive, it resembles many physicians I have worked with. Totally incapable of thinking of others, and convinced of their infallability. Admittedly, like House, they do tend to know their stuff. Strangely enough this part of the character is true to life.

His magician-like ability to conjure up the right answer out of thin air makes me incapable of watching the series.

Agnotology: or denialism as policy

2011-08-28T19:11:00.005+02:00

When I entered medical school I strongly believed that knowledge was the answer to most, if not all, problems. By the same token I thought that in any debate, just offering your opponent a well-supported argument had to lead to its acceptance.

Not so. Apparently, for psychological reasons humans reject evidence that contradicts strongly held beliefs. Hence the need for denialism. Because of that I coined the phrase: there is no cure for stupidity. As I remarked before, there are two sides to that coin. One, there are those that sincerely refuse to accept scientific facts, mostly through lack of understanding. Eventhough studies show increasing their knowledge does not help, I sincerely hope it does. Unfortunately, they evade venues that offer critical thinking courses.

Unfortunately, there is another group. They do not reject science, they understand and accept it. However, their monetary gains, religious and political powers, are severly damaged should certain scientific facts become known and accepted by the general public. To protect profitable companies, policies, et cetera they attempt to keep uncomfortable information hidden, and are actively aided by politicians. And if that does not work they soften the blow by pointing out the science is not settled, or even making us distrust science.

We were first shown that tactic by the tabacco industry (PDF) , which despite increasing evidence smoking is detrimental to our health, made it possible to stall legislation. Their trick: manufacturing scientific doubt.

Following that success new acolytes appeared: global warming does not exist, vaccination kills, evolution is merely another opinion, the financial industry Ponzi scheme, non-medicine-medicine, only plebeians commit crimes, we guarantee your safety, privacy will be the end of us all, militarism and ignoring the law breeds democracy. The recurring theme is misinformation, misrepresentation, and fullblown denialism.

Putting as many sticks as possible in the wheels of the bicycle called science has become a major strategy which is detailed in Merchants of Doubt. The cause is self-evident: if people hear smoking kills you lose customers, once evolution is accepted and the bible is proven to be a set of fairy tales that book can no longer be used to indoctrinate the rabble, if global warming is true you need to make costly adaptations to factories and cars, if security theatre does not prevent terrorist attacks we won't spent billions on the military-industrial-complex incarnation called security firms.

That technique of creating confusion is known as agnotology. According to Dah Wiki this:

is the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

The term was invented by Robert Proctor in 1992. An example is given by Stéphane Foucart for The Guardian:

A famous internal memo issued by the US cigarette manufacturer Brown & Williamson put it bluntly: "Doubt is our product." The campaign by the tobacco industry to spread ignorance, which became a deliberate ploy in the 1950s, has since been copied in other fields.

Hmm, doubt as a product, where have I heard that before?

Today the intertoobs are a highly effective method of disseminating misinformation. There are numerous echo chambers promoting "alternative views" by experts without knowledge. Countering the deliberate manufacture of debate becomes increasingly difficult. Especially when exposing those fabricating facts results in abuse like the recent unpleasantness.

Not only facts are misrepresented, also language is conscripted in this war on reason. Something Orwell years ago explained to us, which is why today we call such abuse of language Orwellian.

The sad thing is I expect powerful factions to mislead in order to gain money and power, I have been turned into a cynic by Il Principe combined with a lack of interest in the latest Hollywood gossip. What annoys me is that the one institute whose raison d'être should be exposing such blatant fraud is refusing to do so. Or, in the case of one news organisation, participating in the scheme to mislead us. Commenting on the P.R.-departments we call media David Roberts writes:

There's one thing we haven't learned from climategate (or death panels or birtherism). U.S. politics now contains a large, well-funded, tightly networked, and highly amplified tribe that defines itself through rejection of "lamestream" truth claims and standards of evidence. How should our political culture relate to that tribe?

We haven't figured it out. Politicians and the political press have tried to accommodate the shibboleths of the right as legitimate positions for debate. The press in particular has practically sworn off plain judgments of accuracy or fact. But all that's done is confuse and mislead the broader public, while the tribe pushes ever further into extremity. The tribe does not want to be accommodated. It is fueled by elite rejection.

At this point mainstream institutions like the press are in a bind: either accept the tribe's assertions as legitimate or be deemed "biased." Until there is a way out of that trap, there will be more and more Climategates.

Confronted with such opposition to change, i.e. advancement of knowledge, I am reminded of my school days. During physics lessons Lenz's law was introduced to me.

An induced current is always in such a direction as to oppose the motion or change causing it.

Add to that a pinch of Newton:

To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.

which completes my version of quantum-woo to explain The Force is behind the anti-science movement.

Update: Added image borrowed from Waldenswimmer.

Update II: Yet another brilliant picture from Joe Romm, for Think Progress:

Nice flow-chart of The Denier Industrial Complex.

Attack of the anti-science movement

2011-08-22T23:11:00.011+02:00

One of the last resorts left to the anti-science crowd is bullying more saner individuals into submission. Since they cannot win the debate on its merits they regularly use the legal system to stifle critique: i.e. those exposing their nonsense. However, it is not the only tactic available, death threats are always a very effective way too to show you are not pleased with science. The similarities in modus operandi with that other group of ideologues, Scientology, is striking. For this post I limit myself to the litigation-crowd. Behaviour that in the past made me remark:

This is because the intrepid ideologue will start by simply denying anything that contradicts his/her erroneous opinion since the Galileo-gambit proves he/she is right. This method is not without risks. More and more people realise they are the victim of propaganda. Another avenue for maintaining your discreditied position is legal bullying. As we have seen, in the case of Simon Singh, litigation -using the U.K.'s libel laws in particular- is a preferred method, employed by cranks, of removing science-based criticism from public discourse.

That post was a response to how this tactic:

resulted in cancelling the publication of Paul Offit's latest book Deadly Choices: How The Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All.

Based on the past weeks it appears this method of silencing reality-based criticism is on the rise. First, the recently unleashed Google Plus requires users to disclose their true identity. That is, even a well established pseudonym will lead to suspension of your account. Eventhough numerous legitimate reasons exist for people to keep their personal details hidden. Nevertheless, Google is not always in favour of disclosing that type of information:

Yet, it’s precisely for defending three bloggers’ right to anonymity that its Brazilian subsidiary was fined this Thursday by a local judge.

Following that kerfuffle the Overlords at Scienceblogs have also chosen to prohibit anonymous/pseudonymous blogging. Strangely enough both organisations were able to miss the fact that a blogger, named Samuele Riva, was threatened to stop writing about the factually correct observation that there was no scientific support for the claims (pun intended) being made by a producer of homeopathic remedies. In the words of Steven Novella:

this time the international homeopathy producer, Boiron, is threatening a lone Italian blogger because he dared to criticize their product, Oscillococcinum. The blogger, Samuele Riva, wrote two articles on his blog, blogzero.it, criticizing what our own Mark Crislip has called “oh-so-silly-coccinum.” The blog is entirely in Italian, but he is maintaining a page in English with updates on the Boiron vs Blogzero affair.

As a result of this legal thuggery the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) are begging to be sued too:

We are inviting Boron [sic] to litigate not because we think their suit might have merit; quite to the contrary, such a suit would have absolutely no merit. If sued in any American court, we are confident we will prevail. Homeopathy has no scientific basis. Instead, we are inviting litigation because we do not believe Boron should be able to silence critics by picking on isolated bloggers.

Working on a post documenting this schoolyard approach to science I noticed the most recent incident involving EpiRen, who is a great force for reason. Liz Ditz wrote that his employer, because of legal threats, forced him to stop writing his science-based articles debunking the plethora of claims by the ideology-trumps-science-crowd:

Last weekend, Mr. Najera had a heated exchange with a pharmaceuticals "entrepreneur", Mr. X-- I put that in quotes as Mr. X. made some claims that don't stand up. Mr. X also made a series of ad hominem attacks on Jen Gunter MD, to which Mr. Najera responded.

Rather than responding to Mr. Najera, Mr. X escalated in a particularly virulent way. Mr. X sent a series of emails--complaining about Mr. Najera's opinions, complaining about Mr. Najera's defense of vaccination, and threatening legal action--to a great many people senior to Mr. Najera in his department -- starting with Mr. Najera's immediate superior. Mr. X was able to do so because Mr. Najera was blogging under his own name, named the state in which he worked, and because the name René Najera is rather uncommon -- especially in a small, East Coast state.

Commenting on this incident Orac adds:

René was ordered by his superiors to cease all blogging, Twittering, and other social network activity related to public health.

You will find his blog is no longer available, a truly disgusting result. This tendency to prevent pertinent information from being shared with the general public -i.e. censorship- is the hallmark of ideologues. Why am I not allowed to hear facts that are incompatable with your preferred/perceived version of reality?

In the absence of media that adequately report on pseudoscience -you must know this is a particular peeve of mine- it is frightning to witness the blatant use of threats, instead of reasoned discourse, to get rid of opposing voices. Especially, when it has been repeatedly shown that there is absolutely zero evidence to support those anti-science claims. The fact the anti-science crowd will stop at nothing to hide criticism is one of the main reasons I keep my personal details hidden, though luckily I am hardly important enough for them to bother me.

In light of the above, an article by Glenn Greenwald detailing the war on whistleblowers, combined with an expanding Surveillance State, add a somewhat sinister argument as to why ones identity should be allowed to remain seperated from real world interactions.

Update: The internet has reacted with strong emotions over this incident, since the underlying debate is about the ability to adopt an anonymous/pseudonymous alter ego, for whatever purpose. From Liz Ditz we learn that @epiApril has suggested Epigate for this circus. She also keeps a list of posts by others detailing this thuggery. An excellent observation of these events is written by Dr Judy Stone. The effect the internet has on the age old exchange of ideas amongst the medical profession is reviewed by PalMD. To remind us of the law of uintended consequences Scepticemia discusses the Streisand effect while listing the numerous responses.

Update II: Regarding nymity Chad Orzel adds some points, while Tara C. Smith stresses its importance and asks National Geographic to reconsider the ill-advised Scienceblogs-thingy. Thinking on the methods used by the let's-reinstate-the-Dark-Ages-brigade I am reminded of another type of strongarming. It is defined as:

acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes (took part of the definition to offer my view on what it is)

Which, after my selective quoting, sounds like the definition offered by Lord Lloyd of Berwick:

The use of serious violence against persons or property, or threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public or any section of the public, in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives.

Obviously, the similarity is a misunderstanding on my part. We all know that only brown people with islamic sounding names embrace such tactics.

The Galileo Movement

2011-08-17T15:27:00.008+02:00

Last year I, though I was not alone in this, noticed the tendency of cranks to invoke Galileo as proof of the inherent scientific basis of their refusal to accept the scientific consensus.

This time it is discussed by Scientific American as part of the epidemic, involving global warming denialism, in Australia. Apparently there is a new anti-science group Down Under:

Launched in February, the Galileo Movement is getting much of its lift from its influential "patron," conservative radio personality Alan Jones, one of the most popular broadcasters in Australia, who has touted the effort on his daily morning show.

For the casual observer this is yet more evidence that Merchants of Doubt was spot on, which makes Scientific American observe:

By casting doubt on the science, the need for behavior change is blunted – an approach the tobacco industry successfully employed throughout the 1980s and '90s to delay efforts to warn the public of smoking's dangers.

Independent Australia has more details on the who, and what, here and here. This campaign is part of the current non-debate over there on how to tackle the consequences of global warming. As expected there is vocal opposition to science whenever it interferes with ideological and/or monetary interests. As I noted before:

What these "sceptics" fail to notice is that Galileo made observations based in science, something they invariably refuse to do. Since his conclusions contradicted religious dogma, i.e. ideology, the Church attacked him. His findings were opposed not on their merits but by appeal to authority: the bible. Enter the anti-science brigade. The mere fact their stance is rejected too proves they, like Galileo, are persecuted. Wrong. They clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word.

Strangely enough the Galileo Movement missed the discovery that Galileo was wrong, although Ethan Siegel and Orac are less certain of that proposition. For those interested in the less fantasy infested version of reality I suggest visiting Skeptical Science, Open Mind, New Anthropocene, Climate Shifts, and RealClimate.

Update: Borrowed picture from Matthew Francis who also discusses this incarnation of the anti-science movement.

Update II: Found a post by Bycicle User on this topic.

Update III: The Galileo gambit is also explained by The Tracker.

Apps for the iPhone

2011-08-03T13:26:00.003+02:00

It is about one year ago that I acquired my first iPhone. It replaced my previous toy which has moved on to a better world. Since then I have been playing around with it, and today it has more or less the apps I like, and need.

For the benefit of future reference, and for those of you who might think it useful, I will discuss what I am currently using.

For starters the iPod-function makes it possible to bring my favourite music with me, although I evade the use of iTunes to sync my music, and as it has an adequate camera-funtion I take my pictures with it too.

The apps I have put in seperate "folders," below I reproduced their names and contents:

Utilities

App Store (for searching and downloading apps)
Settings (to personalise the iPhone)
Compass (fun, but not sure if it can replace the real thing)
Clock (helps me get up in the morning)
Battery Life (nice )
Flashlight (when your skulking around in the dark this will add some light)
Wi-Fi Finder (great for finding free spots, CAVE: phonebill when abroad)
Handy Level

iPhone

Messages
Contacts
ContactSync
PhoneCopy
MacMost
Find iPhone
Remote
RDP
Discovr Apps, cool way to find new apps
12 Days

News

Pulse, news aggregate
BBC News
Norway News

Social

Echofon, interface for Twitter
Facebook,
Google+, new alternative to Twitter and Facebook, for those who want to follow, or add, me: click here
Fring, alternative for Skype, and it works on 3G
Foursquare, let people now where you are
Skype, contrary to Fring it only works on Wi-Fi
Hoccer
Bump
PingChat
Tango
eBuddy XMS

Weather

Yr.no,
AccuWeather
MyWeather
AeroWeather
Weather
Skiinfo
Ski Club Snow Report
Snoveo
Snow Report
Ski Montagne

Travel

Tripit, keep track of your travels
PF Free
FlightStatus
Tripwolf
iTrailMap
MetrO

Navigate

Google Earth
Navigon
Google Maps
SkyView Free
Layar
AroundMe
GPS Tracker
EveryTrail
Yubify

Television & Radio

StreamItAll
P4
22Tracks
Top 100 Hits

Audio & Video

VLC, this allows me to bring my favourite fims with me
YouTube
TED Mobile
Shazam
SoundHound
iTunes
iTalk
Voice Memos
Nike + iPod

Photography

Camera
Photos
Gorillacam
Genius Scan
Instagram

Cullinary

Epicurious
VintageChart
BigOven
DrinksFree
Cook's

Medical

NEJM App
PubMed Tap
Student BMJ
MedCalc
Eponyms
Skyscape
Medscape

Shopping

Groupon
IKEA

Productivity

Notes
2Do Lite
Easy Note
EasyTask
UYIH
Evernote
Camcard

Reference

Wikipanion
Wikipedia
Science
Planets
KnotsGuide
SearchIt
Merriam-Webster

On the Town

Language

myLanguage
Google Translate
WordPower Norwegian
WordPower Spanish
Word Lens

Literature

Book Reader
iBooks
Poe
Shakespear
Stanza
Audiobooks

Readers

NeoReader
RedLaser
Scan
ShopSavvy

Converters

Xe Currency
Currency
Coverter
Stocks

Excercise

MapMyTracks
Runtastic Pro
RunKeeper

Games

Inception
Zen Bound
Paper Pilot
WordFeud
Solitaire

Note: Not all applications are linked, so I will be updating that part of the post in the coming days. Second, if any of you know apps I need to check-out let me know.

Ideology using legalities to stifle scientific critique

2011-03-08T20:03:00.002+01:00

Throughout history many have found ideology to be a trustworthy window on reality. As such it is the basis of many misconceptions. When science increased our knowledge of the world surrounding us inevitably this contradicted many beliefs. The solution people have found to that contradiction is the following:

Confronted with evidence your opinion is flawed you amend your view accordingly,
Confronted with evidence your opinion is flawed you amend (read: ignore, or misrepresent) the evidence accordingly.

Anyone interested in sanity, and reason, will adopt option 1. Of course, the anti-science movement, without exception, chooses option 2.

This is because the intrepid ideologue will start by simply denying anything that contradicts his/her erroneous opinion since the Galileo-gambit proves he/she is right. This method is not without risks. More and more people realise they are the victim of propaganda. Another avenue for maintaining your discreditied position is legal bullying. As we have seen, in the case of Simon Singh, litigation -using the U.K.'s libel laws in particular- is a preferred method, employed by cranks, of removing science-based criticism from public discourse.

The latest incarnation of the "let's-prohibit-those-pesky-reality-based-objections-to-our-nonsense"-method resulted in cancelling the publication of Paul Offit's latest book Deadly Choices: How The Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. It is discussed by Orac describing how he:

found out about this when a British blogger, who had been originally sent a copy of Dr. Offit's book to review, received an e-mail from Dr. Offit's British publisher, Basic Books, requesting the review copy back and informing the blogger that "for legal reasons we have had to cancel the publication of this book." I had to tell the blogger that I had no idea what this was about, but it didn't take me long to find out that Richard Barr was threatening legal action against Perseus over one sentence.

He continues to note:

that usually the goal of cranks is not to win a judgment, but to shut down criticism by any means necessary. To that end, even though it would have been pretty pointless for Barr to sue Dr. Offit directly, legal threats against his U.K. publisher are very effective. All Barr has to accomplish is--if you'll forgive the term--to raise the bar on the costs of publication to the point that publishing Dr. Offit's book can't be profitable. Given the low profit margin of most books, likely Dr. Offit's included, a few legal fees spent to fend off threats like that of Mr. Barr go a long way towards discouraging publishers from publishing critical or controversial books. That's the point.

Unfortunately, the anti-science movement, like Hydra, appears impossible to debilitate. The purveyors of woo disingenuously invoke freedom of speech to make the most outlandish claims, while simultaneously insisting that this right does not apply to those pointing out these claims are factually incorrect. One can only hope Libel Reform will be effectuated before more attempts are made to keep the public from knowing experts have debunked the medieval beliefs promoted by the anti-science brigade.

In the mean time, whenever you see an organisation/individual, engaged in making controversial claims, trying to limit the availability of information exposing possible misstatements on their part be very sceptical towards those claims. Especially regarding health related claims where they simultaneously, yet always coincidentally, sell something related to that "controversy."

Update: Then again, "I'll sue you" is so 1980's. To show your superior intellect in the 21st century you need to use a more sophisticated method of bullying, enter the Distributed Denial of Service Attack (DDoSA). Scienceblogs, a source of science information, is the latest to come under attack. Details by Greg Laden, Pharyngula, Aardvarchaeology, Orac, Mike the Mad Biologist.

Propaganda posing as journalism

2011-02-18T15:49:00.010+01:00

My interests are very diverse. Much of what I might want to share is done by others, and probably better. Medicine and quackery are covered by -among others- Orac, Steven Novella, Science-Based Medicine, and PalMD. Scienceblogs, Scientopia for science in general. Analysis of U.S. Policies regarding the War of Terror can be found at Glenn Greenwald's blog. Information on Global Warming can be found at Skeptical Science, Open Mind, Watching the Deniers. For other suggestions look at my blogroll.

Though I try and discuss whatever has caught my attention it is impossible to ignore the absolutely inadequate, bordering on willfully ignorant, stories presented to us by the media. Regardless of the topic you will find journalists are:

Insufficiently schooled to appreciate the intricacies involved, as such they fail to intervene when factually false statements are made,
Insufficiently schooled to evade, or expose logical fallacies,
Insufficiently aggressive to confront powerful interviewees with inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies, or logical fallacies, (just imagine their special status being revoked, thereby limiting their access to the inner circle)
Frequently employed to disseminate the talking points of politicians and religious leaders, also known as propaganda, see point 3,
Trained to obey the wish of their government (an offer they can't refuse?) to conceal information negating statements made by said government,
Not inclined to ask for expert advise, when confronted with the previous points, because they are abundantly unaware of the limits their knowledge has,
Inherently disinclined to support anyone who forgets to adhere to the above, i.e. those who engage in actual journalism

With that in mind I am genuinly surprised that any selfrespecting individual would dare to claim to be a Serious Reporter while adhering to those principles. That is, it is not as if they act like those amateuristic bloggers who never fact-check and lack any credentials to be considered trustworthy.

Of course, newsorganisations have to cut down their costs and inevitably the number of (qualified) journalists goes down. As a result the public feels they become untrustworthy, which in turn makes them buy less newspapers. This leads to more lay-offs, as income for newsorganisations keeps dwindling. Under these circumstances I propose a radical thought: invest in quality journalism, even the investigative kind. That is, create the environment needed to present a factual and accurate story, as opposed to ideology driven misinformation. Naive as I am I would not be surprised if this would increase their audience. Why else are people reading blogs and fora? They still want to know things. And no, not only about who does so and so with whom.

Scary thought: what if news reports go beyond hollywood scandals, petty gossip, propaganda and turn out to actually contain existential topics using real experts; i.e. global warming does exist, Intelligent Design is inherently unscientific, vaccines do not cause autism, the exaggerated threat of terrorism is used to abolish civil rights, et cetera.

One can, and should, dream.

Update: Added point 5. You will note that the linked article there is an example of combining point 4 and 5 in an attempt to shape public opinion. Also known as Psyops.

Update II: It is becoming tedious, but Glenn Greenwald again notes the principal thing journalists consider to be in their job description: never reveal actual information but actively strife to keep it hidden from the public while dutifully reporting the propaganda. Or, in his words:

That's what our establishment media outlets largely are for: to disseminate and amplify the messages of our most powerful political, military and financial factions without any accountability.

His article also clarifies that today the widespread use of "anonymous" sources is essential to ensure nobody can be held accountable for evidently false statements, even as they drive the perception of things. Quoth Glenn:

Anonymity does have a valid purpose in journalism: its legitimate purpose is to protect the vulnerable and powerless when they expose wrongdoing by those who wield power. But most establishment journalists have completely reversed that, so that anonymity is used to protect those with the most power: to enable them to make all sorts of public claims and launch all kinds of attacks on critics without being accountable. When anonymity is used for those purposes, it is inherently and incomparably corrupt (that, of course, is the dynamic that led to public acceptance of patently false claims justifying the Iraq War). But this perversion of anonymity from what it was supposed to be (a means of holding the powerful accountable) into a power-shielding weapon is simply a microcosm of the broader reversal by establishment journalists of the old dictate to "afflict the powerful and comfort the powerless." Most establishment journalists -- by definition -- do exactly the opposite, and their eagerness to indiscriminately grant anonymity to the nation's most powerful officials is simply one manifestation of that power-serving mindset.

Contrast that with the way anonymity of whistleblowers is respected. But hey, let's not forget not forget how hard it is to be a Real Journalist. You need to fact-check, use your elaborate journalistic skills, and above all you need to refrain from taking sides!

Update III: The claim Real Journalists are objective, as opposed to those unprofessional bloggers, is shattered by Jack Goldsmith, according to Glenn Greenwald. Apparently U.S. media feel their duty is to show allegiance to the U.S. administration:

... allowing such loyalties to determine what one reports or conceals is a very clear case of bias and subjectivity: exactly what most reporters vehemently deny they possess. Many establishment journalists love to tout their own objectivity -- insisting that what distinguishes them from bloggers, opinionists and others is that they simply report the facts, free of any biases or policy preferences. But if Goldsmith is right -- and does anyone doubt that he is? -- then it means that "the American press" generally and "senior American national security journalists" in particular operate with a glaring, overwhelming bias that determines what they do and do not report: namely, the desire to advance U.S. interests.

He then notes:

A desire to promote American policy or its "interests" will often directly conflict with core journalistic obligations. It's often the case that disclosing the truth about the American government (a journalistic duty) will undermine the government's policy aims or subvert government "interests." The same is true for serving as an adversarial watchdog on government officials: exposing their false statements and lies, uncovering their corruption and deceit, contradicting their propaganda; doing that can also undermine American interests. Reporters who engage in journalism with the goal of advancing U.S. interests or promoting their nationalistic allegiance -- which Goldsmith suggests is the majority of them -- are engaged in activism and propaganda, not adversarial journalism. That's fine, I suppose, if they acknowledge their biases, but those who are driven by these allegiances while pretending to be "objective" are engaged in a game of deceit.

Usually I write about science, but this intermezzo was meant to show this behaviour, of replicating talking points for ideological reasons while hiding inconvenient information, is not limited to science reporting: i.e. global warming, vaccination, evolution, et cetera. Whatever else is true, journalists are far from objective regarding any topic, which is the point I keep making.

Update IV: Strangely enough the NYT appears capable of "taking sides." Eventhough we have a classic example of a "he said, she said"-situation they have no problem choosing one version over the other. Would that have anything to do with the "controversy" involved?

Update V: After years of being "objective," i.e. not taking sides, the NYT has started writing about waterboarding as a form of torture. Could it be because the alleged perpetrator is not from the U.S.?

Update VI: Another newsarticle incapable of being accurate, whether its writer is intentionally misleading his readers I leave up to you.

Update VII: To quote Pharyngula:

Science journalists, you really piss me off…at least some of you. Here are a couple of headlines about that recent paper I summarized that make me want to slap someone.

Valentine's day

2011-02-14T18:22:00.004+01:00

Like every year today is Valentine's day. Of course, an utterly commercialised event. Despite that I hope everybody will have a great and romantic day.

Update: The insect input for romance, Shellac:

is an insect-produced product that may be part of your Valentine’s candy (and many other things).

More is explained by bug girl for Skepchick.

Update II: For the Guardian Jason Goldman gives us:

seven tips from science that just may help you find a date on Valentine's Day. You've heard of evidence-based medicine? This is evidence-based dating.

And Pharyngula introduces some loving hedgehogs.

The House of God

2011-02-14T18:17:00.000+01:00

When I began as a resident I was allowed to ask for any diagnostic tool. The only requirement was that I needed to show the specialist I worked for how the results would influence my decisions. Imagine ordering an X-ray of the left foot to evaluate a possible heart attack. As it is impossible to make any reasonable connection between the two (foot-heart) no radiograph would be allowed.

Before that, as an intern, I was impressed to see an orthopaedic surgeon evaluate patients in order to find reasons not to operate. Later, as a resident I found that it is a trait seldom found among those trained to use a scalpel. The reasoning was, obviously, that we as physicians do cause complications, and as such may end up hurting patients.

With that in mind I just read an article, by Harriet Hall, which underscores that point:

We are healthier, but we are increasingly being told we are sick. We are labeled with diagnoses that may not mean anything to our health. People used to go to the doctor when they were sick, and diagnoses were based on symptoms. Today diagnoses are increasingly made on the basis of detected abnormalities in people who have no symptoms and might never have developed them. Overdiagnosis constitutes one of the biggest problems in modern medicine. Welch explains why and calls for a new paradigm to correct the problem.

To me, this is not rocket science. If anything, we were already warned by Samuel Shem that medical interventions inevitably introduce risks. His "good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible" I interpret to stand for:

There are so-called self-limiting conditions. This means they resolve by themselves without any treatment: i.e. common cold.
Medical interventions are inherently dangerous, there is always the risk it leads to complications.

These points should make any physician question the necessity of any intervention. The following examples are meant as illustration to those points, and of how I view diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

One day a patient did not sufficiently produce urine. The medical history showed abdominal surgery the previous day, while the current status showed an i.v. drip with NaCl 1 liter/24h, an NSAID to counter the post-operative pain, blood tests suggesting deteriorating kidney function, and diuretics to correct for the diminishing urine production. At this time I was consulted to look at the kidney function. To the trained eye there already are several clues.

Fluid replacement at 1 l/24 h is not much (the patient did not yet eat or drink), especially in abdominal surgery. This alone might cause dehydration. After evaluating the patient I concluded this was what happened,
Of course, once a patient is dehydrated using diuretics appears somewhat counter productive: you need fluid to urinate, not lose more by stimulating diuresis,
Then the use of NSAIDs, they are known to cause stomach, and kidney problems. In a patient that already has a compromised kidney function these drugs should be immediately discontinued, and replaced by another type of analgesic,

After concluding this was prerenal kidney failure, or dehydration, the fluid volume parenterally administered was increased to 2 l/24h, the NSAID and diuretic were stopped. Several hours later the urine production, and lab tests, returned to normal. This is not meant to embarrass any colleague but as a warning that something trivial as a painkiller may have devastating effects. In this case the patient might have ended up requiring haemodialysis.

An example of the risk diagnostic methods pose is perforating the colon, which is rare, when taking a specimen to evaluate polyps. To prevent you from falling asleep I will stop illustrating the point. You undoubtedly understand my point.

Thinking about these possibilities today my view is that we should always ask ourselves: is the possible complication from the therapy/diagnostic method I want to prescribe worth the expected benefit?

In short, is this test required for a diagnosis, and is non-treatment more dangerous than treatment? Only then should one proceed with the intended intervention. Or, "good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible."

As an aside, this maxim is applicable to other professions too.

MedGadget

2011-02-02T16:25:00.004+01:00

Be sure to help your favourite medical blog by voting at MedGadget:

After a careful analysis and consideration, we are pleased to present the finalists of the seventh annual Medical Weblog Awards.

There are several categories:

Best Medical Weblog

Celebrity Diagnosis
Clinical Cases and Images:CasesBlog
EMCrit blog
The Sterile Eye
White Coat Underground
Best New Medical Weblog (established in 2010)

Celebrity Diagnosis Professional Edition
The Future Well
Scepticemia
Wellness Rounds
ZDoggMD
Best Literary Medical Weblog

other things amanzi
The Quack Doctor
Reflections of a Grady Doctor
StorytellERdoc
White Coat Underground
Best Clinical Sciences Weblog

Academic Life in Emergency Medicine
GeriPal
EMCrit blog
Renal Fellow Network
Resus M.E!
Best Health Policies/Ethics Weblog

33 charts
Covert Rationing Blog
EverythingHealth
The Health Care Blog
Best Medical Technologies/Informatics Weblog

Dalai's PACS Blog
HIStalk
iMedicalApps
NanoTechGalaxy
ScienceRoll
Best Patient's Blog

Brass and Ivory
Dean's Stroke Musings
Diabetes Mine
Dispatch From Second Base
Wheelchair Kamikaze

After reading my musings you will be pleasantly surprised, or shocked, to find there are much, much, much better bloggers around. (h/t PalMD)

The red moon

2011-02-02T15:33:00.001+01:00

A highly informative and interesting post by Ethan Siegel explains why the moon turns red during an eclipse. You should read it in full so I won't bother you with my take on it.

Update: Still wondering how the universe came into being, from nothing? That is, how could there be a Big Bang without some sort of creator? Be sure to read his new post on how something can come from nothing.

Facts are overrated anyway

2011-01-14T00:44:00.005+01:00

This blog was started to share my thoughts on science, rationality and why they are continuously attacked. Today I am convinced intra-personal psychological processes create the caustic responses from humans that are confronted with scientific conclusions which contradict their ideology.

Even before I began writing this blog I was not impressed by what journalists produce. Knowing a little about medicine I was repeatedly surprised by the either outdated, incomplete, or even incorrect articles I read covering medicine. When I became a resident I was taught how to read, and write, articles. In every hospital I worked we would discuss two articles from medical journals -i.e. NEJM, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Intensive Care Medicine, et cetera- on a weekly basis. By talking about the strenghts, and weaknesses, of the article this has increased my critical thinking skills. Undoubtedly one of the reasons this ritual is part of hospital life.

Unfortunately this is not part of journalist school. As such I wonder how this may influence the viability of nonsensical ideas in society. The type of journalism media currently practice does the general public a disservice by making the "fair-and-balanced"-fallacy a popular point of view. This doctrine increases the dumbing down of society, which has given us numerous absurd opinions. Also, the need for celebrities to engage in misinforming the public has devastating effects. Terri Judd, for The Independent, writes about these effects and on how the public sees manufactroversies. To illustrate the spread of the "I-refuse-to-adequately-inform"-virus, within the media, below are stories covering different topics that fall within the "facts-are-to-be-treated-as-opinions"-category.

Regarding vaccines:
Just recently there was a concerted effort to counter the misinformation being spread by the infectious-disease-promotion-movement. It was hugely successful. So much so that today radiostations have been enlisted to help keep us scared of science. One wonders how effective the fearmongerers would be without the complicit media wich refused to point out the numerous, and huge, inaccuracies being presented as facts. A review by David Gorski of:

two — count ‘em, two! — books taking a skeptical, science-based look at vaccines and, in particular, the anti-vaccine movement.

can be found here. Astonishingly, even after Brian Deer in a leading medical journal concluded the father of the current infectious-disease-promotion-movement, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, made up the article which started the recent anti-vaccination scare journalists refuse to discard the "fair-and-balanced"-doctrine. As Cyril Washbrook, for MediaSpy, reminds us:

As Ben Goldacre notes in a well-known critique of the media's reporting on the issue, the so-called "quality" press stood shoulder-to-shoulder alongside trashy tabloids in peddling fears that lacked a credible basis.

What does the Serious Reporter do?:

But even now, purportedly respectable media outlets continue to trot out their post-modernist, we-shall-never-adjudicate routine, showing that the lessons have not been learned. Step forward, CNN.
A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines is an "elaborate fraud," according to a medical journal - a charge the physician behind the study vigorously denies.
Note the immediate establishment of the basic heuristic: one person says the study is a fraud, the other person says it isn't. Unsurprisingly, the entire article proceeds along these very lines. Wakefield says it's a smear campaign; the BMJ says it's a genuine exposé. Wakefield says Deer has been paid off; Deer says he's independent.

There is no sign journalists realise that informing one's audience about the veracity of claims, not merely reporting the claims themselves, is what journalism should be about.

Regarding the placebo-effect:
We all have heard of the placebo-effect. A recent study suggests we underestimate the power of the placebo. According to what has been reported in the media it works even when patients are aware they are taking fake medicine. Predictably, the popular press has not been sceptical enough, as Orac points out.

I don't have a huge problem with the study. After all, it's a pilot study. The biggest problem I have is with how the study is being sold to the press, as though it were evidence that placebo effects can really be triggered without at least some degree of deception. It shows nothing of the sort.

More on this by PalMD and David Gorski.

Evolution is not science:
Once Darwin irked the religious with his theory their response has been: attack, attack, and attack. The reason for this is clearly their fear science might prove The Bible is not The Truth. One can imagine religion being shown to be nothing more than mythology. The horror. There was initially the Scopes trial and recently through slight of hand, introducing the sciency sounding reincarnation of creationism: Intelligent Design. Despite the fact ID has been shown to violate the basics of science they keep claiming this is proof of an Evil Atheist-plot to take over the world. Surely, the media have come to the rescue by promoting, and continuing, the teach-the-controversy-fallacy. Still, I am waiting for journalists to use this argument to report on the Holocaust-controversy, and the Flat-Earth-controversy.

Regarding global warming:
Despite the fact the science is settled ideologues keep telling us AGW is a hoax. An example of inadequate reporting is Climategate. This purportedly showed a conspiracy of scientists to keep The Truth from us. A fact journalists felt compelled to share with us. After it became abundantly clear this was not the case, and the scientific method was exonerated, the media could not be bothered to share that with us. At least, not with the same zeal, and headlines, as the alleged corruption.

War of Terror:
The breakdown of journalistic standards became painfully apparent when the Bush administration was allowed to make the wildest accusations towards Iraq. Worse, the media themselves were the main purveyors of misinformation. Even today, while those claims have turned out to be unsupported by the then available evidence, the media are incapable of learning from that experience. Like Saddam then both Iran and Julian Assange are now The Biggest Threat In The World. Again, no questions are asked to counter that premise.

Political discourse in the US:
For decades it has been bon ton in the US, and it is spreading beyond its borders, to use the most antagonistic and inflammatory ways of discussing topics. It is called freedom of speech. In short, use ad hominems and never relevant arguments. Politicians, and newsmedia, have engaged in sharp descriptions of individuals. After Obama became President of the US the Republicans, their ministry of truth, and other supporters have used terms like traitors, terrorists, un-american (and much more) to describe members of the Democratic Party. Then, this week, a Democrat was shot. In light of the recent rhetoric by the political Right some have suggested a correlation with the toxic political climate. While it is difficult to prove any causality one has to be blind to ignore the possibility. In the words of Mike the Mad Biologist:

As I've said before, words do have meaning. Words should have meaning: if they don't, then do us all a favor and shut up. I believe Representative Trent Franks. I believe them when Rush Limbaugh and his millions of regular listeners believe we're the problem. And the anti-abortion movement has shown what happens when people post cross-hairs over people's names.
So let's not be so concerned with civility, but instead demand honesty and accuracy. That will serve us far better.

He also discusses a NYT article, by Matt Bai, on the shooting which employs the usual "but-both-sides-do-it"-meme.

........, John Cole succinctly sums it all up:
And then my personal favorite: "He was just crazy!" No shit. You have to be crazy to walk into a crowd of people and start spraying bullets, killing a bunch of elderly people and a little kid. That is crazy.

The point we have been trying to make for the last couple of years is that Republicans need to stop whipping up crazy people with violent political rhetoric. This is really not a hard concept to follow. There are crazy people out there. Stop egging them on.
The problem Bai has is that, if you report the obvious story--Republicans have been engaged in eliminationist and exclusionary rhetoric that has some of the hallmarks of fascism--there's nothing new there. It doesn't establish you as a 'contrary' thinker who comes up with devastating counterintuitive insights. But if you can 'establish' (even though you actually can't) that the Left does it too, then you have something different to say.

Another comment on the incident is made by We Beasties:

There's been plenty of talk about the violent rhetoric that's been spewed for the last 2 years, and many have blamed talk radio, Sarah Palin's map with cross-hairs over congressional districts (including congresswoman Giffords') and the like, and I don't have much to add on that front. There's been no direct connection, and there may never be, but I find it hard to believe that this atmosphere of violent hatred had nothing to do with this gunman's actions.

If you are wondering how this relates to my criticism on journalism I refer you to the fact-free, and at times delusional, opining by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and many others which contributed to this climate. In all fairness, yes: they are not journalists but propagandists. Responding to the "the-guy-must-be-crazy"-view, by David Brooks, We Beasties notes:

Vaughan Bell has a devastating critique of this sort of thinking in Slate, noting that the most complete scientific research on the effects of mental illness show very little increase in risk of violent behavior.

More on mental health and violence can be found here.

Wikileaks exposes journalists as not doing their jobs:
As I noted before without the massive failure of journalism we would not have Wikileaks. Their recent disclosures appear to be based on Bradley Manning, who allegedly confessed to a total stranger, Adrian Lamo. His newfound friend then turned informant, and contacted Wired. Note the curious treatment he recieves while he is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This tellingly has led the U.N. to start an investigation.

To aid those favouring all sorts of conspiracies Wired refuses to confirm, or deny, the ever changing narrative being told by Adrian Lamo. Kept hidden from us, by Wired, is how he met Manning and what his relationship is with journalist Poulsen, quoth Greenwald:

That's what so much "journalism" now is: a means of shielding secrets from the public -- usually to protect friends and the agendas of "sources" to ensure further access. Ironically, it is that very mentality -- the Cult of Secrecy that American journalism has become -- that gave rise to the need for WikiLeaks in the first place.

He concludes:

The chat logs that Wired has but is withholding -- and about which they are refusing to comment -- are newsworthy in the extreme. They cannot but shed substantial light on what really happened here, on the bizarre series of events and claims for which there is little evidence and much cause for doubt. I expect government officials to shield the truth from the public and to conceal key evidence and facts. But those who claim to be journalists should not be aiding in that effort. Wired is doing exactly that.

Totally unsuspected the media in general also fail to tell about Wikileaks without incorporating copious amounts of inaccurate statements. How journalists, in this story, have become the voice of the Obama administration's PR-department is described by Greenwald. Of course, Wikileaks does things real journalists never do, they endanger lifes, or this is what we are being told. Therefore we should not be afraid of governments limiting free speech for the real media, who never publish secret information. Strangely enough The NYT itself is now endangering National Security with a new article. In the words of Greenwald:

In The New York Times today, Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins expose very sensitive classified government secrets -- and not just routine secrets, but high-level, imminent planning for American covert military action in a foreign country.

He rhetorically asks:

The question that emerges from all of this is obvious, but also critical for those who believe Wikileaks and Julian Assange should be prosecuted for the classified information they have published: should the NYT editors and reporters who just spilled America's secrets to the world be criminally prosecuted as well? After all, WikiLeaks has only exposed past conduct, and never -- like the NYT just did -- published imminent covert military plans. Moreover, WikiLeaks has never published "top secret" material, unlike what the NYT has done many times in the past (the NSA program, the SWIFT banking program) and what they quite possibly did here as well.

Just to remind us of what we have learned because of Dah Evil Wikileaks, which Real Journalists failed to uncover, read this, this, this, and this.

With the above in mind, combined with the numerous examples I left out, what I notice about journalism today is that it does not matter what you are writing about, to be seen as a Serious Reporter the following characteristics are mandatory:

There are always two sides to a story,
In the absence of any dispute pretend there is one, and present any discredited view as if the topic is still debated: failing to point out opposing opinions is a tell-tale sign of bias, hence point 1,
Never point out any incorrect statements, or factual inaccuracies, by the parties involved: that would be taking sides,
Never reveal anything that damages those in power, i.e. see the hounding of anybody even remotely linked to Wikileaks. Limit your reporting to nefarious pawns and your career is a guaranteed success.
Never explicitly admit error on your part,
A source is anyone who shares information with you, regardles of its veracity or factual accuracy,
Expertise, or lack thereof, should not influence your decision to use a source, i.e. expert opinion is equivalent to that from laymen, and celebrities, which have studied at the University of Google,
A priori you are required to keep the identity of a source, and any possible conflict of interest on their and your part, from the public. Especially when it turns out your source willfully lied to you in order to advance a political agenda,
Should you feel overly generous you might include ad hominems, straw men, and other invaluable arguments to get rid of those annoying people trying to steer the article/interview into a more rational position.

Concluding, the abysmal state of reporting is not limited to scientific manufactroversies. As long as journalism school teaches the above characteristics there will be the need for organisations that understand the adagium Serious Reporters find tedious and outdated:

is this a reasonable representation of the facts (NB: opinions do not equal facts) involved, and am I merely reporting a story, or is my reporting the story? In other words, is this a realistic portrayal of the facts involved and can it be supported by independent reliable sources?

Are the media to blame for all that is evil? No, but their habit of having propaganda pose as news is certainly not helping us in making informed decisions, i.e. should I vaccinate, or who do I vote for, does The Law look backward? Those on Planet Reality need to keep pointing out that they sure act like willful footsoldiers in the War on Reason and Sanity.

Update: Nice reading tip on "making mistakes," by We Beasties, for non-journalists too. Also, amended post slightly.

Norwegian Christmas 2010

2011-01-12T18:30:00.001+01:00

Like last year I spent the holiday season in Telemark. Despite the chaos in Europe I was able to fly to Gardermoen, take the train, and continue by bus. Apparently snow is not a problem in Norway.

In Oslo I went out and tried tapas at Delicatessen, which has been on my wishlist for years. The only thing wrong with the place is that it is unbearingly crowded. They could be more frugal with the number of tables they squeeze in, and refrain from putting four people at a table for two. Having eaten here next on the to-do list is Sult, but it apparently no longer exists. Will find out next time I am here. Afterwards I had homemade beer in the local brewery: SchousKjelleren. The next day I took the Haukeliekspressen to Telemark. When I got there the thermometer claimed it was -22 °C. Brr, luckily I came prepared: warm clothes! Curiously enough I managed to travel while first evading the weather chaos, and then apparently I missed the sillyness at Gardermoen.

Christmas involved lutefisk, rakfisk with homemade flatbrød, pinnekjøtt, aquavit, risengrynsgrøt, rådyr, juleribbe. The cullinary events force me to consider fasting the entire next month. Apparently all my clothes have been washed too hot. Even those I did not bring with me. Guess what my New Year's resolution is.

Like last year I visited some friends to try the Norwegian shrimps. The next morning I took the train to Oslo to prepare for the flight home. The last day in Norway I used to do some shopping. But first I had some excellent coffee at Stockfleth. Oddly enough they forgot to install toilets. Then to see if there are any new DVD's, trousers and other important things: shopping centre. While I was waiting for the train to Gardermoen I ate a burger at Fiasco. Should you have some time and don't want to go shopping around Oslo S, please try their Fiasco burger.

This ends the festive season for this year.

BMJ: Wakefield is a fraud

2011-01-06T18:51:00.007+01:00

In a stunning article in the British Medical Journal we are told that Andrew Wakefield, possibly the principal cause of the recent vaccines-are-evil-hype, is even less trustworthy than we discovered before.

Of course, who but Orac is on the prowl:

The discrepancies between the case reports as described in Wakefield's Lancet paper and the actual medical records are anything but random; all are in the direction of suggesting a link between the MMR and Wakefield's as yet unverified syndrome of regressive autism and enterocolitis. The cases that were selected appear not to have been random, sequential patients but were rather recruited specifically through anti-vaccine activists and trial lawyers.

And:

There is no innocent explanation possible for the systematic and numerous discrepancies between the medical record and Wakefield's paper, as the editors of the BMJ point out in their accompanying editorial:
The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children's cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.

Nevertheless:

Wakefield continues to deny that he has done anything at all wrong and blames the criticisms leveled against him on conspiracies. In reality, given the way the anti-vaccine movement has begun to circle the wagons to defend Wakefield yet again, it's tempting to claim that this is a conspiracy.

In his analysis Brian Deer likens this fraud in scope to Piltdown Man. The next commentator is Phil Plait who writes:

Brian Deer, an investigative journalist, has written a multi-part series on the BMJ site which slams Wakefield. Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, also writes about this… and just to be clear, she uses the word "fraud" nine times in her editorial. Not surprisingly, it’s been picked up by several news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC.

His conclusion:

Andrew Wakefield may not have started the antivax movement, but he certainly egged it on very strongly, along with such mouthpieces as Jenny McCarthy, and Meryl Dorey and the AVN in Australia. If the charges of fraud can be made to stick, then we might be able to make some progress toward reality once again, and lower the rate of outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and polio… and save a lot of lives in the process.

This is exactly why I am not opposed to accountability for willfully endangering other people by invoking free speech. More on the BMJ story by both Pharyngula, Deltoid, and Jeffrey H. Toney.

In the past I have wondered why people adhere to a worldview that has been thoroughly discredited. My unscientific opinion was that it must be some form of delusional disorder. Later, I noted the cognitive dissonance which has been shown to explain such behaviour. In light of what the BMJ has just made public one would hope the infectious-disease-promotion-movement will lose members. Unfortunately, being a cynic, I doubt that will happen.

Update: Be sure to read this too.

Update II: A roundup of responses to the BMJ article is provided by Liz Ditz. The Autism Blog discusses the alleged replication of Wakefield's results: it does not exist. In Scientific American David Ropeik explains that there is a discrepancy between the perceived and factual risk:

Sometimes we’re more afraid than the facts say we need to be (vaccines). With many of the bigger threats, we’re not afraid enough (infectious disease). The gap between our fears and the facts can be dangerous all by itself. Just ask the parents of the thousands of kids worldwide now getting, or dying of diseases that vaccines had pretty much controlled.

And:

The harm he [Wakefield] and others have done will persist for a long time…and will continue to serve as a reminder of the risk we face if we don’t recognize that the way we perceive risk can be a huge risk in and of itself.

The danger of the infectious-disease-promotion-movement is shown by Maryn McKenna who contracted whooping cough in India and wrote an article in Wired about the rise in cases. Take home message:

The worst news in this upsetting trend is this: We’re doing it to ourselves. As far as anyone can tell, the rise in pertussis is not due to any change in the organism, or to any mysterious error among the manufacturers who make pertussis vaccines. It’s due to vaccine refusal, to parents turning away from vaccines because they think the vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they prevent — or, more selfishly, because they think the wall of immunity created by other vaccinated children will protect their unimmunized ones.

Grant Jacobs, for Code for Life, made an overview, and Skepacabra did the same. Nice review of communication pitfalls by The Thoughtful Animal:

Giving us incidence and death rates and other such statistics doesn't really get the job done. It doesn't communicate what they want it to. Nor will glossy pamphlets (like the one they gave me) featuring Mia Hamm telling us to get vaccinated. What will get the job done is story-telling, appealing to emotion, and utilizing accessible analogies. Instead of telling us how many gazillions died last year, tell us how many airplanes full of people, or how many football stadiums full of people died last year.

Update III: Luckily Jenny McCarthy comes to our recsue and rehashes long ago refuted non-arguments. Apparently, true or false is determined by the number of times you make a claim.

The Lehrer effect

2011-01-06T18:46:00.002+01:00

Ever since Jonah Lehrer identified the supposed flawed nature of the scientific method, and named it the decline effect, the Intertoobz has responded by either advancing the notion this proves science is just as unreliable as other manufactroversies, or by pointing out that what Lehrer sees as problematic actually is why science is reliable: it eventually filters out human bias.

Eventhough I was somewhat late in noticing the current kerfuffle others are slightly faster to comment on the notion that science does not work. Some observations I initially missed are by Kent Anderson, responding to "a study that scientists thought proved that female barn swallows preferred mating with males who had long, symmetrical feathers:"

In this case, the raw observations about feathers are generalized first to one species, then attempts are made to generalize them to other species, and soon the attempts start to fail. This isn’t an erosion of truth. It’s a failure of theorizing. The theory was derived after the fact, and to no useful end other than to publish more papers. It wasn’t a hypothesis that was tested, but a data set shoehorned into a post hoc theory.

The scientific method itself is revealing the limitations of initial findings. It’s working. But we’re so geared to create “headline science,” and so wrapped up in ego and pride that we’ve forgotten the humility we need to exhibit before the facts. But most importantly, we may have forgotten that something is even more important than facts — and that is theory.

Writing for Big Think Matthew C. Nisbet notes that:

the reaction that the article has stirred in some cases does not match the nuance of Lehrer's arguments. The article has been unfairly critiqued by some for giving ammunition to those already committed to extreme doubt about subjects such as climate change or evolution. As Lehrer notes at his blog, he's also been accused of being a post-modernist, arguing that there is no such thing as truth or reality.

Criticism he does not share. In his view the article, and the ensuing debate, are an opportunity to bolster science education. The added benefit is that they:

are wonderful teaching tools for science students.

A column by John Allen Paulos, for ABC News, reviews the article and elaborates on the explanations for why the "decline effect" might occur:

A greater realization of these effects by journalists, scientists, and everyone else will lead to more caution in reporting results, more realistic expectations, and, I would guess, a decline in the decline affect (more accurately, the stat-psych effect).

The criticism his article generated has led Lehrer to write a response. Nonetheless, it appears he did not grasp what was said, or as Orac puts it:

Actually, what Lehrer's critics have been doing is anything but reassuring ourselves with platitudes about the rigors of replication. Indeed, all of us who bothered to write about Lehrer's article spent considerable time pointing out how regression to the mean, publication bias, and a variety of other factors that could explain much of the decline effect. We spent a lot of effort trying to explain how it is unsurprising that initial promising results often appear less so as more and more scientists investigate a question, developing along the way better techniques and approaches to investigating the question and approaching it from different angles. We spent a lot of verbiage describing how it is not at all unsurprising that new drugs, which seem to work so well in early clinical trials, appear to lose efficacy as their indication is broadened beyond the homogeneous initial small groups of subjects to more patients whose characteristics are less tightly controlled. Indeed, one of the letter writers pointed this very fact out to Lehrer, but he chose not to address this point directly.

The decline effect is something any physician who does clinical research knows from experience (although he may not call it that) because he sees it so often. To Lehrer it seemed to be some sort of shocking revelation in clinical research. The expectation that randomized clinical trials can overestimate the efficacy of new drugs is the very reason why, after drugs are released, physicians sometimes carry out what are known as "pragmatic trials," which are designed to find out how effective a treatment is in everyday, real-world practice, where the conditions are not nearly as controlled and the patient populations not nearly as homogeneous as they are in randomized clinical trials. Efficacy results determined in pragmatic trials are virtually always less robust than what was measured in the original randomized clinical trials. Not that any of this stops Lehrer from simply repeating the same stuff about big pharma having incentives to shape the results of its science and clinical trials. We get it; we get it. Science is done by humans, and sometimes human biases and motivations other than scientific discovery influence thee humans who do science.

He continues with:

More importantly, after discussing the decline effect and impugning the reliability of science, Lehrer still can't seem to give a coherent explanation as to why AGW and evolution are such reliable, well-founded scientific theories compared to what he seems to perceive as the unreliability of the rest of science. Worse, he hasn't addressed many of the more cogent criticisms of his work, in particular the numerous attempts to explain to him why it is not at all remarkable that second generation antipsychotics have not proven to be as effective as initial results suggested or why it is not particularly surprising or disturbing that fluctuating asymmetry never panned out. Lehrer had a great opportunity to explain why making scientific conclusions is so difficult and why all scientific knowledge is provisional. Those points are in his articles on the decline effect, but they're buried in the surrounding implication that the decline effect is mysterious. Then in the last paragraph of his response to critics Lehrer has the chutzpah to declare that "there is nothing inherently mysterious about why the scientific process occasionally fails or the decline effect occurs."

Someone else not overly impressed by Lehrer is David Weisman who strongly opines:

the 'decline effect' is bullshit. Science also ignores things for long periods of time, then recognizes their importance, at which point the theory grows, strengthens, branches off into new fields, and improves. Germ theory is hardly in decline, it grows stronger with every pneumonia. DNA as genetic instruction is also a theory, one that is hardly in decline. Ditto evolution. Ditto greenhouse gas. Ditto cells, tectonic plates, gravity, sodium channels, and atoms. None seem in danger of decline.

Lehrer wrote a faulty article. It got published. Initially it must have seemed almost reasonable. But on second look, it has fatal flaws. In fact, it appears to me that he cherry picked examples to support his own pet theory, a classic fallacy of the highly biased. Now it doesn't look very reasonable at all. It looks like small minded pseudoscience.

Another take on the phenomenon is given by Mike the Mad Biologist by referring to Andrew Gelman:

Gelman (and he has some good slides over at his post) is claiming, correctly, that if the effect is weak and you don't have enough samples (e.g., subjects enrolled in the study), any statistically significant result will be so much greater than what the biology would provide that it's probably spurious. You might get lucky and have a spurious result that points in the same direction as the real phenomenon, but that's just luck.

Then he points out:

So what someone will do is report the statistically significant result (since we tend to not report the insignificant ones). But further experiments, which often aren't well designed either, fail to pick up an effect. The ones that are well designed and have a large sample size will either identify a very weak real effect, leading to a consensus in the field of "Meh", or correctly fail to find a non-existent effect.
Sounds like the Decline Effect to me.

By claiming science is unable to provide any definite answers, i.e. The Truth, Lehrer apperently agrees with the anti-science movement which claims science is merely another opinion. Once everything is opinion how could any reasonable person (you know, the "fair and balanced"-type) object to dissenting views such as: evolution is not true, global warming does not exist, vaccines are evil, HIV is harmless, et cetera? This inadvertent support of denialism, through the law of unintended consequences, I propose we call the Lehrer effect. In other words, the Lehrer effect stands for the proposition that the orchestrated efforts of misinformation-central, in time inevitably will contaminate and debilitate even the protectors of reason, i.e. they too eventually come to believe that the scientific method is no more reliable than pseudoscience and denialism.

Update: Amended definition last sentence.

Why the "decline effect" shows the scientific method works

2011-01-03T18:54:00.004+01:00

Part of the struggle between science and ideology is the recurring theme that science too can be wrong. Note the number of times we have seen scientists retreating from their initial position to a more nuanced one. This transition to less pronounced statements causes the anti-science crowd to claim this proves science is not as reliable as we think. This phenomenon is discussed by David Gorski while responding to:

an article in The New Yorker by Jonah Lehrer entitled The Truth Wears Off: Is There Something Wrong With the Scientific Method?

The above concept is called the "decline effect" which, according to Gorski, stands for:

a phenomenon in which initial results from experiments or studies of a scientific question are highly impressive, but, over time, become less so as the same investigators and other investigators try to replicate the results, usually as a means of building on them. In fact, Googling “the decline effect” brought up an entry from The Skeptic’s Dictionary, in which the decline effect is described thusly:
The decline effect is the notion that psychics lose their powers under continued investigation. This idea is based on the observation that subjects who do significantly better than chance in early trials tend to do worse in later trials.

To him this observation is is neither shocking nor new:

In medicine, in particular, early reports tend to be smaller trials and experiments that, because of their size, tend to be more prone to false positive results. Such false positive results (or, perhaps, exaggerated results that appear more positive than they really are) generate enthusiasm, and more investigators pile on. There’s often a tendency to want to publish confirmatory papers early on (the “bandwagon effect”), which might further skew the literature too far towards the positive. Ultimately, larger, more rigorous studies are done, and these studies result in a “regression to the mean” of sorts, in which the newer studies fail to replicate the large effects seen in earlier results. This is nothing more than what we’ve been writing right here on SBM ever since its inception, namely that the normal course of clinical research is to start out with observations from smaller studies, which are inherently less reliable because they are small and thus more prone to false positives or exaggerated effect sizes

His conclusion:

Although Lehrer makes some good points, where he stumbles, from my perspective, is when he appears to conflate “truth” with science or, more properly, accept the idea that there are scientific “truths,” even going so far as to use the word in the title of his article. That is a profound misrepresentation of the nature of science, in which all “truths” are provisional and all “truths” are subject to revision based on evidence and experimentation. The decline effect–or, as Lehrer describes it the title of his article, the “truth wearing off”–is nothing more than science doing what science does: Correcting itself.

Commenting on this article Steven Novella writes that the term "decline effect:"

was first applied to the parapsychological literature, and was in fact proposed as a real phenomena of ESP – that ESP effects literally decline over time. Skeptics have criticized this view as magical thinking and hopelessly naive – Occam’s razor favors the conclusion that it is the flawed measurement of ESP, not ESP itself, that is declining over time. Lehrer, however, applies this idea to all of science, not just parapsychology.

Just like Gorski he notes:

Lehrer is ultimately referring to aspects of science that skeptics have been pointing out for years (as a way of discerning science from pseudoscience), but Lehrer takes it to the nihilistic conclusion that it is difficult to prove anything, and that ultimately “we still have to choose what to believe.” Bollocks!

His explanation for this phenomenon is the same as Gorski's. The article was also noticed by Pharyngula who stated:

I read it. I was unimpressed with the overselling of the flaws in the science, but actually quite impressed with the article as an example of psychological manipulation.

And he then remarked:

Early in any scientific career, one should learn a couple of general rules: science is never about absolute certainty, and the absence of black & white binary results is not evidence against it; you don't get to choose what you want to believe, but instead only accept provisionally a result; and when you've got a positive result, the proper response is not to claim that you've proved something, but instead to focus more tightly, scrutinize more strictly, and test, test, test ever more deeply. It's unfortunate that Lehrer has tainted his story with all that unwarranted breast-beating, because as a summary of why science can be hard to do, and of the institutional flaws in doing science, it's quite good.

In short, the article erroneously points out the inherent characteristics of the scientific method as "proof" of why science is just another opinion. While provocative it identifies weakness but fails to recognise this actually is science's strongpoint.

As an side, this flowchart on how to debate the anti-science brigade (creationists actually) is brilliant:

(h/t Pharyngula)

Update: Following the "decline effect" there now is the Lehrer effect.

Thou shalt be "Fair and Balanced"

2010-12-21T20:21:00.006+01:00

One of the reasons I am utterly unimpressed by journalists is their strict adherence to the "present-both-sides-equally"-doctrine. They have convinced themselves that to be neutral, objective or whatever a "good reporter" is supposed to do, one should always give equal time to opposing voices. Especially, when there is no serious debate among experts. In short, if science says HIV causes AIDS your duty as a journalist is to include somebody asserting this is not true. Not only that, but to give both views equal weight. The same principle holds true for Holocaust denialists, Flat earthers, the infectious-disease-promotion-movement, et cetera.

Then, an article appeared in the Chicago Tribune that dismissed the validity of claims there is such a thing as Chronic Lyme Disease (CLD) by presenting the current scientific consensus which refutes that notion, and as such evades the "mislead-your-audience-at-all-costs"-doctrine. Because of the quality of their reporting PalMD notes:

It starts with a piece in the Chicago Tribune by Patricia Callahan and Trine Tsouderos. The award winning pair have been among the few reporters to consistently “get it right” about alternative medicine. Tsouderos is well-respected among critics of quackery for her willingness to look at the science and report the truth, without resorting to false balance*. Callahan and Tsouderos’ investigation into the dangerous and deceptive practices of alternative autism doctors, practices that include chemical castration, won cheers from those screaming out against this unethical mistreatment of children. These reporters have got the bona fides amongst both journalists and scientists.

Observing the article not using this doctrine, Orac writes:

One exception to this profoundly annoying pattern (if you're a skeptic) has been the journalism of Trine Tsouderos, who with Pat Callahan, has produced over the last year or two a number of excellent, science-based stories on the anti-vaccine and its associated "autism biomed" movements, including an expose of Boyd Haley's "rebranding" of an industrial chelator as an autism treatment. She's even taken on "America's doctor," Dr. Oz. As a result, she's been demonized by cranks, up to and including having her face crudely Photoshopped into a picture of a Thanksgiving feast in which she and various others whom the merry band of anti-vaccine loons at Age of Autism view as enemies were portrayed as sitting down to a meal of dead baby.

Astonishingly, this article is than attacked by Paul Raeburn, former senior editor for science at Business Week, former science editor at the Associated Press, author of three science books, and director of a university science journalism program, for ..... not adhering to the "Fair-and-Balanced"-principle. Quoth Orac:

Boiled down to its essence, Raeburn's complaint is the opposite of what we skeptics, scientists, and supporters of science-based medicine complain about all the time about journalists, namely that Callahan and Tsouderos did not fall into the trap of false balance, did not give undue credence to pseudoscience, and did not "tell both sides" as though they had equal or roughly equal credence.

An identical observation regarding the “lack of balance” can be found in PalMD's response:

When it comes to truth, it doesn’t matter how Paul Raeburn perceives the process. A medical fact is a medical fact, and while he may not like the way they came to their conclusion, the truth remains.

It does not matter which "controversy" you prefer, there will always be experts, and many more non-experts, that disagree with the consensus. However, a few lone wolves do not a scientific debate make! This is what any competent journalist should convey to his/her audience. As long as those journalists are insufficiently capable of drowning out the noise the general public can't help but be misinformed. At present it has become annoyingly clear that without this massive failure of journalism we would not have an organisation like Wikileaks.

Update: Corrected grammar in last sentence.

Update II: To prove my point Javier Moreno, for El Pais, observed:

As Simon Jenkins of The Guardian wrote earlier this month, power hates to see the truth exposed. I would add that above all, power fears the truth when the truth doesn't fit its needs. I knew immediately after I received the first call from Assange that Friday in late November that EL PAÍS had a great story on its hands, and that it was our duty to publish it.

But despite our concerns, there was something that all of us involved in the process never doubted for an instant: we had a responsibility to the democracies that we live in to publish the story. Revealing the truth is the touchstone of true journalism, and the reason we get out of bed in the morning.

And, as if he had read this blog, he denounces the meme I described before:

It is the prerogative of governments, not the press, to bury secrets for as long as they can, and I will not argue with this as long as it does not cover up deceitful acts against citizens. But a newspaper's main task is to publish news, and to seek out news where it can find it. As I said in a recent online chat with EL PAÍS readers, newspapers have many obligations in a democratic society: responsibility, truthfulness, balance and a commitment to citizens. Our obligations definitely do not, however, include protecting governments and the powerful in general from embarrassing revelations.

Update III: New post on our trustworthy media here.

The new troubling toy

2010-12-20T13:24:00.003+01:00

After acquiring my new toy I soon discovered a major problem: I am unable to get iTunes to transfer a selection of my extensive music-collection. Despite iTunes being absolutely annoying, with the VLC-player app it does enable me to transfer video-files. Not sure watching films is so great, but I do use it for documentaries and episodes of Coupling, Blackadder, et cetera.

Still not content because I was unable to use the mp3 part more trouble was ahead. A few weeks ago my facebook-app refused to upload pictures. Then, last week the toy even refused to synchronise alltogether. The upstart started telling me it needed to be restored to factory settings. Not in the least planning to do that I asked Dah Google for advise.

Apparently I am not the first to encounter this nuisance. One of the solutions suggested was working around iTunes by installing CopyTrans™ (formerly CopyPod). Indeed, that worked. With some tweaking the toy finally wanted to synch with iTunes again. After securing my contacts I updated the firmware. Yes, iTunes wants to synchronise again.

Added benefit, for the first time I am now able to copy music without using iTunes. And yes, it sounds great. Part of the wishlist for Christmas is a new set of headphones so I can better enjoy the experience.

Update: If you need some apps for your toy, here are some suggestions.

Update II: Have now discovered how to "reboot" the iPhone, and am happy to announce it is updated to the latest firmware (july 2011).

Pay no attention to the man behind the screen

2010-12-16T20:55:00.000+01:00

One of the most frustrating things to me is the absolute inability, or is it unwillingness, of journalists to recognise what the story they report is about. This is the theme of this blog: I try to encourage people to seek out information and always question what is being told, i.e. "what basis is there for these claims?" Unfortunately people are easily misled, and information presented by journalists is inherently unreliable. The most recent example of what is wrong with our ability to ascertain the facts is the publication by Wikileaks of documents that are embarrasing to the US. As usual the incompetent and obfuscating characteristics of the media, that are supposed to adequately inform us, engage in their typical method of protecting those in power.

As always, the intrepid reporter notices those juicy bits about Julian Assange's life. Which, regardless of the topic, generate more stories than the initial disclosure of fraudulent, criminal or misleading behaviour by the powerful. Commenting on the media's interest in diverting attention with ad hominems Greenwald remarked:

... what I do know -- as John Cole notes -- is this: as soon as Scott Ritter began telling the truth about Iraqi WMDs, he was publicly smeared with allegations of sexual improprieties. As soon as Eliot Spitzer began posing a real threat to Wall Street criminals, a massive and strange federal investigation was launched over nothing more than routine acts of consensual adult prostitution, ending his career (and the threat he posed to oligarchs). And now, the day after Julian Assange is responsible for one of the largest leaks in history, an arrest warrant issues that sharply curtails his movement and makes his detention highly likely.

While all this titellating stuff is unfolding The New York Times is still unable to call torture torture. As Greenwald reports that:

the NYT in its article on brutal detainee abuse steadfastly avoids using the word "torture" to describe what was done, consistent with its U.S.-Government-serving formal policy of refusing to use that word where U.S. policy is involved. By stark contrast, virtually every other media account uses that term to describe the heinous abuse of detainees chronicled by this leak, the only term that accurately applies: see The Guardian ("American military documents that detail torture, summary executions and war crimes"); BBC (US "ignored Iraq torture"); Politico ("a devastating portrait of apparent U.S. indifference to a pattern of murder and torture by the Iraqi army"). BoingBoing appropriately mocks the NYT's increasingly humiliating no-"torture" policy by creating a euphemism-generator.

The role of the media as defender of the powerful is evidenced by the reaction to these documents. Greenwald compares it to the response by Nixon to the Pentagon Papers and notes:

Predictably, just as happened with Ellsberg, there is now a major, coordinated effort underway to smear WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, and to malign his mental health -- all as a means of distracting attention away from these highly disturbing revelations and to impede the ability of WikiLeaks to further expose government secrets and wrongdoing with its leaks. But now, the smear campaign is led not by Executive Branch officials, but by members of the establishment media. As the intelligence community reporter Tim Shorrock wrote today on Twitter: "When Dan Ellsberg leaked [the] Pentagon Papers, Nixon's henchmen tried to destroy his reputation. Today w/Wikileaks & Assange, media does the job."

And commenting on statements by Howard Kurtz maligning Assange:

You will never, ever hear people like Kurtz, or John Burns, using these kinds of disparaging insults for any American political or military official with actual power -- not even (especially not) the ones whose "delusions" about Saddam's nuclear clouds and team of mad chemical scientists and alliances with Al Qaeda caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, the displacement of millions more, and human suffering and misery on an unimaginable scale. As Burns explained, with those people: "You build up a kind of trust. It's not explicit, it's just there. And my feeling is that it’s the responsibility of the reporter to judge in those circumstances what is fairly reportable, and what is not, and to go beyond that, what it is necessary to report."

In what I consider a surreal reaction The Guardian reports that:

A Fox News contributor and former state department adviser has accused WikiLeaks of conducting "political warfare against the US" and called for those behind the whistleblowing website to be declared "enemy combatants" so they can be subjected to "non-judicial actions".

Apparently free speech applies only to those in power. Then there is the article The Washington Post and WikiLeaks, by Scott Horton, which details some significant revelations such as:

... the disclosure of a Fragmentary Order (“Frago”) authorizing soldiers not to investigate cases of torture that do not involve coalition forces is extremely important. It counts as evidence of high-level policy to countenance war crimes and violations of the prohibition on torture, which requires not only investigation but also intervention. Recall this astonishing exchange that occurred between Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace at a DOD press conference in November 2005. Pace stated “it is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it…” Rumsfeld interrupted and contradicted him, but Pace stood his ground. He was reciting well anchored military doctrine. He was also overruled by Rumsfeld.

Responding to the "blood on his hands"-meme, Horton said:

When pressed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Gates was forced to admit that these claims were hyperbole—“the leak… did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods.” Gates went on to acknowledge that there was no evidence of any informant being killed or threatened or even requesting protection as a result of the WikiLeaks publications. Why then has the Post editorial page decided to ape agitprop that the Pentagon itself has all but retracted? Maybe they don’t read their own paper.

He continues:

After looking through the latest WikiLeaks document dump, she writes that she is now persuaded that “top American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world.” Tellingly, her piece appears not in the Post but in the Daily Beast, and she’s supplemented it with a detailed review of the documents involved at Foreign Policy.

The possible benefits of what we have learned so far are summarised by Kevin Jon Heller, while Johann Hari stresses its importance. In light of that consider the response to evidence of possible war crimes, or the destruction of evidence regarding the torture regime. For some very important reason investigating, let alone prosecuting, those involved did not generate the amount of zeal we now experience towards Assange whose alleged crime constitutes of fascilitation of publishing information detrimental to those used to being beyond (judicial) scrutiny. Wikileaks has brought the ever present propaganda into the sunlight. That, of course, cannot stand. Hence the hysterical legal and rhetorical response. Interestingly, those opposing Wikileaks face the Gordian knot of how to prosecute Assange without criminalising journalism alltogether.

The game of politics, as evidenced above, is comparable to, and dependent on, the anti-science movement. For both accurate and factual information is anathema to their ideological and egocentric position. Once the spread of misinformation, if not lies, is exposed like magicians they lose their lure. It should therefore come as no surprise that both groups abhor transparancy and reject accountability. Since the main stream media no longer adhere to what Lord Northcliffe said:

"News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising."

any organisation exposing those that take advantage of us, by insisting we should stay uninformed and vehemently try to convince us we should ignore the man behind the curtain, has my support.

Guide to Christmas shopping

2010-12-15T18:54:00.003+01:00

Its that time of the season when we are searching for the finer things in life. Well, at least I find myself in the midst of that that age-old conundrum: what do I buy? As I did in the past you will find I present some ideas for your shopping lists. You can start at The Times for a Christmas Gift Guide, or The Guardian for Unique Christmas gift ideas: Luxury gifts for men, which is part of their Christmas gift ideas. Nice stylish articles at The Sydney Morning Herald can be found in their Christmas gift guide 2010. Subsequently try The Observer which discusses the 10 best Christmas whiskies, as part of Observer Food Monthly's complete guide to Christmas, while The Independent offers us the 50 best winter reads. More luxurious stuff are suggested by The Age in their Christmas Gift Guide. In The Miami Herald you find Dave Barry’s Guide to Holiday Gifts. Also Esquire has Gifts to Give If You're Broke: The $25-and-Under Guide. Go to Film.com for a more cinematographic type of gift: Gift Guide: Film Memorabilia, DVDs, and Toys, and Gizmodo can help the more nerdy types with Gizmodo's Gift Guides.

Update: You might want to follow Santa on his journey this Christmas.

Freedom of speech: clarification

2010-11-05T15:39:00.008+01:00

A few days ago I suggested accountability for those that intentionally spread lies that cause harm to others. In comments marko makes several good points. Nonetheless, they do not apply to what I wanted to say. To avoid any misunderstanding let me clarify. Freedom of speech has nasty side-effects. In an attempt to protect us against them I offered two solutions:

First, limit what people can say. marko offers good arguments as to why this is a problematic approach. That is why I concluded this should not be done. So far, we agree.

Second, make people accountable for the consequences of their right to say whatever they want. Again, some convincing arguments appear to make this route untenable. That is, if you would make this about any influence (film, book, painting) causing others to interpret that as a call to arms.

This is not what I intended, nor said. Just to be sure, I am talking about the willful spread of misinformation, lies, and propaganda with the intention to advance ones ideology while explicitly rejecting contrary evidence. Not infrequently do we see explicit advise to do, or not do, certain things. This ,of course, should be allowed, but if people act on those lies, and this causes harm, the abuse of freedom of speech should result in accountability.

Unsurprisingly the anti-science brigade is mostly inspired by religion. To cite Holy books as origin for unsupported beliefs -refusing to vaccinate, rejecting global warming, opposing evolution, et cetera- is one thing. To go out and tell people not to use condoms because some imaginary friend tells you to is quite another. Aside from the fact that I have not found the exact part where it says "being gay is a sin," "vaccination is evil," "the earth is 6000 years old," "Darwin is wrong," "Galileo is wrong," .......... (you get my drift) once you start evangelising the gospel "science is bad, ideology is good" you are responsible. Especially when you are shown the error of that proposition on numerous occasions: i.e. condoms do protect against STD's, vaccines save lifes, the earth is not flat.

To illustrate my view on accountability: randomly shooting your M16 is allowed. However, if a neighbour gets shot, because you are standing in the middle of the street while doing that, you will be criminally charged. Like bullets, words are dangerous and therefore require responsibility in its user. There can be no misunderstanding, my suggestion applies only to promoting unsupported, and discredited, opinions which are detrimental to our health. If this is still ambiguous to you, look at the following:

Infectious disease promotion movement: vaccines are evil, and germ theory denial, resulting in re-emerging of preventable diseases,
Alt-med works and is harmless: incorrect, since it both delays adequate treatment with therapies that do not work, and has serious side-effects,
HIV-denialists: obstructing prevention and adequate treatment,
Smoking does not cause cancer: after introducing a smoking ban a sharp decline of cancer and coronary-disease,
Abstinence only prevents pregnancy and STD's: incorrect, it actually causes the opposite, it increases the risk,
Global warming is a hoax: discredited propaganda claiming we do not need to invest in better energypolicy, resulting in increased dangers to our planet,
Killing in defence of The Truth: murder is always a reliable statement when you are incapable of explaining why ideology trumps reason,
Shouting fire in a cinema: irresponsible behaviour in general,
War on Drugs: stressing the evils of drugs while ignoring the sociological drama and the risks of alcohol and tobacco,
Muslims want to kill us: as argument why the War of Terror is merely self-defence, and no, they help us, (compare: McCarthyism)
There were WMD's: ignoring evidence to the contrary this caused hundreds of thousands to die, and millions became a refugee,
Torture is the only way we can win: an age old, and utterly nonsensical, argument which is dissected here,

The above examples are just that: examples. The list goes on and on. In all these cases, time and again, the ideological claim has been proven wrong. To cite an article in the European Journal of Public Health:

All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question. Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action to tackle threats to health.

This is referred to as denialism. The article identifies five characteristics:

The identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy.
Fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge.
Selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
Creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer.
Use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies.

That is what I object to. Nobody should be allowed to invoke freedom of speech and transform it into the right to disseminate lies. It is in these situations I propose accountability for irresponsible behaviour. The active promotion of (medical) disinformation leads to increased morbidity and mortality, which is evident to every reasonable person willing, and able, to understand the difference between fact and fiction. Claiming to be presenting factual information when it clearly involves refuting established science is not comparable to writing books or making cinema.

No, I am not advocating a witchhunt. It would still be required to present evidence that harm -i.e. HIV infections, epidemics of infectious diseases, hatecrimes, et cetera- is linked to what was said by denialists. However, if such a causal effect can be proven why should the anti-science movement not be liable in the legal sense?

Concluding, I am against prohibiting specific views, but would make those that irresponsibly -as in: choosing ideology over reason- promote dangerous behaviour accountable for the resulting harm. Freedom of speech comes at a price!

Update: The right to lie gives us this.

Update II: Regarding alternative medicine it is possible to take a more legalistic approach, Brennen McKenzie just started a series on the topic:

When I write or talk about the scientific evidence against particular alternative medical approaches, I am frequently asked the question, “So, if it doesn’t work, why is it legal?” Believers in CAM ask this to show that there must be something to what they are promoting or, presumably, the government wouldn’t let them sell it. And skeptics raise the question often out of sheer incredulity that anyone would be allowed to make money selling a medical therapy that doesn’t work. It turns out that the answer to this question is a complex, multilayered story involving science, history, politics, religion, and culture.

And:

What I hope to do in this series of essays is look at some of the major themes involved in the regulation of medical practice, particularly as they relate to alternative medicine. I will begin by touching on some of the general philosophical and legal issues that have defined the debate among the politicians and lawyers responsible for shaping the legal environment in which medicine is practiced.

Update III: Yet another example of the freedom of misinformation.

Update IV: Using Bush's card-trick here is the denialism deck of cards.

Update V: The right to mislead claims yet another victim.

Vaccine Unawareness Week

2010-11-01T19:20:00.007+01:00

November has arrived and the infectious-disease-promotion-movement has its "Vaccine Awareness Week." Therefore they are being offered a less Halloween inspired week of science-based information regarding vaccines. Probably they are not interested in a rational debate because the willfully blind ignore information contradicting their ideology. This inoculates them against the current correcting "misinformation week"-week. So, this week supporters of critical thinking attempt to reach the worried and misguided adherents of the anti-science crowd. Articles promoting critical thinking can be suggested at Science-Based Medicine:

Many of our fellow science bloggers are on board as well. We will use this site at aggregate as many science-based posts about vaccines and public health as we find. If you have or know of any that are not listed, please let us know in the comments and we will add it.

The first posts are already on-line. Steven Novella deconstructs the propaganda surrounding flu vaccines while Orac revisits a previous post:

About seven months ago, I encountered a profoundly intellectually dishonest set of graphs done by Obomsawin that were designed to demonstrate that "vaccines didn't save us."

and:

I note that, not only have the graphs not been changed as far as I can tell, but Dr. Obomsawin is scheduled to give a webinar tomorrow evening (exactly 24 hours from now, actually) entitled Graphic Reality: The Charting of Truth in which he is apparently going to argue the same old nonsense that "vaccines didn't save us."

Orac notes that he:

intended for a while to go back and revisit Obomsawin's remaining nonsense. Somehow I just never got around to it. As you may recall, in my original post I didn't deconstruct all of his graphs and how deceptively he used them. Vaccine Awareness Week might be the perfect opportunity to rectify that oversight.

Please visit the above mentioned aggregate site frequently this week for more. You may also be interested in what immune response is, since this is what vaccines attempt to augment. Some background can be found here.

Update: Red flag? Mercola will help us fight those scientists. All you need to do is buy something from him.

Update II: Collecting articles trying to protect us against the infectious-disease-promotion-movement Liz Ditz makes it easy for us to follow these posts.

Update III: At Science-Based Medicine Harriet Hall adds:

Physicians, has a feature called AFP Journal Club, where physicians analyze a journal article that either involves a hot topic affecting family physicians or busts a commonly held medical myth. In the September 15, 2010 issue they discussed “Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses,” by Gerber and Offit, published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in 2009.
The article presented convincing evidence to debunk 3 myths:
MMR causes autism.
Thimerosal (mercury) causes autism.
Simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms and weakens the immune system, triggering autism in a susceptible host.

Next is Steven Novella who analyses the history of chicken pox and the fairy-tales from the anti-vaccine brigade, and Orac shows another example of crank magnetism.

Update IV: The current endeavour is noticed in New Zealand by Skeptics in the Pub. Information on Vaccination Safety and Quality is available at the WHO website and EBM-first offers us some valuable links. More on influenza, effectiveness of vaccination and its risks, are discussed by Science-Based Pharmacy. Also, I found an old, but sadly still relevant, article there which was a response to the misinformation spread by those who prefer the return of preventable infectious diseases. As an aside, in Canada there already was a National Immunization Awareness Week earlier this year. Striking is an article written by Dr. Jay L. Wile. In his own words:

He is best known for the "Exploring Creation with..." series of textbooks written for junior high and high school students who are being educated at home.

With this background I was pleasantly surprised to read:

Because people in California are refusing the whooping cough vaccine in large numbers, whooping cough is rearing its ugly head there. Children are needlessly becoming sick and dying, and we have the misinformation spread by anti-vaccine people to thank for it.

Pretty amazing. Then there is the nice overview "Not Dangerous, and Irresponsible to Opt-out of" by Todd W. Finally, for those wandering the intertubes, here is a guide to evaluate trustworthiness of websites.

Freedom of speech

2010-10-31T21:52:00.006+01:00

Most countries in the West guarantee freedom of speech, because everybody should be able to express their opinion, however flawed. If we then counter the misleading and incorrect statements with facts people will be able to recognise ideology for what it is. At least, that is what I was thinking in the past. That principle I have come to doubt.

The past decade we have seen the rise of the anti-science movement, the decline of quality in journalism, and use of sophisticated techniques by those Merchants of Doubt. This means that public discourse (about science) is dominated by ideology, and monetary, driven arguments.

But there is also scientific evidence supporting my doubts. Research by Brendan Nyhan et al. which shows that people are not correcting their ideology based views when confronted with contradictory evidence. Their study shows something called "backfire effect," which stands for the observation that

corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

NPR aired a discussion with Brendan Nyhan. While commenting on a more recent study in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology Ben Goldacre observes:

What do people do when confronted with scientific evidence that challenges their pre-existing view? Often they will try to ignore it, intimidate it, buy it off, sue it for libel or reason it away.

The classic paper on the last of those strategies is from Lord, Ross and Lepper in 1979: they took two groups of people, one in favour of the death penalty, the other against it, and then presented each with a piece of scientific evidence that supported their pre-existing view, and a piece that challenged it; murder rates went up or down, for example, after the abolition of capital punishment in a state.

The results were as you might imagine. Each group found extensive methodological holes in the evidence they disagreed with, but ignored the very same holes in the evidence that reinforced their views.

After discussing the study he concludes:

When presented with unwelcome scientific evidence, it seems, in a desperate attempt to retain some consistency in their world view, people would rather conclude that science in general is broken.

Jonathan M. Gitlin, for Ars Technica, reviews studies by John Bullock of Yale, and the above mentioned by political scientists, Brendan Nyhan of Duke and Jason Reifler of Georgia State. An explanation for refuting facts that contradicts ideology might be cognitive dissonance. This may hinder rational debate on so-called controversial topics.

It seems to suggest that this effect might lead to problems when it comes to efforts to educate people about controversial or politically charged topics; I'm thinking here of climate change or evolution skeptics, both groups that have been targeted by think tanks and interest groups with vested interests in challenging accepted facts. It also points to the rationale behind media outlets like Fox News or Air America, where ideologues can have facts that support their world view continually reinforced. Sadly, that's bad news for anyone who's interested in honest and open public debate.

Yet another study, by David Gal and Derek D. Rucker, When in Doubt, Shout!
Paradoxical Influences of Doubt on Proselytizing shows that:

people whose confidence in closely held beliefs was undermined engaged in more advocacy of their beliefs (as measured by both advocacy effort and intention to advocate) than did people whose confidence was not undermined.

Reviewing this article Tom Jacobs, for Miller-McCune, notes:

The notion that shaken beliefs leads to increased levels of advocacy can be traced back to Leon Festinger’s 1956 seminal book When Prophecy Fails. It examined a cult whose members believed in their leader all the more strongly and began actively advocating on his behalf even after his predictions of catastrophe failed to materialize.

Gal and Rucker set out to replicate Festinger’s findings and use more recent psychological research to determine precisely what drives this dynamic.

Their conclusion leads him to observe:

This helps explain why political rhetoric has ratcheted up during a time of rapid societal change. In a logic-driven world, the shattering of long-held assumptions such as “the U.S. will never be attacked on its home soil” or “the value of my house will never decrease” would lead to a thoughtful period of reflection and re-evaluation. In our world, it leads one to actively advocate one’s pre-existing beliefs all the more passionately.

So, in contrast with conventional wisdom, the Tea Partiers may not be true believers so much as they are people who have had their confidence in the system shaken. To overcome any distressing doubts, they have reaffirmed their convictions by loudly attempting to persuade others. As Gal and Rucker put it in the title of their paper: “When in Doubt, Shout!”

In short, as Tom Rees puts it:

Although it is natural to assume that a persistent and enthusiastic advocate of a belief is brimming with confidence, the advocacy might in fact signal that the individual is boiling over with doubt.

The same mechanisms appear to be present in the entire denialism-movement. Just look at the rhetoric used by the and-still-alternative-medicine-works-crowd, vaccines-are-dangerous-crowd, evolution-is-just-another-belief-crowd, HIV-does-not-cause-AIDS-crowd, earth-is-flat-crowd, global-warming-is-a-hoax-crowd, US-does-not-torture-crowd, without-abolishing-civil-liberties-the-terrorists-will-win-crowd, voter-fraud-threatens-democracy-in-the-US-crowd, et cetera. These studies show part of the psychology behind the vehement opposition to (scienctific) fact. This obsessive denial of science is why I call those that promote, and those that are susceptable to, the above the anti-science movement. Whatever the reason, if science is not compatable with ones personal beliefs the irrational discard science.

Recently, following years of denying the efficacy of vaccines, we have seen the return of many preventable infectious diseases. With horrible consequences.This is a result of the right people have to say whatever they want, however irresponsible. But, freedom of speech does not stand for the right to mislead and/or lie, i.e. perpetrate a scam. Today it is used to protect the salespitch of conmen and populists among us and not to promote reasonable public discourse.

More and more I am inclined to think that this willfull spread of misinformation, if not overt lies, should be corrected. In medicine prevention is becoming increasingly important. Why not apply that principle to public discourse? Two possibilities come to mind. One, we should disallow speech which is evidently at odds with science, i.e. the earth is flat, HIV does not cause AIDS, vaccinations are evil, et cetera. The second would be to hold the anti-science crowd accountable for the consequenses of their advocacy. We should prosecute the infectious-disease-promotion-movement for increased morbidity, if not mortality. Does the law not mention reckless endangerment? See the article by attorney Jann Bellamy for details:

Those who breach their duty to avoid the spread of communicable disease may be liable to those injured for damages.

In short, those advocating an absolute right to freedom of speech must acknowledge the consequence of that principle and allow accountability when this right damages other individuals.

Update: It appears I was not clear enough in outlining what qualifies as reckless, to accommodate here is a clarification.

Update II: Another detailing the difficulties in opposing the anti-science crowd is Amy Tuteur who reviewed an article on pseudoscience in relation to the internet and noted:

Minimizing cognitive dissonance requires selective exposure, seeking out information sources that confirm existing beliefs and avoiding sources that undermine those beliefs.

Her conclusion:

The authors and publishers of pseudoscience books and websites are quite upfront about their determination to minimize cognitive dissonance by restricting the free flow of information. Only information that supports a predetermined point of view is allowed. Anything else must be deleted. To the extent that any real scientific papers are discussed, they are limited only to those that can be easily refuted. The rest of the vast scientific literature is ignored.

Update III: Apparently this obstacle to rational discourse was also discussed by Watching The Deniers.

Correcting "misinformation week"-week

2010-10-19T16:50:00.007+02:00

The Ministry for the promotion of infectious diseases has anounced a “Vaccine Awareness Week” from november 1-6. To counter the spread of the denialism-virus by the we-need-no-stinkin'-science-crowd David Gorski has suggested an antidotum. As Steven Novella writes:

we will be posting science-based information about vaccines, and countering anti-vaccine misinformation throughout the week. Look for these posts on Respectful Insolence (Orac has also announced the event), here at NeuroLogica, and on Science-Based Medicine.

The team supporting science consists of the people at Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica, Orac, PalMD, Tod W., and Science Mom. If you are resistant to the denialism-virus because of a predilection for the scientific method you can follow their contributions through their pages or via Twitter using hastag #vaxfax. Naturally, should you be suffering from, and willing to be vaccinated (pun intended) against, the promote-ignorance-at-all-costs-virus you are more than welcome too.

Update: Other participants are Science-Based Pharmacy, and Scott Gavura, and Skepacabra. Seed Magazine offers an explanation as to why people are unwilling to vaccinate:

As Sam Harris argues in his new book The Moral Landscape, we have a bias against sins of commission rather than sins of omission.

This means that the consequences of action are perceived as morally worse than those of inaction. Even if the result is the same. In the manufactroversy surounding vaccination

they see the government or meddling doctors causing autism—a sin of commission. But parents who don’t get their children vaccinated and end up causing a measles outbreak are only committing the lesser sin of omission.

Humans are also naturally biased to favor their own children over others’ kids, and to prioritize present dangers (like the growing autism crisis) over remote ones (like the dim memory of measles). Other biases may be in effect as well. Powerful biases such as these are difficult to overcome, but perhaps as we begin to see more and more potentially deadly outbreaks of preventable diseases, public opinion will change. Our attention to the question of autism might then be redirected towards research on effective treatments—but sadly, only at the cost of serious illness in children who might have been protected by vaccines.

While CNN reports on yet another victim, Matthew Lacek, of the infectious-disease-promotion-movement. And in 2008:

Measles—a highly contagious disease-causing virus—is making a comeback in the U.S., thanks to parents fears over vaccines. Fifteen children under 20, including four babies, have been hospitalized and 131 sickened by the red splotches since the beginning of this year in 15 states and the District of Columbia, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

According to Scientific American. But hey, we all know vaccines are evil.

Update II: The fruits of years of being educated by irrational fanatics, as CNN tells us:

Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, has claimed the 10th victim in California, in what health officials are calling the worst outbreak in 60 years.

Luckily, pertussis is not as dangerous as vaccinations are.

The "I am Galileo"-argument

2010-09-08T12:01:00.005+02:00

One of the endearing traits of the anti-science movement is the cornu copia of logical fallacies they feel proves their point. It does not matter whether they refute global warming, promote the spread of infectious diseases, think giving water (shaken, not stirred) is practising medicine, insist evolution is a plot by evil fascists, or dismiss any other part of science that conflicts with their ideology. Part of their modus operandi is the use of arguments that to any rational observer make no sense at all. Confronted with this array of illogical arguments I have tried to find an explanation for why these people hold on to views that are demonstrably false.

While reading about yet another incarnation of the science-is-nothing-more-than-religion-cult I remembered my internship at the department of Psychiatry. There I was told that the main characteristic of a delusion is holding on to evidently incorrect ideas while no evidence presented will ever be sufficient to abandon that view. As such I imagined that part of the denialist-syndrome is some form of delusional disorder. And indeed we can recognise several subtypes.

Not infrequently the reasoning incorporates the belief they are Galileo. The argument in general goes like this:

There is a global conspiracy by scientists to keep "The Truth" hidden and simultaneously spread misinformation,
The anti-science movement only wants to expose those policies,
Because of that scientists are persecuting these "sceptics,"
For having a dissenting view to that of The Church Galileo was persecuted,
The science behind Galileo's observations turned out to be right,
The fact Gallileo was persecuted proves the anti-science movement is right.

This is referred to as the Galileo fallacy, or gambit. Any rational bystander would be impressed by the sheer number of statements incompatable with common sense and logic.

What evidence do they offer for this conspiracy?
What evidence supports their opposing view?
Since when is requiring to adhere to the scientific method persecution?
Claiming to be comparable to one of the greatest minds in history is at best a tad arrogant.

What these "sceptics" fail to notice is that Galileo made observations based in science, something they invariably refuse to do. Since his conclusions contradicted religious dogma, i.e. ideology, the Church attacked him. His findings were opposed not on their merits but by appeal to authority: the bible. Enter the anti-science brigade. The mere fact their stance is rejected too proves they, like Galileo, are persecuted. Wrong. They clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word.

The truth, as opposed to "The Truth," of the matter is that they fail to produce any scientific evidence, which Galileo did. Pointing this out is not equal to persecution. This alone makes the comparison risible. Second, even if they were being persecuted it does not prove they are right. Many have been persecuted in the past but I doubt the Shoah had anything to do with Jews offering dissenting scientific theories. Or, as Robert Park observed:

To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right.

Third, they ignore any evidence contradicting their view, which the Church did also. This suggest they should invoke the Church and not Galileo. Last, by equating yourself to one of the greatest minds in history to justify ignoring the vast majority of scientists is more than slightly delusional. Of course, we do have examples (how many can you cite?) of Galileo-type situations. But most of the "alternative views" turn out to be simply wrong. Every time such a "dissenting voice" is adopted by the mainstream it adheres to the rules of the game. Something the anti-science crowd vehemently opposes. Their position is akin to playing tennis with your feet. Just like the pro-science movement those you oppose will object to you using your feet because in tennis that is not supposed to be done. How many people would accept the defense: "well I am special therefore I should be allowed to ignore the rules?"

Nevertheless the anti-science movement refuses to subject themselves to our current rules of the game of science. Strangely enough when they are then told this means their claims are unscientific (i.e. not tennis) they scream persecution. For some reason they feel the stringent rules science has adopted should not apply to them because they are inherently special. Umm. No. The entire crux of science is there are no special cases or individuals. Everybody has to abide by what is called the scientific method. Being Galileo does not suddenly remove that burden from you.

Thinking of Godwin's law I would suggest there should be a Galileo's law: invoking Galileo in any (scientific) debate instantly proves your position is inherently unscientific.

Update: Just discovered Galileo was wrong.

Update II: Responding to the suggestion Galileo was wrong here is a review of what he was saying by Ethan Siegel while Orac adds his two cents.

ScienceMobsters

2010-08-29T19:17:00.003+02:00

Rational people know, and abhor, the pandemic involving the denialist-virus. We now appear to have an attempt by Liz Ditz (Twitter) to bring those valliant people opposing the anti-science movement together in what is called ScienceMobsters. Some of them you may recognise from my blogroll. This science promotion movement is, as Liz explains here and here, the result of:

a series of tweets from Homeopathyinfo (http://twitter.com/homeopathyinfo/).

The ensuing debate made her compile a list of potential candidates. The criteria for inclusion are:

* science / reality based
* Forthright about challenging pseudoscience (homeopathy, chiropractic for anything other than low back pain, reiki, etc.)

The secret society members, and related things, can be found at #Sciencemob. At present it appears to focus on nonsensical medical claims, though global warming and evolution are not excluded. Suggestions for new members you can leave at the Sciencemob Twitter feed. My blogroll has some good candidates so Liz:)

The infectious-disease-promotion-movement

2010-08-20T23:25:00.009+02:00

Numerous blogs, this one included, have written about the pernicious effect Andrew Wakefield has had on vaccination levels in children. He singlehandedly was able to get nearly irradicated diseases reintroduced by claiming this highly effective method of preventing disease causes autism. This summer the infectious disease promotion movement suffered a setback when British General Medical Council (GMC) ruled against him. Since his adherents suffer from both a delusional disorder and the Dunning-Kruger effect, they may want to read about statistics in medicine, his downfall has not been the boost for vaccination rates less intellectually challenged people had hoped for. The legacy of his misbehaviour is a decreased herd immunity which still kills. Joseph Albietz remembers the death of a child:

He was unvaccinated, but that was because of his age. He was part of the population that is fully dependent on herd immunity for protection, and that is exquisitely prone to a life-threatening course once infected.

The failure of maintaining herd immunity makes him observe that:

the medical community in general is delusional if we think we can resolve the public health threat posed by the undercurrent of distrust in the vaccination program on our own. No number of studies, consensus statements, or ad campaigns by the CDC, WHO, AAP, AAFP, etc (not to mention countless blog posts) will be sufficient to maintain the public trust in the vaccination program. We need public support as well.

The Force remains strong in the anti-science camp. Luckily Penn & Teller offered us another solution by spending an episode of Bullshit on the subject. Orac reviewed it for us, and has the video. Yet another approach is suggested by Joseph Albietz:

In Atlanta, Georgia this September is a rather sizable (~40,000 people) convention called Dragon Con. Our skeptic friends at Skepchick.org and the newly formed “Women Thinking Free Foundation” are launching their their “Hug Me! I’m Vaccinated” education campaign at Dragon*Con, and have organized a local pertussis vaccination clinic during the event. In coordination with the local health officials, they are providing free TDaP vaccinations for any Dragon*Con participant, as well as information and educational materials.

But as long as airhead celebreties keep falling for the denialism-virus ....... Sigh.

Update: Another explanation for the importance of herd immunity is given by ERV.

Update II: The importance of herd immunity is surprisingly lost on the anti-vaccination crowd. The Watchdog Institute reports:

that waivers signed by parents who choose to exempt their children from immunizations for kindergarten enrollment have nearly quadrupled since 1990. California allows parents to opt out of some or all shots on the basis of personal beliefs, be it religious objections or distrust of the medical establishment.

This causes Orac to observe:

Failure to vaccinate also endangers the unvaccinated children as well. Last year, in fact, this risk was quantified in a study that found that unvaccinated children have a 23-fold elevated risk of catching pertussis compared with vaccinated children.

That is, if you accept what physicians say about herd immunity. We all know they don't know as much about diseases as the average celebrity.

Update III: What happens if others get infected because you object, for whatever reason, to vaccinations, i.e. you support the spread of infectious disease. The possible legal liability is discussed by attorney Jann Bellamy. The short version:

Those who breach their duty to avoid the spread of communicable disease may be liable to those injured for damages.

Update IV: If you still think the infection-promotion-movement is a harmless bunch of "sceptics" try reading about the harassment Amy Wallace was subjected to after writing an article called "An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All." Her experience with this witchhunt she explains here:

Autism’s False Prophets, Dr. Offit’s 2008 book, opened my eyes to the risks of reporting on vaccines. Before I began working on my Wired story I read it, focusing at first on his straightforward description of what being a vaccine advocate had cost him. He’d been vilified on the Internet as a profiteer, a prostitute who serviced Big Pharma, and worse. He’d been physically accosted. His life had been threatened. Once, an anonymous caller had even implied they might go after Offit’s two children.

What I experienced in the wake of my Wired story was similar in tone (although my child was spared). Like Offit, the vast majority of the feedback I received was positive, but the negative stuff would make your hair stand on end.

Despite all this she does not regret a thing:

My Wired piece was a chance to contribute in a meaningful way to a discussion that must be had.

She ends the article with some suggestions for those interested in promoting rational debate. Another article, by Shot of Prevention, also mention the Watchdog Instute's investigation and the effect of not vaccinating on herd immunity:

Perhaps more concerned parents should demand to know how many of their children’s classmates are coming to school unvaccinated. As Dr. Mark Sawyer, pediatric infectious disease specialist at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego noted, “Un-immunized people in general contribute to any disease rates. As the rates of un-immunized kids go up, we are inevitably going to see more and more outbreaks of diseases.” It is clear that a failure to vaccinate children attending school endangers us all.

Then there is the CDC which estimated the number of deaths due to influenza. I wish there was a way to prevent those infections.

WiFi

2010-08-20T10:58:00.004+02:00

Having travelled a few weeks through Norway there are some stories I wish to share that circumstances prevented me to write about before. Well known is the fearmongering surrounding mobile phones. New to me is the danger WiFi poses. Of course, whether the claim makes any sense is another matter. There is a school in Ontario where parents want the school to turn of the signal in response to, in essence vague and nonspecific, symptoms among the students. Quoth Steven Novella:

From a basic science perspective, there is little plausibility to the notion that Wi-Fi radiation would have any health effects. The amount of energy that is absorbed by a person living in a Wi-Fi field is negligible - less than 1% of exposure from a typical cell phone and well below current safety levels.

But he advances a different explanation for children getting ill during school hours:

Stress alone is a sufficient explanation, but there may be others. For example, many students go to school sleep-deprived because they are staying up too late. This is not an issue on weekends and over the summer. Sleep deprivation is a good explanation for most of the symptoms being reported.

He concludes this is another example of lack of critical thinking skills being at the basis of a "controversy." While Orac notes:

Did it ever occur to them that complaining of feeling sick is a good way to get out of school for the day?

Also, he stresses the always ignored maxim "correlation is not causation." Something invariably absent from the anti-science movement.

Update: Dutch trees appear unaware of the above:

A study by some Dutch scientists claims to have shown that WiFi kills trees [Study Says Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick].

Note the important advise on how to protect against this evil.

Lay-out

2010-08-18T18:29:00.000+02:00

Since numerous people complained about the green letters on a black background I have been playing around with the lay-out. After experimenting I came up with the current version. Please let me know if it is easier on the eyes and whether this makes reading the blog less of a struggle (aside from the content).

Summer in Norway, again

2010-08-17T02:13:00.009+02:00

Having seen the mountains of southern Norway, last summer, this time I decided to travel across the arctic circle to see Nordland and its midnight sun. First, I went to see Lofoten, after which Kystriksveien followed. The trip traversing Nordland was about 2160 km, the distance on the ferries not included.

Harstad/Narvik airport Evenes was my place of arrival in the North. From there I drove to Harstad for lunch in de 4 Roser. The brilliant thing was that there was a watertap and icecubes standing next to it. All free! You won't believe the amount of places I have been to that that refuse to give water with coffee. Only sporadically, like here, do you get free water served. For the technically inclined, they also have WiFi. Just ask for the password as you order your coffee/lunch/dinner. Having bought a new toy I just had to play with it! When I finished playing, and eating, I drove through Sortland, and Stokmarknes. While noting that in Norway the outdoors is subject to allemannsretten I put up the tent between Teigan and Taen on Hadseløya. Unfortunately, on my way there, I didn't find the intended site to have coffee: Uværshula.

Next day I saw Svolvær, had lunch by Lofotenkatedralen, took the ferry Melbu - Fiskebøl to see Nusfjord. That night I camped by Selfjorden in Ramberg. To get there I had to negotiate a steep bridge. Since I never experienced the midnight sun it was a disorienting, yet mesmerising, thing to see. The sun amazingly does not go down. The lack of a sunset resulted in going to bed late.

The next day my exploration of Lofoten continued on the E10, driving through Svolvær en route to the Lofotr Viking museum in Borg. Of course, in my mind no visit to Norway would be complete without it. The museum has the biggest chieftain's homestead excavated in Scandinavia, and a replica, Lofotr, of the viking ship Gokstad, that I saw in Oslo. Admittedly, it was a bit disappointing, so don't bother coming to the region just for that. Fortunately the road turned into a scene from Lord of the Rings with a towering mountain in front of me.

The fishing village Å had a somewhat artificial atmosphere, though less than Nusfjord. As in: too much of a tourist attraction. Saving money and time I decided to take a roundtrip, through Kjerkfjorden, on the ferry from Reine. As opposed to the original plan to take a lengthy excursion to the maelstrom, or a whale- and/or eagle safari, or visiting a cave. That night I set up camp at Djupfjorden near Reine, where I found the almost perfect camping site. Secluded, and with a great view. To get there is easy, get out at the parking next to Djupfjordbrua (Djupfjord Bridge), walk five minutes towards the Fjord, and presto: magic.

In the morning I returned to Svolvær, visiting both Henningsvær and Lofoten akvariet (Lofoten aquarium) at Storvågan. I then took the ferry to Skutvik, headed for the E6 so I could have dinner in Fauske. After dinner I slept at Nordnes Camp & Bygdesenter, which surprisingly has WiFi for the intrepid traveller with electronic gadgets.

The next day, continuing to Sandnessjøen and Tjøtta to catch the ferry to the Vega Archipelago, I took a detour through Mosjøen to see Sjøgata. It is a nice historical street, and in it you will find Vikgården Landhandel og Kaffebu which is a brilliant place to have coffee, or lunch. The following ferry part did not impress me. Annoyingly, to some islands the last departure was scheduled at around 15:00h. Incredible, considering the amount of tourists that were trying to make a similar trip. The Norwegian Tourist Board may want to rethink their priorities. While arriving at least thirty minutes before departure in Tjøtta there were too many cars - it is a holiday season, so who could have known, to borrow this famous disingenious statement by certain politicians- leaving me stranded. Strangely enough the last ferry, of the week, from Tjøtta to Vega leaves at 18:00h on friday. The next one is not before monday. Therefore I had to make a massive detour via Forvik, to then catch the ferry at Anndalsvågen to Horn. There I finally caught the ferry to Vega. Some five hours later than planned I was able to reach Vega. Since it was too late for the shops to be open I made some food myself. In the morning I took a tour of the island as I did not have the chance earlier. There was the E-Huset in Nes, and also the impressive Stone-age walk. It shows the changes in sea level and human skills, mainly fishing, by the local people. The island turned out to resemble a postcard from the south pacific. Beautiful white beaches.

Next stop, coffee, and Norwegian waffles with homemade rubarb and prune jam, at Vegstein before catching the ferry back.

In light of the inability to explore Vega the previous day I had to reschedule, and so my visit to Ylvingen had to be cancelled due to the limited time available. Therefore, without stopping there, I made the same trip in the opposite direction. What is inexctricably linked to visiting the Vega Archipelago is de syv søstre mountain range on the island of Alsten. It is impossible not to notice. Be sure to read up on the mythology surounding it, and its connection to Torghatten Mountain.

I travelled with the ferry from Søvik to in Herøy, crossed the bridge to Dønna, where I passed Dønnamannen on my way to see the view from Dønnesfjellet. That night the beach at Breivik was my campsite. From Bjørn I went to Sandnessjøen. Took the ferry in Levang to Nesna, continued for the ferry at Kilboghamn to Jaktvik. Ågskardet to Forøy.

In Saltfjellet-Svartisen National Park I saw Svartisen, a collective term for the two glaciers Vestre and Østre. Slept at Bodøsjøen camping - a nice camping, but it would have been smarter to sleep closer (discovered it too late) to Saltstraumen, "the world's strongest tidal current," in Bodø, which is a massive whirlpool of fast streaming water. As it happened, I had to travel the same road -nearly 30 km - three times. All to witness the maelstrom the next day. The phenomenon occurs every six hours. Back in the city centre I tried tørrfisk which, to me, appeared similar to lutefisk. The holiday ended with a brief visit to Narvik, and the stone-age engraving of some sort of deer, followed by an improvised midnight meal at Evenes airport. From there I took a plane to Oslo.

From Oslo Bussterminal I took the bus to Telemark. There I visited several great spots. Of course the birthplace of skiing: Morgedal. It turned out a lot smaller than I had envisioned. Went to see the Eidsbog Stavkirke, had coffee at the picturesque Dalen Hotel, swam in the lake to just unexpectedly miss Selma, a distant cousin of Nessie. Not my cup of tea but in Seljord I noticed the annual Countryfestival.

The short sightseeing tour ended with a stay in the Hardangervidda Nasjonalpark, in a hut close to the Haukeliseter Fjellstue. The scenery was stunning, fishing not so good. But all in all the sunny weather made it a success. Looked at the exhibition, and tried some homemade beer, at Nutheim Gjestgiveri (The art hotel in Telemark). Via Sandefjord I returned to Oslo to catch the plane home. That is, after a BBQ and a swim at the beach in Hvervenbukta.

As an afterthought, I found the roads of Nordland too narrow for my taste. The local "highway" is a small two-way street which barely has space for two cars. Combine that with a meandering mountain road and the very big trailers heading in the opposite direction are a truly frightening sight. Admittedly, driving for weeks on such roads has increased my confidence as a chauffeur, but I still prefer the wider roads in the south of Norway.

Another unpleasant part of the trip was the horrendously insatiable hordes of stinging insects, yet more creatures mimicking the ones in Scotland. Luckily I did miss the local fauna, of the polar region, which turned out to be slightly too hospitable to other tourists.

Conspiracy theory in denialism

2010-07-29T19:56:00.001+02:00

At the moment I am in Norway, a blog on that journey is coming. In the mean time here are some sites on denialism, detailing how to invent controversy by invoking numerous conspiracies, global warming denial, and how the anti-science movement shares the characteristics that are prosaicly termed crank magnetism.

The Ten Best Scotch Whiskies

2010-07-15T05:34:00.000+02:00

Aside from the need for us to engage in rational debate, and value critical skills, I do find time to think of the finer things in life. This time The Independent offers us their favourite whiskies. Feel free to comment and add your suggestions.

Twitter

2010-07-09T14:24:00.002+02:00

After thinking rather long on it I am about to get the new iPhone. Anticipating that I have created a Twitter account. Just in case the new toy leads to an increased interest in Tweets. For those interested in receiving anouncements of new posts, and other things I may want to share, feel free to follow me at DrNescio.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

2010-07-08T21:31:00.007+02:00

Part of the myriad of reasons people are resistent to science is the Dunning-Kruger effect. At Pro-Science Kristjan Wager explains the concept, and links to the original article that gave us the term.

Update: On a related note, Ed Brayton discusses a new, and unusual, interpretation of cognitive dissonance theory. Watching the Deniers discusses an article in Political Behaviour that:

clearly demonstrates the fact that people will cling desperately to a misconception despite overwhelming evidence that contradicts that belief.

He refers to climategate as the example "par excellence" of what the article clarifies. This resembles my conclusion the anti-science crowd is suffering from some form of delusional disorder.

Update II: The effect stands for the notion that the least knowledgeable individuals feel they are the best qualified to opine on a certain topic. This because they lack the ability, as a result of insufficient training, to recognise the flaws in their conclusions.

Journalism: if only ......

2010-07-04T22:18:00.016+02:00

Knowledge precedes understanding. Therefore to be adequately informed, and protected against the denialism-virus, we need good reporting. The principal problem with journalists today is they feel that presenting a story objectively means you do not check the facts, you only have to tell both sides: i.e. be fair and balanced. What this means is shown by Glenn Greenwald in the latest incarnation of the neutrality-virus. Harvard published a study which:

examines how waterboarding has been discussed by America's four largest newspapers over the past 100 years, and finds that the technique, almost invariably, was unequivocally referred to as "torture" -- until the U.S. Government began openly using it and insisting that it was not torture, at which time these newspapers obediently ceased describing it that way

Just like any guilty person the accused advanced an utterly unconvincing defence to which Greenwald responds:

The New York Times issued a statement justifying this behavior on the ground that it did not want to take sides in the debate. Andrew Sullivan, Greg Sargent and Adam Serwer all pointed out that "taking a side" is precisely what the NYT did: by dutifully complying with the Bush script and ceasing to use the term (replacing it with cleansing euphemisms), it endorsed the demonstrably false proposition that waterboarding was something other than torture.

To continue with:

Worse, to justify his paper's conduct, Keller [the executive editor of The Times] adds "that defenders of the practice of water-boarding, 'including senior officials of the Bush administration,' insisted that it did not constitute torture."

Then there is:

Cameron Barr, National Security Editor of The Washington Post, which also ceased using "torture" on command: "After the use of the term 'torture' became contentious, we decided that we wouldn’t use it in our voice to describe waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration."

Greenwald rhetorically asks:

Could you imagine going into "journalism" with this cowardly attitude: once an issue becomes "contentious" and one side begins contesting facts, I'm staying out of it, even if it means abandoning what we've recognized as fact for decades. And note how even today, in an interview rather than an article, Barr continues to use the government-subservient euphemism: "waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration." Just contemplate what it means, as Keller and Barr openly admit, that our government officials have veto power over the language which our "independent media" uses to describe what they do.

Such subservient behaviour I find disturbing. Is a journalist not supposed to do the exact opposite? He predictably notes the prescient words of George Orwell. The same Bill Keller is mentioned by Marcy Wheeler, and she illustrates Keller's hypocrisy by citing his contradictory behaviour as a reporter:

NYT reporter Bill Keller has a long history of referring to torture as torture without bowing to the spin of the governments who use it.

Unfortunately this misleading way of informing the public is not limited to politics. Mike the Mad Biologist writes about science journalists that are convinced one should present "opposing views," and how Ivan Oranski observed -commenting on a tweet by Maggie Koerth-Baker, a freelance science journalist in Minneapolis:

I never tell my students to get "opposing viewpoint" but to get outside perspective -- one that may agree with the study or the main idea being put forward by a source.

Anyone interested in factually and accurately reporting a story, or is political correctness more important? When do we demand the return of actual journalism in stead of the current "it's not our job to comment on the veracity of a story, we only report"-doctrine?

Update: Following the above exchange Glenn notes an AP story which explicitly states that China is guilty of torture. He posits:

Given the standards of Good Journalism prevailing in the U.S. media, as taught to us just this weekend by high-level executives at the NYT and The Washington Post (and previously at NPR): what right does AP have to "take sides" in this dispute by substituting its own judgment about "torture" for the Chinese Government's? Beyond that, given that the U.S. Government has officially adopted a definition of "torture" that plainly does not include a few cigarette stubs on an arm, shouldn't that preclude any Good Journalist from using the term in this subjective and biased way? I hope AP will be apologizing to the Chinese shortly for its act of journalistic irresponsibility. It's not the role of journalists to take sides this way.

Not only the Chinese "torture:"

As lysias notes in comments, the North Vietnamese have emphatically denied that the techniques they used on John McCain constituted "torture."

His post ends with an odd update:

Strangely, at some point after I wrote this, the above-linked AP article was re-written so as to edit out the word "torture" in the two places that word appeared to describe what the Chinese did (though the original language can still be seen in this old version of the AP article). Perhaps, as recommended here, AP took to heart the Bill-Keller/WashPost/ NPR standard -- if a Government denies it did X, then a Good Journalist does not say that it did X -- and edited its article accordingly.

What any really Serious and Unbiased Journalist understands is that if somebody says the earth is flat it is inherently unprofessional to point out that this is a fringe and refuted position. To illustrate the double standard in the MSM Greenwald wrote another post:

Journalists like to claim that they are devoted to transparency, but it's always striking how so many of them exempt themselves and their own media outlets from those "principles."

The sudden refusal to call torture torture leads Marcy Wheeler to speculate whether this enabled public support for the use of it by the US administration.

Update II: Come to think of it, whenever the press engage in doublespeak, in order to manipulate their audience into accepting the official government position, normal people call that propaganda. In my definition of journalism there is no mention of the use of propaganda. Heck, my idea of a journalist is an individual fighting to let the light in where government officials work 24/7 to keep those illegal activities in the dark.

Update III: As if the media want to illustrate the point we now have the highly hypocritical reaction to a tweet by Octavia Nasr. Both Glenn and Eric Martin give an extensive analysis of the incident to show us how Serious and Unbiased Journalists are supposed to work.

Update IV: Another example by Glenn.

Update V: The inadequacy of science journalist Nicholas Wade is shown by Larry Moran. While Andrew Bolt is challenged by Watching the Deniers to retract his statements attacking scientists.

Update VI: Quite illustrative is this example of a Serious and Unbiassed reporter.

Update VII: Nice article on modern day "fact-checking" by The New York Times concludes:

In short, fact-checking has assumed radically new forms in the past 15 years. Only fact-checkers from legacy media probably miss the quaint old procedures. But if the Web has changed what qualifies as fact-checking, has it also changed what qualifies as a fact? I suspect that facts on the Web are now more rhetorical devices than identifiable objects. But I can’t verify that.

Update VIII: In case you missed the point I am making here is a brilliant parody by Martin Robbins.

Homeopathy in bad weather

2010-06-30T09:29:00.003+02:00

As a result of recent findings that concluded homeopathy is nothing more than wishful thinking, otherwise known as placebo, Steven Novella reports:

Homeopathy is on the ropes in the UK. Earlier in the year The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) released a report, Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy, essentially saying that homeopathy is bunk and should no longer be supported. Recently representatives of the British Medical Association (BMA) condemned homeopathy as “witchcraft.”

And he continues:

Now the BMA is going one step further – calling for a ban on homeopathy in the UK. They do not want homeopathy to be illegal, but they want a ban on any National Health Service (NHS) support for homeopathy.

This, of course, is good news. Everybody should have the right to throw away his/her money by spending it on therapies that do not work. That proposition does not mean the rest of us should pay for their gullibility.

Update: According to Pharyngula there is a video that:

will hurt your brain, but don't worry, the pain will make you stronger. This is a mashup of a few homeopaths rationalizing their baloney, mixed in with Star Trek technobabble.

Then he comments on the above story:

There is a corrective: good news. British skeptics have been working hard to fight homeopathy, UK doctors have called for a ban on homeopathic 'medicines', and the doctors have voted to make homeopathy unsupported by the national health service! Reason triumphs for once!

Sanity at last?

Augmented my collection of films

2010-06-27T02:53:00.001+02:00

It has been some time since the last post. Working on a few now, and for those that cannot wait I added some titles to my collection of films. Don't be shy and see if there is anything you like, or something you want to suggest to me.

Delusional disorder: Part IV

2010-05-06T22:47:00.004+02:00

Confronted with a multitude of people that prefer magical thinking to the scientific method I have tried to find an explanation for the persistence of their irrational behaviour. There is at least a hint of the delusional mind present in the obsessive refusal to accept any form of evidence contradicting the anti-science position. Using the most intricate conspiracy theories they tell us this evidence is planted by the modern day illuminati: scientists.

Interestingly Steven Novella discusses an article which appears to offer insight into the mechanism behind our susceptibility to irrational claims:

The study looked at individuals identified as Christian and very religious (confirmed with a questionnaire) and non-religious controls. They were then exposed to speeches by a non-Christian, a Christian, and a Christian faith healer, while being examined by fMRI (functional MRI scanning looks at brain function by measuring blood flow to the various brain regions).

... two things appear to be happening here. The first is an increase in activity among the secular group when exposed to the speech of a Christian faith healer – this can perhaps be interpreted as a negative reaction, putting their critical thinking on alert. Further, Christians who believed in faith healing had the opposite reaction – they turned off their critical thinking.

This may be due to something akin to Windows running multiple programs:

We may fall victim to simple resource limitations, and when we tax our brain function our performance – including critical thinking – diminishes.

Another interpretation is:

Evolutionary psychologists speculate that our ancestors may have been selected for the ability to hand over their executive function to a charismatic leader. This allows for group cohesion, and it allows for the sacrifice of the individual for the good of the group. If the group is comprised largely of our genetic relatives, this self-sacrifice can make Darwinian sense.

This level of handing over may be necessary to do otherwise unthinkable acts, such as following your commander into a deadly (even suicidal) situation.

But there is a dark side to the monkey brains we inherited. Cults are the ultimate expression of this – turning over complete control to a charismatic leader. Cults then indoctrinate their members into a belief system that enhances this effect. They further cultivate an us vs them attitude, which makes them more pliable to their leaders and resistant to outsiders. Cults even manipulate their recruits with sleep and protein deprivation, to further stress their neurological resources.

As I mentioned cult-like behaviour as characteristic of the anti-science crowd it looks like I was not that far off.

Update: Page, from The Gotham Skeptic, discusses the same study.

TV might be harmful to your kids

2010-05-03T12:51:00.000+02:00

The Independent reports that a study that:

tracked the progress of pre-school children found that the more television they watched aged two-and- a-half the worse they were at mathematics, the more junk food they ate, and the more they were bullied by other pupils.

Also:

"Our findings make a compelling public health argument against excessive viewing in early childhood, and for parents to heed guidelines on TV exposure from the American Academy of Paediatrics [no TV for children under two]." Several studies have indicated that television harms educational and social development. A New Zealand study which went up to the age of 26 demonstrated that childhood viewing was "significantly associated" with leaving school without qualifications, concluding that the link was clear regardless of early problems or socio-economic status.

Homeopathy has not worked in 175 years

2010-04-16T10:51:00.001+02:00

As anyone who subscribes to the scientific method knows homeopathy does not work. Interestingly Orac, while cleaning up his attic, discovered:

the oldest double-blind RCT of which I found record was conducted in 1835 in Nuremberg, Bavaria, and subsequently described in an editorial in 2006 entitled “Inventing the randomized double-blind trial: The Nuremberg salt test of 1835.”

It is not just today we have investigated and determined homeopathy is nothing more than wishful-thinking: that debate was settled 175 years ago! That is, to those that have not been infected with the denialist-virus.

There may be hope

2010-04-15T17:28:00.002+02:00

Despite my somewhat cynical observation that there is a widespread anti-science movement I do see the occasional glimmer of hope. This time it is Simon Singh winning the legal battle that was the result of the farcical libel laws in Britain. The Times reported:

The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) this morning dropped its libel claim against Dr Singh, two weeks after a landmark judgment by the Court of Appeal ruled that the author could use the defence of fair comment.

More on the history of how the irrational tried to strongarm him for pointing out the unscientific nature of their claims by Ben Goldacre and Orac. Obviously, when you cannot win on the merits there is always the British libel laws. Please support their reform.

Update: We should not forget the response by Steven Novella.

Delusional disorder: Part III

2010-04-13T23:11:00.007+02:00

Continuing the series (see Part I and Part II), that attempts to explain why people object to science, I want to clarify a few things. First, my suggestion they suffer from a delusional disorder is in no way a scientific observation. It is only my contention that the criteria for mass psychosis appear to cover most of the anti-science movement. Calling it delusional is merely my way of describing a certain characteristic: the dismissal of anything (read: scientific evidence) that contradicts the anti-science stance. Second, I was asked whether the suggested traits apply to all manifestations of the denialist-disorder. Intuitively I would say yes, but let's review that position in more detail among those that refute the scientific method. In my opinion the anti-science movement engage in:

Cult-like behaviour: dogmatically supporting the all-knowing Leader,
Conspiracy theory: there is a global conspiracy to hide The Truth,
Misunderstanding what science entails: i.e. if there is one thing science cannot explain that proves all those things that have been elucidated (evolution, germtheory) are wrong,
Double standard: even if science is right it does not apply to their specific case, i.e. because of their unique nature Intelligent Design, homeopathy, paranormal claims, et cetera, should not be held to the same standard as the scientific community,
Thinking that attending Google University (Dah Google) equals years of study, and doing reseach, in a certain field -expert opinion is just that: opinion,

Regarding its applicability to the entire anti-science movement, this time I made a more elaborate, though not comprehensive, analysis:

Anti-vaccination, a.k.a. infectious diseases promotion movement:

1. Cult-like behaviour: The Leader (Andrew Wakefield) discovered The Truth (vaccines are dangerous) and it is treated as dogma,

2. The Truth is a highly unlikely theory which ignores a multitude of evidence disproving it,

3. Conspiracy: Scientists and Big Pharma are hiding The Truth from us, vaccines are dangerous and do not work,

4. Misrepresentations and logical fallacies: the fall of The Leader is because of point 3 and absolutely not related to the scientific quality of his claims,
5. Double standard: claiming unethical behaviour of scientists while ignoring actual misconduct by "sceptics."

Anti-global warming:

1. Cult-like behaviour: The Leader (lobbying groups) discovered The Truth (global warming is non-existent) and it is treated as dogma,

2. The Truth is a highly unlikely theory which ignores a multitude of evidence disproving it,

3. Conspiracy: climategate proves scientists are hiding The Truth,

4. Misrepresentations and logical fallacies: the fact scientists debate the details proves there is no scientific consensus,
5. Double standard: claiming unethical behaviour of scientists while ignoring actual misconduct by "sceptics."

Anti-evolution:

1. Cult-like behaviour: The Leader (god through preachers) pointed out The Truth (the bible and not evolution explains life) and it is treated as dogma,

2. The Truth is a highly unlikely theory which ignores a multitude of evidence disproving it,

3. Conspiracy: scientists refuse to accept Intelligence Design as mainstream science because they oppose god, and/or work for satan,

4. Misrepresentations and logical fallacies: Dover vs. Kitzmiller established that its most vocal proponents admitted that ID is not science, in public discourse they nevertheless keep claiming it is.

Anti-HIV causes AIDS:

1. Cult-like behaviour: The Leader (Duesberg) discovered The Truth (HIV does not cause AIDS) and it is treated as dogma,

2. The Truth is a highly unlikely theory which ignores a multitude of evidence disproving it, most notably the numerous studies showing the efficacy of current treatment, aimed at the virus, in combatting AIDS,

3. Conspiracy: scientists are hiding the fact that AIDS is caused by the same treatments that are given to combat the disorder,

4. Misrepresentations and logical fallacies:

Anti-rule of law:

1. Cult-like behaviour: The Leader (the Bush administration) discovered The Truth (terrorism by muslims is a new global threat and will cause the end of the world) and it is treated as dogma,

2. The Truth is a highly unlikely theory which ignores a multitude of evidence disproving it, such as a) before 9-11 we already had terrorism, b) terrorism is not even remotely a credible major cause of death worldwide, c) terrorism is influenced by the policies adopted by the West, d) the War of Terror is anything but a success,

3. Conspiracy: Lefties and civil rights advocates hide The Truth from us, terrorists are dangerous and if you do not give up basic civil and human rights they will destroy the world. Those pointing out the tyrannical and Orwellian nature of that premise effectively support terrorism,
4. Misrepresentations and logical fallacies: by redefining the word terrorism it now includes almost all activities previously thought to be part of any democratic society: i.e. freedom of speech, dissent,
5. Double standard: any act by non-americans is terrorism but the same done by the U.S. is a priori not terrorism.

The common thread is a Leader disseminating The Truth, and the infallibility of The Leader (dogma!) means that no amount of evidence is sufficient to persuade the followers of The Truth that it is incorrect. (Is it me or does this sound like some sort of religion? Hmm, didn't somebody opine on religious concepts being evolutionary advantageous to the first hominids?) So, whatever the specific flavour of denialism, its adherents are incapable of incorporating any evidence contrary to their opinion. Any belief (but I know it is The Truth) that cannot be corrected by reality is called a delusion by psychiatrists.

Why is it these people are so resistent to fact? One study -Cultural Cognition Project; George Washington University Law School- introduces the cultural cognition of risk which:

posits that individuals tend to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce one or another idealized vision of how society should be organized.

-snip-

Thus, generally speaking, persons who subscribe to individualistic values tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks, because acceptance of such claims implies the need to regulate markets, commerce, and other outlets for individual strivings. Persons with more egalitarian and communitarian values, in contrast, resent commerce and industry as forms of noxious self-seeking productive of unjust disparity, and thus readily accept that such activities are dangerous and worthy of regulation. Finally, like those who subscribe to an individualistic ethos, persons who subscribe to hierarchical values resist claims of environmental risk, which they perceive as subversive indictments of social and governmental elites.

Regarding scientific consensus the article notes that:

The cultural cognition thesis predict that individuals will more readily recall instances of experts taking the position that is consistent with their cultural predisposition than ones taking positions inconsistent with it.

Personally, I divide the anti-science movement into two groups. The first consists of the purveyors of nonsense. They probably are aware of the inaccuracy of the claims but for monetary reasons, or other vested interests, insist on promoting non-fact based ideas: i.e. quacks, "journalists," lobbying groups, (oil, tobacco, weapons, et cetera). Then there are the adherents, disciples if you will, of nonsensical theories. This group has several reasons for ignoring reality:

They lack adequate education to recognise the difference between science/facts and propaganda, a.k.a. marketing, which is amplified by
The media adopting the "we report, you decide"-doctrine which creates controversies that are non-existent,
Combined with the Kruger-Dunning-effect, which makes the least informed think they are the best to render judgement on a certain topic,
They need arguments for not having to change their life-style (I have a right to waste as much resources as I want), or to keep hoping for that miracle cure.

In short, magical thinking refuses to be replaced by the scientific method since the worldview of the Dark Ages is so much better. Can this be understood using biology? Is our visceral response (dear leader tell me what to do) based on something akin to group-think which, when you are a wolf, may be advantageous in the wild but for a contemporary homo sapiens it is no longer necessary, even counterproductive, to survive. According to Skeptical Science:

In 2008 the Milinski group found that only if disaster was 90% certain, i.e. the individual would suffer irreversible losses, could humans be motivated to reach a given target of total required preventive investments.

Should that be true it will take alot more evolving for us to eradicate the denialist-virus.

Update: Just posted part IV.

Climategate: Much ado about nothing

2010-03-31T08:18:00.009+02:00

As I stated before most "controversies" are non-existent within the scientific community. One example was the hype dubbed climategate. As expected this non-controversy was based upon fabricated tales, of a meanspirited conspiracy by evil scientists, to get you out of your hummer. Lo and behold, are you sitting down?, the allegations turn out to be unsupported by the facts. MSNBC reports on the investigation by The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee, in the UK:

... the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."

The Independent and The Times notice it too. Interestingly, and naturally totally unrelated to that manufactroversy, The Guardian observes:

A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.
The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.

One more lie debunked. However, since the anti-science movement has no particular interest in the facts I predict this will not influence the "debate."

Update: For those interested in peer reviewed papers on this topic, they can be found here.

Update II: More here.

Update III: Additional comment by Tim Lambert.

Delusional disorder: Part II

2010-03-26T11:28:00.010+01:00

In part I I outlined the tactics of the anti-science movement. In case you missed their various incarnations, I am talking about those denialists that claim that: the holocaust is just a PR-stunt, HIV does not cause AIDS, Global Warming is not happening, vaccines are the cause of everything evil, evolution is merely a theory, mobile phones cause cancer, terrorism is the biggest threat to your life, et cetera.

This time I want to try and understand why people are so resistent to facts contradicting their personal believesystem. The common thread of all "denialist controversies" is that no amount of evidence is sufficient to persuade denialists that they are simply wrong. This reminds me of what I was taught about the difference between an illusion and a delusion. When we have an illusion we see or hear things, but we are aware they are not actually there, i.e. illusionist, magician. A delusion, however, is seeing or hearing things without realising it is not there. No amount of evidence will convince people, suffering from a delusion, that it is imaginary, i.e. paranoid delusional disorder.

With this in mind I noticed the always invoked conpiracy -Big Pharma, Illuminati, Big Oil, et cetera- to explain away the multitude of scientific evidence refuting the denialist position. Add to that the Matrix-inspired notion that fact and fiction are essentially the same (i.e. evolution is merely one theory of many), together with the always present-both-sides-equally-fallacy invoking media, and science is guarenteed to lose.

Regardless of their idiosynchratic reality-refuting opinions the anti-science crowd shares some interesting characteristics. Skeptical Science noticed this too, and points out five characteristics of the anti-science disorder:

Conspiracy theories,
Fake experts,
Cherry picking,
Impossible expectations of what research can deliver,
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.

Personally, I see the following traits among denialists:

Indoctrination,
Dogma supercedes evidence,
The denialist is always right, when he is proven wrong see point 2, 6 and 7,
Megalomania: the denialist is the only person capable of understanding/seeing The Truth,
Inconsistency: rigorously applying standards to others while failing to adhere to those standards themselves, see point 6,
Using invented facts, double-standard and logical fallacies,
Conspiracy theory: confronted with any evidence to the contrary it is dismissed as fake (scientists and industry work in unison to plant evidence to hide The Truth)
Cult-like behaviour (because of point 1)

Thinking of the DSM-IV one can't help but notice the similarity with the paranoid delusional disorder. The propensity to create elaborate explanations for ignoring/refuting what science says is the hallmark of delusional people. Since the "teach the controversy"-crowd has succeeded in removing critical thinking skills from schools' curricula and the media in their reports refuse to "take sides" we live in a world where fact and fiction have become equal.

Update: Kimball Atwood makes some suggestions regarding adherents of "alternative medicine," and wonders why:

some people are drawn to implausible treatments, even in the face of compelling, contradictory evidence. Such investigations might begin by looking at the work of Beyerstein and Alcock, for example.

Update II: Posted a more detailed explanation on the rationale behind the anti-science crowd.

Statistics

2010-03-21T22:23:00.004+01:00

Both in science, and legal proceedings, statitsics are used as part of the argument. But methamatics has shown to be more difficult and prone to misunderstandings. For an update on the ins and outs Steven Novella discusses the pitfalls in a review of an article by Tom Siegfried.

Update: Some additional points regarding randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) by Andrew Gelman.

Update II: More from Open Mind explaining:

Statistics works, it does what it’s supposed to do. But it is susceptible to misinterpretation, to false results purely due to randomness, to bias, and of course to error.

Specifically:

One of the dangers inherent in statistical results is over-reliance on the “p-value.” The p-value is the probability of getting the observed result just by random accident, even when there’s no significant effect and the “null hypothesis”

All told, there are many ways for the statistical analysis of experiments to give incorrect results. This may be especially true in medical research, for which the financial incentive is high, the prior probability is often very low, and the sample size may be severely limited by circumstances beyond anyone’s control. But that hardly means that the foundation of statistical analysis is flimsy; that’s just sensationalism. Nor do we need to adhere to an impractically high standard of statistical significance — as desirable as it is, effects are often small and gathering more data (as in clinical trials) can be very expensive and time-consuming, while delays in availability of new treatments can be devastating for a patient with serious disease and few treatment options.

In addition to this explanation of statistics David Gorski and Kimball Atwood use the case of how the aetiology of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was elucidated to illustrate how plausibility influences medical research. It might be argued that decades earlier than Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, John Lykoudis may have stumbled upon the same interpretation that bacteriae are involved. However, he did so based upon anecdotal evidence and without sufficient evidence to warrant dismissing the then current view that acid was the culprit. Gorski concludes:

I find Lykoudis’s story to be a cautionary tale. Whether he was correct and thus the true “Galileo” of H. pylori, rather than Warren and Marshall or whether he was just another crank, his story demonstrates that we scientists should be very careful to guard against excessive smugness. As has been repeated by many skeptics in many variants over the years, it is not sufficient to claim the mantle of Galileo as a persecuted martyr for science. You must also be right. Even though it is not clear whether, taken in the context of the time, Lykoudis was a crank or a misunderstood physician who was ahead of his time, Warren and Marshall’s vindication of his ideas that PUD is bacterial in etiology reminds us that not all who claim the mantle of Galileo are necessarily cranks. The vast majority usually are, but on very rare occasions we do see a real Galileo.

Another take on statistics can be found at Effect Measure. For the interested reader, and as a note to myself, some general information here, here, here, here.

Delusional disorder: Part I

2010-03-20T23:32:00.009+01:00

So far, this year has been very good to those that support rationality and critical thinking. The anti-science crowd has suffered several setbacks in the past months. Mister vaccines-cause-autism, Andrew Wakefield, was exposed by the British General Medical Council (GMC) as "dishonest," "misleading" and "irresponsible," which resulted in the Lancet retracting his 1998 article which sparked more than a decade of fears for vaccination. Then, according to JURIST:

Three special masters sitting in the US Federal Court of Claims [official website] Friday rejected [opinions, PDF] three compensation actions brought in a coordinated omnibus proceeding [backgrounder, PDF; HRSA backgrounder] by families of autistic children who had argued that their children's autism was induced by vaccines containing mercury-laden thimerosol. The families had sought compensation under the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [HRSA backgrounder]. Special Master Patricia Campbell-Smith wrote that her petitioners had not "presented a scientifically sound theory", citing evidence that it was "biologically implausible." In February special masters in the same court rejected arguments [JURIST report] made in three other test cases against the US Department of Health and Human Services by families alleging that their children's autism was caused by a combination of common childhood vaccines.

Responding to the case Steven Novella observes:

This was a huge blow to the anti-vaccine crowd, and an excellent victory for science and reason. It was the equivalent of the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial for Intelligent Design.

His conclusion is:

This most recent decision by the Autism Omnibus is a slam dunk – after an exhaustive review of the evidence, allowing both sides to present their best case, the three masters are unanimous in their strong opinion that there is no evidence linking thimerosal to autism. They trashed every claim and argument brought forward by the petitioners – the logic and evidence simply does not support their case.

Normally, the fact that a major medical journal retracts the study that launched the infectious-disease-promoting-movement, combined with study after study refuting a reality denying view resulting in a verdict which emphasises the unscientific nature of the claims, one would think his supporters would re-evaluate their view and conclude it might not be compatible with reality. Not the anti-science crowd. Reminiscent of Hydra they are impossible to defeat. The loss of Wakefield inevitably results in a flood of ad hominems and attempts to discredit a real scientific study, through misrepresentations of how science works.

They focus on studies disproving a link between vaccines and autism. One of its authors, Paul Thorsen, allegedly committed a crime. The alternate reality inhabitants are oblivious to the inherent irony invoking his possible character flaw as evidence to invalidate scientific studies he participated in while ignoring the possible fraud by their Lord and Master. What they missed, according to Orac, regarding the irrelevancy of what a scientist does in his private life, is relevant how?:

Was there an allegation that somehow this alleged financial fraud had anything whatsoever to do with the design or excecution of Danish studies that failed to find a link between either MMR or thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism? Is there any evidence anywhere that Poul Thorsen committed scientific misconduct on the order of what Andrew Wakefield did? Seriously. I don't see anything in any of the number of vicious attacks on Poul Thorsen (who may or may not be a criminal), the SSI (which doesn't deserve them), or Aarhus University in Denmark (which also doesn't deserve them). It's a pure smear against these latter two institutions, guilt by association.
In other words, it's very typical of the anti-vaccine movement. The bottom line is that this is not a scientific scandal. It is a financial scandal that happens to involve a scientist.

In short:

He is not the main author,
Taking out one study does not negate the multitude of other studies showing the same thing: autism is not caused by vaccination,

But then again, when your belief is the sole arbiter of your worldview you are not interested in testing that premise. Rational people have an opinion based on the facts, while the anti-science crowd feels that the facts have to be adjusted to support their opinion.

Science vs. anti-science

2010-03-09T16:21:00.009+01:00

At present there is strong resistence to applying the scientific method in many "controversies." Most notably we are told that science does not preclude religion. In that debate some advocate a more accommodationist position. Larry Moran dissects that erroneous proposition:

Good, let's discuss. We begin by defining terms. I claim that science is a way of knowing based on rational thought, skepticism, and evidence. I claim that when that way of knowing is applied to religious claims, those claims can be shown to be false or, at the very least, unsupported. Thus, if you are committed to science as a valid way of knowing, it follows that, when you stick to that commitment, the vast majority of religious beliefs are not compatible with science.

In essence, if you consistently apply the scientific method to everything you do or think:

You can't claim to be thinking like a scientist while holding on to beliefs that have been refuted by science.

However, being rational and consistent is the work of the Devil, as it inevitably will unmask religion as nothing more than superstition posing as enlightenment. As such, just like the rest of the anti-science movement, they fear to be exposed as peddlers of nonsense and will fight tooth and nail to prevent that.

Update: Responding to comments at the above post Larry Moran explains his description of the National Center for Science and Education (NCSE) position in this matter. He shows several examples of their site linking to pro-religion articles and observes:

Correct me if I'm wrong but that doesn't sound like a neutral position on accommodationism and it doesn't sound like support for the idea that science and religion may be in conflict. It sounds like accommodationism.

and

I don't see an official NCSE webpage called "Resources for Atheists." I wonder why?

Update II: The conclusion of the response by Joshua Rosenau is:

NCSE's job is not to adjudicate philosophical disputes, but to provide resources to people in crises over the teaching of evolution, and the site is dedicated to providing the resources needed by activists and by citizens caught in the crossfire. It's useful for people in the field to know about theologies that are friendly to evolution, and it is accurate to say that they exist. And at the end of the day, it works. And that's what science is about.

Mike Dunford chimes in and states:

I can only see two options. You can come up with a scientific test that is compatible with your own determination of what people should actually expect to see based on your own view of what the nuances of their beliefs should be. The results of such a test can even reasonably be used to justify your own personal rejection of that belief. Attempting to apply the results more broadly simply doesn't work - you wind up arguing with what you think should exist, rather than what's actually there. Or you can simply admit, however reluctantly, that there are some beliefs that science cannot investigate, because there is no set of physical findings that is incompatible with those beliefs. I can see that being frustrating, but I'm not sure why it's all that confusing.

Homeopathy = placebo

2010-03-02T17:32:00.005+01:00

As long as I can remember I have had an open mind for the unusual and still I believe thinking outside the box is mandatory for anyone with the slightest interest in science. As an aside, as a doctor working in the Intensive Care Unit, or confronted with patients that have significant comorbidity, I occasionally need to find an alternative approach as the usual treatment is either insufficient, or too dangerous for the patient. I'll spare you the details. The point is I subscribe to having an open mind.

All this is a somewhat complicated introduction to a form of "alternative medicine" I feel requires a mind so open the skull has disappeared and the brain is lying on the floor. Not only does it violate the notion that when you make a scientific claim it has to have some plausibility, but every inquiry into its efficacy has shown it does not rise above the placebo-effect. You may know it under its awe-inspiring name: homeopathy.

Finally the Science and Technology Select Committee, in the UK, concluded:

By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products.(h/t Orac)

In The Guardian, Martin Robbins from The Lay Scientist, responds to their verdict:

Sadly, the criticism is likely to fall on deaf ears. Rather than take the opportunity to reassess their approach, homeopaths are filling blogs and tweets with dark imaginings of vast, Big Pharma-controlled conspiracies against their noble art, painting a vivid picture of the fantasy world that they appear to inhabit.

Steven Novella noticed the same ruling and commented:

The committee listened to proponents and critics, and found that homeopathy proponents cherry picked out-dated and fatally flawed studies to support their position, including a lecture series that wasn’t even a systematic review. Meanwhile, the best reviews of the best evidence clearly show that homeopathy is no better than placebo – which means it doesn’t work.

In another post Novella documents, this and other signs, that appreciation of science is awaking, which seriously damages the anti-science movement. Coincidentally this blast from the past at Bad Science.

In case you are still wondering: how does it work?

Now it is official. The purveyors of anti-science have discovered the newest incarnation of the placebo. What may it be you ask, quoth Orac:

Why homeopuncture, of course:

There is always a new non-therapy (a.k.a. placebo) to promote. Sigh.

Animal rights

2010-03-01T16:16:00.001+01:00

This is episode 307 from the series never let science interfere with ideology which deals with the Animal Rights Movement. These idealists proclaim to save animal life by correcting the falsehood that experiments on animals are essential to understanding diseases and developing medical treatment.

Leave it to Orac to correct the misleading, if not severly reality-denying, statements. He concludes his article with the following:

Just remember, whenever you hear seemingly "scientific" arguments against animal research that emphasize how bad and inaccurate it is, ask for concrete examples from the peer-reviewed literature that show that non-animal modalities are consistently equal to or better than animal experiments to answer the question being asked. You'll be hard-pressed to find them.

But then again, since when do we need science to influence our views?

War on Science

2010-02-26T14:57:00.008+01:00

From Deltoid:

Clive Hamilton has written a five part series on the attacks on climate science in Australia:
Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial. I already mentioned this one
Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?. Andrew Bolt gets a special mention for his hate mongering.
Think tanks, oil money and black ops. The think tanks in Australia promoting denial and delay are Lavoisier, the IPA, the CIS and now the Brisbane Institute.
Manufacturing a scientific scandal. Jonathan Leake's concoctions are well covered.
Who's defending science?. The Australian's War on Science and how the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and The Australian Academy of Science are missing in action.

Oddly enough the anti-science movement is still going strong despite the numerous articles/blogs debunking their nonsense. I keep saying about this specific infectious disease that "there is no cure for stupidity."

As we know this type of delusional disorder, in which the inflicted are resistant to all sorts of evidence countering their believes, is not limited to Global Warming denialists. Not to mention the tendency to support all that oppose science.

Interestingly, Mark Crislip, for Science-Based Medicine, discusses the influence of climate(change) on the prevalence of infectious diseases.

Maybe its just the weather, the season, and not climate change that is causing the change in the epidemiology of infections. I do not think so. I think these infectious disease associations lend credence to climate change. Another line of converging evidence in support of global warming.

Steven Novella explains the concept of scientific consensus and how the anti-science movement misrepresents or misunderstands what science does:

Generally, non-experts tend to accept or reject anthropogenic climate change based upon their politics and world-view. That is a strong indication that most people are not assessing the science objectively, but are simply fitting the science to their ideology.

Update: The methods, and arguments, used by Global Warming denialists are eerily similar to those that we saw during the there-is-no-relationship-between-smoking-and-cancer-lobby.

Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulfur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.

So, again, monetary incentives trump science. I for one am shocked.

Update II: In a previous post I mentioned more reading material for those that remain science-resistent. Then there is the article in The Guardian denouncing this fake scepticism.

Update III: This video should help too. (h/t Deltoid)

Update IV: Skeptical Science reminds us of the tediousness of the "debate:"

The Skeptical Science list of skeptic arguments is one of the larger compilations going around, currently numbering 91 different arguments. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Whenever I encounter a skeptic argument, I add it to the database which currently contains 242 skeptic arguments. The 91 are those which I've found the time to research and write a summary of what the peer-reviewed science says on the topic. Now all 242 arguments have been categorised and displayed on a new Global Warming Links page. And just to open up a potentially huge can of worms, you can add to the list of skeptic arguments yourself!

Update V: In case you missed it, the anti-science movement has no problem fabricating a controversy by claiming a multitude of scientists oppose the idea of human influence in global warming. "The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW)." The problems regarding this collection of alleged scientists are discussed by Brian Angliss. He observes:

While it’s not possible to test the validity of OISM list directly, it is possible to test the conclusions that have been drawn from the OISM list. Specifically, we can test what percentage the 30,000 “scientists” listed on the OISM petition represent when compared to the total number of scientists in the U.S. And we can then compare that to the percentage represented by the 2000 IPCC AR4 WG1-associated scientists as compared to the estimate number of U.S. climate-related scientists.

and:

It’s clear that the OISM names don’t represent a significant number of scientists when compared to either the total number of science graduates in the U.S. or to the number of practicing scientists who work in likely relevant fields. But that’s not all.

To conclude:

Ultimately, The OISM petition will continue to rear it’s ugly head until its fabricated credibility has been thoroughly demolished. Social conservatives and libertarians, each of which has their own ideological reasons to push the OISM petition, have been effective at keeping the “30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC” meme circulating throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic cause for climate disruption is overwhelming, it’s only a matter of time before the OISM petition wilts in the heat.

If science fails you resort to old-fashioned bullying

2010-02-19T11:05:00.005+01:00

In the past I have written about the tendency of the scientifically challenged to stifle debate through legal threats. The virus is spreading. Now we have yet another case of criticism, this time about Christopher Maloney, that is disallowed. PZ Myers identifies the genius behind this attempt at censorship:

The Prime Quack has been identified: Andreas Moritz. He has admitted to getting Wordpress to pull Michael Hawkins' blog, and is also threatening me, now.

Here is the way Orac feels about this nonsense.

Seemingly, whenever a quack or a crank encounters serious criticism, the first reaction is almost never to try to argue based on facts, reason, and science, but rather to try to silence the person doing the criticizing. The tactics are many and varied, but the end goal is always the same: Suppress the criticism by any means necessary.

He goes on to list several examples from his own experience to illustrate the point.

Update: Skeptico has discovered this "debating technique" too.

Update II: Apparently WordPress has decided to allow valid criticism once more and the original blog is up and running again. In a new post Michael Hawkins thanks all those that put pressure on WP.

Wakefield leaves Thoughtful House

2010-02-18T17:43:00.000+01:00

It appears that following the removal of what was left of his authority, within the scientific community, Wakefield is no longer part of the money making machine called Thoughtful House. Trust Orac to speculate on the reasons behind this move.

The Vaccine Illuminati

2010-02-08T16:55:00.006+01:00

It appears the "Vaccine Illuminati" have intervened to stop The Truth from being told. Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, eternal inspiration to the infectious disease promotion movement, have reacted to that vile act of ruling against Andrew Wakefield, and retracting his unscientific article. Orac discusses, and disects, in detail the merites behind their logic and exposes them as fearmongering conspiracy loons.

Update: Of course, they conspicuously ignore those that have died as a result of their appeal to emotion.

Update II: Aggregate of links to the retraction here.

Chris Mooney: Science has to be more unscientific

2010-02-08T14:18:00.003+01:00

Chris Mooney, after failing to lower the heat in other topics of science, has proposed his solution to all "controversies." Scientists should play nice and stop invoking facts and reason when confronted with the infectious disease promotion movement. Weird Things notes:

Previously, he’s done this with the evolution/creationism manufactroversy and scientific literacy. Now, after managing not to resolve either problem and missing the fact that blaming scientists for a culture which rejects science and expertise as a manifestation of elitist snobbery doesn’t actually accomplish anything, he’s off to make friends with the anti- vaxers and implore doctors and epidemiologists to build bridges with zealots who demonize their critics as baby-eating monsters.

He concludes:

His suggestions for all those involved in a big public dustup over science to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya, are born from a lack of consideration for the psychology of both sides and the environment from which they come, and if they really worked, he wouldn’t even have to write about militant anti-vaxers and creationists in the first place.

Regarding this way of thinking Orac points out that Mooney:

appears utterly unaware that scientists have been trying to reach out and build bridges to leaders of the anti-vaccine movement for years, if not decades. It hasn't worked. It doesn't work. As Mike Stanton pointed out in a comment, public health bodies courted Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (whom I've discussed recently here, here, and here). The only result is that it raised her profile. She hasn't budged an inch; she is still as anti-vaccine as ever. One recent example that stands out in my mind occurred in 2007, when Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds participated as a consultant in the design of a large study designed to ask whether there was a link between thimerosal containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders other than autism. Unfortunately for her, the study failed to find a link. All investigators found were a handful of correlations, both positive and negative, that occurred at a frequency consistent with random chance. In a case of sour grapes, Bernard disowned the study before it was published and then, after it was published, launched attacks against it, even going so far as to write a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine criticizing it.

So, countering a misinformatiion campaign by sitting round a campfire, and holding hands, is the last we need to do. "Every attempt to do so is viewed by them as a sign of weakness or vindication of their crank views, never as an opportunity for compromise." Therefore, science should simply continue to call out the factual errors, and well-known lies, the anti-science groups use to spread their cult. We don't debate the shape of the earth, the aetiology of AIDS, whether our neighbour is in league with Satan, et cetera, either.

Evidence-Based Medicine vs. Science-Based Medicine

2010-02-05T10:55:00.003+01:00

The medical profession has adopted Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), and its use of Randomized Controlled Ttrials (RCT's), as principal method to use when looking for the best way to diagnose and treat a certain disorder. Kimball Atwood, for Science-Based Medicine, points out that

several of us [at Science-Based Medicine] consider EBM to be incomplete in its gathering of evidence

He also observes

that human RCTs, as good as they are at minimizing bias or chance deviations from population parameters, cannot ever be expected to provide, by themselves, objective measures of truth. There is still ample room for erroneous conclusions. Without using broader knowledge (science) to guide our thinking, we will plunge headlong into a thicket of errors—exactly as happened in parapsychology for decades and is now being repeated by its offspring, “CAM” research.

In his view EBM, at present, is a "subset of Science-Based Medicine (SBM), because EBM by itself is incomplete." When it incorporates all the evidence EBM and SBM will be "interchangeable."

Update: Evidence in Medicine discusses EBM and its limitations too.

Surprise: Dr. Wakefield 'abused position of trust'

2010-01-28T20:01:00.026+01:00

The Independent reports on the General Medical Council (GMC) hearing, regarding Andrew Wakefield, which observed his:

conduct brought the medical profession "into disrepute" after he took blood samples from youngsters at his son's birthday party in return for payments of £5.

And it found that he:

"failed in his duties as a responsible consultant" and went against the interests of children in his care in conducting research. He further acted dishonestly and was misleading and irresponsible in the way he described a study which was later published in The Lancet medical journal.

This article claimed a relationship between MMR vaccination, bowel disease and autism, and became the cornerstone of the "infectious disease promotion movement." The Times notes that this study

sparked the biggest vaccine scare in a generation and has been blamed for the resurgence of measles in Britain.

Subsequent investigations repeatedly established its unscientific nature, confirmed by the GMC today, and medical science has refuted those proposed links as non-existent. The Times describes the ensuing debate following the article:

The research has since been discredited by subsequent studies involving millions of children, which found no evidence for the link between the triple jab and autism. It has since been retracted by the Lancet, and ten of the original 13 authors disowned the research. But the claims sparked a massive drop in the number of children given the triple jab for measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccination rates have still not fully recovered to levels before the scare.

The Guardian discusses the same ruling, and Steven Novella has an elaborate overview of who Wakefield is and what he has accomplished.

Update: A somewhat superfluous, to those following the "infectious disease promotion movement," rersponse is given by Orac who describes Wakefield's legacy as:

The resurgence of a once-defeated vaccine-preventable disease, with all the attendant suffering its return brought with it. Truly, few people can be said to have done more harm to public health in a nation than Andrew Wakefield did in the U.K. with his incompetent, unethical, callous research.

The post is a detailed review of the ruling and includes the delusional, and inherently cult-like anti-science, platitudes his defenders use to prove the GMC's conclusions were nothing less than blasphemy. Of course, this difference of opinion is best explained by Tim Minchin:

Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

The Lay Scientist, Science-Based Medicine, and Skeptico also comment on the outcome of this science vs. Paranoid R Us spectacle.

Update II: A very unusual decision has led The Lancet to retract the original article. Steven Novella details the high threshhold journals have for retracting articles such as this. Even when it is obvious fraud is involved.

Update III: Oddly enough the Paranoid R Us Crowd -while claiming "The Censorship of Autism Treatment"-is objecting to the scientific principle, rational thought, and plain decency by asking us to support poor persecuted Mr. Wakefield.

Update IV: More from Orac and The Globe and Mail.

Update V: ABC has a big article too.

Update VI: More here.

Why science sucks

2010-01-25T23:05:00.005+01:00

Mike Adams heroically fights for our right to know all the reasons why scientists are evil and then incoherently explains to us why science-based medicine is inferior to "natural remedies" which are solely testimonial-supported because they somehow always fail to adhere to the scientific method. Shorter Mike: alternative medicine rocks, despite lack of noticable clinical effects.

Apparently misrepresenting how modern medicine works is the way to go when no rational arguments can be found to support your believe system.

Update: Some thoughts on Adams can be found at Weird Things, while Orac has additional points to his post.

Herd immunity

2010-01-24T23:16:00.003+01:00

Not only is the anti-vaccination crowd, a.k.a. “infectious disease promotion movement,” endangering the lifes of children by denying them protection from all sorts of diseases they also influence the chance of children with sane parents of contracting these same conditions. Joseph Albietz on Science-Based Medicine explains:

Herd immunity is a fascinating effect, and one of the mainstays of a public vaccination effort. The idea is that if enough people in the community are immune to a particular disease, then those who are susceptible will rarely come into contact with a person who is contagious, and the disease will be unable (or find it difficult) to spread. This results in a greatly reduced risk of infection for the entire population regardless of their individual immunity.

The effect of the tinfoil hat brigade is evident:

Countless reports of outbreaks around the world consistently describe a disproportionate number of infections during vaccine-preventable outbreaks occurring in the unvaccinated.

What exactly is the risk of not vaccinating? According to Albietz two studies by a group from Kaiser Permanente of Colorado gave the following results:

Their first study found that the act of refusing to vaccinate against pertussis (whooping cough) placed children at a 23 times greater risk of contracting pertussis. That’s a 23 fold-increased risk of a disease that, in children under 12 months of age from 2000-2004 in the US caused 62.8% to require hospitalization, 55.8% to have apnea, pneumonia in 12.7%, and death in 0.8%.

The second study showed

an 8.6-fold increased risk of infection with [varicella (chickenpox) ] that as recently as 1995 (when the vaccine was released), tallied 3,000,000 infections, 10,000 hospitalizations, 4,000 cases of pneumonia, 600 cases of encephalitis and 100 deaths per year.

The article points out

The choice to refuse a vaccine, to “hide in the herd,” is an active decision to accept a markedly higher risk of infection, its complications, the associated medical costs and lost wages, the responsibility of spreading the disease to others should an infection occur, and to choose to undermine the very herd immunity on which we all depend.

Should you, or somebody you know, choose to ignore medical science so children can be exposed to an increased risk of dying, based on delusional believes, I suggest you read this article and don't forget to watch a very apt comment on this sort of sillyness: a beat poem by Tim Minchin!

Update: A study, regarding the efficacy of a flu vaccine, underscores the detrimental effect of not vaccinating to the entire community.

Bottom line: flu vaccines work to significantly reduce outbreaks when school aged children are vaccinated in isolated populations.

Also, Steven Novella has made an overview of the H1N1-debate.

The Placebo effect

2010-01-07T01:32:00.002+01:00

Wired has a nice piece on the wondercure called placebo, discussing its history and current views.

Update: More is explained by Steven Novella.

Storm

2010-01-06T15:45:00.016+01:00

In a previous life I was living with a homeopath. Despite the fact we made a good match the theme of the relationship was our recurring conflicts over me being too "rational." Of course, I think you should always have an "open mind," but refusing to exercise some scepticism invariably will lead to adopting (medival) superstition as if it is equivalent to science. Her friends were just as misguided, though equally sincere. Which I found difficult not to comment upon. Being diplomatically challenged I unquestionably made numerous unfortunate remarks.

Tim Minchin captures the debates I had in those days perfectly in his If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out (Take My Wife).

His Storm may be about her. Not really, but she does fit the description, as does any "open-minded" alternative thinker. If you ever had an evening listening to those "enlightened spirits" you will recognise what he is saying:

Curiously enough asking for some critical thinking made me look like the bad guy every time. For some reason I was accused of not taking her serious. Wonder why?

And now, for something totally different:

Great song! Jeff Buckley's version remains No.1. Studio version here.

Update: Podblack Cat has the lyrics and Tim uploaded his own version of Storm as performed at the Queen Elizabeth Hall in December 2008. (h/t Holford Watch)

Update II: Apparently a film adaptation of Storm is being made, details on its official blog.

Update III: Found another video of Tim performing the poem:

Think before you act!

2010-01-05T13:59:00.010+01:00

And again fear, following the recent botched attempt to blow up a plane using underwear, has driven governments into taking action before thoroughly thinking things through. The full body scan is being implemented but already raises questions. Can we please calm down and acknowledge that, just as with the attacks of 9-11, we already had enough information to prevent these attempts. These scanners are superfluous. Just improve the existing system. Do not abolish the rule of law and adopt these silly measures merely because you refuse to admit the system itself is sound but its implementation needs repair.

Update: Glenn Greenwald notes that the expansion of governmental powers, in the name of the War on Terror, has resulted in the exact opposite of their claimed objectives: it is increasingly more difficult to prevent terrorism.