Yes yes, one of our favorite subjects: magical healing and other fairy stories! From a Telegraph article by a Ms Anna Tyzack entitled: “Complementary medicine - does it work?“. Of course we already know the answer for a large number of modalities that fall under the umbrella term “Complementary”. This is a just dose of the same old really bad reasoning, which over the years has allowed all sorts of pseudoscience and crank degrees to creep into academia, national health systems, etc.
The author starts well with:
Now to the point of this post (yes, there is a point in this post):
But the next one is even better: “It’s arrogant not to accept an individual’s opinion as evidence that a certain treatment has benefited them!!” A complete misunderstanding of how science works and evidence collected? Or a purposefully stupid comment to promote an agenda? Make your choice. It seems the CNHC want to put aside all sorts of cognitive biases, placebo effects, regression to means, and what not, and simply take one’s word to assess the efficacy of a treatment (on second thought, this is exactly how unproven treatments have been promoted for so long: “it worked for me, therefore it works -period“).
[there seems to be an xkcd comic for every situation!]
The rest of the article is yet another anecdote, with a large number of red flags culminating in a shameless advertisement of a woo practitioner -with very reasonable prices too: sessions start from only £70.
Magic medicine on the other hand, have started with someone usually coming up with stuff out of one’s arse, probably while high on some strange substance (Chinese life forces and meridians; Samuel’s homeopathic “principles” based on unverifiable instances of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies; Reiki’s magic remote energy healing, and the list goes on). Also, where does the “started off” apply? In homeopathy (200 years), acupuncture (around 100 in its modern form), energy healing (Jesus, anyone ;-))? They have had more than enough time to find mechanisms of action and clinical evidence for their spectacular claims. And they have failed miserably. So no comparison there Ms Wallace, sorry.
But she goes on undeterred:
Bottom line is: no, we do not need to be teaching magic medicine and fairy tales in universities. No, the majority of the alternative treatments simply do not work- otherwise they would not be called “alternative”. Get over it and find another career.
And most importantly: stop bothering us and getting our tax money for crying out loud!
The author starts well with:
“Quackish” degree courses, such as aromatherapy, reflexology and acupuncture, are being scrapped at many universities. Homoeopathy has been dropped altogether, due to declining student applications and campaigns by scientists against non-evidence based forms of medicineProf. Colquhoun has been updating us very regularly for the last few years, as he was a prominent figure in the charge against pseudoscience being taught in UK universities -with the above mentioned very positive results.
Now to the point of this post (yes, there is a point in this post):
the Complementary & Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) insists the course closures are “very disappointing”.I really don’t know where to start with the above statements. A shame that no trained practitioners would exist to treat with magic?? What about astrology? Many people believe it helps them, and yet for some reason no one complains that astrology is not being taught in Universities. This is all too resembling to the Creationism vs Evolution debate, and it boils down to this: we should not be teaching stuff that have neither a plausible scientific foundation nor good evidence base.
“A significant number of people find complementary health therapies to be very helpful; it would be a shame if there were no trained practitioners to treat them,” says Maggy Wallace, chair of the CNHC.
“It’s arrogant not to accept an individual’s opinion as evidence that a certain treatment has benefited them.”
But the next one is even better: “It’s arrogant not to accept an individual’s opinion as evidence that a certain treatment has benefited them!!” A complete misunderstanding of how science works and evidence collected? Or a purposefully stupid comment to promote an agenda? Make your choice. It seems the CNHC want to put aside all sorts of cognitive biases, placebo effects, regression to means, and what not, and simply take one’s word to assess the efficacy of a treatment (on second thought, this is exactly how unproven treatments have been promoted for so long: “it worked for me, therefore it works -period“).
[there seems to be an xkcd comic for every situation!]
The rest of the article is yet another anecdote, with a large number of red flags culminating in a shameless advertisement of a woo practitioner -with very reasonable prices too: sessions start from only £70.
I was as sceptical as the next person about complementary medicine.The number one red flag that this is a biased article. Now back to Ms Wallace from CNHC:
According to Wallace, doctors and scientists are wrong to adopt an “if it isn’t proven, it doesn’t exist” approach to complementary healing techniques. “It’s ridiculous given how much of conventional medicine started off in this way,” she says.A straw man argument. The correct statement is: “if it isn’t proven, well, then it isn’t proven!” Most “conventional” medicine (also known as, you know, simply “medicine”) started off building on at least some plausible hypothesis or verifiable observation, and then on positive trials or a good track record.
Magic medicine on the other hand, have started with someone usually coming up with stuff out of one’s arse, probably while high on some strange substance (Chinese life forces and meridians; Samuel’s homeopathic “principles” based on unverifiable instances of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies; Reiki’s magic remote energy healing, and the list goes on). Also, where does the “started off” apply? In homeopathy (200 years), acupuncture (around 100 in its modern form), energy healing (Jesus, anyone ;-))? They have had more than enough time to find mechanisms of action and clinical evidence for their spectacular claims. And they have failed miserably. So no comparison there Ms Wallace, sorry.
But she goes on undeterred:
There should be a pragmatic approach to ‘evidence’ with less emphasis on clinical trials that can’t be successfully applied to complementary health.In other words: science cannot prove my pet modality, so instead of concluding that the modality does not work, let’s instead say that science does not work. A very common “defence” of clinical trials: they cannot properly evaluate magic medicine because it is very individualized (never mind that individualized trials can and have been made numerous times) or it is very “holistic”. Of course it is the same people that are touting any inconclusively positive clinical trial for their magic stuff (despite the fatal conclusions of the majority of systematic reviews for the same stuff). Moving the goalposts is typical of pseudoscience proponents. It is no different in this case.
Bottom line is: no, we do not need to be teaching magic medicine and fairy tales in universities. No, the majority of the alternative treatments simply do not work- otherwise they would not be called “alternative”. Get over it and find another career.
And most importantly: stop bothering us and getting our tax money for crying out loud!
Yes, it’s been a very long time since I last wrote something.
This is not because of a lack of interesting (in one way or another) things to write about. On the contrary, there is a lot of interesting things happening in science and technology; a lot of interesting medical work; and, of course, it’s stupidity galore as always out there!
No, it’s not that. Instead, about a year ago, I started the search for a new job, and that took most of my time. Following the switch to the financial industry, I then found myself very much absorbed in it, a fact which, compounded by a number of other interests and activities, would take its toll on my blogging time.
It seems that things are stabilizing a bit now, so I may well start writing a bit again. Either that, or some outrageous things I have been reading lately have provided the necessary spark. Who knows.
Hope I have not lost all of my three readers…
This is not because of a lack of interesting (in one way or another) things to write about. On the contrary, there is a lot of interesting things happening in science and technology; a lot of interesting medical work; and, of course, it’s stupidity galore as always out there!
No, it’s not that. Instead, about a year ago, I started the search for a new job, and that took most of my time. Following the switch to the financial industry, I then found myself very much absorbed in it, a fact which, compounded by a number of other interests and activities, would take its toll on my blogging time.
It seems that things are stabilizing a bit now, so I may well start writing a bit again. Either that, or some outrageous things I have been reading lately have provided the necessary spark. Who knows.
Hope I have not lost all of my three readers…
VERY POPULAR
Ken Ham is this very gifted guy, the leader of Answers in Genesis, an organization that promotes open thinking and science-based methodologies. Ken has recently made some fresh, highly intelligent and accurate comments.
[/sarcasm]
So this guy, thinks that scientists have just pulled a number out of their arses to represent the age of our planet:
This is easily one of the most ridiculous things one can ever read (up there alongside the banana-class creationists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron): the way Ken Ham and fellow creationists have “calculated” the age of the earth, with the outmost precision: by “adding up all the dates in the Bible”!
Let me repeat this: they calculated the age of the earth by adding up all the dates in the Bible!
BY ADDING UP THE DATES IN THE BIBLE!!
How f***ing retarded does one have to be to even consider such a brutal assassination of logic and reasoning?? Why are these people still in existence? Why do they have such influence??
[/sarcasm]
So this guy, thinks that scientists have just pulled a number out of their arses to represent the age of our planet:
The reason the age is such an important issue is, from a secular perspective, if you don’t have millions of years, you can’t postulate evolution,” Ham explains. “Think about it: if you believe in a young earth as we do — 6,000 years on the basis of adding up all the dates in the Bible — evolution is impossible. It can’t happen.That’s right. Scientists just came up with 5 billion years as the age of the Earth, for convenience. As opposed to Creationists, who used advanced methods to determine the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years. I guess “pulling stuff out of their arses” is the favourite tactic for Ken and his fellow creationist IDiots, so they project this behaviour to others as well!
This is easily one of the most ridiculous things one can ever read (up there alongside the banana-class creationists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron): the way Ken Ham and fellow creationists have “calculated” the age of the earth, with the outmost precision: by “adding up all the dates in the Bible”!
Let me repeat this: they calculated the age of the earth by adding up all the dates in the Bible!
BY ADDING UP THE DATES IN THE BIBLE!!
How f***ing retarded does one have to be to even consider such a brutal assassination of logic and reasoning?? Why are these people still in existence? Why do they have such influence??
VERY POPULAR
I loved this one from the Canadian Dragon’s Den. A guy walks in trying to get a $2.5 million investment for 25% of his company (thus valuing his company at $10 million). He got kicked out and rightly so. In fact I think they should have called the police and arrest him for fraud. Because his company sells… water! As a cure for every single ailment in existence. Yes, including cancer.
Ok ok, it’s “purified” water with some other crap inside -I think I heard silver? Still, it’s water! And it’s not even highly diluted if you know what I mean:
At least if it was diluted, he could have gone to the Society of Homeopaths for guaranteed funding.
Ok ok, it’s “purified” water with some other crap inside -I think I heard silver? Still, it’s water! And it’s not even highly diluted if you know what I mean:
At least if it was diluted, he could have gone to the Society of Homeopaths for guaranteed funding.
VERY POPULAR
No, it’s not actually the case as it was reported in such influential and accurate media as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. However, a new study showed increased levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids, linked to benefits in human health, pushing the balance slightly (only slightly as we will see) towards consuming organic milk with some tangible excuses behind.
The truth is, as always, a bit less simplistic than that. The study found that the overall saturated fat contents were exactly the same in both organic and traditionally produced milk. So fancy news titles like “Organic milk has ‘fewer harmful fats’ than traditional variety” are just outright misleading.
For years now organic method supporters have been struggling to backup their claims, as study after study was showing that there were no significant nutritional differences between organic and traditional milk. Occassionally they would throw in the “better taste” argument, but first, this is a mtter of prersonal preference, and second, many simple informal blinded tests have shown that people are not able to distinguish between organic or otherwise products.
Other times, they throw the sustainability gambit, which while superficially seems strong (maintain the soil, the planet, reduce pesticides etc) I do not yet buy into this line of reasoning because, well, there are too many of us in this lousy planet and we cannot accommodate all our needs with organic-like methods as they are too “wasteful” of resources and real estate! Plus, there are some serious doubts (to say the least) to the claim that “natural fertilizers and natural pesticides are better than modern synthetic ones“.
So, back to our research in question. The study [1] was seemingly well conducted, and provided some interesting observations, one of which pertaining to the seasonal fluctuation of the nutritional content and differences, presumably having to do with the availability and quality of cow food.
Interestingly, the study reports one of its funding sources as the European Community QUALITYLOWINPUTFOOD Integrated Project which aims to “improve quality and safety and reduction of cost in the European organic and ‘low input’ supply food chains“. So a little bit of bias is to be expected, and despite the quality of the study, similar studies should be conducted and pooled together to get a better understanding.
A final note is that laboratory results (as in this study) cannot always be extrapolated to claim human health benefits -as time and again has been shown, cases off the top of my head include the antioxidants and the Vitamin C in-vitro results.
Striking a balance between economic, sustainable, and adequate production techniques is no easy feat for sure. And it will take many such studies before we can devise a solid strategy to accommodate our ever growing population requirements. Until then, feel free to debate and I will keep drinking my normal, traditionally mutated cow milk…
---
References:
The truth is, as always, a bit less simplistic than that. The study found that the overall saturated fat contents were exactly the same in both organic and traditionally produced milk. So fancy news titles like “Organic milk has ‘fewer harmful fats’ than traditional variety” are just outright misleading.
For years now organic method supporters have been struggling to backup their claims, as study after study was showing that there were no significant nutritional differences between organic and traditional milk. Occassionally they would throw in the “better taste” argument, but first, this is a mtter of prersonal preference, and second, many simple informal blinded tests have shown that people are not able to distinguish between organic or otherwise products.
Other times, they throw the sustainability gambit, which while superficially seems strong (maintain the soil, the planet, reduce pesticides etc) I do not yet buy into this line of reasoning because, well, there are too many of us in this lousy planet and we cannot accommodate all our needs with organic-like methods as they are too “wasteful” of resources and real estate! Plus, there are some serious doubts (to say the least) to the claim that “natural fertilizers and natural pesticides are better than modern synthetic ones“.
So, back to our research in question. The study [1] was seemingly well conducted, and provided some interesting observations, one of which pertaining to the seasonal fluctuation of the nutritional content and differences, presumably having to do with the availability and quality of cow food.
Interestingly, the study reports one of its funding sources as the European Community QUALITYLOWINPUTFOOD Integrated Project which aims to “improve quality and safety and reduction of cost in the European organic and ‘low input’ supply food chains“. So a little bit of bias is to be expected, and despite the quality of the study, similar studies should be conducted and pooled together to get a better understanding.
A final note is that laboratory results (as in this study) cannot always be extrapolated to claim human health benefits -as time and again has been shown, cases off the top of my head include the antioxidants and the Vitamin C in-vitro results.
Striking a balance between economic, sustainable, and adequate production techniques is no easy feat for sure. And it will take many such studies before we can devise a solid strategy to accommodate our ever growing population requirements. Until then, feel free to debate and I will keep drinking my normal, traditionally mutated cow milk…
---
References:
- G. Butler, S. Stergiadis, C. Seal, M. Eyre, C. Leifert, "Fat composition of organic and conventional retail milk in northeast England," Journal of dairy science, vol 94 issue 1, pp 24-36, Jan 2011 [↩]
VERY POPULAR
no comments
December 18th, 2010 • Filed under: Health
I came across CureTogether.com lately, a site that relies on its members in order to provide collaborative diagnosis, and potential treatments* -an instance of crowdsourcing as it’s called. In essence, visitors rely on a popularity contest to determine what their symptoms mean and what the most effective course of action might be. And this is so, so dangerous!
In the US alone, a very big percentage of the population promotes and uses unproven (or more commonly proven wrong) alternative and complimentary treatments.
Another good percentage (which, surprise surprise, typically overlaps with the first class of delusionals) believes in all sorts of government supported conspiracy theories and that the “BigPharma” wants us all constantly sick and miserable.
Finally, there are very active and strong groups of blindfolded idiots that propagandize against the use of vaccines, with the well known dire consequences.
With the above in mind, and also considering how bad humans are in rational, impartial thinking, the variety of cognitive errors, and the multitude of logical fallacies we are susceptible to, would you trust such a website**?
Some examples from the site: homeopathy in general and many of its watery substances appear a good number of times, and it is a potential treatment for Laryngitis and Swine Flu (among others). For Multiple Sclerosis patients, there may be hope in acupuncture, acupressure, and Chinese herbs -which ones we are not told. Acupuncture apparently may also be considered for Fibromyalgia, as is Reiki (!), reflexology (!), and chiropractice, all of which evidently ineffective against… anything, and pure magical thinking bullcrap.
Lots of control, potential regulation, or even better, some credential checking of the people allowed to post diagnostic and treatment opinions should be present, otherwise I would stay well clear of such sites. Questions arise though on how such control could be enforced, while one may also say that then you just lose the benefits of crowdsourcing. The jury is still out…
The above said, some of the concepts behind CureTogether are solid, and I can certainly see the benefit in a near-perfect world, were people were generally responsible and aware of their own limits. But in a world where 95% of the population thinks they are cleverer than average, and 50% have just too much time to waste this becomes tricky (of course I have just made up these numbers, but I would not be surprised if they were close to reality
).
Even with that in mind, CureTogether can still provide some very good value, e.g. for identifying candidates and sourcing for clinical trials; for collecting anecdotes for identifying research points; and for receiving early feedback on new treatments, and with some tweaking it may prove to be reformational. Or am I going too far?
---
Footnotes:
In the US alone, a very big percentage of the population promotes and uses unproven (or more commonly proven wrong) alternative and complimentary treatments.
Another good percentage (which, surprise surprise, typically overlaps with the first class of delusionals) believes in all sorts of government supported conspiracy theories and that the “BigPharma” wants us all constantly sick and miserable.
Finally, there are very active and strong groups of blindfolded idiots that propagandize against the use of vaccines, with the well known dire consequences.
With the above in mind, and also considering how bad humans are in rational, impartial thinking, the variety of cognitive errors, and the multitude of logical fallacies we are susceptible to, would you trust such a website**?
Some examples from the site: homeopathy in general and many of its watery substances appear a good number of times, and it is a potential treatment for Laryngitis and Swine Flu (among others). For Multiple Sclerosis patients, there may be hope in acupuncture, acupressure, and Chinese herbs -which ones we are not told. Acupuncture apparently may also be considered for Fibromyalgia, as is Reiki (!), reflexology (!), and chiropractice, all of which evidently ineffective against… anything, and pure magical thinking bullcrap.
Lots of control, potential regulation, or even better, some credential checking of the people allowed to post diagnostic and treatment opinions should be present, otherwise I would stay well clear of such sites. Questions arise though on how such control could be enforced, while one may also say that then you just lose the benefits of crowdsourcing. The jury is still out…
The above said, some of the concepts behind CureTogether are solid, and I can certainly see the benefit in a near-perfect world, were people were generally responsible and aware of their own limits. But in a world where 95% of the population thinks they are cleverer than average, and 50% have just too much time to waste this becomes tricky (of course I have just made up these numbers, but I would not be surprised if they were close to reality
).
Even with that in mind, CureTogether can still provide some very good value, e.g. for identifying candidates and sourcing for clinical trials; for collecting anecdotes for identifying research points; and for receiving early feedback on new treatments, and with some tweaking it may prove to be reformational. Or am I going too far?
---
Footnotes:
- * I hope I am doing justice to the site’s objectives, but please correct me if this is not a fair representation [↩]
- ** I was alarmed to see the publicity and endorsements the site has received, maybe from only a superficial analysis of the potential benefits and risks, but still.. [↩]
TOP POST
Amongst a very large number of apparent “designs” in nature that certainly won’t compete for any efficiency awards, the laryngeal nerve of many mammals is a magnificent piece of bad engineering. The extreme case of a giraffe is discussed in this video by Richard Dawkins -and would make a great souvenir for Michael Behe’s living room.
It doesn’t matter how many times we see evolutionary traits being developed in a seemingly ridiculous fashion. Some people will still see intelligence in any crappy design…
It doesn’t matter how many times we see evolutionary traits being developed in a seemingly ridiculous fashion. Some people will still see intelligence in any crappy design…