Man Flu, the Disappointing Reality

Man Flu, scourge of modern Manly life. Struck down by this dreaded disease men are reduced to a shadow of their former glory, unable to maintain the meager level of household responsibility they usually get away with or even care for their own well being. Reduced to mewling invalids, men afflicted with Man Flu have little recourse beyond bed rest and watching daytime television while a significant other tends to their every need. After being ridiculed by wives and girlfriends for decades science has come to the rescue and vindicated us, the Man Flu exists!*
*The preceding is a work of fiction and any resemblance to real people or events is coincidental.
Despite what the media would have us believe recent advances in scientific research has not in fact established that Man Flu is a real phenomena beyond simply showing our inability to deal with sickness effectively. The real science behind the hype, as usual, is much more modest in it’s scope and consequences.

So what was actually studied? The research was carried out by McGill University in Canada and looked at the effects of a certain protein, caspase-12. The study involved investigating how the activity of this protein affects immune response against Listeria monocytogenes bacteria, a microbe that can cause serious food poisoning, in mice. Part of the study also investigated the effect of gender on the activity of the protien and whether any difference was mediated by the hormone oestrogen. To do this researchers infected mice with the bacteria and looked at spleen and liver bacteria levels in male and female mice with and without the gene for the protein and male mice with the gene and being treated with estrogen. 

The interesting thing is that this gene did have a different effect on how sick the mice got depending on the presence or absence of estrogen. Those male mice with the gene were more susceptible to the infection than females or males recieving hormone treatment, but the gene is inactive in most humans. Only about 20% of native Africans have a working version of the gene, so this research has virtually no applicability to general differences in flu severity between men and women. I guess Man Flu remains a myth, for now.

Herbal Medicines

It certainly seems that in recent years herbal style medicines have grown more popular and more widely available. I’m certainly not going to espouse the view that these medicines are a waste of time, that they do nothing or that they have no plausibility. However neither do I think that simply because they are seen as “natural” (whatever that means) that they are necessarily superior to drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies. The problem with herbal/natural remedies isn’t that there isn’t a plausible mechanism of action, (as in Homeopathy for instance) but that there is usually not enough good quality data to support their use for a particular indication. In addition, while drugs developed for the pharmaceutical industry must pass stringent safety and efficacy tests those that are labeled herbal supplements often get a free pass. So not only may there not be evidence that they work but no evidence that they are not harmful.

There also seems to be a disturbing corollary to promoting remedies despite lack of evidence and that is the continued use in the face of dis-confirming evidence. Recently good studies have been published refuting claims for benefits to taking either Ginkgo Biloba extract for cognitive function or Echinacea for colds. Though I expect this information to have zero impact on sales even if the results of the studies gain wide distribution.

Remedies that consist of preparations made from the raw plant also suffer from inherent variation between plants, both between individual plants and in the same individual over time. So even if there is an efficacious active ingredient the dose would not be controlled. If herbal remedies have an effect on the body then they are drugs, by definition, they should be treated as such. In other words they should be evaluated for safety and effectiveness, considered when taking other medications for potential interactions and dispensed by those who are trained to appreciate the risks/benefits and science based medicine.

Resources

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=424

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=293

Alison Campbell Interview

Time for another awesome interview, this time with someone outside of showbiz…

As a resident of New Zealand I am naturally interested in the education of my country and especially how science fairs in the education arena and what sort of competition it has to deal with. To this end I sought to interview a local academic regarding these topics. I could not have done better than Dr. Alison Campbell, biology Lecturer at the University of Waikato in Hamilton. Alison not only runs a science themed blog but also has a hand in the Cafe Scientifique casual public science forum and aided in the writing of the revised New Zealand Science Curriculum. Without further ado, here is my interview with Alison:

[Scepticon]First off, you post a daily blog, BioBlog, hosted on the University of Waikato site, could you briefly describe the sorts of topics you write about?

[AlisonCampbell]Pretty much whatever takes my fancy – but I do have some limits! I originally began blogging because it seemed a good way to improve the support available to students sitting the Scholarship examinations (intended for top students in their final year of secondary school), & so that’s what guided what I was doing. I wrote about how to prepare for exams, why Scholarship is hard work, things like that, & also started reviewing & summarising new stories in the literature, because students at this level are expected to have quite a broad general subject knowledge.

And I talk a bit about university life, because that’s where most of these kids are headed. And also give them a bit of a feel for what I do – I want them to see me as a person, not some faceless academic in an office somewhere. I would hope that that last thing also says something about the uni in general, in the sense that its staff are real, approachable people who do actually have a life outside the ivory tower

I’ve also got into writing the occasional post about what I’m reading – I love books & want to share that & let people know about good popular science books. And I also have a go at pseudoscience (& how the media deal with it) from time to time. This is partly because I’d hope that doing this will help with the Schol students’ need to develop better critical thinking skills – but also because I’m really bothered by what I see as a quite widespread & uncritical acceptance of pseudoscience in the wider community.

The limits to all this are what I impose on myself – they’re not laid down by the University. I’m very aware that what I do does offer a public face for the uni & so I don’t write anything that would reflect badly on it – no bad language or things like that. But also, I know where my strengths lie & I’m not about to start pontificating about things on which I know absolutely nothing!

[S]I understand you helped set up the new science curriculum for schools, how detailed is the curriculum and what sort of process is undertaken in it’s creation?

[AC]The new Science curriculum document is much less detailed than the one it replaces. The ‘old’ one contained quite a lot of detail, including suggestions on what students could be doing to learn about a particular topic, & how teachers could assess this. There’s nothing like that in the ‘new’ one, which sets out some very broad guidelines about key concepts at each level but leaves it to schools & teachers to flesh out the details.

It had a robust development process with a lot of consultation, & I think does reflect the outcomes of that consultation fairly well. And one of the things that I really really like about the science document is that for the first time it places understanding of the nature of science right out there at the top of things. Previously this was a ’strand’ that was supposed to be interwoven with the ’subject’ strands (physics, chem, & so on) & as a result often got overlooked in practice. But now students from new entrants up are expected to learn something about what science is, what sets it apart from other ways of ‘knowing’ about the world, how people do science, how to communicate & participate in science. That’s a big achievement & an essential one, given that the need for a scientifically-literate society is so pressing.

[S]Where there any points of contention with the curriculum where you felt the science needed to be defended from ideological pressure?

[AC]Evolution The ‘pressure’ was in the form of feedback during the consultation process, some of it quite well organised. It wasn’t a problem among the panel, however, although there were concerns about how teachers would deal with the prominence of evolution in the new curriculum. And it is prominent – wasn’t mentioned until year 12 in the old version, but now it’s there from new entrant classes onwards. Tailored for the age & conceptual understanding of the children, but very definitely there.

[S]Concerning the curriculum feedback process and the concerns raised about evolution, was this feedback from teachers regarding broaching the evolution topic in general or were there parents or special interest groups that were actually opposed to the concept?

[AC]There was a bit of concern from teachers, expressed as individual submissions to the curriculum project’s website, mainly to do with dealing with students/communities who opposed the concept. However, there was also at least one special interest group that attempted to organise its members to put in bulk submissions opposed to the extensive profile proposed for evolution.

[S]You have twice been interviewed on national radio with regard to attempts to insert creationism into our schools, in the U.S. there are laws regarding the introduction of religious concepts in the classroom. What safeguards, if any, do we have in New Zealand to ensure only science is taught in science class?

[AC]erm – I’d like to say, the curriculum document, but the ‘old’ one (still in use, the ‘new’ one doesn’t completely kick in until 2010 to give teachers time to develop resources for it) has a few gaping holes in it: it speaks of students learning about the ‘theories’ of how life developed, which leaves the door open for teachers to present the ‘theory’ of intelligent design as if it’s really science. And they would argue that they aren’t teaching a religious concept; after all, it’s a ‘theory’, isn’t it? (Not helped by a couple of confusing pronouncements from Ministry staff, along the lines of ‘you can’t observe evolution in the laboratory’.) Most teachers wouldn’t – but some would. And private schools that get no state funding can pretty much teach what they like, especially to junior students who aren’t preparing for state exams, & so you see schools teaching young-Earth creationism in science class. But I do have to add that these are a minority.

[S]In the U.S. a large proportion of the population do not accept Evolutionary Theory, this gives rise to a “grassroots” resistance to the teaching of evolution in schools. The resistance seems to also come from teachers themselves either through reluctance to be seen to be challenging student beliefs or their own ideological biases. Are these factors we should be concerned about in New Zealand?

[AC]I’m inclined to say ‘yes’. I’ve seen comments from teachers (from Auckland schools) to the effect that they avoid or minimize teaching evolution, simply because they would come up hard against the majority of students in their classrooms. And while I was involved in the curriculum writing group I had teachers saying very similar things; they were a little apprehensive about what implementing the curriculum was going to mean for them.

[S]In your experience how well is science taught in New Zealand? Are our teachers doing a good job of showing students how the enterprise of science works?

[AC]Generally it’s well taught, I think, in the sense that students get a good grounding in a lot of science concepts, & are more & more coming to get an understanding of what science actually is. Unfortunately science is compulsory in secondary schools only until the end of year 10 (4th form), which I think a pity. And I remember seeing an item in the paper a few weeks back where primary students didn’t particularly enjoy science classes (it wasn’t that they weren’t interested in science, but that they felt they weren’t getting enough of what they considered science), which is also a bit of a worry.

[S]If people are concerned about these issues what courses of action are open to them?

[AC]If I had concerns over my own child’s classroom experiences then I’d be inclined to raise them with the classroom teacher in the first instance. Followed by the HoD Science & the principal, in that order. It’s not really something that’s within the ambit of the Board of Trustees (our system being – thankfully! – different from that operating in the US). If it’s something more systemic, then write to the Minister of Education (& the shadow Minister).

[S]You, along with Dr Penelope Cooke and several others developed the Evolution for Teaching website, what prompted this, what are it’s aims and how has it been received?

[AC]The idea was to provide a resource written for New Zealanders that NZ teachers & students could use. Penny & I are both ex-secondary teachers & knew what was (& wasn’t available), and we’d also been encouraged to work on it by teachers. (I need to add that there were two other team members involved, Kathrin Otrel-Cass & Kerry Earl.) It’s been enormously well received, both in NZ & overseas: we get around 400,000 page requests a month from all over the place. And I really must get on to updating it again…

[S]You are also involved in the Cafe Scientifique science “outreach” program, what sort of feedback have you had about this and do you think you get a good cross-section of the community attending or are you “preaching to the converted” in terms of those who are already interested in science.

[AC]Funnily enough we’re just doing a research project at the moment, looking at what the Cafe ‘clients’ think of the evenings (& other things besides, like where they get their science information from). The feedback is generally extremely positive: people like the format, like the variety of speakers & their approachability/accessibility… about the only thing that’s mentioned in a negative way is the venue – it can be noisy in a pub & some of our attendees would like somewhere quieter.

We’ve got a group of regulars – the ones already interested in science – but we get others coming in, particularly when it’s a contentious or topical issue. (About 50% of those who come are involved in science one way or another.)

We also have a website, where we advertise the sessions & also mount the handouts that most of our speakers provide – I know quite a few school teachers use those as a teaching resource.

[S]With regard to the pseudoscience and culture of belief rather than evidence that seems to be growing, what do you consider to be the biggest threat(s) to rationality in New Zealand at the moment?

[AC]That whole thing about all points of view being equally valid. So that when the media run a story on a particular issue, they seem to think it essential that they present ‘both sides of the issue’. Even when, as with evolution, there really is only one side. And the almost universal lack of investigative journalism, at least in regard to science & pseudoscience. For example, take the case of an Auckland school teacher doing a ‘trial’ of the efficacy or otherwise of fish-oil capsules with respect to students’ learning (I blogged on it last week). Totally uncritical coverage in the papers. A couple of people wrote in to the ‘letters’ section of the Herald, pointing out that whatever else was going on, it definitely wasn’t science. And someone else took them to task for being boring old fuddy-duddies who wanted to take all the fun out of school science!

[S]Are there any other topics that you feel are particularly important in education today?

[AC]Some sort of crash-course for journalists?

Not really an education topic – but I’d love to see science receive greater recognition & appreciation in society. I work with the group that selects and trains the NZ team for the International Biology Olympiad competitions. And we do it on the smell of an oily rag: the total estimated costs each year are around $70,000, but we do it on a fraction of that due to donated time & materials, & a lot of fund-raising by the team members. Little or no help from the Ministry of Education, & funding bodies – such as the charitable funding agencies – simply haven’t wanted to know up until now (I understand things have changed somewhat for next year & like the rest of the group, I’m hugely grateful). Yet at the same time they’d give money to send a school sports team away… We seem to place such huge emphasis on sporting success, and yet it’s science & technology that underpin much of our economy.

I would like to thank Alison for taking the time to answer my questions, I hope you enjoyed reading her answers as much as I did.

Read more from Alison at her BioBlog and if you live in the Waikato area check out the Cafe Scientifique home page for more sessions to come in the new year. For more information about student attitudes to science and the New Zealand National Education Monitoring Project Science assessment results visit nemp.otago.ac.nz/science/2007/index.htm, and for more on the International Biology Olympiad visit ibo-info.org.

Resources

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/news/Lectures/CafeScientifique.shtml

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/educationSectors/Schools/CurriculumAndNCEA/NationalCurriculum/Science.aspx

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/staff/biol/acampbel

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Are People Affected by Non-Ionising Radiation?

Modern living can have it’s drawbacks as well as it’s advantages, nobody died in plane crashes 500 years ago. Some of the disadvantages come as a direct result of our increase in scientific and technological knowledge, there would be no antibiotic resistant bacteria without antibiotics. Some people worry about ever more subtle forms of danger in the modern world, there are those who classify themselves as “Electrosensitive”. Electrosensitives consider the electromagnetic fields produced by electronic products such as computers, cell phones, T.V.s, well almost everything these days, to be harmful in general and to affect them in particular in a variety of ways. Symptoms may include but not be limited to: headache, fatigue, tinnitus, dizziness, memory deficits and irregular heart beat, in fact there are lists including over thirty symptoms ranging from asthma to epilepsy and Alzheimer’s.

Earlier this year researchers at the University of Regensburg conducted a study of self identified electrosensitive sufferers comparing their reactions to non-sufferers when exposed to a heat-emitting thermode and a cell phone. The sufferers experienced discomfort from both stimuli where as non-sufferers only experienced discomfort from the thermode. This was backed up by brain scans of the subjects which indicated that the pain experienced was real. Unfortunately the phone used in the experiment was fake, there were no electromagnetic fields being produced. The sufferers were not making up the pain they felt, it was real to them, but in the same way that a placebo treatment can (allegedly*) make people feel better it appears that the anticipation of pain by the sufferers lead them to feel it, in a sort of nocebo response to the sham phone.

It seems that while these electrosensitive people are not merely attention seeking, as the discomfort they feel is undoubtedly real, neither are they suffering from a disability brought on by exposure to fields that are generally considered harmless. What’s going on here? I have no idea but I’ll be interested to see how further research sheds light on this.

Resources

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=cell-phones-sometimes-cause-real-pa-08-10-13

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4SB7TW1-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=993618adacb00f6dc3c58a70d580feb2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_sensitivity

http://www.electrosensitivity.org/

* It’s complicated, it could be that what we refer to as a placebo response doesn’t actually exist and is really a mislabelling of other factors that have nothing to do with response to treatment. Who knows.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Superstition Arises from Powerlessness

I’ve written before about the connection between superstitious thinking and feelings of powerlessness, now there is a study that looked at exactly that. Previous connections have mostly been anecdotal or based on the behaviour of people in the real world. In this study the researchers induced a sense of lack of control in participants and then measured how likely they were to report connections between unrelated events or see patterns in noise.

Subjects were preconditioned in at least two ways to create these feelings, in one scenario they were given a task to complete with the help of feedback from a computer, half of the subjects received meaningful feedback that allowed them to complete the task successfully and the other half received random feedback that left them confused. In another experiment the subjects were asked to relate an experience in their lives, again half were to relate an experience were they were in control and the other half one were they were powerless.

Those subjects that that been preconditioned to simulate powerlessness in their lives were more likely than their confident counterparts to see patterns in pictures of “Snow” and more likely to connect unrelated sequences of events. For example in one experiment the subjects read short stories in which superstitious behaviour such as “Knocking on wood” or stamping three times preceded favourable outcomes such as success at work. These subjects were more likely to see a causal relation between these events and to express fear of what might happen if these behaviours were not repeated in future.

Fortunately the researchers also found that self affirming techniques such as focusing on a positive personal value could restore a sense of control and reduce superstitious and false pattern-seeking behaviour. So next time you feel the need to slip into your lucky underwear before an important meeting, just think about how awesome you are instead. That’s what I do.

Resources

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5898/115

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/msl-wsi092608.php

http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-connects-superstition-conspiracy.html

http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/mccombs-today/2008/10/whitson-in-science-loss-of-control-behind-superstitions-rituals-conspiracy-theories/

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081003-loss-of-control-may-leave-us-looking-for-four-leaf-clovers.html

Frequency Specific Microcurrent Revisited

About two months ago I wrote a piece describing the practice of Frequency Specific Microcurrent therapy (FSM) and attempted to show why I thought the practice was at best the premature use of an unproven modality and at worst a new way of parting the afflicted from their cash. This post recently attracted a comment from a Chiropractor named Pamela Hall who wished to defend the technique. As the comment was lengthy and covered a number of interesting points I thought I would post my reply as a blog entry. First I would like to thank Pamela Hall, DC, for her comment and I hope that I can reply to her in as thoughtful and considerate a way as she has conducted herself. Her comment starts:

Research that meets the gold standard of large patient numbers, with controls costs millions of dollars. There is very little money available for treatment that won’t make the drug companies or some other big players in the medical-industrial complex a lot of money. This is why the research doesn’t get done on this scale. In fact in the 1930’s all electrical therapies, herbs, and homeopathy were banned. They were a threat to the profit of drug companies and the AMA.

Firstly there have been well designed studies on other modalities that “won’t make the drug companies … a lot of money” such as acupuncture, I don’t see why this one should be any different. Also you have presented a false dichotomy here, the choice is not between large definitive clinical trials and nothing at all, smaller pilot studies published in reputable journals will do. If you can provide that I will be greatly appreciative, the best I could find was a case study which vaguely mentioned “microcurrent” along with several other treatment options. Given the amount of time the treatment has been in use I don’t think this is unreasonable.

Those who are prejudiced against so called “alternative healing” fail to acknowledge that western medicine has used aspirin simply because it worked without knowing the reason why until rather recently. The common treatment for angina is nitroglycerin put under the tongue, and this treatment was taken from the realm of homeopathy.

I will gladly acknowledge that much of conventional medicine has come from herbal preparations, folk remedies and the like and that medicines may be used without knowledge of the method of action. However, that the active constituent of Willow bark, salicylic acid (the precursor to acetylsalicylic acid or Aspirin) was extracted and purified which enabled the creation of medicines of consistent dose and quality, is all because of science. Just because a treatment can be obtained from a particular tradition or practice (such as homeopathy) does not lend credence to any of the other methods common to that source, they all must be evaluated separately on their merits, or lack thereof as the case may be. Also, especially in the case of Aspirin, there is a plausible mechanism of action, where a metabolically active substance is introduced into the body and produces a biological effect.

You failed to mention the research done with the frequency for inflammation, using the same animal model as used to test most all of the anti-inflammatory drugs. FSM reduced inflammation by 64% in four minutes, and they never found a drug that reduced it more that 45%. Further more, all anti-inflammatory drugs have undesirable side effects some of which can be life threatening.

This is a fair point and I will accept it. I presume you are referring to this study, the reason I did not discuss it was essentially practical in nature, I could only find this one page abstract which was thin on details. There was nothing there I could dissect. Even If I could have found the full paper it is likely I would not have gone over it as I would have felt even less capable of interpreting it than the study I did present. You bring up another point though that I agree with, drugs do have side effects, as do almost all other types of treatments. As I pointed out in my original post the very fact that treatments have an effect on the body opens the possibility that that can have negative as well as positive effects. As far as I can determine the claim that FSM has no negative side effects can neither be proved or disproved, as you seem to confirm the data is simply not there.

You stated two frequencies are employed by Dr. McMakin, however, hundreds of frequencies are employed. There are always at least two frequencies applied at a time, one resonating with a specific tissue and one resonating with a specific condition.

This I think is simply a misunderstanding, I am aware that there are more than two frequencies that can be used, and I do allude to this fact in several places. My apologies for not being clear.

Microcurrent increases cellular energy by 500% and also increases protein synthesis. This is not what I would call a modest claim.

This may be true, here is the study (performed in 1982 and used as a reference for FSM everywhere), this study was on rat skin tissue in vitro and as such can not necessarily be extrapolated to treating the whole body or even significant parts of it for specific diseases. In addition I do not know how these increases affect other biological functioning or whether or not they are significant even in the context given. Indeed though there does seem to be a biological effect produced by the microcurrent and I refer you to my point above regarding potential harm. However my main point of disagreement with the treatment is the “Frequency Specific” part, in other words the claim that each disease has it’s own unique vibration that can be used to treat it, that is the real claim being made and that is the part that I find least convincing.

You state that Dr. Abrams was dismissed as a fraud in the 1920’s. You fail to mention that Dr. Abrams was investigated by Upton Sinclair, who according to Wikipedia, “was a Pulitzer Prize-winning prolific American author who wrote over 90 books in many genres and was widely considered to be one of the best investigators advocating socialist views. He achieved considerable popularity in the first half of the 20th century. He gained particular fame for his 1906 muckraking novel The Jungle, which dealt with conditions in the U.S. meat packing industry and caused a public uproar that partly contributed to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906.”

Mr. Sinclair reported that “Albert Abrams was one of the most eminent practitioners in San Francisco, the head physician of large hospitals, recognized as the author of important discoveries.” Like many scientists who make major breakthroughs his ideas which involved a new paradigm in healing were met with disbelief and derision of his peers. Upton Sinclair was very skeptical when he first visited Abrams, and expected to be done in a couple of days. Instead he stayed and observed him for a couple of weeks, “and it might have been months or even years, if urgent duties had not called me home.” Sinclair considered Dr. Abrams to be a great scientist who had much to offer humankind.

No I did not, and would not have even had I been aware of his involvement. The opinions of a single author, even a “Pulitzer Prize-winning” one such as Mr. Sinclair would amount to anecdote. I read the biography of Mr. Sinclair and failed to note any mention of scientific training or any indication that he had any other expertise that might have been relevant, fame and popularity do not a reliable source make. Even if this had not been the case this point would have carried little weight as it is simply an appeal to authority and as such does not trump the decades of knowledge gained since his time. It is the consensus of scientific opinion that should be the more trust worthy authority here, the views of a single person, even a distinguished scientist (or author), are simply too prone to error and bias.

FSM is based on a new paradigm in healing. Dr. McMakin explains it well in simplified terms on a video clip now on her website: www.frequencyspecific.com. If you wish to have a better understanding of the scientific underpinnings of Frequency Specific Microcurrent, I suggest you read Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis by James Oschman, Ph.D.

The trouble with new paradigms is that they must first prove themselves in the full sphere of scientific knowledge before they can be accepted. This means that they must either fit with the already established principles we have discovered in the realms of physics, chemistry and biology or provide a new underpinning that incorporates the known facts but explains them in a more complete and satisfying way that can be confirmed or falsified by experiment. When “Einsteinian” physics was discovered it did not overturn Newton, it added a new layer of complexity and richness to our understanding of the Universe.

Once again I would like to thank Pamela for her interest and for taking the time to comment without resorting to simple attacks. None of my points have been made in malice and if and offense is given it is with regret.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The Clean Plague

Arguably the most significant medical advance in history, in terms of lives saved, isn’t vaccines, or any particular treatment but simple hygiene. The recognition that unsanitary conditions lead to disease, the discovery that germs cause illness, and it’s corollary, that destroying germs prevents/cures illness. As a society we have become so conscious of cleanliness and sterile conditions that we buy antibacterial soaps by the gallon, demand antibiotics of our doctors and carefully regulate our children’s environments to remove any possible source of infection (ok not all of us but more than you might think). In the process are we compromising our overall health?

The “Hygiene hypothesis” has been put forward to explain apparent increases in the incidence of allergic diseases such as hay fever, eczema and asthma since industrialisation and in more developed countries. It essentially states that our immune system tuned to expect a certain immunological load from the environment in the form of infectious agents, symbiotic flora and parasites. If this load is decreased significantly through the use of antibiotics and cleaning agents then the immune system can cause problems such as over reacting to benign environmental stimuli (hay fever) or attack the body’s own tissues (autoimmune diseases such as Type 1 Diabetes). This hypothesis was given a boost in support this week with the publication of a study in mice that found exposure to common human intestinal bacteria provided a protective effect against developing Type 1 Diabetes.

It seems that you can have too much of a good thing, as in everything else optimal cleanliness is a matter of degree. Obviously I’m not advocating a return to the bad old days where raw sewage flowed in the street and we drew drinking water downstream from dead animals but we also don’t need to live in antiseptic bubbles. One of my favourite advertising campaigns is Persil’s “Dirt is Good” promotion for exactly this reason, I don’t even mind that they’re trying to sell me something on the back of it. 

Resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibacterial_soap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/122337.php

http://www.persil.com/DirtIsGood.aspx

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=383

Skeptics Circle 95

This month I have had the honour to be included in the contributors to the The 95th Skeptics’ Circle. Hosted by Dr. Bob Carroll over at Skepdic.com. Dr. Carroll has done and excellent job tying the disparate blog posts in to a unifying theme and it is so entertaining that it I urge you to go read it just for it’s own sake, but I also hope you’ll click a few links while you’re there. Along with posts from familiar bloggers such as PodBlack and The SkepBitch and blogging superstars The Bad Astronomer and Orac there are a large number of other very talented writers, in whose company I feel privileged. So get over there.

Deconstruction of a Medium

Recently I was flicking through  one of the vapid women’s magazines at work (distinct from the puerile men’s magazines) when I happened across a psychic reading but an alleged Medium. As I was wondering why there didn’t seem to be a single magazine aimed at women nowadays that doesn’t contain something of this sort I realised that it was a perfect example of how these “Mediums” operate and get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of those whose only crime is to want to communicate with their loved one one last time. So here is my deconstruction of a magazine Medium. I will show it here as it is displayed in the magazine, with a brief letter from the bereaved, followed by the reading, completed by a follow-up letter from the the bereaved, whom I will refer to as the subject. For the sake of simplicity I will assume the entire communication between the Medium and the subject is represented in full by these exchanges. To keep everything straight I will number each point made by the Medium to reference throughout the subject’s reply letter. All identifying names have been changed.

Subject’s Initial letter:

Brad died 16 years ago while I was pregnant with his daughter. I would
like to know if he, or any other spirits around me, have any messages for

his daughter or myself.

Alison.

Medium’s Reading:

This guy is saying, ‘How did I end up here?’[1] He is a deep
thinker and seems quiet and reserved with me.[2] He’s telling
me about drugs[3] and says there were problems with girls.[4] I hear
the words ‘neck’[5] and ’snap’.[6] He says, I’m sorry’[7]

There are two sides to every story.[8] His own story has not
been heard.[9] He says, ‘I wanted to make a difference with my
life.[10] I wanted to be someone.[11] I feel broken.[12] I tried to make
it work, but I couldn’t.’[13] He says,’Leave me alone,
I don’t need your help.[14] People talked about me. It hurt me,
and my family.’[15]

He seems to have a battle inside him about who he was
- about being accepted or not.[16] He is saying the names Ted[17] and
Anthony or Tony.[18] He’s bringing in a man who passed suddenly with
a heart attack.[19] He is standing at his side with his hand on his chest.[20]

I’m hearing the word John or Joana.[21] This young lad must have been
tormented a lot at school.[22] He liked i schoolwork but he didn’t like beings
teased.[23] He says, 1 have been trying to get through for a longtime, but
no one has been listening to me. It’s important to say that I miss my
family and friends[24] and I’m truly sorry for the heartache I caused.[25]

Now he is talking about his funeral. My service was A1. Spot
on with the choices of songs,[26] and I am placed in such a peaceful
environment. Thank you’. He is showing me a lot of young
people at his service.[27] He is talking about being ID’d, Did
someone have to identify him?[28]

Now I’m seeing newspaper photos[29] and a blue trampoline.[30]
I see cricket bats[31] and a goldfish tank.[32] There’s a lot of junk here.
His room was cluttered with all sorts of things.[33] He is talking
about technical drawing skills[34] about layout and design.[35]
December is important[36] He showing me a big letter B.[37]
He is saying he is one of three kids[38] and that the person
who sent his photo will have building renovating around
them.[39] He says you are looking nice[40] and also tells me that you
need a new lawn.[41]

Subject’s Response:

The photo was probably taken around 17 years ago at a friend’s
wedding. At the time of Brad’s passing, he was 20 years old
and a big part of my life.

Kelvin’s comments about Brad’s death being self-inflicted were
right After hearing the reading, some of the things that rang true
included the way that he died.

Brad had a sense of humour once you got to know him, but
normally he was quiet[2] He was one of three children.[38]

He said the name John,[21] which is my father, and the man he is
with is my grandad Charles, who had a heart attack.[19] I don’t think
he knew them when he was alive. I wish that he had
said something about our daughter.

He once told me that kids had picked on him at school,[22]
so that part of the reading was right

He also talked about drawing. I have pictures he drew that
he showed me when We first got together.[34] They
were portraits. One was of me sitting on a stool. They were very
good – I still have them.

Welcome to our World and Down on the Farm were the songs at his .
funeral, and they were his favourites[26] He sang them all the time.

He mentioned the letter ‘B’ [37] and December,[36] which probably stands
for his name and his birthday on Boxing Day

I thought it was funny that he mentioned I needed a new lawn.[41]
There were a lot of weeds in an area of my lawn where I wanted
to put a barbecue, and I recently sprayed it, so now the lawn’s dead.

I would like to thank Kelvin for the reading. It was very important
to me to hear that Brad misses his family and friends.

So, for a start lets count up the hits. In fairness I’ll admit that what I counted was somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t think I’m more than two or three out in either the predictions (for lack of a better term) or confirmed hits. Tallying up what the subject responded to gives us about 10 hits. Out of 40 predictions (he threw them out thick and fast once you broke it down) that’s 25% right. Not bad I think. lets take them in the order he gave, I will rate the predictions as Hit, Miss or Indeterminate based on the subject’s responses:

[1]. I included this one as it speaks to the deceased’s state of mind after death and as such may find resonance with the subjects’ sense of loss or the speed of the passing of the deceased.

Rating: Miss

[2]. This is a good one, people are seldom 1 dimensional characters, they have facets of personality and the subject hints at this in her response “Brad had a sense of humour once you got to know him, but normally he was quiet“. If you know someone intimately you will eventually see all of these sides and be able to recognise almost any characteristic as relating to your loved one. Indeed, judging from the reply here the reading could have made the complete opposite claim and still have been a hit in the subject’s eyes.

Rating: Hit

[3]. This one is trickier as the drugs are not specified, they could be prescription, illicit or over the counter. Thus there is a wide net being cast here. In any case the subject does not confirm any drug related issues, nor if true would I expect her to.

Rating: Indeterminate

[4]. Again this is vague and could refer to almost any situation involving a female.

Rating: Indeterminate

[5]. [6]. [7]. I’ve grouped these together as the subject at least seems to interpret them as refering to her loved one’s death. However I numbered them separately as thy are all distict claims. The subject appears to be fitting the prediction to the facts as there are a number of interpretations that could be made and self inflicted death is not one that immediately springs to mind for me.

Rating: Miss

[8]. [9]. [10]. [11].  Again, this is banal to the point of ridiculousness. Of course there are multiple sides to a story and of course a private individual has much of their life which isn’t made public, basically by definition. Also, everyone wants to have made a difference and to be considered to have been worthy and appreciated, to “Be someone” if only to our friends and family.

Rating: Miss

[12]. [13]. [14]. Through the vicissitudes of life who hasn’t felt these emotions? Once more, these could apply to anyone.

Rating: Miss

[15]. Here we have a slightly more substantial claim, that of possible controversy around the family. The subject is mute on this point.

Rating: Indeterminate

[16]. Another platitude about life.

Rating: Miss

[17]. [18]. No mention of the owners of these names, given the stretching to find a connection with other parts of the reading this does not bode well.

Rating: Miss

[19]. [20]. [21]. The subject matches these to her father and grandfather even though her loved one never had any connection with them. I really hope the afterlife isn’t one long family reunion.

Rating: Hit

[22]. [23]. I’m sorry but who likes being teased? And to my mind once metioning that “kids had picked on him at school” does not constitute being tormented. I was teased at school, I suspect a large proportion of the population also were.

Rating: Hit

[24]. Another comment on the normal human experience, I would have been surprised if he said he didn’t miss his family.

Rating: Miss

[25]. Who hasn’t caused heartache that they regret? Even the most careful person can’t please everyone all of the time.

Rating: Miss

[26]. If my family don’t play songs I like at my funeral then I refuse to participate in the after party.

Rating: Hit

[27]. Come on, the guy didn’t die in a nursing home, of course there are going to be young people at his funeral. Way to go Sherlock.

Rating: Miss

[28]. I think that often if people die away from their family and friends they would need to be identified. The subject does not mention the circumstances surrounding his death so this one can’t be judged.

Rating: Indeterminate

[29]. No mention of a media presence in the deceased’s life but newspaper photo could also have refered to obituary postings. In either case no response from the subject.

Rating: Miss

[30]. Everyone loves trampolines! No? oh well.

Rating: Miss

[31]. [32]. Not hitting a six with these two it would seem.

Rating: Miss

[33]. Clutter? Really? That’s you’re great psychic insight? Sorry.

Rating: Miss

[34]. [35]. I’m sorry, but portraits are art, not design. Have to go against the subject on this one.

Rating: Miss

[36]. [37]. Suddenly, after speaking clearly all this time (trampoline?) the deceased is reduced to spelling out his name? The subject to obviously undergoing some contortions to make this fit. It was a luck break that his birthday is on Boxing Day but I can think of at least one other reason why December might be considered important and I don’t think it’s limited to this one individual.

Rating: Hit

[38]. Ok, this is the best of the bunch. Very impressive. Spot on. What can I say, well I can reasonably assume that the magazine was privy to the subject’s last name and address and possibly passed this on to the medium with the letter. Along with the length of time given since the death he now has information that could be used to track down further details from obituaries with a little effort. But still quite good.

Rating: Hit

[39]. Another good specific one, even if the delivery is a little formal considering the intimate connection, but no follow up from the subject. I’m tempted to label it a miss but let’s be generous.

Rating: Indeterminate

[40]. Who doesn’t like complements from beyond the grave. A picture was given of a woman who is probably the subject but I don’t think I can really comment on the accuracy of this one.

Rating: Indeterminate

[41]. A new lawn, what the meaning of life too difficult? OK, this one ain’t bad either but really, unless you’re a grass obsessed freak this can apply to anyone.

Rating: Hit

Now frankly I consider this guy and his ilk the scum of the Earth, feeding on the grief of others and prolonging pain for their own benefit. This particular medium also has a TV career as one of the resident psychics on the Australian/New Zealand show “Sensing Murder“. Where the family members of murder victims, where the case is unsolved, are exploited by the production company and these so called psychics for ratings an publicity. But I digress, to the matter at hand. The remarkable thing about this reading is how unremarkable the topics covered were. They were more generic observations of the human condition instead of the distillation of a lifetime of knowledge gleaned from peering through the veil of death. Teased out and displayed one by one as here it is almost trivially easy to show that this is the case and yet people by their thousand flock to those that spew these inanities. I can’t blame them, who if given the chance would pass up the opportunity to communicate with a loved one just one more time? I’m lucky enough not to have lost a close family member or friend but the temptation to think of them as looking down at me from on high, that their life had not simply been snuffed out would be great I think. In the end I’m not fooling anyone here, if you belived in psychic mediums before reading this, you still do, if not, you still don’t. I just hope I’ve given everyone something else to think about.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

E.coli Evolve

A few weeks ago in my interview with Adam Savage I mentioned the work of Dr. Richard Lenski on E.coli bacteria. Specifically the observation of the evolution of completely novel traits in the bacteria. This work is a fascinating look into both the painstaking nature of laboratory research and the evolutionary process in action. In the experiment (which has been going on for 20 years) the researchers grew colonies of E.coli on a medium that was restricted in the bacteria’s preferred food, glucose, and abundant with an alternative food source, citrate, that they can not normally metabolize. 12 separate but initially identical populations of bacteria were grown in this way and every 500 generations or so a sample of each was frozen to record the evolutionary trajectory each took through time. This situation is how things stood for over 30,000 bacteria generations. To put this number in perspective, in human generations this would take approximately 450,000 years, assuming a generational period to be about 15 years, not unreasonable for much of our history I would think. Could you imagine the patience required to continue this experiment for so long? Watching grass grow or paint dry would be interesting distraction by comparison surely. But I digress, at around the 31,500th generation something happened, one of the populations exploded due to having developed the ability to use citrate for food.

This result is not trivial, indeed the inability of E.coli to use citrate for food is one of it’s defining characteristics and can be used as a method for distinguishing it from other bacterial strains. The large amount of time it took the bacteria to evolve this trait also suggests that is not a path that is easy to take in space of all possible mutations. Further work done by Lenski indicates that it was likely the accumulation of at least three separate mutational events that lead to this outcome. This shows that how a species develops in the future is very much dependent on what has happened to it in the past, or in other words, differences in the makeup of a species constrain how it may change in the future. This may seem to be trivially true, after all, fins have to exist before limbs can evolve and limbs would seem to be the must have accessory if your going to develop wings. However to see how this is significant all we need to do is go back to one of those frozen cultures and see if we get the same result when we play it again, Sam. In fact this is exactly what was done and it was discovered that the trait only “re-evolved” after a certain generation in the population that had the fortune to innovate it in the first place.

This indicates that it is only the presence of certain other mutations in this particular bacterial line that allowed the evolution of this ability at all. And so it is by the perversity of historical accident that a population inherits the conditions upon which further moldings of the clay of life are wrought.

Resources

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/historical_contingency_in_the.php

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Fuelstar

I first found out about Fuelstar about a year ago, I had received a flyer in the mailbox that proclaimed 12% savings on fuel consumption for my car. At the time petrol prices had really started going through the roof so this was a deal that seemed too good to be true, I thought I could already see where this was going but decided to investigate further to determine if there was any validity to the claims. After and hour or so online I had satisfied myself that the only fuel savings I would get would be those that came with my wallet becoming lighter I forgot about the whole thing. Fast forward to earlier this week when a colleague pointed out a half page ad in the paper and says “You should look in to that”, well after I had finished giving him the low down and climbed back off my high horse I figured I should cover it here too.

So what is Fuelstar? Essentially it is a metal canister containing tin pellets that is fitted to your fuel line before it enters your engine. Ostensibly the idea is that the pellets release micro particles of tin that flow with the petrol into the engine and helps the fuel burn more efficiently. The following claims are made on the back of this: That your fuel consumption will go down, your power output will go up and the device will clean your engine. Now, do these claims hold up? Fuelstar would say the 180,000 happy customers says “Yes”, OK lets consider these customers. First, if someone decides to install a fuel saving device in their car it stands to reason that they have fuel economy on their mind, in which case their driving habits may change, they are more likely to pay more attention to how the car is running, whether the tyres have the correct pressure etc. If so, and they started to be more observant about their fuel consumption around the time of installing the Fuelstar device they are likely to attribute any gains they see to it.

 In addition, would these customers have gotten the device fitted by an experienced mechanic?, who would likely have also given the car a tune up at the same time, which has an effect on fuel consumption. Also how many of the customers would have carefully tracked the amount of fuel used and under what conditions for significant periods of time both before and after installing the device? These are just some considerations and don’t include simple psychological effects such as expectation bias, confirmation bias or any of a host of similar congnitive biases. My point here is that no matter how many happy customers there are they are not equivalent to a rigorous test of the technology, also they are a self selected sample; only those who believe the technology will work are going to get it installed in the first place.

OK enough of this psych stuff, what about the cold hard evidence? Well, looking at the Fuelstar website there are a  number of listings in the “Formal Tests” category of the Test Results page. Of these three are case study type that purportedly show a reduction in X from vehicle Y and are quite light on testing procedures and supporting documentation, interesting but hardly good evidence I don’t feel bad dismissing these out of hand. Of the three that are left one is a kind of meta-analysis that consists of a chemist associated with Fuelstar saying “It works, ok and those tests that say it doesn’t are wrong” again, no guilt about flushing that one. Another study, the most promising by the look of the description, is entirely in Taiwanese, sigh. All of this leaves us with a single test performed by a seemingly reputable facility on the USA, however although the test did compare engine performance both before and after installation of the Fuelstar device the report is ambiguous on the exact timeline of events. In particular the Pre-conditioning step included performing ”restorative” maintenance on the engine at the same time the device was installed, does this mean the system that was tested with the device was different to that without the device? It is unclear from the report and I have to file this under “Inconclusive”.

Finally the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency for those not in the know) tested a substantially similar device in 1999 and concluded that “When the fuel economy data are analyzed (using the
Student’s t test) as a whole, there is no statistical difference in the fuel economy results as a function of use of the [Device]“. This along with the generally poor quality of the supporting evidence leads me to think that the claims made for the system are mostly hype and there is no reason to suppose that installing it will have any significant effect. Darn, I could have used the extra cash to pimp my ride.

Resources

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticleAsOnePage.aspx?id=104217

http://www.immortality.co.nz/fuelstar.html

http://www.aa.co.nz/motoring/news/Pages/Be-sceptical-of-fuel-saving-devices.aspx

http://www.fuelstar.co.nz/TestResults.asp

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/gasoline_saving.html

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/r99015.pdf

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Safety

Inspired by THIS episode of the Are We Alone podcast produced by the SETI Institute I decided to publish a revised version of a piece I wrote last year about the safety of the everyday world.

How safe are we? The world is a dangerous place, we see it on the news everyday. Carjackings, murders, bombings, rape, kidnapping, the media shows us a world we hardly recognise full of menace and unseen risks. Living as I do in a relatively small country of approximately 4 million warm bodies I thought it should be quite straight forward to examine the relative risks in my corner of the treacherous world, using the national stats for mortality from 2003 as a basis I have tried to see if the fears induced by our exposure to the media are justified. Using these statistics as the basis of rough probabilities I found the following interesting results: The average person in New Zealand in 2003 was 60 times more likely to die of heart disease than be a victim of homicide, this went up to 194 times more likely when compared to death by air accident. By this measure the surest way to protect yourself is to put down the chips and pick up the running shoes.

If all that death is getting you down then consider this, people were twice as likely to be burgled than to die at all. They were 28 times more likely to be burgled than sexually assaulted, 82 times more likely to die of Influenza and pneumonia than medical misadventure. Forget going in with appendicitis and coming out with a bionic leg, just get vaccinated you are looking at better odds. There was 44 times more likelihood of death by Diabetes than fire, that piece of chocolate is probably a bigger hazard to your life and limb (gangrene, not pleasant) than a hypothetical arsonist. Fortunately no bombing statistics are available, so I guess technically you are infinitely more likely have anything else happen to you than be blown up.

If you want to talk raw numbers then only 0.7% (28,060) of the population of New Zealand died during that year. If you look at the flipside there was twice that number of births in the same year. I don’t know about you but I feel safer already, but a little afraid of being over run with babies now…

References
http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/71

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/statistics/2003/calendar/stats-national-20031231.pdf

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/info-releases/births-and-deaths.htm

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Frequency Specific Microcurrent

This week in my local community paper I had cause to once again raise my brow in surprise at the low bar for inclusion in this publication. I refer to a story written by a journalism student promoting a therapy known as FSM or Frequency Specific Microcurrent (not Flying Spaghetti Monster). I say promoting rather than reporting on as it seemed that the student merely parroted what she had been told of the treatment with nary a skeptical thought. I was unsure when I read this article whether I was looking at a news report or an advertisement for yet another brand of alternative health device. Though I should temper this by pointing out that it seems to be becoming endemic to the field of journalism as a whole rather than be unique to this student of it.

As I could find little in the way of information about this therapy at my usual sources on these sorts of claims (Quackwatch and Skepdic, both excellent resources) I thought I would do some investigation of my own and share the results here. A brief search of PubMed found a decided lack of peer review studies either published by the technology’s alleged inventor Carolyn McMakin, nor on the effectiveness of the therapy itself. So I decided to start with the website of the inventor herself.

The “therapy” consists of applying microamp current to selected areas of the patient’s body, the current is tuned to two different frequencies that historically were supposed to correspond to the resonant frequency of the disease and the tissue of interest. It is unclear whether the current version makes this claim but two frequencies are still employed, apparently providing a unique synergy that is useful for treating only specific ailments. Practically the current is produced by a battery operated device that allows the practitioner to set both the frequency and the current on two independent channels. This current is then transferred to the patient via conductive graphite gloves worn by the practitioner as they lay hands on the patient. The claims for the device itself are modest apparently due to FDA restrictions that apply to the classification of devices it falls under. This classification is that of TENS devices which stands for Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation, this class of machine can provide relief from certain types of pain simply by virtue of electrical stimulation, no frequencies are explicitly invoked.

However, the frequencies used have much wider claims associated with them, one I found amusing was “There is one frequency combination that so far is 100% effective in a small number of cases to take away kidney stone pain.”, I perhaps naively think that a treatment is either 100% effective or is useful in a small number of cases, combining these two seems to be trying to get the best of both worlds. To clarify I don’t think there are necessarily treatments that are always 100% effective but I do have the opinion that a more useful statement would have been how effective the treatment is for the majority of patients. Other claims include the ability to treat asthma, liver dysfunction and irritable bowel syndrome as well as scar removal.

On the website’s FAQ a simplistic history of the use electromagnetic therapy devices from the early 20th century is given and spoken of in glowing terms stating that “There were thousands of physicians using this technology at this time. They had journals and associations and were treating patients and doing research and sharing the effects of frequencies in articles and books.” This may or may not be true but has no relevance as to the effectiveness of the treatment, I have no doubt there are thousands of practitioners prescribing Homeopathic preparations right now. Dr. Albert Abrams is also referenced as a pioneer of these techniques despite his unusual practices having been exposed as fraud in the 1920s. In 1994 Dr. McMakin started using these frequencies on her chiropractic patients and reports that they “appeared to do exactly what they were alleged to do”.

In 1995 Dr. McMakin developed the therapy using a device and a list of reputedly medically useful frequencies that she apparently inherited from a Canadian osteopath. Two years later Dr. McMakin began teaching FSM according to her website “to see if the effects of FSM were reproducible.” (curious, I thought that’s what studies and controlled trials were for). Despite the order in which the story is related this appears to be before papers were presented to either the American Back Society or Topics in Clinical Chiropractic, both chiropractic based. The teaching of the technique consists of a three day course in “the use of frequency protocols, the differential diagnosis of pain generators and neurologic conditions.”. Were this technique developed by the medical mainstream I hope it would have undergone slightly more rigorous investigation before being tested on patients or taught to other practitioners.

Moving on, there are several papers listed on the website in support of this therapy of mixed quality. The most convincing papers deal with the use of the therapy for Fibromyalgia, in particular this study on “Cytokine changes with microcurrent treatment of fibromyalgia associated with cervical spine trauma“. Now I am not medically trained and readily admit that I am not qualified to accurately interpret the results of this study, however there are several points that I as a layman found concerning. First was the inclusion of only a single control subject who also received treatment. Second there seemed to have been quite a high drop-out rate for the trial (approximately 30%) leaving only 32 subjects to acquire meaningful data from. Thirdly, the use of specific frequencies in the treatment is probably the most controversial part and yet those that were chosen for the study are simply asserted to be the most effective with no reference to how this was done or what data lead to this conclusion. Fourthly, and this is less a criticism of the study itself, is the topic under study. I am given to understand that Fibromyalgia is characterised by periods of flares and remission which may complicate the data. I realise however that this trial may be considered a pilot study and so can not be held to the same standards as a large rigorous placebo/non-treated group controlled trial.

In addition the almost ubiquitous claim in pseudo-scientific medicine and quackery is made that there are no dangers or side effects from the treatment itself. As has been pointed out in other places a modality that affects biological systems is unlikely to be all benefit. If there is an effect then it is almost guaranteed there is a side-effect. The consideration undertaken in the use of valid medical interventions is whether the benefits are worth the accompanying risks.

Due to the nature of the therapy it is unclear exactly what is being tested/providing relief, a shaky theory of dubious plausibility based on the unscientific premise that tissues and diseases have “Frequencies” that if applied externally can enhance or inhibit functioning and so cure medical conditions or transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation that at least one doctor considers to be an uncontroversial treatment for pain. What does seem to be clear is that there seems to be more emphasis on promotion of this therapy than on testing it’s efficacy and introducing to the wider medical community a truly useful technique.

Finally, it seems to me that the evidence is not convincing that there is an effect here that can only be explained by appeals to the recovery of lost knowledge from a golden age of medical treatments that was squashed by a jealous Medical Establishment.

Resources

http://www.frequencyspecific.com

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html

http://www.americanartifacts.com/smma/abrams/abrams.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibromyalgia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcutaneous_Electrical_Nerve_Stimulator

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

What’s the Harm?

As I have pointed out countless times (ok, 4), we are a story telling species, one good anecdote is worth more to most people than a mountain of rigorous evidence and for good evolutionary reasons. This is just a fact of our psychology, it is not just difficult for us to weigh things rationally it is actually going against our basic nature. In recognition of this fact a website has been created to collect stories from around the world that show the real life harm that pseudo-science and other irrational claims can have on individuals. This website is the answer to the oft posed  rhetorical question “What’s the harm?”.

One of the more extreme cases on the site details the story of Sandra Nette, a Canadian woman whose regular visits to a chiropractor resulted in her becoming permanently paralysed. Sandra had been visiting her chiropractor for years to get “maintenance” adjustments that were to keep her healthy, after one such adjustment she began to feel dizzy and unwell. The Chiropractor suggested massage therapy offered at his office and allowed her to leave, she didn’t make it home. After pulling her car over and calling her husband she was taken to the hospital where it was determined that she had tears in both vertebral arteries in her neck which caused a stroke. One of the tears was 3 inches long. According to Sandra’s husband the first words out of the attending physician after reviewing the test results were “chiropractor, right?”.

Now this story in isolation proves nothing about the efficacy or lack thereof of chiropractic, nor does it prove relative safety or harmfulness. However, this is not the point. The point is that other venues have provided evidence of the implausibility and ineffectiveness of this practice and this story is meant to provide a human face to the issue and help people understand, in a way that is real to them and not abstract like a medical study, the possible harm that can be caused. When there is no benefit to a procedure any risk is too much.

Resources

http://WhatstheHarm.net

http://whatstheharm.net/chiropractic.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=152

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Sharks on Discovery

So yesterday I get this email from the contact me part of this site, I’m always glad to get these so I read it eagerly. So it’s from a guy who says he works with the Discovery channel, he liked my interview with Adam Savage the other day, would I like to write a post about the currently showing Sharkweek episodes? At this point I’m on a high that anyone associated with the Discovery channel even read my interview, let alone contacted me about it, so I immediately said yes. A few minutes later when the euphoria had ebbed I decided to do a search on this guy and found that he works for a marketing company and apparently makes a living making flattering comments wherever some one even mentions a Discovery show and tries to get them to promote for him.

Exibit A:

http://thewheat.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/boom-de-ya-da/

http://www.perrbear.com/2008/07/shark-week.html

http://www.myrnasjourney.com/2008/07/thank-you-jam-for-tagging-me-heres-my.html

http://deadliestreports.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/a-few-of-mike-rowes-bloopers-from-dutch-harbor-filming/

http://www.scienceontv.com/2008/07/10/mike-rowe-cleans-septic-tanks/

http://crazedpw.blogspot.com/2008/07/this-woman-votes.html

http://www.blogmagazine.com/blog_magazine/2008/07/dude-wheres-my.html

Now I don’t begrudge this guy doing his job, he didn’t mislead me greatly, though a more upfront introduction would have been appreciated. Something like “I work for a marketing company affiliated with Discovery and since your a fan of Mythbusters thought you might want to help promote their show.” would have been better as now I can’t trust the nice things he said.

So I’ve agreed to do some “Shilling” for “The Man”, but as “The Man” is the Discovery channel and the subject of the “Shill” is Mythbusters, I think I can live with myself. So, er, sharks are cool right…? I do know that at least some species of Shark can sense electrical currents, that’s cool. Anyway here are a couple of pictures from the Mythbusters episode.

Kari and Grant try to figure out where the batteries go in their new sex toy.

Perhaps Kari and Grant weren't the best choice for expedition caterers.

Adam patiently waits for the rest of the Medieval Re-enactment club to arrive.

Thanks for the opportunity Shawn, it was a lot of fun but I don’t think it’s for me.