Pigs Fly and the Swine Flu

I mentioned yesterday that the homeopathy industry has been quick to offer homeopathic treatments for Swine Flu. The Young Australian Skeptics have now released a public statement, in pdf format, alerting consumers to the absolute folly of assuming such treatments will do anything useful.

This is a classic example of where anecdotal evidence and self blame are ripe for the picking. Anyone taking such a "treatment" and not getting the flu will likely assume the treatment worked as a preventative. Others will take the treatment and, if they suffer a head cold (mild compared to the flu) could assume the treatment worked to diminish the effects of the flu. Those who take the treatment and succumb to actual Swine Flu will likely assume they took it too late or failed to follow all the necessary "better health" protocols (homeopathy is part of a holistic-healing paradigm so there's always the likelihood you'll fail to take at least one necessary step for better health).

The Skeptics' Alert says:

With the growing world-wide threat of Swine Flu (or the N1H1 virus) the public is alerted to various fake or scam products purporting to be either treatments or preventatives for this deadly disease.

These fake treatments go under the banner of Homeopathic Medicines.

There is NO effective Homeopathic treatment or preventative for Swine Flu or any other flu strain.

Homeopathic treatments are nothing more than sugar pills or water and are in fact the same as placebos. (Fake medicine used in medical research.) They contain nothing.

Do not get conned by anyone selling Homeopathic treatment for Swine Flu, Meningococcal Meningitis or any other serious or life threatening disease. These people are putting you and your families’ health at great risk.

You are encouraged to report any such scammers to your government’s health department.

If you are concerned about Swine Flu, seek the advice of a qualified medical doctor.

To spread it (the warning, not the virus), download the pdf at Natural Homeopathic Treatment for Swine Flu

(Spotted on podblack)

Autism - it's in your genes?

I heard this report on this afternoon's ABC Radio news and just remembered to follow it up (after being side-tracked by Mike Munroe's vaccine-scare advertisement):

Researchers find first common autism gene:

Researchers have found the first common genetic link to autism that could potentially account for 15 percent of the disease's cases.

Three studies, two in the journal Nature and one in Molecular Psychiatry, suggest changes in brain connections could underlie some cases.

....

"These findings establish that genetic factors play a strong role in autism spectrum disorder," says US National Institutes of Health acting director Dr Raynard Kington."

And from The Australian: Austism link 'breakthrough'

"FOR the first time, researchers have identified common genetic risk factors for autism disorders, opening the door to better diagnostic tools and treatment.

Until now, the genetic links identified were for individuals or families -- they had no significance for the general population.

The new findings were reported yesterday in three separate papers: two online in the journal Nature, and the third in Molecular Psychiatry. Dozens of US, British and European scientists from more than 30 research institutions were involved."

the story concludes...

"Clinical psychologist Robyn Young -- head of the Flinders University Early Intervention Research Program -- said it was early days, but the findings could lead to tests able to pick up the disorders before birth.

"(This) is a monumental achievement," said team co-leader, University of Miami geneticist Margaret Pericak-Vance."

Another nail in the coffin for "vaccines cause autism" I guess.

Sunday Night - vaccination scare

The last few days has seen congratulatory messages spanning the rational blogosphere for Channel Seven's Sunday Night program exposing the deadly downside of failure to vaccinate.

Dr Rachael Dunlop (Dr Rachie) urged rational bloggers and their readers to contact the station and congratulate them on taking the side of science and reason in the "vaccine debate" (it's not so much a debate as frustrating game of "Whac-a-Mole" with the anti-vaccination camp constantly moving the target). She also, prophetically as it turns out, predicted the possibility that the station might be swayed by the very vocal and chronically angry anti-vaccination lobby to "show the other side". In a comment on Bad Astronomy, Dr Rachie (aka Maggie) said:

"These people do not deserve air-time in my opinion, but if they campaign hard enough, the station may cave in and give them the chance for rebuttal. This only serves the confuse and frighten parents who are seeking genuine information about the safety of vaccines."

The good Doctor's concern was not mis-placed. I have just seen an ad for the next Sunday Night program and it appears it will feature an anti-vaccine scare campaign that "will challenge the experts". Let's hope it's just over-hyped advertising but even then, this advertisement acts as it's own scare campaign that will already be undoing the benefit generated by last Sunday's program.

We can only hope that this story, like the last one, gives both sides a voice. The anti-vaccination camp were not excluded from last week's story, they just failed to be convincing.

It's difficult to understand why the "anti-vaxxers" would be given another chance except to remember that from fad diets to aliens, to shonky fuel-saving devices to psychics and clairvoyants, Channel Seven loves to promote pseudo-science and only allows reality a token presence. Let's hope that won't be the case with this story.

UPDATE:
The apparently mis-named Australian Vaccination Network (it is actually opposed to vaccination) has this to say about the up-coming show:

"Because of the overwhelming response they received to this story, Channel 7 plans on having a forum showing the other side of the issue on Sunday, May 3rd. We hope this will be a much more balanced program."

Dr Rachie has been given a slightly different slant on the format for the up-coming show. Let's hope what she's been told turns out to be correct:
Dr Rachael Dunlop discusses Channel Seven's Sunday Night Vaccination story
and more at:
DR Rachie: Briefly - Sunday Night, vaccination, autism

Vaccination, Whooping Cough & Autism

The story that ran on this weekends' Sunday Night program on Channel Seven Australia is receiving some good coverage from the rationally-based blogosphere. I added an update to my previous heads-up about this program but thought it warranted an article of its own.

Here's some video from the program. Be warned, it's depressing and frustrating.



Read more at:
Dr Rachie: Vaccination, Sunday Night Channel Seven Australia - Autism & Whooping Cough
Phil Plait: Vaccination, Autism, Whooping Cough, Immunisation
Skeptic Zoners Blog- Vaccines cause Autism? - or - Should I vaccinate my kids?
Australian Whooping Cough epidemic

Homeopathy - faster than a bad joke

When a major disaster strikes we have almost come to expect to hear bad jokes about it even before we've had time to fully comprehend the situation. With the current Swine Flu pandemic scare, however, it seems the homeopathic industry has beaten armchair comedians to the punch.

Damian Thompson writes in the Telegraph:

Disgusting homeopaths seek to exploit swine flu

"Well, that didn't take long. Homeopaths are already advertising their UTTERLY USELESS remedies for swine flu. Remember: this branch of pseudoscience, endorsed by the Prince of Wales and subsidised by the NHS, can do nothing to treat ordinary flu, let alone this new lethal variety."

Thompson quotes the sales pitch from a manufacturer of homeopathic remedies and concludes:

"Now I'm not a doctor (well, I am, actually, but of the sociology of religion, which makes me just as much an expert in swine flu as Helios Homeopaths) but I can tell you one thing: if you think you have any sort of flu, do not consult a homeopath. Or any practitioner of alternative "medicine". I've got a friend who walks with a stick because cranial osteopaths diagnosed his bacterial infection of the spine as a virus"

Osteopathy is not homeopathy but I think Thompson is making the general point that "alternative medicine" is often not an alternative at all.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit, independent reviewer of medical studies, says the following about one of the most popular homeopathic treatments for influenza:

"Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes." (my bolding in bright red)

Cochrane, true to science, doesn't (ever?) dismiss something outright. Science cannot usually prove that something is not possible. It can, however, show a lack of evidence for claims, as has occured in the Oscillicoccinum trials.

When Cochrane mention some "promising" data, this should not be construed as a vindication of the product being tested since it could be just anomalous data from insufficient or less-than-perfect trials. To understand this concept, blow on a die and roll it six times. If you get one number coming up more than once, (say 1, 6, 5, 1, 1, 3) you could argue that this is significant evidence that blowing on dice favours that number. In reality, you just haven't done enough trials to identify a pattern or even considered alternative causes for the result.

If you read the linked Cochrane report, you will see that the "promising" data was that Oscillicoccinum appears, possibly, to shorten the effects of the flu - by less than 7 hours (0.28 days). And you should note that only two of the seven trials looked at provided sufficient useful data to review.

The concluding point of the report is the important one if you're thinking of spending money on a homeopathic treatment or preventative for the flu - there is no scientific evidence that homeopathic treatments prevent the flu.

UPDATE:
If you disagree with this report then go ahead and use homeopathy - but don't say I didn't tell you it doesn't work. If you plan to do so, do yourself a favour and at least save some money by shopping at Fair Deal Homeopathy.*

*I am not associated with and cannot vouch for Fair Deal Homeopathy. In fact, I recommend you avoid any site selling so-called "alternative" therapies no matter how good the deal is. But that's just me.

James Randi's mean streak

American Chronicle carries a story by Peter Fotis Kapnistos in which he takes James Randi to task over his long-time assault on any credibility Uri Geller might ever have had.

In order to demonstrate Randi's mean streak, Kapnistos recalls the time Uri Geller failed to deliver the paranormal goods on the Johnny Carson show. Carson had been coached by Randi beforehand on how top arrange an impromptu test in a way to prevent any cheating. According to Geller, Carson's skepticism blocked his psychic powers. To illustrate his point, Kapnistos retells the tale of folk hero William Tell, who allegedly shot an apple off his son's head with a crossbow.

"William Tell split the apple with a single arrow from his crossbow, without mishap. But if the skeptical Austrian governor had distracted him with peripheral mayhem and noisy commotion, would Tell have lost his instinctive talent?"

Ignoring for one moment that William Tell's existence is doubted and that, even in this story, the Governor's skepticism had no effect on Tell's legendary abilities, Geller had always performed, successfully, in places surrounded by peripheral commotion. TV talk-back shows are like that and I suspect it wasn't the first time Geller had performed in front of doubters but on this occasion, he failed to such an extent, he thought he was finished. There doesn't appear to be an unusual level of distraction in the Carson incident.

Today, over half of the Swiss population believes that William Tell really lived. A modern scientific view of the Tell account implies that any healthy adult male should be able to reproduce his success. But in reality, William Tell represents one in a million.

I guess this was thrown in to prove that science can be wrong and people really can defy the odds. But it's predicated on the notion that William Tell was real because over half the Swiss population believes so.

About.com: Urban Legends assures us that 65% of Brits believe King Arthur was real yet only 47% believe Richard the Lionheart ever lived. 58% think the fictional Sherlock Holmes was real and 51% give Robin Hood the thumbs up (also here). Enough said I think - except to add that, if historians can't even determine beyond doubt that William Tell even existed, it's going to be an uphill battle to convince me to take legendary superhuman tales about him at face value, no matter how many people think he was real. If I found that sort of appeal to popularity convincing, I'd be a Catholic.

The strict scientific premise of controlled repeatability does not apply in his particular set of circumstances. And that perhaps is also a major reason why many scientists shun Uri Geller. His psychic abilities do not conform to the scientific principle of repeatability.

They are apparently repeatable on demand on other TV shows and arranged public performances but they evaporate when control is taken away from the performer. Stage magicians could say the same about their perfomances, which might explain Randi's intense interest in Geller.

From here, I'll leave it to Randi to respond to the remainder of the article as only Randi can...


See also: Uri Geller, the magician

Anti-Vaccination story on Sunday Night (Australia)

I've just seen an ad on Channel Seven (GWN regional) for this coming weekend's "Sunday Night" show. It seems it's going to deal with the problems of parents choosing not to vaccinate their children.

One to watch.

_____________
UPDATE:

Okay I missed it, but Dr Rachie (Rachael Dunlop) didn't miss it and has the full run down over at the Sceptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh:

Vaccination Sunday Night Channel Seven Australia

The good doctor asks us all to mobilise in response to this report, which she says was surprisingly positive (ie, pro-vaccination)...

"Time to mobilise the sceptical troops. Please help by emailing Sunday night, voting in the poll, and linking to my blog from twitter, facebook or your own blog."

Read more at:
Dr Rachie: Vaccination, Sunday Night Channel Seven Australia - Autism & Whooping Cough
Phil Plait: Vaccination, Immunisation, Autism, Whooping Cough
Skeptic Zoners Blog- Vaccines cause Autism? - or - Should I vaccinate my kids?
Australian Whooping Cough epidemic
Sunday Night Vaccination video - whooping cough kills, vaccinate now

Natural menopause therapy deserves a flush?

I was just randomly following a long chain of links through various websites when I happened upon this article on the ABC Science website...

Warning over 'natural' menopause therapies

Maybe there's a bit of flux in the space-time continuum but it looks surprisingly like an article advising women not to give up on real medicine in exchange for "alternative therapies"...

An Australian study has revealed that more women are dumping hormone replacement therapy in favour of untested alternatives to deal with menopause.

The authors of the study, which is published in the journal Climacteric, warn that such products are unproven for safety and efficacy and unapproved by national health authorities.

I'm left wondering why they're allowed to be marketed as "alternative therapies" if they are firstly not a therapy and therefore, not an alternative. But it seems to be acceptable to sell things in the health marketplace as long as they have no ill effects. The lack of a beneficial effect, efficacy, seems to be irrelevant.

If I marketed an empty cardboard box as a computer, would that be legal as long as you couldn't get hurt by "using" it? What if I say it takes faith to make it work and dismiss all doubters as closed-minded cynics in the pocket of the big electronics manufacturers? Maybe I could sell it as a more natural alternative that uses far less energy, does not crash and is immune from viruses that infect traditional computers? Maybe then I'd be allowed to sell it, at only twice the price of the mainstream products? I'm sure I could get some testimonials for it.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Clearly the area of medicinal commerce is long overdue for a major clean up.

More from the news article...

"Women often perceive that a product sold as being 'natural' must be safe and, if it is labelled 'bioidentical', it must have the identical beneficial effects of the registered hormone therapy," write the researchers, led by Profressor Alastair MacLennan of the Women's and Children's Hospital at the University of Adelaide.

"Few of those who buy these expensive products understand what they are taking, the relative lack of regulatory protection, and the potential for them to be misinformed, mistreated and misused."

The article concludes...>

Dr David Sturdee, president of the International Menopause Society, who did not participate in the study, says: "It's extremely important that women receive the correct treatment, rather than try something which may have no effect or may even be harmful.

"I'd urge women to contact their doctor before starting any treatment for menopause symptoms."

---

In other news, the Australian Skeptics' open letter to Australian pharmacists, has received a positive response from within the industry. Information to Pharmacists (i2P) is an online and email magazine intended to communicate pharmacy news, issues and events. The skeptics' open letter is discussed in issue 81, April 2009. You should go and read it, but here are some excerpts...

Therefore, we recommend that all practicing pharmacists evaluate what the Skeptics have to say, and if any part of your daily practice needs reviewing, then please take the time to undertake a proper adjustment.

Note: The following extracts appear to be sourced from a 2003 journal, which is not very comforting despite the very positive nature of the content. Perhaps they will act as a reminder to pharmacists that they have been told all this before...

Alternative medical practice or therapies, such as iridology, aromatherapy, reflexology, homeopathy and similar "natural" approaches to health care have apparently found a place in the community, but the Board can see little or no place for them in the practice of pharmacy. Regardless of any pharmacist's other heath care interests, no pharmacist may ever disregard their standing in the community as a provider of primary health care.

Because a recommendation by any pharmacist for a therapy or medicine gives that therapy or medicine special credibility, it is essential that the recommendation is soundly and scientifically based.

Any pharmacist who, after proper training, chooses to practise as a naturopath or other alternative health care provider, must ensure that practise as a pharmacist and the conduct of the alternative health care business is carried out in separate premises. This will ensure that the distinction between practice as a pharmacist and operations as a naturopath, or other alternative health care provider, is so obvious that there will be no question in the mind of the public in respect of the person with whom they are dealing.

So, that's pretty good news for the skeptics, and pharmacy customers, but only if it has a very real effect in what is stocked on pharmacy shelves. Is your local pharmacy still stocking ear candles?

Today Tonight - at it again

Did you know there is such a thing as an "Extra-Terrestrial Expert"? Not an expert that's come to us from outer space but an expert on those who have visited us from other worlds.

I didn't know. Did you? I'm not sure how one becomes an expert in things most people only assume might possibly exist but Today Tonight assures us Mary Rodwell, principal of the Australian Close Encounter Research Network (ACERN), is just such an expert. Rodwell, a clinical hypnotherapist and "counsellor", among other things, seems to agree.

In tonight's show, ex-Big Brother resident, Nathan Morris underwent hypnosis and babbled about some stuff about a highway and a swimming pool that Rodwell seems to think proves he has been visited by aliens - "or spirits", she added. It is unclear why the visits could not have been from unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, garden gnomes, polymorphic cephalopods, decaffeinated hamsters or me in a previous incarnation, but then, I'm not an expert in these things.

Rodwell is also a Metaphysician, healer and Reiki Master, according to her bio. In respect of using her hypnosis technique to get to the truth of a person's alien-based nightmares, she warns people "don't try this at home". I guess if you're going to tell someone they've been anally probed by ET or ALF, you'd best be an expert.

Since Today Tonight were apparently unable to find anyone skeptical enough to cast even a single shred of doubt on Rodwell's claims, I can only assume she must really be an expert in confirming people's strange beliefs based largely, perhaps solely, on the fact they believe it.

You can find out more for yourself since the real point of the TT story, I assume, was to advertise Rodwell's upcoming Perth "lecture". You'll find links on the TT page. One of those links is to Project Hidden Truths and that site is an enlightening read. On the issue of remote viewing it says:

Anyone who has seen the television show "The One" "The search for Australia's most gifted psychic", has probably heared [sic] the term Remote Viewer.

The ladies and gentlemen are of no doubt [sic] very good and accurate psychics and some of them are also a medium [sic], but non [sic] of them can call themselves officially Remote Viewers! It is stunning to see the misinterpretation of this skill on National Television here in Australia.

Yep. I was stunned when I saw it too. I'm also stunned that the folk at Project Hidden Truths think any of the contestants showed themselves to be any better as psychics or mediums than they were as remote viewers. Psychics are supposed to tell you stuff they figure out for themselves, not ask questions and make vague guesses. Mediums are supposed to speak to your dead relatives... not ask questions and make vague guesses. Both should be consistently more accurate than we'd expect by chance alone if we're to believe they have paranormal abilities - and they shouldn't need the services of an editing room to enhance their accuracy. But I'm drifting off topic and I've dealt with all this before.

As for the Mary Rodwell story, George Negus summed it up six years ago in a report on the ABC... "Well, I had nothing to say before that piece and to be honest, I've got less to say after it. Make up your own mind - go and have a think about it."

I'll leave the last word on alien visitation to Richard Saunders (watch as Mel and Kochie apply a level of skepticism to ordinary explanations that they never seem to apply to extraordinary claims)...



Thanks to podblack for pointing to the video.

SORRY - Richard's entire Youtube account was deleted when Channel Ten, on a different matter, decided they didn't want one of their credulous and potentially deadly stories criticised in public and invoked copyright.

Mournings with Kerri-Anne

I've long harboured a silent admiration for Kerri-Anne Kennerly of "Mornings with Kerri-Anne" fame. Sure, her show is mostly fluff - it's just a live version of a womens' magazine (the kind you find in doctors' waiting rooms) - but Kerri-Anne is thoroughly likeable.

Few women would laugh as a puppy piddled over their $300 shoes on national television, then run around looking for a cloth to mopthe carpet with, but Kennerly almost appears to live for such "down to Earth" moments. She is your best mate's mum on one hand and a socialite on the other.

For years I've caught the odd show here and there and, except for the inane advertising segments selling the usual magnetic therapy products, diets and the latest and best fitness product, I found the shows to be mostly watchable for a bit of light-hearted time-out.

But lately I think something's shifted. Maybe I've just noticed or maybe I've just caught the "wrong" shows but lately Kennerly has bombarded me with "psychics" and done it in such a way that I'm supposed to believe they are all genuinely in touch with "the other side". Even the most inane visions, feelings or post-dictions are met with credulous fascination.

First it was British "psychic" Lisa Williams. There was much excitement and adulation and, if I recall correctly, she's got a book to sell. There's always a book isn't there?

On Easter Monday, we had four guests (described as "experts") taking advantage of the growing desperation of people scared by the ensuing financial crisis. The general thrust of their arguments was "think positive and you'll feel better". It's hard to disagree with that as a general guideline but these people couldn't leave it that simple. We had to have The Law of Attraction, Astrology and Universal Energy and a bunch more mumbo jumbo that suggests that if things are tough for you right now, it's your own damned fault for thinking bad thoughts. Think about owning a Ferrari and that terminal cancer you're suffering will disappear. Well, something like that.

They had the gall to claim this nonsense as a scientific law and even used Einstein's name as if to lend it a gram of credibility. If the dead really could communicate, I think Einstein would have had a few choice words with the lot of them right then and there.

Today, it was Sensing Murder's Kelvin Cruickshank, who Kerri-Anne described as one of the most accurate psychics! What?!! Another one?! How many "most accurate psychics" are there? In fact, are there any working psychics with a business card that says "pretty ordinary"?

This segment bordered on bizarre. After a bit of chat about the TV show, Kerri-Anne asked Cruickshank directly how many murders he had solved. "None", he admitted "but the show isn't called Solving Murder". At that point Kennerly should have done a Don Lane, James Randi re-enactment and kicked him off her show but it wasn't to be. I wonder how she'd respond to a psychic who wasn't so accurate though?

Cruickshank, like many of his colleagues, claims to provide "closure" for the families. I'm still not sure how one gets closure after being told their long-dead spouse is still hanging around and looking over their shoulder every time they go on a date with the new love(s) in their life. If I could believe it and found myself in that situation, I think I'd be a blithering mess until my own day of reckoning arrives. I certainly wouldn't be dating much.

Cruickshank also claims that the things "discovered" on Sensing Murder assist authorities with their cases, but seemed to imply that authorities are too embarrassed to allow a psychic to solve a crime. It's strange when police fail to act on "new" information that they've usually known about and dealt with long before these entertainers came along to trample over the memories of the dead.

Oh, and I think he's got a book too.

As I'm writing this, I'm searching around for more information on Kerri-Anne's psychic leanings and it appears that it's old news. Wikipedia tells us she's been a regular nominee for the Australian Skeptics' Bent Spoon Award. And on Youtube we find that the psychic trick has been carefully explained to her in 2007 by Australian skeptic Mark Mayer. Interestingly, she asked Mayer if he could prove John Edward was performing mind tricks. I wonder if she ever asks the psychics to prove that they are, in fact, psychic. I find it mildly fascinating that someone can be skeptical about skepticism whilst blindly accepting parlour tricks as genuine paranormal abilities.



What Mayer did was to show that he is capable of reading minds and though Kennerly was impressed by his "paranormal abilities", the fact she knew he was a magician who never claimed to be psychic apparently meant that she could not bring herself to consider the possibility that those who do claim to be psychic might just be good at mind tricks too. It's a common dilemma. If a known mentalist went head to head with a claimed psychic, I suspect believers would notice all the misses made by the mentalist whilst noticing the "amazing" hits made by the paranormalist.

Come on Kerri-Anne. I like your show. Please drag it back toward rationality.