Swine Flu Vaccine Rolls Out in Oz

The Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccine is being rolled out across Australia from today. Contrary to fear-mongering from anti-vaccination groups, the government has not made vaccination compulsory.

You can get up do date, detailed information on Swine Flu and vaccination advice at the Department of Health and Ageing website.

Perth's Channel Seven news covered the start of vaccination in WA and showed people receiving their needle at free clinics. The story was going along suprisingly positively - I was ready to write a congratulatory blog post for them - but then they did it, they couldn't resist... they just had to provide "balance" with the dissenting voice of a doctor who says the vaccine hasn't been properly tested.

Dr Robyn Cosford is listed on the Natural Health Guide as a specialist in ADHD and Autism using techniques including "Biomedicine, Homœopathy, Acupuncture, Kinesiology, Orthodox Medicine".

Based on that information alone, I expect readers of this and similar blogs will not be surprised to hear her questioning vaccine safety. Is her view so representative of GPs that Channel Seven felt obliged to give her a voice?

If they really felt they had to include her opinion, I wish they'd asked for her view on vaccinations in general so we could establish if her concern about this vaccine was genuine or whether she opposed all vaccines as so many alt-med practitioners seem to do.


I am not a doctor or health professional. I'm just a blogger with an opinion on things. If you need or want health advice, see a doctor - preferably a real doctor who has some grounding, and trust, in science and reality.

Homeopathy parents sentenced to jail

(via Sceptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh)

I wrote about Thomas and Manju Sam back in May this year. The couple had treated their baby daughter's eczema with homeopathy which had no useful effect. As a result, Gloria Sam died at nine months of age.

The parents were found guilty of manslaughter in June and the SMH reports that today they were sentenced to jail...

A couple who failed to seek medical treatment for their baby daughter, who was severely ill with eczema before an infection killed her, wept in the dock today as they were jailed for her manslaughter.

Thomas Sam, 42, and his wife Manju, 37, were convicted in the NSW Supreme Court over the death of nine-month-old Gloria, with a jury accepting they were guilty of criminal negligence.

Sentencing Thomas Sam to a minimum of six years in jail and Manju Sam to at least four, Justice Peter Johnson said Gloria was subjected to significant pain over an extended period and her parents' failure to seek proper help for her amounted to cruelty.

It's easy to label the couple as cruel, and for all I know they may well have had a cruel disregard for their daughter's well-being but, as I've stated before, I am concerned about deeper aspects of this case.

Thomas Sam came to Australia from India and people argued that in his homeland, homeopathy was considered equal to real medicine, regardless of what science might suggest. But his heritage is largely irrelevant since Thomas Sam was a practicing homeopath and a senior lecturer in homeopathy - in Australia.

If anyone supposedly understood the power and efficacy of homeopathy, Thomas Sam surely did - or at least, he was allowed to believe he understood it and to pass on that knowledge to others - in Australia.

How can it be fair to allow someone to wallow in the belief that homeopathy is a genuine medical alternative, then to sentence them to jail when homeopathy performs exactly how real science would expect it to perform - poorly? If the law says homeopathy is not real medicine and is not to be considered as such, even by those who teach it as a medical alternative, then why is it legal in the first place to practice, teach and dispense it?

Our TV screens and magazines are littered with warnings about the dangers of smoking. We are legally obliged to wear seat belts in cars. State offices of fair trading regularly ban things they consider either dangerous, such as various toys, or useless, such as the Moletech Fuel Saver device.

No one was going to die as a result of installing that fuel saving device yet the WA state government banned it as a waste of money. Similar devices have been banned in other states for the same reason - they don't work. They allegedly work on unknown or little understood scientific principles - usually involving some weird messing about with "energy" somewhere along the line - just like homeopathy and numerous other "alternative therapies". People buy them in good faith - just like homeopathy. Lots of people swear they do work (Google will likely turn up more positive testimonials than debunkers) - just like homeopathy.

That our government allows the homeopathic industry to flourish to the extent that colleges dedicate courses to it is surely a disgrace. Thomas Sam has taught others the principles of homeopathy and one assumes they are currently practicing their witchcraft out in the Australian community assuring customers that, despite what Gloria Sam's needlessly painful death might suggest, it really does work.

At times like this I begin to understand how people come to believe in conspiracy theories because, frankly, I can't see how something like homeopathy remains as a marketable product in this nanny state of ours unless someone's pissing in someone else's pocket.

Jesus: ON SALE NOW

Channel Seven's Sunrise today featured a segment about a new advertising campaign trying to sell Jesus. Why an all-powerful God would need to enlist the services of an advertising agency to get his message across is anyone's guess - unless rumours of his omnipotence have been somewhat exaggerated.

The ad has some questions - like why do we get sunburnt? The spokseperson kept saying Jesus has the answers. I'm pretty sure sunburn's got something to do with infra-red and UV rays and staying in the sun too long without adequate protection - but I haven't asked Jesus so I might have that wrong.

More at SMH...

The first phase of a $1 million-plus marketing blitz that begins next week will promote Jesus in quirky outdoor, radio and print advertisements that do not make explicit mention of God or the 1500 churches behind them.

That's $1 million that went into the pockets of presumably needy advertising executives rather than to the starving, unwashed masses.

Apparently the decision to launch the campaign was based on research showing people didn't much like Christianity...

The research also showed that the global financial crisis could present an opportunity for churches to reconnect with people as they reviewed their family values and finances.

One hardly needs to do research to know that difficult times are the best times to sell fantasies and miracles to desperate people who might not have their defences up. Psychics and astrologers are enjoying increased trade too.

Some time ago I worked in advertising and we used to have the darndest time getting the simplest claims in TV commercials past the governing body. If the ad said you'd save 10%, we were expected to provide documentary evidence to support the claim. So how do these people get away with claiming they know Jesus and that he speaks to them - and will to you too? What evidence did they provide to back up their claims?

And if they're right, does this mean the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and others are all wrong? Unfortunately Kochie and Mel didn't ask that bleedingly obvious question.

MORE:
ABC Online: Dr Paul Harrison comments

URGENT request to Eastern Australia...

If you live in Eastern Australia and are reading this, please let me know...

It turns out the world is probably going to end on September 21. I'm in Western Australia and, by my calculation, September 21st has already been and gone in eastern Australia.

This has really caught us by surprise because a bunch of us were under the misapprehension that we had at least until 2012 to get our affairs in order.

So, if you're still with us let us know so we can put away the tin foil hat, stop partying and get ready for just another day at the office tomorrow.

If you're in Sydney, Melbourne or somewhere else over east and your world has been destroyed, let us know that too, if you can find a way.

Dam! Why am I never prepared for these things?

(via pharyngula)

ABC supports AVN on vaccination?

Australia's ABC has quoted Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) as if she were a credible source on the issue of swine flu vaccination.

This is not exactly news any more - I first saw it reported at Atomac, then at Bad Astronomy and today at the Blogonaut - but it's worthy of repeating just the same.

Two days ago, ABC Online posted a story titled "Vaccine could be 'more dangerous than swine flu'" (the title has since been changed to a somewhat less provocative "Lobby group urges more swine flu vaccine tests" but the old title was still shown on Google news results at time of writing this).

The short article, about the impending release of a swine flu vaccine in Australia, focused rather heavily on the views of Meryl Dorey from the AVN...

She says the H1N1 vaccine could prove more dangerous than the disease itself.

Now, for all I know, Dorey could be right but the article offered no supporting or dissenting comment from anyone in a position to know the relative risks. There's no reason for any objective person to just take Dorey's word for it since the AVN are an anti-vaccination lobby group whose motto is "Love Them, Protect Them, Never Inject Them". As far as I can tell, from trawling through their website and blog, they oppose all vaccinations, not just this one.

The reasons for the AVN's opposition to vaccinations are many and varied and include not just concerns about recognised side effects but also lists of what they consider to be toxins and of ailments like autism that they attribute to vaccine damage, regardless of any lack of empirical evidence of such links.

A recent post on the AVN blog linked to an article by conspiracy theorist David Icke . In his article Icke, well known for his belief that many world leaders are actually shape-shifting reptilian beings, demonised vaccinations as part of a mass conspiracy by "the Illuminati" to kill off millions of humans and microchip the remainder so they can be better controlled. Dorey posted the link without critique leading many bloggers to assume the AVN support Icke's theories.

It's hard to fathom why the ABC uncritically published Dorey's concerns about the H1N1 vaccine in the first place - though the revised article at least carries a rebuttal, of sorts, from infectious disease specialist Professor Peter McIntyre.

"It's been a real characteristic of the anti-vaccine movement in Australia claiming to be looking very extensively at the scientific evidence," he said.

"If you're someone like me whose job it is to spend their time going through a lot of this evidence, then you realise that it really is a complete misinterpretation."

No such rebuttal was there over the weekend while the article was being distributed and ridiculed across the globe.

Even the new headline is problematic as it implies the AVN would accept the vaccine if it was subjected to more tests. History, however, suggests that no amount of testing will ever be accepted as proof of the safety of any vaccine by groups like the AVN. I'm not even sure if you can test to see if the vaccine contains reptilian-designed microchips - or if you can ever trust any authority that tells you it doesn't since they are just as likely to be part of the controlling Illuminati.

The saddest part of this saga, besides the fact that it has been noticed around the world and makes us look like idiots in Oz, is that I really would have liked to have seen some answers to Dorey's accusations and concerns but the ABC apparently felt I didn't need answers.

Complaints to the ABC can be lodged here.

UPDATE:

Efficient Farming appear to have posted the original article.

The Age: Vaccine claims rejected

I am not a doctor or health professional. I'm just a blogger with an opinion on things. If you need or want health advice, see a doctor - preferably a real doctor who has some grounding in science and reality.

Bulgarian Lotto wins Lotto

Move over Derren Brown, you've got nothing on the Bulgarian Lottery!

In an astonishingly impossible turn of events, the September 10 Bulgarian national lottery draw contained exactly the same numbers as those drawn just four days earlier on September 6.

Naturally this has resulted in cries of "foul" since it should be apparent to anyone that there is absolutely no way two consecutive lottery draws can ever deliver the exact same result unless there's cheating involved. Well, almost exactly the same since the numbers came out in a different order each time, but still, it's clearly impossible.

Or is it?

One hint that there might have been foul play in the second draw is that there was an "unprecedented" 18 winners. Mind you, they each ended up with less than $8,000 so if they cheated, they maybe didn't think it through very well.

In reality, the chance of any given lottery draw matching the previous lottery draw must surely be the same as any six numbers winning that lottery. It makes no difference whatsoever how you choose your six numbers, once you have them your chances of winning are the same.

You can use birthdays, lucky numbers, most-drawn, least-drawn, consecutive numbers, diagonals, patterns, wisdom of the crowds, whatever. The odds remain the same for any six numbers you end up with. Even if you choose the numbers from the previous Lotto draw, you still could win and there are now 18 Bulgarians who can attest to this fact.

Despite seemingly impossible odds, people win Lotto all the time, all over the world, So, just because the latest set of six numbers in the Bulgarian Lotto happens to match the previous numbers, this is nothing remarkable. It can happen and the odds, I'd suggest, are exactly the same as the odds of anyone choosing the right numbers by any means.

I'd further suggest that the reason so many people won this one is because of an expectation that few people would intentionally choose numbers that came out a few days before. Apparently this is flawed thinking - and there are now 18 Bulgarians who can attest to this fact too.

Various Lotto advice sites will tell you that consecutive numbers and patterns are also far more popular choices than people might expect. Plenty of people choose 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, for example. If it ever comes up, those people are in for a bigger shock than the shock of winning. Indeed, if you can find some advice as to the least popular combinations, then you can expect that a lot of other people will find that same advice and those combinations will suddenly become more popular.

A Current Affair recently posted some "winning strategies" for Lotto. Whilst the page includes a lot of fantastical advice based on what seems like witchcraft (none of those strategies will enhance your chances of winning but will keep a candle-maker or two employed a little longer), it also includes some sober advice further down the page, including...

• Don't just pick numbers that have already won, especially not from recent draws. Many players believe that winnings numbers are somehow lucky and therefore more likely to come up. Many people do that already.
• Don't pick numbers based on an arithmetic sequences, such as 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, or 01, 11, 21, 31, 41, 49. People like number patterns - you would be stunned at how many people pick this way every single week.
• Don't make a pattern on your playslip. Diagonal or straight lines in any direction, star shapes, boxes, zig-zags etc. You might think who else would do that? The answer is anywhere from tens of people to tens of thousands of people.

(via Young Australian Skeptics)

More Derren Brown on Seven

Channel Seven seem to have taken a shine to UK illusionist Derren Brown after he promised to predict last week's UK lottery draw.

Today Tonight promoted the event one evening, showed snippets of the event itself the following evening then more snippets from the follow-up "reveal" show a few days later. Unusually, the usually credulous show seemed a little sceptical of Brown's ridiculous "wisdom of the crowds" explanation for how he appeared to predict the correct numbers.

Today, Friday, Seven's Morning Show revisited the event with a little more footage from the "reveal" broadcast. Guest host Gretel Killeen was quick to dismiss Brown as a fake, based on the fact he actually bills himself as an illusionist.

So far, so good...

Scepticism, however, is in short supply at Seven and Killeen apparently used it all up in her dismissal of Derren Brown. Minutes after analysing the illusionist's performance and post-performance explanation, we get self-professed "psychic" Mitchell Coombs claiming to be able to tell people things they already know about themselves and some stuff that can't yet be verified - to the absolute amazement of the hosts who display not one iota of scepticism about the performance.

But Coombs, of course, doesn't call himself an illusionist. He doesn't claim to just be tricking people or messing with their minds to make them think. Unlike Brown, Coombs claims to really, truly have paranormal abilities. He really can speak to dead people. Really. We know because he says so. For this reason, I assume, the hosts of the Morning Show give Coombs the benefit of the doubt - or, more correctly, no doubt whatsoever.

But here's the odd thing. Seven have happily broadcast doubts about Brown's prediction and implied the use of split screen technology. They even showed a Youtube video that offers a demonstration of this method. They've done this despite Brown saying that he used "the wisdom of the crowds", not split-screen trickery. They seem surprisingly sceptical of his pseudo-paranormal "deep maths" claims and have happily repeated widespread dissatisfaction with his explanation.

But there's also been a lot of discussion about how so-called "psychics" achieve their results (and Coombs was unusually accurate today) but Seven hosts don't laugh at their "psychics" or dismiss their claims out of hand. Even after presenting "The One" last year, Seven didn't grab all that edited footage off the cutting room floor and do an exposé of just how bad the contestants really were. They had the perfect opportunity to educate their audience by simply showing them the truth and letting them decide for themselves whether the footage they were never shown amounted to psychic abilities - or not.

Why the different treatment? Is it because Brown is known for debunking psychics? Is there a need to undermine his credibility because he sometimes reveals secrets of the psychic industry? Who knows? I don't.

This week's Weekend Sunrise (Seven, Sunday 7am) will feature tonight's Derren Brown Event in which he claims he will hypnotise the (UK) nation. I wonder what approach the hosts will take this time?

When Brown's 4-part Events series is over, he plans a series on The Science of Scams...

Each episode of Science of Scams will feature a hoax film that appears to show unexplained activity such as ghosts, chi energy or telekinesis.

Podblack hits nail on head! Whack!

In a recent blog article Kylie, of Podblack Cat fame, discusses the trials and tribulations of being a non-drinker - specifically, an Australian (or is that un-Australian) non-drinker - of alcohol (I'm not a big fan of the term "non-drinker" since I think we'd be dead if we didn't drink - something! But that's a distraction here so ignore it for now, please.)

Thanks Kylie. I think I have mentioned once on your blog that, as a teetotaller, I find the concept of "Skeptics in the Pub" just a little off-putting. Actually, I probably said that even if there was a such a group meeting held anywhere near me (there are no sceptic meetings held anywhere near me), I would be unlikely to attend.

Unlike Kylie, I have never felt compelled to pretend to be one of the crowd. I have always had a streak of what some might call "arrogance" that has enabled me to resist being peer pressured into doing something I simply do not want to do. Drinking and smoking top that list. I've tasted alcohol. As kids we'd down a little brandy in Coke^TM or something for new year's eve (with parents present). As a teenager I'd have an occasional shandy which consisted almost entirely of lemonade and just a whiff of beer. That's about it. Since the age of somewhere around 19 I haven't had alcohol pass my lips.

This comes with it's share of problems in a society where drinking alcohol is taken for granted. I've won raffles where first prize is a bottle or two of wine. Sometimes I just take it and figure I'll give it away at some point but if I elect to take second prize instead (if it isn't also wine, as it often is) I'll likely get strange looks. People are often intrigued to know "why" I don't drink. That's how bizarre it really is - it must be questioned. The answer must surely be fascinating. It isn't. I just don't want to.

Also, as Podblack also notes, some functions simply don't cater for non-drinkers at all, offering nothing but alcoholic beverages. If you're lucky, there's one bottle of orange juice buried among the case-loads of alcoholic abundance. If you're really lucky, it won't already be empty when you find it.

Podblack also tells of the awkwardness of not "charging a glass" of champagne in a celebratory toast. I've used Coke^TM, orange juice, lemonade, water and even an empty glass in such situations - including my own wedding. If anyone had a problem with that, it was their problem not mine - which is not to suggest that such moments lack awkwardness. I am entirely familiar with much of what Podblack has written about, except for the bits that apply to women (If someone accused me of being anti-feminist, I might just thank them. But again, that's another story, let's not get distracted.)

It's true that pressure is applied to non-drinkers to conform but I guess I've always felt that each additional attempt to convince me of the need to join the mob was just a further indication of the other person's insecurities. I don't mind an argument, especially one about wills, and while I'd just as soon avoid them, this is where my self-assuredness, or arrogance if you like, kicks in and I feel in a slightly superior position. It's not comfortable by any stretch, but I will hold my ground and allow my sarcastic streak to deal with the situation.

I recall once, in my early twenties (I'm now somewhere around 50), being among a group of mainly "blokes", all drinking except for me. I was quite happily engaged in the jovial conversation (most were sober, non were yet paralytic) and had no problem with others imbibing. We were at a camp ground so no one was driving home afterward. But one guy suddenly decided it was his responsibility to break me in. He insisted I take one of his beers. I declined. He handed me a stubby and repeated his insistence. I declined and put the bottle down.

After this was repeated a few times he took the top of the bottle, shoved it back at me and dictated, "there, now you have to drink it". I held the bottle and slowly tilted it, right before his eyes, until the contents began to empty onto the ground. Suddenly sharing his beer didn't seem like such a good idea and he retrieved it so as to ensure the sacred elixir wasn't wasted.

Apparently it matters where the contents are poured. Down the gullet of an unappreciative non-drinker is okay, onto the lawn, not so okay. Thinking back, I should have spat in the bottle - oh the fun we could have had then!

Others in more day-to-day situations seem compelled to play the patronisation card. When I tell them I don't drink, they'll usually first scoff (I'm an Aussie bloke, I must be lying.) then say something like "Wow, that's really cool, I wish I could do that". I usually struggle not to respond "no, you don't". It's patronising. I don't drink alcohol because I don't want to. I'm not a reformed alcoholic, I don't have diabetes or heart disease - I actually, surprisingly apparently, choose not to drink alcohol. I don't need the congratulations or adulation of someone who does drink it to make me feel better about my choice.

As for buying rounds at the pub - don't get me started on that ritual which was obviously invented by brewers intent on maximising sales of their product. If I understand the rules correctly, you must consume the equivalent of at least one glass of alcohol for every member in the group, regardless of numbers. If you don't swallow that number of drinks, then there are two possible problems - either you're an anti-social piker who's too damned weak to hold their liquor - OR, even more damning, someone didn't shout for their round!

What has this to do with scepticism you ask? Everything, I answer. Not just because of a tendency for sceptics to hold their meetings around a jug or two of lager but because of the sociological underpinnings of the apparent "need" to consume. From the finest wines (spoken in the clearest of Queen's English with one pinky raised) to home brew draught (spoken with your best ocker accent and your jeans hanging 'round yer arse, mate), the world of alcohol is filled with ritualistic behaviours. I have often considered it to be akin to religion as it harbours many of the affirmations and resentments of partakers and abstainers respectively that various religious denominations exhibit.

It's not just accepted in the wider community, it's damned-near compulsory - but not quite, yet.

More on Derren Brown's Lotto Prediction

Just found this



Lots more at The Drill Down.

And here's the original Channel 4 promotional video for the series...



There's a lot of interesting stuff in there. While it's clear most of it is played in reverse, including the audio, there is a car driving forwards in the background, some people are walking forwards and the "helium" balloon rises when the girl lets go. Obviously a lot of camera trickery going on. Was Brown even there on that busy street? Does any of it exist at all? Is the whole thing the result of some convoluted special effects? Was this intended as a clue to the underlying theme of the series? Who knows? If so, I think a split screen is an even bigger let down.

Regardless, I find the "wisdom of the crowds" theory to be very disappointing and tantamount to claiming it was a genuine psychic performance. Plenty of people will believe it - possibly enough to make it worth exploiting for profit.

The wisdom of Derren Brown

So, how exactly did Derren Brown "predict" the UK Lotto numbers last week?

We know for certain that he did not reveal his prediction until after the Lotto draw had finished. Claims that this was for legal reasons are simple misdirection. He wasn't showing the drawn numbers, he was showing a prediction. Anyone can do that. I've done it on this blog and I'm sure I could do the same if I were in the UK. And besides, we know he's an illusionist - he doesn't claim to have paranormal powers.

This misdirection is enough to invoke Occam's Razor - which in short tells us "the simplest explanation is often the best". Therefore, we can safely assume the prediction was actually a postdiction - as we'd expect from an illusionist. The next question is how this was achieved with the balls in full view throughout the draw? Here suggestions are plenty with some, involving combinations of photo-chemical films and laser technology, verging on the unnecessarily complex. But the majority seem to be leaning toward simple camera trickery and there is some evidence the support this theory.

Brown claims to have spent a year conjuring up this event. During that time, he would have foreseen (not psychically) the obvious assumption of camera trickery and, if this were not the method, he could easily have ensured that such a conclusion was discounted by, for one simple example, having his moving shadow cast behind the balls - or anything moving across both halves of the screen throughout the draw. He didn't.

Being in Australia, I have not seen the Friday night show in which Brown supposedly revealed the secret behind the trick. I have however read that he apparently claimed to have used the "wisdom of the crowds". This phenomenon is explained on The Events website and from that explanation, it should be clear that it is a useless tool for predicting lottery draws.

Brown claims he asked 24 people to choose Lotto numbers and then "averaged" those selections to come up with the six winning numbers. In reality, he could have asked a million people to offer selections and he'd still end up with six numbers that would have no greater chance of winning than any other six numbers. It does not matter how you select your numbers - birthdays, favourite numbers, numerology, psychics, arithmetic, statistics, guessing, "guaranteed-to-win" systems, darts, random number generators, whatever - every 6-number combination has exactly the same chance as every other 6-number combination.

The obvious problem with using the wisdom of the crowds to choose lotto numbers is that no one in the crowd has any better insight into future combinations than anyone else. There is no collective wisdom, as such, when it comes to choosing lottery numbers. All members of "the crowd" are essentially as witless as each other.

If Brown, a recognised and oft-lauded sceptic, believes the wisdom of the crowds can be employed to predict lottery numbers - and in the right order - then he has no basis for not believing in psychics, numerologists and astrologers. If he wants viewers to believe he can predict a lottery draw using deep maths, then James Randi has a million dollars just waiting for him to claim by proving it.

The phrase "jumping the shark" has long been used to describe the point at which TV shows become absurd. Will people, in future, refer to the day their favourite entertainer "predicted the lottery"?

Having not seen the show, I cannot be certain as to how hard Brown sold this explanation. There is some suggestion he ended the reveal show by reminding viewers it's all just a trick. I'd hope no one does take him seriously enough to actually put his idea into practice in the hope of winning Lotto. That would be no better than being conned by psychics who claim various ways of making similar predictions. A lie is still a lie, even if it's presented in an entertaining manner.

So, we can be sure Brown did not use the wisdom of the crowds to perform his feat. No surprises there - I predicted as much in my first article on the Derren Brown Lotto event. He has a reputation for inventing convoluted explanations for his trickery whilst reminding people he has no paranormal powers. He's an illusionist.

So, how was it really done? I have to agree with Deetee on the JREF forums - if the wisdom of the crowds has any validity in this event, it is in the general consensus that the successful performance required nothing more complicated than a simple freeze-frame with split-screen. In other words, TV special effects. Not really magic or illusion in the usual sense, and extremely disapointing to fans who were hoping to be amazed, but if the sole intent was to deliver Channel 4 an audience, there's little doubt it was successful. Interest was so high that Brown's blog crashed and has now had to be moved to a new host in the hope of handling larger volumes of traffic in the future.

But if disappointment among Brown's fans gains momentum, large volumes of traffic might not be an issue Brown has to worry about for too long. I love a good magic trick - and I enjoy seeing the trick explained in a plausible way then re-performed in a manner that immediately dismisses the explanation. Penn and Teller do this from time to time. It's astonishing, it's frustrating - it's entertainment. Split screen illusions were a pretty neat idea when Patty Duke played identical cousins Patty and Cathy Lane in the 1960's - but in 2009?

Of course, Brown could still "pull a rabbit out of the hat" by releasing footage from the otherwise redundant second camera employed on Lotto night, and show the entire draw from a different angle in such a way as to eliminate split-screen speculation. I, for one, hope he does. Or maybe he's eventually going to admit to special effects and chastise those who still refuse to believe he has no special powers. I live in hope.

Methods more plausible than "wisdom of the crowds" include:

• Laser etching
• Gimmicked balls
• Mini-printer in stand
• Trained ants forming numbers
• A long stick with adhesive numbers poked through the rear wall
• Invisible aliens
• Rigging the UK lottery
• Asking Sylvia Browne to predict the outcome
• Numerology
• Camera trickery
• Moving faster than the camera can register
• Almost any ridiculous idea you can imagine
  

MORE:

Would an internationally-recognised illusionist stoop to using camera trickery to create an illusion? Apparently it does happen.

The Reveal show was live-blogged by The Guardian. Scroll down for reader comments

Derren Brown wins UK Lottery!!!

Master mentalist Derren Brown probably gets the same emails we all get, telling him he's won the UK lottery despite not having entered it. But this isn't about those emails.

Last night, live on UK TV, Brown successfully predicted all six numbers in the UK Lotto draw. Did he use psychic powers? Of course not. Nor would he claim to, I'd hope.

Brown does, however, have a tendency to explain some of his extraordinary abilities in terms of mind tricks, such as planting words in people's minds so as to subliminally force them to think exactly what he predicts they will think. It's very doubtful he really does this, it's just part of his act. There's little value in stage magic or mentalism if you really do expose how you do everything.

Penn and Teller have been known to show how they perform some tricks and will generally give an explanation you could probably find in book of magic at your local library, or on wikipedia. Having done that, they'll usually re-perform the trick but set up in such a way as to eliminate the tricks embodied in the previous explanation. In the end, the exposition acts as part of the misdirection for the subsequent performance. It's amazing stuff and takes skill and expertise to pull it off. Knowing it's a trick makes it no less amazing.

Similarly, last night's Lotto prediction was a trick. Brown had selected some numbered ping pong balls and placed them in a tray. These, we are told, are his predicted numbers. The first major hint of trickery, other than the fact he never claimed to really be able to do this, was Brown's refusal to show us his selected numbers before the Lotto draw had concluded. Viewers only see his selection after the draw has concluded and after he's then copied each number onto a piece of cardboard, for comparison. The stand holding the selected numbers remains in view the whole time, and Brown stands away from it, with a TV showing the live broadcast of the draw at centre screen. He moves behind, but never in front, of the prediction stand before spinning it around to reveal the numbers.

Brown says that tomorrow night he'll tell us all how he got the six numbers right - but we shouldn't expect him to tell us the truth unless he feels the correct method has already been so widely revealed in blogs and forum discussions that to make up a different story would be futile. But there's a good chance he'll assume the vast majority of viewers will not go looking for alternative explanations - the whole basis of his repertoire is the willful gullibility of viewers - so he can use an explanation that sounds feasible but just a little fantastic, without really giving the secret away. He might even have an explanation that defies those given away on the internet.

Having reviewed a good quality copy of the event, and read several opinions on how the trick was done, I've settled on the most obvious method. I'll openly admit I probably wouldn't have come to this conclusion if others hadn't suggested it and demonstrated their reasoning and I'll also say that given my background experience (hobby, not pro) I should have assumed this method without having to read other people's views. But I wouldn't want this to be the method - I'd want something rather more skillful - we are so easily fooled when we choose to ignore the obvious.

I won't elaborate here on the proposed method. If you just have to know the alternatives, search like I did.

You can find a video copy of the event on Brown's blog, if it doesn't crash again.


UPDATE:

Astonishingly, after a promo announcing that "a psychic" had successfully predicted the numbers, Channel Seven's Today Tonight actually offered suggestions on how the trick might have been performed, including the very likely "split screen" option I favour (and for the same reason). Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time before TT have their next "amazing psychic" story on.

Psychic Lottery Numbers

Channel Seven's Today Tonight ran another "psychic lottery numbers" story this evening. This was was a little different to the credulous nonsense we've come to expect from Channel Seven programs.

Not different enough, but a little different.

Firstly it was different because the opening comment, in Perth at least, was that "anyone with common sense will tell you..." that lottery numbers cannot be predicted. We are then introduced for the first time to the man who we are told "already knew he'd picked the right numbers".

The basis of tonight's story was a promise by mentalist Derren Brown to reveal lottery numbers, on Channel 4 (UK), ten minutes before they're drawn, as seen on BBC1.

Unfortunately, TT couldn't resist spicing the segment up with the "real" psychic lotto story of the guy who uncannily predicted he'd won the lottery after hearing on the radio that Lotteries were trying to contact the winner, then finding a message from the Lotteries Commission on his answering machine when he got home. Apparently he returned the call and asked immediately "I haven't won two million in lotto have I?" Everyone involved, including the TT reporter, were apparently amazed at his omniscience.

Yep, that's psychic for sure. Psychics always ask questions about things they might reasonably have a suspicion. Why he didn't claim his prize immediately after the draw is one of those inconvenient questions that must remain unasked as the answer would tend to completely screw up the intriguingly mysterious tale of paranormal foresight.

TT say Brown is "betting everything" that he "can pick the right numbers" and they have a maths expert remind us of the odds against him guessing six numbers correctly. But these odds don't apply to Derren Brown in these circumstances.

Even if we have no idea how he does what he does, anyone familiar with Brown knows he's risking nothing. We know there's no risk because he openly admits it's all a con - or "misdirection" as he calls it.

So, how will he do it? Who knows. We'd at least need to witness the event in order to even hope to deconstruct it. And do we need to know? I can't wait for the Sunrise coverage of the event - lot's of "ooohs" and "aaahs" and "amaazing" and maybe a resident psychic to assess it - assuming they cover it at all. Anti-psychic stories aren't high on the Seven agenda.

Apparently Brown has promised to expose the trick on Friday. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if his explanation leaves open more questions than it answers.

UPDATE:

Some Youtubes of the prediction are turning up in the JREF forum discussion of the event, plus some discussion of possible methods.

MORE:
Derren Brown EVENTS at Channel 4
Derren Brown's blog (running slowly at the moment)

Hulda Clark dead?

Reports are coming in of the passing of Hulda Clark, a woman who insisted all cancer is caused by the Human Liver Fluke and that the best treatment for this was a special herbal recipe and being "zapped" with her Zapper.

I mentioned Clark for the first time on my blog just a few days ago in my first article on amazing natural cancer cures.

You can read more about "Dr" Hulda Clark and her bizarre cancer treatments at Quackwatch.

Samoan drivers get right with God

Samoa has decided to join what's left of the right-thinking world and swap to driving from the right to the left side of the road, as we do in Australia and as they do in the UK and numerous other sensible places.

I've tried driving on the right-side of the road, it's deadly!!! Almost had a head-on! How anyone ever decided that driving on the right was right is beyond me - the right side is clearly the wrong side and the left is obviously right.

Oh, and don't get me wrong, they won't be driving from the right-side to the left-side and back again, like some people do after a heavy Friday night on the turps - I mean they will permanently drive on the left instead of the right as they did before. Well, most of them will.

Unfortunately, some Samoans are having difficulty seeing the brilliance of this switch (they'll be more like us and less like Americans*) and so have decided to take strong action...

Road carnage predicted as Samoans forced to drive on left overnight

Samoans are looking to God to help them survive a radical road rule change that sees their Pacific nation switch to driving on the left.

Okay, well that should help. God obviously wouldn't bother to keep drivers safe on the roads if people didn't go and plead with him to do so, would he? How would he even know he was needed if we didn't catch his attention with a few words, a couple of songs and a collection plate?

"People are starting to accept it and are going to church today to pray in the hope it's all going to be okay," said Keni Lesa, editor of the national newspaper Samoa Observer.

Traffic chaos and fatal accidents have been predicted. Presumably, if those predictions hold true it will be held up as evidence that God either doesn't exist, doesn't answer prayers or doesn't think driving on the left is such a good idea - or doesn't like Samoans or is of a different denomination or has a sod of a sense of humour.

In reality, if chaos ensues, people will probably say it would have been so much worse if God hadn't intervened. Praying really is a no-lose game.

The secretary of the biggest denomination, the CCCS Church in Samoa, said it had decided to "bless not just the church but the whole country at this vital time".

So they normally only ask God to look after the select few who attend the church? Great!

I wish they'd prayed for world peace and an end to global warming instead, but I guess local issues often take precedence and we can't really expect God to get involved in solving problems directly caused by stupid humans.

Why some humans think they have the ability to sway God's omnipotent mind has me as perplexed as why people try driving on the wrong right side of the road. Do they not think God capable of making decisions for himself?

The Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) issued a media release saying this compulsory change was obviously a conspiracy sponsored by the evil government on behalf of wealthy Samoan panel beaters and funeral directors.**

*Just kidding with the anti-American thing. I love you guys really, even if you do drive on the wrong side of the road and spell things wrong.

**Just kidding with the AVN thing too - sarcasm, you know? I don't think the AVN have commented on the situation. But if they had...

Whooping Cough natural immunity?

While discussing Whooping Cough on Channel Nine's Sunday Night program earlier this year, Meryl Dorey, president of the Australian Vaccination Network, claimed that “You didn’t die from it 30 years ago and you’re not going to die from it today”

Earlier this week, ABC TV's 7:30 Report revisited the issue of Whooping Cough in Australia...

Three babies have died from whooping cough this year and close to nineteen thousand cases have been reported. Doctors now fear figures could worsen if parents decide not to immunise their children. However, the Australian Vaccination Network say the inoculations are dangerous.

What did Dorey say again...?

You didn’t die from it 30 years ago and you’re not going to die from it today”

The ABC revisited the question yet again in today's news...

Government figures show there's been a sharp rise in the number of reported cases across the country and two recent deaths from the disease in Western Australia.

Natural immunity is a bugger of a gamble. Babies did die from Whooping Cough 30 years ago, and babies are beginning, again, to die from it today.

In an article titled "Pertussis - The Fear Factor", Dorey tries to use analogy to demonise vaccinations as little more than a product-for-profit which uses a fear-based advertising campaign to ensure success of a product that wouldn't sell without such fear.

"What many people don?t realise is vaccines are actually products. Like cars, refrigerators and breakfast cereal, vaccines are made by companies (multi-national pharmaceuticals) as a money-making venture. Drug companies don?t produce drugs and vaccines because they want to make people healthy. They make them for one reason only to make a profit for their board and their shareholders end of story."

I wouldn't dispute this (well, except the bit about people not realising vaccines are products. What?). Just as banks aren't really there to help us with saving money, just as newspapers aren't really there to honestly report news, just as insurance companies don't really want us to be looked after in times of need. They are all in it for the money and to get that money, they offer a service people want for various reasons. That's business, plain and simple. Nothing new there.

Does operating as a profit-oriented business necessarily make pharmaceutical companies evil? Does the fact they make money from vaccines necessarily prove that they have to elevate fear in order to ensure future sales?

Maybe. But, if we take this for granted, then we must also assume parachutes aren't really needed for jumping out of planes since companies that manufacture parachutes do it for profit, not out of an altruistic concern for our safety. Looking closer to Dorey, a strong supporter of alternative medicine, I find myself asking if we can trust homeopathy? Does Dorey realise that homeopathic "remedies" are actually products like refrigerators, cars and cereal? These products, like pharmaceuticals, are made by multi-national corporations as money making ventures. Companies like Boiron, which manufactures one of the most popular homeopathic flu "remedies", consisting entirely of sugar, surely don't produce these miracle sugar tablets for the benefit of humanity...

Boiron is a manufacturer of homeopathic products, headquartered in France and with an operating presence in 59 countries worldwide. It is the largest manufacturer of homeopathic products in the world, and in 2005, was the second largest manufacturer of over the counter medicine in France. In 2004, it employed a workforce of 2,779 and had a turnover of € 313 million. It is currently a member of the CAC Small 90 stock index.

In June 2005, the firm acquired Dolisos Laboratories, then the world's second largest manufacturer of homeopathic preparations. [wikipedia]

Does Dorey trust Boiron despite the fact they make a lot of money selling products and are clearly players in the corporate marketplace? If not, can I please see her article condemning Oscillococcinum? Does she think Dr Isaac Golden should be stopped from promoting homeoprophylaxis for Swine Flu? After all, you would only need homeopathic immunisation if you fear catching the dreaded lurgy, wouldn't you? Is this not fear-based marketing? Even the corner homeopath charges for her services doesn't she? Is she also not to be trusted?

Cam supporters regularly remind us that homeopathy is the second-largest system of medicine in the world. I'm pretty certain that's a market where there's a dollar to be made - even by lying to people. Fear sells after all, doesn't it Meryl?

But seriously, Dorey's Fear Factor article fails from the outset. She complains about the use of fear to market a product then embarks on a fear campaign warning of the dangers of vaccination from toxins to side-effects - all the while wanting readers to buy her arguments.

I have no idea if Dorey's facts and figures in that article are correct but I am reminded that she also posted links on the AVN blog to a conspiracy article written by David Icke, a man who insists the world's leaders are really reptilian overlords who are trying to co-opt us into some sort of cosmic slavery - or something like that. Icke also apparently believes vaccination is a big part of that conspiracy. Since Dorey linked to his article without any dissenting or mocking commentary, I have to assume she thought it worthy of promotion. I took it that she agreed with Icke about vaccinations being used to interntionally kill large numbers of us and micro-chip the rest.

Frankly, with that sort of nonsense on the anti-vaccination side, I'll gladly ignore Dorey's "facts and figures" and lean my trust toward those evil profit-making pharmaceutical companies who might talk about the risks of disease but who don't threaten me with fear-mongering stories of an alien-based armageddon.

If marketing with fear is the sign of a bad product, then the AVN have a serious problem and I suggest they find a new marketing strategy since the current one is about as fear-based as a strategy gets.


I am not a doctor or health professional, though I have worked in marketing. I'm just a blogger with an opinion on things. If you need or want health advice, see a doctor - preferably a real doctor who has some grounding in science and reality.

A better CANCER CURE!

I can't leave this alone. If it wasn't so serious and costing people's lives (not to mention money) it would be hilarious.

I wrote yesterday about the way in which alternative health (CAM) supporters seem completely blind to significant irregularities in the things they promote. I used "natural cancer cures" as an example with many very-different causes and cures all happily promoted as genuine, with many having been openly dismissed as quackery by mainstream practitioners.

The philosophy seems to be that if it isn't a part of mainstream (western/real/genuine/conventional) medicine, then it must be better than anything mainstream medicine has to offer, especially if it can somehow be labelled "natural". If a conspiracy of silence can be built around it, then it's supposed efficacy increases still further.

Well today my point was proven beyond even my own expectations when I discovered yet another website selling the secret to secret cancer cures the government and pharmaceutical companies and real doctors don't want you to know about because they can't get rich from them...

The site offers a book of ten natural cancer remedies THAT WORK but which the US medical establishment "doesn't want you to know about" (my bolding)....

• Cure #1 uses hyperthermia and claims an 80 percent remission rate. According to the site "There is no other treatment modality known with such a high remission rate."
  
  
• Cure #2 uses an extract from a "rare" plant (the picture is of a Venus Flytrap). This one claims a 98% chance of beating cancer. This makes the promoters of Cure #1 bloody liars.
  
  
• Cure #3 isn't even a cure (remedy).
  
  
• Cure #4 uses a 9-volt battery. "The Chinese conducted a study on 4,000 cancer patients and found that more than eight out of ten - more than 80% - experienced partial or total remission." Once again we see that the claims made for Cure #1 are balderdash. This one has a BETTER than 80% success rate. The site also claims "It's completely harmless" but check out the disclaimer near the end of this article.
  
  
• Cure #5 isn't even a cure (remedy).
  
  
• Cure #6 uses "magic mushroom powder" (I'm sure it's not that kind of magic mushroom - but then...) which is weird because we know from my last article that cancer is actually a fungus and needs treating with fungicide. This one makes no claims of efficacy except that it obviously works or it wouldn't be listed.
  
  
• Cure #7 "Induced Remission Therapy" is supposedly from an Aussie doc and "He says his treatment reverses cancer in better than nine out of ten patients." Again Cure #1 is shown to be a lie and #4 and #6 seem a bit redundant really.
  
  
• Cure #8 uses poly-MVA to fix your wonky DNA. Again we just have a couple of stories claiming it works - nothing compared to the thousands cured by Cures #1, #2, #4 and #7. Why is it even listed here if it doesn't come with at least an 80% guarantee?
  
  
• Cure #9 uses Essiac, a herbal tea. No claims to efficacy but, of course, it works and the government hate it for that. Why it's listed here is anyone's guess since there's no cancer left to cure after you've used any of the above remedies THAT WORK.
  
  
• Cure #10 is our old friend Gerson - diet and detoxification. Not Essiac, not a 9-volt battery, not "Induced Remission", not poly-MVA to fix your DNA, not magic mushrooms, not Venus Flytrap extract, not hyperthermia. No, it's none of those, it's detox and diet. All the others must surely be lies mustn't they?

Almost every one of these "secrets" proffers a different cause and different cure for cancer yet each one is claimed to be the most amazing secret the government refuses to tell you about. And these competing claims aren't spread across the internet on competing websites like those in my earlier article. No! These are all gathered together for your own conflicting convenience on one website and in one book written by one person.

Since a number of the cures claim better than 80% (up to 98%) efficacy, one wonders why you'd bother including the rest in a book except to confuse the cancer patient. Surely two of the best would suffice, just to offer a choice.

To make matters worse, Cure #1, hyperthermia, is re-promoted on the pages of almost every other cure - as if the claims for those other cures might not really be accurate and you'll still need something to cure your cancer after all. Hell, if I can't get my hands on a "rare" Venus Flytrap like the ones they sell at the local nursery, I'll just go with the 9-volt battery or IRT and not waste my time on something that's only 80% effective. Pfft!

Mainstream medicine might not be perfect, but this alternative nonsense is beyond a joke. I'll say again that it seems anything and everything is considered a legitimate medical theory or cure as long as western governments and science oppose it.

Hardly the basis for a system of medicine.


The book is titled "Natural Cancer Remedies THAT WORK", not "THAT MIGHT WORK", and not "THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK WORK". It says remedies THAT WORK yet the bottom of every page carries the following statement (my bolding)...

Anyone with cancer, especially late-stage cancer, faces a serious challenge no matter what treatment he or she seeks, conventional or alternative. NO treatment is guaranteed to succeed, and the results of any treatment may vary from one patient to the next. There is always some risk involved, and the authors and publishers of this website and the reports it describes are not responsible for any adverse consequences resulting from the use of any treatment or preparation described.

The publishers and authors are journalists, not medical practitioners. They believe the information presented herein is accurate but they cannot guarantee its accuracy. Nothing in this website is intended to be personal medical advice for any particular individual. Do not undertake any type of medical treatment without the advice of a qualified health care professional.

What's especially weird here is not so much the disclaimer, which is weird enough considering the book title, but the fact that the supposed author of the book is one Morton Walker, D.P.M. and he describes himself, on the same site, thusly (my bolding)...

"My name is Morton Walker. I'm a doctor of podiatric medicine and I treated patients for 17 years.

I really shouldn't be surprised at the conflicting message I suppose - but then, maybe he's not involved in the website that exists solely to promote his book. Who knows? Focused Web, whose copyright is on the site, are web designers - but the disclaimer says "the publishers and authors are journalists...". It's all so confusing. I think I'll have a cup of tea - it has anti-oxidants you know - and they cure cancer! I know because I read it somewhere so it must be true.


NOTE: I'm not a doctor, so you shouldn't trust me - but then, unlike the author(s) of that site or book, I'm not trying to sell you a book full of secret cancer cures "THAT WORK". And I don't slag off against doctors on every page I write then tell people they should trust their doctor's advice anyway. I'll just advise you, if you need medical advice, to go and see a doctor, or two or three doctors if you must, and don't buy your advice off a website that thinks everything doctors say or do is a conspiracy designed to kill you.

The ultimate CANCER CURE!

Following the story of young Tamar Stitt, whose mother has taken her out of Australia so as to avoid forced chemotherapy for her stomach and liver cancer in preference for "natural therapy", I've been trying to find out what natural therapy the family might be using. Tamar is from Perth and, as a West Australian, I'm interested to know what's being pushed around our capital city.

I've read the court transcript but it only refers to "alternative remedies" and "natural remedies". A story in today's West Australian says that the treatment is being administered by the mother and mother-in-law. My reading so far leads me to either Laetrile (Apricot Kernels) or Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda), neither of which is likely to have any beneficial effect by all scientific accounts (website anecdotes notwithstanding).

In doing that research, if you can call it that, it became increasingly apparent just how bizarre the alt-med world can be. Supporters of CAM often claim that their cures remain alternative due to financial and political pressures imposed by big pharmaceutical companies and self-interested mainstream doctors and institutions. Theoretically, we are kept in the dark about the true nature of disease and cure because there's a lot of money to be lost if we ever find out the truth.

Interestingly too, CAM supporters seem to be so "open-minded" that almost any non-pharmaceutical or non-surgical technique is considered valid, especially if scientists have spoken out against it. So chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture and even reiki are all considered genuinely useful alternative approaches to better health, even if they use different diagnostic paradigms and different treatments for identical problems.

But things get really bizarre when we look at cancer cures and I started to wonder, if there's a conspiracy against the truth, then how do CAM supporters work out which cancer cure is right?

Hulda Clark, insists that all cancer is caused by a single parasite, the human intestinal fluke. Cancer is CURED (she uses capitals, so I will too) with herbal recipes and her Zapper. [update: not long after I wrote this, Hulda Clark died - of cancer]

Tullio Simonici apparently believes that because fungi are white and tumors are white that all cancer is caused by fungus, specifically candida, and can be treated with injections of sodium bicarbonate into the tumor.

They can't both be right.

Then there's Laetrile (vitamin B17, apricot kernels). It's not really a vitamin, by the way, but according to James Howenstine, laetrile breaks down into cyanide in cancer cells, killing them, but not in normal cells which are protected by the enzyme rhodanese. No mention of fungi or parasites here.

They can't all be right.

The Gerson Institute say it's all about the toxins we eat, drink and breathe and that the best cure is to pour their super juice concoction in the top end of your body whilst they pump coffee up the other end. I like coffee and juice but suddenly cyanide seems like a pretty good option.

Again, some of these causes and treatments must be wrong - and I could easily continue the list since we haven't even looked at homeopathy, chiropractic, reiki, acupuncture, crystal healing or God yet and they all rely on different theories and different treatments for the very same cancers. In fact, there are as many alternative "causes" for all cancer as there are alternative "treatments".

It seems to me that IF we should know that the government and pharmaceutical companies are lying about the cause and potential treatments for cancer because they disagree with CAM practitioners about those things, then all but one of the above must also be in on the racket. Some of them must be liars - co-conspirators working to keep the real truth about cancer a secret.

If Gerson is right about toxins, fruit juice and enemas, then why aren't the CAM lobby shouting down Clark and Simonici, who must surely be making up their stories about causes and cures just to confuse us? If Simonici is right that it's about fungi and baking soda, then why aren't homeopaths and apricot kernel retailers being attacked by the CAM lobby for lying to cancer patients?

Don't the CAM lobby care about cancer patients hearing the truth? Or is it all just about selling books, potions and vitamin pills as one might assume if one visits enough CAM-support websites?