Rachael Dunlop over the line!

In a major win for scepticism, science, reason, rationality, common sense, critical thinking, humour, love, passion, happiness, joy, mirth, community, society, derring-do, bravery and every other virtue that can be attributed to just one person, Dr Rachael Dunlop has taken first place in the Twitter Shorty Award for Health.

Okay, so I overstated the case just a little. It's just a poll of people who use Twitter for people who use Twitter. In the larger scheme of things it's basically irrelevant - and I think Rachael would agree.

But some people saw it as perhaps the single most important issue facing humanity today.

Last week alternative-health guru Mike Adams blew a fuse after he was disqualified from the poll due to too many of his supporters casting invalid votes. Adams labelled the poll fraudulent, said he didn't care about it anyway then threatened to sue to organisers.

The invalid votes were brought to the organisers' attentions by some sceptics who noticed a lot of the accounts had been created solely to cast a vote for Adams. This was expicitly against the rules. Meanwhile word spread throughout online science and sceptic communities to cast a vote for Rachael. In response to all this, Adams launched into an irrational diatribe against his own mythical version of what sceptics believe.

Dr Joseph Mercola, another alt-med guru, was also in the running and, like Adams, took exception to the very idea that someone who promotes an evidence-based approach to medicine could possibly take the lead in a poll on health. He also said he didn't care about the poll but added that Dr Rachie was overweight and "Big Pharma's wet dream". After being berated on his own Facebook page for his insensitivity, he almost came close to nearly apologising.

Dr Mercola repeated his disinterest in the poll then launched into a ceaseless campaign pleading with his Facebook and Twitter followers to vote for him anyway - and to get their friends and relatives to vote too. But he didn't really care. But "vote for me, please, please, pretty please with Vitamin C on top". (I paraphrased that comment. He didn't really write that.)

Throughout all this, Rachael was virtually invisible. All that was to be seen from her were a few thanks on her Twitter feed and a couple of comments on other blogger's sites expressing her incredulity that opponents were voting FOR her but with sarcastically negative reasons (from Respectful Insolence)...

This one just came in.

"I nominate DrRachie for a Shorty Award in #health because... She;s part of a scam"

This is a vote for me.

Facepalm.

No one said they were smart Rachie.

So anyway, two days ago I checked the leaderboard and was surprised to see that overnight Mercola had gained an additional 1500 or so votes, putting him more than 1000 votes in front of Dunlop. His votes had been increasing by just 100-200 a day prior to this. I shrugged and thought to myself, "it figures". Mercola had campaigned hard, Dunlop had barely campaigned, if at all.

Dr Dunlop herself, however, was less than impressed. In a clear state of rage, the cell biologist hurled abuse at the alt-med fans who had put popularity ahead of reality. Describing Mercola as "a balding old man with brains that can be measured in homeopathic quantities", she wrote a damning, acerbic rant that painted all alt-med users as "sheepish sluts". Taking her lead from Adams, she went on to threaten lawsuits against Twitter, Mercola, Adams, identifiable followers of their websites and those people who cast invalid votes for her. "I can't believe the stupidity of people who wasted their valuable votes by not putting a reason in the space where it said 'reason'. Those idiots cost me my moment of international glory. They'll be hearing from my lawyers.."

Of course, she didn't really write any of that - I just made it all up.

Unlike Adams and Mercola, as of today Dunlop hasn't so much as mentioned the Shorty Awards on her Skeptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh blog. The alt-med crew could learn a lot from her - and not just in matters of evidence-based medicine.

When I checked the leaderboard again yesterday, virtually all of Mercola's extra votes seemed to have been trashed and Dunlop was back in front by 200-300 votes.

In response, Mercola posted yet another plea on his Facebook page urging his "64,000 followers" to put him in the lead in a poll he doesn't really care about at all.

We have over 64,000 fans on this page. Surely we can beat them. All we need is a 200 votes [sic] to defeat them.

"Surely we can beat them". He's a desperate man but his positive energy was wasted. The angels didn't answer his prayers, his planets didn't align, his qi has been found wanting and his crystal collection demonstrated what a real waste of money it was.

The poll closed today and Dunlop has held first place.

On her own page, Dunlop posted a comment with the words "UP YOURS!" in giant red letters! No, of course she didn't - I made that up too. Try to keep up. All I can find from her is a simple "thanks" on her Twitter page.

Mercola shouldn't be too disheartened though. He thrashed Dr Rachie by tripling her vote-count in another Twitter poll.

Despite the incredible vitriol, abuse and hard campaigning from the alt-med crew, final position in the poll means very little beyond short-term bragging rights (in a poll that means very little in the first place). As I understand it, the first six places in every category go into another poll and it is this poll that determines the ultimate winners. Look for some major gasket blowouts in the alt-med community when the real poll begins. Expect leaflet drops, TV adverts and late-night phone calls. It's THAT important this poll that no one, supposedly, cares about.

Once again I've tried to come up with a cartoon for this article but reality is just far too funny.

Firepower: a lesson in science and scepticism

The Firepower fuel pill was set to revolutionise the world. Hideous exhaust gases would be no more. Vehicles would be so efficient the oil crisis would be forgotten. Naturally Firepower was a monumental success enjoying massive financial support from all levels of society from mum and dad investors to billionaires to government agencies. Support flowed in from around the world and as a result fuel resellers adopted the amazing technology embodied in the pill, the Firepower inventors all won Nobel Prizes and we all drive super-efficient cars today with virtually no fuel bill.

Well, that would have happened if the fuel pill was anything more than a promise. In the real world money certainly did flow in from all corners, including massive support from the Australian government, but Firepower went belly up.

This sad tale of a promise with no product is a lesson in scepticism and what happens when belief usurps evidence. People believed. They wanted to believe. Ignoring any evidence that contradicted the fantastical claims made for the non-existent pill, they made themselves believe. The astonishing lack of research data in support of the claims did not phase them. Firepower was claimed to be amazing, therefore it was amazing. They didn't want to miss out on an opportunity that was literally too good to be true.

There was plenty of evidence that the Firepower pill, if it existed in any practical sense, couldn't deliver on the promises. Like all the miracle fuel savers that came before it (and plenty that continue to follow in its path), it couldn't work as advertised. It was like homeopathy for cars - all promise but no substance and an unwavering reliance on absolute belief.

From as far back as 2007, technology blogger Daniel Rutter banged his head against the wall as he witnessed gullible investors virtually lining up to toss their money into the Firepower pit - money they'd never see again. The company was put into liquidation in mid 2008 and the fallout continues today as the man behind the claims faces court.

Investigative journalist Gerard Ryle, who has also been onto this story since the early days, relives the entire sorry saga in the Sydney Morning Herald: Firepower boss on trial.

Perth suicide pact - today!

Around 20 people are expected to attempt suicide in Perth today.

Depressed at not being taken seriously by the media, pact members have decided to end it all. The event is their final one-fingered salute to an uncaring community who pays them no attention. Ironically, their deaths might be the one thing that finally gets them the attention they so deeply desire.

If anyone from the mainstream media wants to know more, the dead will no doubt make themselves available for interview after they've drawn their final breath.

Of course, I'm talking about the Perth 10:23 campaign, part of a worldwide event to demonstrate that homeopathic "remedies" have nothing in them.

Participants will each overdose on a selection of homeopathic pills and expect to suffer absolutely no effects - no side effects and no beneficial effects - because homeopathic pills contain nothing but sugar.

Hosted by well-known sceptic Kylie Sturgess of Podblack fame, the overdose meeting will begin at 4pm today, Saturday 30th January, 2010, at the Flying Scotsman, 639 Beaufort Street (Cnr Grosvenor Road), Mount Lawley. Find them in the Velvet Lounge.

I expect the overdose will commence around 6:23pm Perth time (10:23am GMT) but have not seen this confirmed so be there early.

As suicide attempts go, overdosing on homeopathy is likely to be somewhat less effective than holding your breath for a second - unless you choke on the pills.

At 10:23am GMT, more than 300 people are expected to do the same thing across the UK, where the 10:23 campaign had its genesis. They will focus their attention on Boots chemists as a result of Boots publicly admitting they only sell homeopathic products because they're popular, not because they think homeopathy works (Australian pharmacies appear to share this ideology where alternative "medicine" is concerned).

The odd time, 10:23am, was selected as a salute to the well established chemical principle that once a substance is diluted past 10²³, (that's a 1 with 23 zeroes after it) it is unlikely to contain a single molecule of the original substance. Popular homeopathic remedies are often noted as 30C dilution which equates to a 10⁶⁰ dilution. At this level of dilution, one would likely need universes of remedy (billions of trillions of gazillions of packets of pills) in order to find a single molecule of the ingerdient that is supposed to provide treatment.

Homeopathy? There's nothing in it.

More information on the Perth event can be found at the Perth Skeptics' Meetup site.

Canadians can get involved here.

WARNING: Some so-called homeopathic remedies erroneously contain active ingredients (these are not genuine homeopathic products). Overdosing on one of these could be dangerous. Repeating this exercise with genuine pharmaceutical sleeping pills would very likely prove fatal. It is only safe to overdose on homeopathic pills because they contain nothing but sugar, usually lactose and sucrose. Liquid remedies usually contain either distilled water, alcohol or a combination of both, but still contain no active ingredient.


MORE:

The Guardian: Homeopathy mass overdose outside Boots
NZ Skeptics press release: Homeopathy: Nothing in it

UPDATE:

Comments from participants have begun appearing on the Perth Skeptics' website - no reports of any fatal overdoses yet.

Photo via Podblack's Flickr gallery

No snake oil for Dragons!

The Dragon's Den is a Canadian show in which "entrepreneurs" pitch an idea to a group of rich people in the hope of attracting them to invest in their product.

Some guy called Bruce has discovered the one true cure for everything including nasal infections, viruses of every kind, "indegestion" and ... "prostrate" (which I think means you lie around the house a lot) - okay it doesn't cure bad spelling but he needs some backing to market it. Will he get what he came for?

Watch the video.



All I can say is "wow!"


via JREF

No fireworks for closet alcoholics

Crowd numbers at Perth's Australia Day Skyworks were down by a reported 50,000 apparently as a result of a total alcohol ban at the public event.

Tens of thousands of people stayed away from Perth's annual Australia Day celebrations tonight amid police warnings of an alcohol crackdown, prompting calls for a loosening of WA's public drinking laws.

Another West report says that at 3pm Kings Park and the foreshore were almost empty. I can remember when we used to get to Kings Park before midday in order to secure a front row seat for the spectacle. It seems we could have gone there at 5pm today and still got a good position. (We didn't go because we now live hours away from Perth).

Tonight's TV news showed live coverage from South Perth at 6pm and there was far more lawn than people visible. This, I think, is unprecedented since the event began in 1985.

There has been much talk recently about a drinking culture in Australia and it appears today's once-a-year event has probably highlighted just how important alcohol is to a large part of the community.

The crackdown was announced a few weeks ago, with the Police Commissioner saying even "quiet drinkers" would not be exempt from the application of long-existent laws that ban drinking in public places. The announcement drew the ire of talk-back radio listeners with one indignant woman caller insisting on ABC Radio that "It's not Australia Day if you can't drink!"

Of course, drinking wasn't really banned today. People were free to get fuelled up in hotels, at home or numerous other places where alcohol consumption isn't banned. So I guess it was still Australia Day after all, just not on the Perth foreshore or other public places where alcohol consumption is illegal.

Whether people agree with the law or not, it is illegal to drink alcohol in public places in WA. It might be stupid, just like the law that says I have to stop at the quiet and clear intersection down the road from my house, but it's the law and has long been the law. Police have tolerated "responsible drinking"* in the past but that tolerance was not as a result of any slackness in the law itself.

*From what I can work out, "responsible drinking" is defined by the person doing the drinking and could potentially include any consumption that doesn't end with blood being spilled.

What's sad is that thousands of kids might well have missed out on the fireworks tonight because their parents couldn't contemplate attending the event without alcohol. Imagine that conversation...

"Mum, why aren't we going to Skyworks? You said we'd be going and having a picnic. Why aren't we going now? It's Australia Day, we always go. Can I go with Aunty Jane instead?"

"We're not going because I'm not allowed to drink my wine and Dad isn't allowed drink his beers. Uncle Bob and Aunty Jane aren't going either because they like a drink too."

"Can't you just drink something else?"

"Don't be silly. Now go and play your computer game or help Dad stock the bar fridge for later."

Okay, I'm making it up but there must surely have been conversations like that - and what message do the kids take away from them?

I imagine these parents, the so-called "responsible Mum and Dad drinkers" who featured in a lot of talk-back calls, don't consider themselves to be alcoholics. I'm sure they'll refute any suggestion that they have a drinking problem or an addiction. Despite this, they stayed away from a major public event solely because they (theoretically) couldn't take alcohol with them.

I put "theoretically" in there with good reason. For weeks the message has gone out that police will not tolerate alcohol at Skyworks. It has been repeated several times that it's not just about drunken louts - it's about alcohol - any alcohol. It was made abundantly clear that "Mums and Dads" would not be exempt. Yet, when asked about the police crackdown today, Premier Colin Barnett basically told people to go ahead and drink alcohol because the police aren't silly enough to stop you...

"I think the Police Commissioner will do as he always does and apply common sense and I think he will see common sense apply to Skyworks.

"But look you don't need to take an esky full of alcohol to have a good time and I'd urge to go along, not take alcohol. If you do, make sure it's only a small amount and make sure it's (in) moderation."

So take that Mr Commissioner - Colin has overruled you. Apparently the public drinking laws were suspended today by a Barnett decree. I wonder if anyone who had their stash confiscated will pursue Barnett for compensation after he assured them it was okay?
I also wonder what effect Barnett's dictatorial relaxing of the crackdown had on attendance numbers as committed drinkers suddenly saw an opening? The West report tells us that people were drinking alcohol and keeping it "low key" but perhaps numbers would have been lower still without Barnett's stamp of approval.

I've said it before and it bears repeating; from the outside, to a non-drinker, drinking alcohol looks like a religion. It is revered above almost everything else. Devotees apparently cannot contemplate life without it and oppose attempts to stifle their right to follow their religion any time, anywhere. Many of them will even evangelise their particular denomination, be it VB, Carlton or a dry white, and some will ridicule those who choose a different path. It is even replete with rituals and observances (wine tasting takes this to seemingly absurd levels).

And here's where I might upset people closer to home...

I was very sad last week to see an announcement on the Perth Skeptics' website for Skeptics in the Park. Pubs can be difficult places for non-drinkers (we tend not to follow the rites and rituals properly) so Skeptics in the Park could offer a chance for non-drinkers to attend a meeting of sceptics in more comfortable surroundings than the usual Skeptics in the Pub meetings. Presumably they'd attend with an expectation of discussing issues relating to scepticism - things like critical thinking, reason, evidence-based medicine, psychic claims and more.

But the headline for the park-based event was...
Skeptics In The Park - 'White Wine In The Sun'

What? Is white wine compulsory or can I bring something else? Is it supplied? Why is it there - in the headline?

And it continues...

" something a little less formal for us newbies to meet up with the community while skeptics in the pub is still being organised. A bbq and perhaps a couple of reds along with some skeptical conversation. It'll be on sunday the 17th at about 1 o'clock at kings park. Hope you can all come."

Less formal and barbecue are both important things for attendees to know. But there's yet another mention of wine, this time an appeal to the "red" denomination. Oh, and there's some sceptical conversation.

So, obviously I'll bring some snags for the barbie and I'll hopefully have something interesting to say about some sceptical stuff - but again, is wine compulsory? It says "perhaps". Should I bring some just in case even though I don't touch the stuff? It appears to be the theme for the day so maybe I should just stay away (I can see you nodding from here).

What on Earth has wine got to do with scepticism that it deserves special mention? I have no doubt that several attendees would naturally take wine, or beer or spirits or whatever alcohol they usually consume at barbecues, but is it so important that it requires two mentions in an announcement of roughly just 70 words?

Maybe I have absolutely no idea what the event was about. But even if it was just a casual get-together rather than a meeting with a sceptical focus, is alcohol really so important that it has to be headlined? Can we not do scepticism without it?
I drink Coke, orange juice, water - even cordial - or coffee and tea. I don't however, expect to see a Skeptics meeting headline, or any other headline, that reads "Skeptic Meeting - Orange Juice by Twilight" and I suspect I will never see one. So, what's so special about alcohol that it deserves such reverence even in areas where it has no direct relevance?
For the record I'm not really opposed to alcohol consumption, even in public - but the public displays of reverence to it by otherwise rational people does leave me bemused.

Insensitive Joseph Mercola upsets followers

*NOTE: I've had a complaint in the comments that I refer to Rachael Dunlop as "Dr" but I do not use Dr Mercola's title. I'm not going to edit the article, since it is about Mercola's insensitivity, but I have taken note of the objection for future reference. Neither of them is, to my knowledge, a Medical Doctor (MD).

I reported yesterday on Joseph Mercola's entry into the Shorty Awards drama after fellow alt-med shill Mike Adams was disqualified from the poll, apparently as a result of too many of his fans casting invalid votes.

Both Adams and Mercola blamed sceptics for Adams demise and for the sudden elevation of Dr Rachael Dunlop into the lead position. Aussie Dr Rachie has remained pretty silent on the matter and it is still not even mentioned on her own Skeptics' Book website. It's true, however, that internationally popular bloggers PZ Myers, Orac and Phil Plait, among many others, had brought the poll to their own readers' attentions and urged them to cast a vote for Dr Rachie and evidence-based medicine. This was well within the rules of the poll which encourage campaigning.

Joseph Mercola might well be a leader among the "love and light" brigade but rather than directly challenge the high-profile sceptics responsible for the Doc's campaign, he apparently decided the best response was to launch a sexist attack against Dr Rachie herself...

An arrogant group of science bloggers that have vilified me for the past few years have started a campaign to have an Australian shill to win a health award on Twitter. This overweight non-physician has arrogantly bashed nearly every alternative therapy and encourages reliance on drugs.

She is Big Pharma's wet dream. If you want a real laugh to see just how ridiculous some of her positions are you can go to her site http://scepticsbook.com/

Why the balding, fake-tanned, bleached-toothed, emaciated alt-med doctor felt he needed to get personal is anyone's guess - especially since he claimed not to care about the poll. Maybe he has a small penis? Maybe he's threatened by the prospect of being beaten by a woman in a health popularity poll. I don't know but something's sure got his frilly knickers tangled tight.

I asked yesterday - "I do wonder if any of Mercola's "63,000 fans" suffer with weight issues?" Today I notice that some of Mercola's Facebook followers have taken him to task for getting personal. Here's a sample...

Donna Green Van Renselaar
Argue the points on their merits. Refrain from cheap shots like discounting someones mind because they have a weight issue, or using terms like "big pharma's wet dream." It makes you sound like you're a junior high school adolescent rather than a respectible health care provider. It may rally excitable people who enjoy a show, but does not help ... See Moreyour case, which is a valid one (though not perfect in every way). Did someone else write your post for you? If so, they need some guidance. Did you write your own post? Perhaps it's time to walk away, count to ten, and recenter yourself.

Elizabeth
... I don't agree with the one part of his statement, but obviously he is very passionate about this topic...

Cath
To be fair, she doesn't look that fat to me. If you're pissed off by her words remember nothing good came from anger in response to anger. And rightly or wrongly she believes what she is saying...

Joan Stine
Your choice of words in this post speaks volumes about your character. I personally choose not to respect a "professional" who uses this terminology in a "professional" webpage. Good-bye.

Bethany Hays
This would be more powerful if you didn't refer to this person as an "overweight, shilll". What to those descriptors have to do with what they are doing to you?! Don't get sucked into the mud with them.

Oops!

Meanwhile Mike Adams has completely popped a cork and written a long rant about everything sceptics supposedly believe, based on his research. Here's one example from a long and repetitive list...

Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).

Without knowing what Adams means by "inert", and we can't even begin to assume he means it in any way familiar to anyone remotely familiar with chemistry, it's difficult to either agree or disagree with that assertion. However, if your toilet water and spring water have "the same chemical composition" (and I assume by "water" he really means "the liquid") then by definition, they are the same. That's what the same means when you compare chemistry - it means they're the same. They are identical, chemically. They probably have different volumes, unless you have a ginormous toilet or tiny spring. They likely have different locations too. But if they have the same chemical composition, they are chemically identical whether you mean the liquid generally or the H₂O specifically. What else could they possibly be?

Now, sure, this might mean your toilet is unused and spring fed, or it might mean someone's been dumping raw sewage in your spring - it doesn't matter how the sameness came to be. If they are the same then they are identical. If they're not identical it's because they aren't the same.

People revere this guy. They think he knows important stuff about science.

His rant serves no useful purposes except to highlight an apparent lack of research ability since it's doubtful anyone could find a genuinely sceptical blog that carries a fraction of the claims he attributes to all sceptics. Like Mercola, Adams is now getting some negative feedback from his readers. One pleads "This has to be satire...please tell me it's satire", another counsels "Stop being so unreasonble" [sic], while a commenter named Pleepeus laments...

Wow Mike, you've finally lost me. I'm suffering from a pretty bad case of Lupus and I've been eating healthy for years. Currently I'm gluten free, 90% organic, and about 60-70% living foods. I've never smoked, rarely if ever drink and have exercised my entire life. I've tried acupuncture, massage therapy, yoga and a dozen or more natural/holistic cures. Nothing I've tried has made even a tiny improvement. And now you're suggesting that if we just believe in everything you believe in everything will be hunky freakin' dory? WTF? Using your logic, virtually everybody in the modern world should be suffering from one terrible sickness or another. I'll tell you what Mike, I'll give 100,000 dollars to you or anyone who can prove the existence of a higher power (or a soul, spirit, angel, guide, creative force...whatever). Seriously, what the hell are you smoking? Maybe that will help this damn connective tissue disease...

For a more thorough point-by-point takedown of Adams' rant, visit Dubito Ergo Sum. For a more condensed and less polite takedown, go to the Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes.

Sean the Blogonaut has a screen capture (from Mercola's site I think) in which one alt-med swallower who's followed this drama calls for sceptics to be "lined up and shot to DEAD, no mercy."

Love and light indeed.

I was working on some ideas for a cartoon for this post but in all seriousness, I can't beat the comedy that's playing out in real life on Adams' and Mercola's sites. Freakin hilarious.

UPDATE:

Dr Mercola has almost apologised on his Facebook page...

I regret having stooped to their level of name calling and wasting any time and energy engaging in this matter in the first place.

Despite claiming virtual disinterest in the poll and lamenting his decision to engage in the campaign, his comments thread is littered with pleas from him for his followers to get other people to vote for him. He is still spending plenty of energy campaigning and it is having some effect as he is slowly chipping away at Dunlop's lead.

More:
FDA Warning to Dr Joseph Mercola

Joseph Mercola hits out at Dr Rachie

Following on from the saga which saw alt-med promoter Mike Adams disqualified from Twitter's Shorty Awards, fellow alt-med evangelist Joseph Mercola has hit out at science bloggers who have mounted a campaign to see Dr Rachael Dunlop win the #health category in the poll.

Before I continue, let me remind readers that the poll rules explicitly encourage candidates to campaign for support. Winning such support from a lot of people is not a sign of conspiracy - it's a sign that you're widely respected.

On his Facebook page Mercola writes...

An arrogant group of science bloggers that have vilified me for the past few years have started a campaign to have an Australian shill to win a health award on Twitter. This overweight non-physician has arrogantly bashed nearly every alternative therapy and encourages reliance on drugs.

She is Big Pharma's wet dream. If you want a real laugh to see just how ridiculous some of her positions are you can go to her site http://scepticsbook.com/

Way to stay classy Joe. I haven't met Dr Rachie so I don't know what the "overweight" comment is based on but I do wonder if any of Mercola's "63,000 fans" suffer with weight issues? What am I thinking? Alt-med followers are all in perfect health - naturally.

Now I could [sic] care LESS about this stupid Twitter award, it absolutely [sic] meaningless in the broad scope of what is going on in health.

That's what his mate Mike said while he was spitting the dummy over his loss earlier today. I note though that Joe wrote he "COULD" care less (he capitalised "less" but I've no idea why). I realise that Americans tend to say this when they really mean they care so little that they COULDN'T care less - but maybe he meant it literally since it's apparent he does care quite a bit.

At least Mercola goes on to remind his "fans" of the rules and, unlike Adams, doesn't suggest the contest is biased - well, almost...

Unfortunately he inadvertently encouraged violating the Twitter rules and many voted for him that signed up after the contest began so Twitter disqualified him. This does not make the contest illegal, only unfair. It is NOT a rigged contest.

Tell that to Mike Adams who threatened the Shorty team with a lawsuit - although he didn't care about the poll.

I have no idea why Mercola thinks it's unfair. The rules were broken and action was taken. Although Adams insists all his votes were legitimate, people on his own website have admitted they only joined Twitter in order to vote for him. This was in clear breach of the rules that state you must be an active member prior to the poll's commencement. Had there been just a handful of such breaches I'm sure Adams would still be there, albeit with less legitimate votes since breach votes are discarded. But this page identifies that 104 breaches were found in the first 8 pages of 49 pages of votes. Adams suffered because his fans apparently can't read, won't read, don't understand things or think rules don't apply to them.

So does Joe, who supposedly doesn't care about the poll, just move on and ignore it? Of course not, that would be sensible (my bolding)...

But if you already voted you can have THREE of your friends or family to vote. Even better yet post it on your blog or website or have one of your popular friends do it. We can beat them but ONLY if you take action now

Just tell them the story and send them to http://shortyawards.com/mercola and have them read the earlier posts and give a few words comment in the box and press enter

If my observation is correct, Mercola's vote count is growing steadily at a slightly faster rate than Dr Rachie's. The poll closes next weekend.

I don't really care about the poll but if you have a Twitter account, a brain and an ability to follow simple rules - GO AND VOTE FOR DR RACHIE NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE... THE RATIONAL WORLD IS COUNTING ON YOU. IT'S ALL DOWN TO YOU. GO. go NOW. WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE. Go AND VOtE DamN IT! Seriously I don't care but... are you StiLL HErE??? FOR saNITy'S SAKE GO AnD VOTE. PLEEEEASE! WE know WHERE you LIVE!

Not that I care, really.

But do follow the rules when you vote. Now. :)

Rachael Dunlop leads the Shorty Awards, Health

I don't tweet and likely never will get around to it. In fact, although it looks like a good way to quickly spread the word on urgent matters, I think a lot of quality bloggers use Twitter at the expense of the in-depth coverage, archiving and wide readership of their blogs. But that's just my opinion.

Anyway, it seems Twitter is currently running some online polls on a whole range of subjects. Our own Dr Rachael Dunlop, or Dr Rachie as many know her, is currently leading in the #health poll after what appears to be the eviction of alternative medicine promoter Mike Adams (or he's dropped a long way down the list).

Adams laments his loss on his Natural News website with accusations of lies, cheating, rigging, bias, libel and a bunch of other complaints against the organisers of the poll and the campaigners who brought it to the attention of the sceptical community. He goes on to refer to our good doctor as "a virtually unknown doctor from Australia who held a strong opinion against homeopathy and natural medicine while pushing vaccines and pharmaceuticals."

Unknown to Adams followers perhaps but when you've got bloggers like PZ Myers of Pharyngula and Orac from Respectful Insolence pointing people in your direction, you probably aren't that unknown in the sceptical community. (I'd heard of you "Maggie"!)

Orac is just modestly overjoyed at this news and asks Twitter account holders to cement Dr Rachie's lead with a vote in the Shorty Awards. Note, you must have an existing account and follow all the rules - failure of his supporters to do this was apparently Adams' undoing. Tim Farley of What's the Harm? noticed that a lot of those voting for Adams had only one or two tweets to their account, solely votes in the Shorties, and this was a violation of the rules.* Others, I understand, failed to give a reason for their votes. You must give a reason.

So, if you Tweet and you prefer evidence to assertion, then maybe you should take a look at the Shorties and cast your vote.

ALSO: You can vote for more than one person in each category (check the rules), so once you've given a tick to Rachael, you might want to give one to Peter Bowditch too.


*I should add that I don't believe Adams should have been disqualified based solely on voting patterns unless there is evidence he actively participated in purposely generating invalid votes.

UPDATE:

Tim Farley explains the drama in his own words in a Pharyngula comment.
Summary of questionable votes here

Why sceptics do it...

A report from the UK offers an excellent example of what should happen when people pass off nonsense as reality in the hope of making a profit from the gullible.

The BBC carried out an investigation into a supposed "bomb detector" that relied solely on wishful thinking to operate and found it sadly lacking on all fronts.

Styled as a sort of fancy divining (or dowsing) rod, looking electronic and coming with key cards and an antenna but having no electronic components or working parts, the device was claimed to detect small quantities of explosives up to a kilometre away. Like any other diving rod, it was fundamentally incapable of detecting anything except the user's body movements. This came as no surprise whatsoever to sceptics who are all-too-familiar with similar claims of people being able to divine the presence of various substances using a range of objects or implements with no plausible functionality. When tested, they invariably fail.

This very device, the ADE-651*, was publicly condemned by James Randi back in August 2008 when he challenged advertising claims for the product...

This text is wrong, silly, irrational, fictional, stupid, misleading and fraudulent. The device does none of this. It’s a stick on a swivel, and the text is written by an uneducated idiot or by a team of uneducated idiots. But it’s this part of their ad that may provide an excellent opportunity for a case of outright fraud...

He included a comment from our own Richard Saunders who had tested the device and found it to be useless.

Twenty soldiers in all tried the test. Every one FAILED.

Almost 18 months later the distributor has finally been arrested on suspicion of fraud charges after selling the worthless devices to Iraq for more than £52m. People have died in this time from undetected explosives.

This sort of thing is the sceptics' raison d'être. It's why we rail against nonsense in all its forms from homeopathy to religion to fuel enhancers to divining. At times the task seems insurmountable because lots of people just seem to want to believe in nonsense, even harmful nonsense, but occasionally someone gets arrested and, hopefully, dealt with.

But why does it take a BBC investigation for the government to act when it has been public knowledge for so long? Does no one working in any level of government (and this isn't just in the UK, Australia appears to be no better when it comes to outlawing dangerous nonsense) care? Is there no one with the initiative to act without the media having to first widely publicise an issue?

And what about all the other dangerous nonsense which is not just tolerated but, in the case of homeopathy and other alternative "medicines", actively supported by governments? What will it take for governments to take a stand against these things?

Why is that the police will actively try to catch me speeding or doing other naughty stuff while other government agencies, like our own TGA, passively monitor dangerous activities via complaints systems and then do little but issue orders for the publication of apologies or withdrawals?



But we can at least rest easy with the ADE-651 "bomb sniffer" since arrested distributor Jim McCormick has already seen the error of his ways (my bolding)...

Mr McCormick told The Times that his device was being criticised because of its crude appearance.

He added: “We have been dealing with doubters for ten years. One of the problems we have is that the machine does look a little primitive. We are working on a new model that has flashing lights.”

That's it Jim, that's what was missing all along. Everyone knows you can't detect explosives without flashing lights. That's why sniffer dogs come with batteries supplied. Oh wait..


Via Phil Plait and SBS World News (video)


*I think the ADE-561 label in the Swift article may be in error since no such model appears to exist. The device is the ADE-651.

For some background on the ADE-651 and other seemingly useless bomb detection devices, visit the Sniffex Questions blog.


UPDATE:

Randi responds to the latest news

Is God capricious?

It has been argued often (trust me on that) that if any all-powerful god really exists then, given the amount of suffering in the world, he must have a mean streak a mile wide. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins wrote:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Is Dawkins right? Is the Christian God a nasty character? Or could he be wrong?

Following the earthquake tragedy in Haiti, the BBC interviewed the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu - second in charge in the Anglican Church. James Randi has kindly transcribed the interview verbatim (and provides a link to an audio copy) and published it on the Swift Blog.

If you want the Christian explanation of what God is really like and why tragedies like Haiti still occur under his watch, I suggest you go and read the transcript. If you're short on time, I'll paraphrase it for you...

Interviewer: Is your God mean and does he hate Haitians?

Archbishop: No, no, no, no. Pancakes taste great with sugar and I can, then, but puppies are cuddly. Fluffly clouds, sunsets and what? Hot showers! I mean, err, after all, you can't whistle underwater can you can err you? It sucks. That's the important thing. It's all about the, when I say it, things, you know, the stuff like err, fish and chips on Sunday night. That's what Jesus said anyway - when he lost his hat.

Interviewer: Okay then. Thanks for that.

Something like that anyway. Go and read it for yourself - it's short.

Oh, and just in case you think Randi is being mean or that this was just one interview in which the Archbishop might have been "off his game", there's a transcript of a different but similar interview on the Archbishop's own website. It's a bit tidier but the mesage is no clearer. It is also much, much longer but most of my paraphrasing above can be applied to this one too. The BBC interview isn't there.

Homeopathy: Provings and like cures like?

Next week, on the 30th of January, people around the world are planning to commit "mass suicide by homeopathic overdose". This forms part of the 10:23 Campaign which sets out to publicise the implausibility and inefficacy of homeopathy.

Naturally this event has drawn the ire of those who follow the homeopathic religion. An example of the backlash can be found in a new website titled "1023 Homeopathy: A Rational choice".

In an article that sets out to demonstrate the science behind homeopathy, the author manages to contradict much of what we know about homeopathy as it is marketed to the public. For example, the author claims the suicide plan is ill-conceived because homeopathy can only work when the remedy is individually matched to the patient. That point is well made and oft-repeated but also misses the point that homeopathic remedies are sold over the counter to anyone who wants them.

From the suicide website (my bolding)...

At 10:23am on January 30th, more than three hundred homeopathy sceptics nationwide will be taking part in a mass homeopathic 'overdose' in protest at Boots' continued endorsement and sale of homeopathic remedies, and to raise public awareness about the fact that homeopathic remedies have nothing in them.

The homeopathic author should actually be supporting the suicide publicity campaign on the basis that what Boots sell as homeopathy isn't really homeopathy because "homeopathy doesn't work like that". But that point isn't made at all.

There are other statements that contradict advice on other homeopathy sites (on dosage, for example) but today I'm just going to deal with apparent absurdity of the combined homeopathic principles of "provings" and "like cures like".

"Provings" involve testing a substance on healthy people and noting the symptoms they ultimately share - supposedly as a result of taking the substance. So if you give people onions, for example, you might note that many of them experience a stinging sensation in the eyes and the production of tears (although it's unlikely they would have any effect at 12C dilution or greater since these mixtures would no longer contain any onion at all, but that's another story). These symptoms are then noted for future reference.

From the above website we get the following (my bolding)...

A proving helps homeopaths because we work on the basis that what can cause illness can also cure it. So by knowing through a proving what a substance can cause we will in turn know what it's medicinal uses may be.

This is the principle of "like cures like"...


I don't think it requires much more response.

Hyperbolic Coral Reef

I've just learned that Albany and Denmark, in southern Western Australia, will very soon host an exhibition and workshops of a hyperbolic crocheted coral reef project. I don't know much at all about this craft but am fascinated by results I've seen from around the world.

Image (cropped): via FLICKR
Photo © The IFF by Margaret Wertheim

I hope Margaret doesn't mind me linking to her photo, taken at an exhibition in Chicago, but it is a spectacular example of the artform. Yes, all that coral is crocheted. See more photos here.

The worldwide project is coordinated by the Institute For Figuring...

The Institute For Figuring is an organization dedicated to the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science, mathematics and the technical arts.

The Institute’s interests are twofold: the manifestation of figures in the world around us and the figurative technologies that humans have developed through the ages. From the physics of snowflakes and the hyperbolic geometry of sea slugs, to the mathematics of paper folding, the tiling patterns of Islamic mosaics and graphical models of the human mind, the Institute takes as its purview a complex ecology of figuring.

The IFF website has the following tantalising information about the hyperbolic crochet coral reef project...

Each crochet model results from the application of an iterative recipe. Like fractals, such as the Mandelbrot Set, these forms come into being through the process of doing a small set of steps again and again and again. Though experience often serves as a guide, there is no way to know in advance what a specific algorithm will produce and we have many times been surprised when seemingly insignificant changes in the underlying pattern led to fundamentally new results. In a very real sense, this is a kind of experimental mathematics and we invite crocheters everywhere to explore for themselves the possibilities inherent in these techniques.

Makes me want to take up crochet!

You'll find some information about the Albany exhibition, workshops and the craft in a PDF you can download from: Albany hyperbolic crochet coral reef.

This article just keeps growing as I find more and more interesting stuff like this...



Okay, just one more...

If you thought this was just about crochet, think again. The coral reef project is the brainchild of Australian twin sisters Christine and Margaret Wertheim. Margaret is "a science writer and the author of books on the cultural history of physics" and explains the intersection between maths, evolution, space and the now-fascinating art of crochet in the following video...




MORE:

Google Images: "crochet coral"
Videos: "crochet coral reef videos"
Sydney hyperbolic crochet coral reef (Aug 09)

Homeopathy: Some questions about dilution

Okay, so we have to accept that water has a memory, regardless of what those pesky scientists say about that. And we have to accept that it can remember the beneficial properties of a substance we add to it - providing we shake it, sorry succuss it, the right way. And we have to accept that by diluting it and diluting it and diluting again, many, many times over, and shaking it each time, the potency actually increases as the original substance disappears into oblivion.

Okay, got it.

But hang on.

The point of diluting the original substance is, I understand, to reduce or remove any toxicity - after all, it's hardly worth trying to cure arsenic poisoning with pure arsenic, is it? (Yes, I know it's hardly worth trying to cure it with any amount of arsenic - or water or alcohol that once met some arsenic at a Tupperware party - but go with me here). So, we dilute the active substance past the point of toxicity, into oblivion usually, so we can administer it safely. And, as noted above, the water only remembers whatever it is that makes arsenic a remedy and not a risk and then passes that benefit onto the patient.

And remember that at the same time as the dilution is reducing the toxicity of the arsenic it is also making the "remedy" more potent. So as it gets weaker, it gets stronger. It's like making buses much, much smaller so you can fit more people in them. Got it? It's to do with the transfer of energy, I'm told. Scientists might think it's a load of cods but what have scientists ever done for us?

But here's my questions...

Can anyone, anywhere, explain how the energy transfer from the active ingredient's molecules to the water molecules can make the water molecules act like the active ingredient's molecules and cure the patient whilst ensuring they don't act like them and poison the patient?

And then, can someone please explain how the water molecules that act like the active ingredient can act more like the original molecules than the original molecules do? How is it that potency increases as a water molecule that adopted a memory of arsenic then passes that memory to more and more water molecules long after the original active ingredieint is a distant memory? How can water be more like arsenic than arsenic is whilst also not being remotely like arsenic at all?




MORE:

10:23 Campaign: "Homeopathy, there's nothing in it"

HOT OFF THE PRESS: Ladybird book of Homeopathy

Suicide by homeopathic overdose

Shatner hears a Woo

William Shatner interviewed self-professed psychic (I don't know why I write that - aren't they all self-professed?) John Edward and asked the obvious question then gave Edward the obvious conclusion. The two videos below are refreshing.






via Humanity Blues & Bad Psychics TV

Haiti: "blessing in disguise;" Pat Robertson

US televanegelist Pat Robertson has suggested that the massive earthquake which has devastated Haiti and likely killed more than 100,000 people, might be a blessing in disguise.

news.com.au reports...

SURVIVORS spent a second night in hell on Haiti's streets amid chaotic scenes in the capital Port-au-Prince following the earthquake that could claim as many lives as the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami.

Aftershocks continued to rock the Caribbean island nation yesterday as relatives dug through the rubble in an increasingly desperate search for survivors.

The Federal Government said it was doing everything it could to track down a handful of Australians it believes might be in the country after confirming the safety of 20 others, including all those serving with the United Nations.

The UN headquarters were almost sheared in two by the force of the quake.

The Red Cross yesterday estimated almost a third of Haiti's nine million residents were either dead, injured or homeless.

As blessings go, that's a pretty good disguise.

In another interview (on the same Youtube video linked above), Robertson blamed Haiti's fate on a claimed 200-year-old pact with the devil to help them gain freedom from the French. I assume Robertson's god would have preferred them to remain under slavery than seek independence or he would have kicked the French out himself. Hell, he could have sent a tsunami right through Paris, just to put Napoleon III in his place.

While a disaster relief fund phone number was on screen, Robertson appeared to suggest the Haitians had this coming to them, saying they've been cursed by one thing after another since they won their freedom. Why Robertson would support sending relief to a country that was just asking for a smiting is beyond me and I seriously doubt he could rationalise it for me if I asked him.

Repeating his notion that this tragedy is potentially a good thing, Robertson said of Haiti...

...they need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God and out of this tragedy. I’m optimistic something good may come.

I am yet to discover the point of prayer in these, or any, situations. Is Robertson's god unaware of this tragedy? Does his god have no feelings about the situation such that he requires mere humans to convince him how dire things really are? And just how Christian do they need to be in order to avoid his god's wrath, or gain his protection?...

Haiti is a largely Christian country, with Roman Catholicism professed by 80% of Haitians. Protestants make up about 16% of the population. [wikipedia]

One would think an omniscient god would be pretty aware of what's going on in a country where 96% of the population believe in him.

MacKillop, Cancer Cure, Miracles & God

Australian news media is awash with stories about the miraculous cure from lung cancer of a woman who prayed to long-dead Mary MacKillop for assistance.

If the believers are to be believed, God's decisions to cure us or leave us to suffer and/or die can be influenced by certain dead people and, providing we go about it the right way, we can influence these dead people to influence God on our behalf. Or perhaps, one in a million of us can, sometimes, maybe... if we're also really lucky.

There are a number of quasi-credulous mainstream news reports out there, as YAS report, but a more sceptical discussion of the issue can be read in an article by Peter Cochrane in the Sydney Morning Herald: Mary MacKillop and Sainthood

The blogosphere is alive with commentary, some funny, some telling. One blogger argues that if enough terminally ill cancer patients pray to Tiger Woods then, eventually, one of them will be cured. By Tiger Woods? Pundits ask why these medical miracles seem confined to cancer and do not extend to other conditions such as loss of limbs or sight.

If a church wants to call someone a saint, that is perhaps no business of anyone outside that church. But when it invokes science and historical scholarship we are entitled to question it rigorously. Science needs to be defended against shysters, and in this case the church's appropriation of the label ''science'' is ridiculous.

As much as these stories are apparently supposed to make us value the apparent benevolence of the Christian God, specifically as characterised by Catholicism in this case, they actually point to the capriciousness of a deity who seemingly makes life and death decisions based on the quality of the pleading and who, if he exists, all-too-often decides that long-term suffering is the best option regardless of the pleas of his followers.

Indeed, since this "miracle" is being attributed to MacKillop, it might not even the quality of the prayer (however that might be measured) but who the prayer is sent to, or how many people join in with the prayer - or any number of other possible prayer permutations that believers have obviously been unable to satisfactorily figure out to date. There are still no reports of the miraculous regrowth of severed limbs no matter how many people pray. Maybe God's omnipotence has its limits or maybe God really does just hate amputees.

When all's said and done, these one-in-a-million "miracles" are so rare as to be completely unworthy of praise or pursuit.



It's easy to understand why a cancer sufferer who goes into spontaneous remission after praying would believe she was the recipient of a miracle. Such "miracles", and even far less notable coincidences, can form the basis of all manner of beliefs from reading tea leaves to numerology to reiki, homeopathy or even alien contact. But why does the mainstream media not bother to even seek out rational comment on such miracles before trumpeting them as virtual proof of MacKillop's authority in far too many reports - especially when we know for sure that God actually heals by making unidentifiable oil leak from your walls.


MORE:

The Sleep of Reason: If God can cure, why does anyone have cancer?
Sceptical comments at SMH: Mary MacKillop cancer miracle - really?