Is Martin Robbins skeptical enough?

Martin Robbins, blogger for the Guardian, spoke to a packed audience at Oxford Skeptics in the Pub this week.  It was not the usual venue (which has a great meeting room but no atmosphere), but a real pub called the Port Mahon in St Clements.  The down-side of this is that the room was long and narrow, filled with an audience of 50 or more, and if you were unlucky enough to be sitting near the back it was difficult to hear or see.  In fact many were not lucky enough to be sitting at all, but the atmosphere was friendly and nobody was complaining

Still, I got more than the gist of his string of anecdotes about quack medicine in Africa, with tales of Joseph Obi in Gambia, Jim "Bleachgate" Humble, Homeopaths without Borders, the 'Real Medicine Foundation', and Jeremy Sherr.

His source of information was a period of a month or so in Africa a couple of years ago.  He had been generously supported by The Wellcome Trust. He and his team were quite successful in their attempt to find quack 1st-world medics plying their trade, but he was keen to point out that some of their associates actually do good charitable work.

Perhaps I was most surprised by his message about skepticism.  He clearly demonstrates a skeptical attitude on a lot of topics, and yet he seems to doubt the value of skeptical blogging in the Western world.  He asks why more skeptics don't get out to Africa to see for themselves what is going on there and to try to do something about it.

And yet . . . he has just been there on a well funded mission and clearly managed to do nothing that is very useful.  Yes he brings back a message about quack medics practising their trade in African countries, but then tells us that nobody here will do anything about it, and that it might even be a bad thing if they did.

To me it is obvious why more skeptics do not go on these missions.  For a start there is no source of funding, whereas quack medicine funds itself.  Secondly, anyone who thought about it would understand that Western quack medicine is probably no more harmful than the indigenous quack medicine practised by witch doctors and shaman. I for one am not a fan of interfering in developing countries. 

If we have learnt anything in recent decades it is that well funded and well-intentioned charity often manage to do more harm than good. 

Amateur skeptics are hardly likely to achieve anything better are we?

What UK homeopaths do not want you to know

Having been fleeced by homeopaths in my more believing past (to the value of a few hundred pounds in total), and having been banned from a notable web homeopath's web site for asking perfectly polite questions, I feel that I have an axe to grind.

A few weeks ago the following letter was published on Andy Lewis's excellent site The Quackometer.

As Andy points out, The Society of Homeopaths seems rather keen that you do not see this.  Therefore I feel that it is my moral duty to defy their wishes and reproduce the letter that they sent out to their members, explaining how they have been lobbying for an exclusion to the new law that is being introduced all around Europe.  It seems that the Department of Health has re-assured them a little, but fortunately government departments are not at liberty to issue warrants to break the law, and complaints are very likely to be upheld.

Society meets ministerial team

Dear xxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your continued support with the consolidation and review of the medicines act 1968 MP Letter writing campaign.

As you know, the Society and partners have been working extremely hard behind the scenes to represent members and their best interests in this matter, including taking a leading role on engagement with the Government.

On Wednesday of this week the current campaign resulted in a meeting between our representatives and the Ministerial team from the Department of Health.

The good news is that the Department of Health continues to be in favour of patient choice and access to homeopathy as it currently stands and recognises the potential impact to patients, practitioners and homeopathic pharmacies of any changes to the way the Act is enforced.

Although during the meeting it was discussed that Section 10 would not be part of the consolidation process it was highlighted that current levels of enforcement of the act would continue in the way it has done for the past 40 years and therefore would not seek to restrict the current homeopathic provision/access routes.

To amend Section 10 it would require a unique consultation process and could therefore not form part of the consolidation process.

The Society, together with partners will continue to engage with the relevant Ministers. When the review has continued through the legislative process the Minister has offered to meet with us again to review the situation.

Nearly every MP has now been contacted and I would like to thank those members that have written to and in some cases visited their MPs to highlight the relevant issues.

Parliament is due to recess on the 17th July and we will keep you fully abreast of the situation and let you know of any further action and next steps needed in due course.

In the interim thank you for your continued support

Best regards

Phil Edmonds

Chairman

Society of Homeopaths

Please note this email is intended for Society Members only and we would kindly ask for this email not to be re-produced.

I would like to think that homeopathy is in for a rough time over the next few months.

Sunday Selection 8

Continuing a new series where there is little additional content from me, but I simply share a few items, new and old, that have pleased me this week.  As almost every week, I see items on the web that I find interesting, amazing or  or amusing.  This disjointed ramble might be on any of my normal topics - or on other topics entirely.  My thanks go to the friends who helped me to find them.

First: An interview with Bertrand Russell.  It is not very long but it is his message to the people of the future.

Podcast of the week: Skeptics with a K, episode 78.  You might love or hate the style of this podcast, but I'm a keen listener.  The three presenters from the Merseyside Skeptics Society have a certain laddish charm and they have a knack for finding interesting topics.  Sometimes they start into a story that appears somewhat tangential (as in the surprisingly disgusting one about clearing out a cupboard in this episode), but don't give up too early!  They always conclude with an interesting learning point.  In this episode they also celebrate the legal difficulties that are being experienced by homeopaths in UK this year, and I was glad to hear that 2 of the 3 presenters were also not great fans of the Olympics.

Quote of the week: 
“When Muslim parents hate their host culture so much that they will kill a child who seems to embrace it, then they are guilty of intolerance – the kind that non-Muslims are wary of showing, lest they be branded racist, or bigoted.” 
Wow! Something sensible from Cristina Odone, in the Telegraph

Tweet of the week:
If the Bible was a good morality guide, we'd not need the Declaration of Human Rights. Humanity: Higher morals than God since 1948. #Atheism from @CrispySea

Atheist news of the week:  How Christopher Hitchens fell out with Gore Vidal

Exciting science of the week: The landing of Curiosity, the new rover on Mars was much more exciting than anything that the Olympics had to offer.  Amazingly, this picture was snapped by another satellite that was orbiting Mars.

Curiosity snapped on its chute, descending to Mars.

See the pictures that it is collecting every day at this link.  I'm sure that there is a lot of good stuff to come from this amazing project!

And finally . . .

Favourite places: Mars (Is this cheating?) 

This image, from here, shows how Curiosity landed there this week.

Curiosity's surprising landing on Mars (from here).

Sunday Selection 4

Continuing a new series where there is little additional content from me, but I simply share a few items, new and old, that have pleased me this week.  As almost every week, I see items on the web that I find interesting, amazing or  or amusing.  This disjointed ramble might be on any of my normal topics - or on other topics entirely.  My thanks go to the friends who helped me to find them.

First:  'Hotwheels double loop dare' - although one son tells me that 'everyone has seen this, the other one hadn't.

Next: I just love the tango used in Arnie's humorous movie, True Lies.  The Movie version is here, and another version of the whole of Carlos Gardel's beautiful, passionate Por Una Cabeza can be found here.  Just seeing that makes me want to watch the movie again - worth a good smile!

Podcast of the week:  Radiolabs Podcast 'Talking to Machines'
Maybe some of us find ourselves talking to machines without realising it.  This podcast from June 2011 had some interesting surprises.

Atheist blog post of the week:  “Dear Atheists, We Ex-Muslims Are Waiting For You”, from The Friendly Atheist.  I think you can follow my 'Creeping Islam' tag to see that I'm supporting his campaign to some extent, at least.

Physics of the week: This has to be the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson.  You can't have missed that.  Here's Lawrence Krauss's take on it.  The question is - what does it mean?  I feel that this is too difficult a concept to explain in terms that we can all understand and since I don't get it myself, I'm not going to try.

Parody of the week:  Homeopath to start offering ‘assisted-suicide’ remedy.
" . . . as proof of its effectiveness, last week a man came in having a heart attack. The remedy was so good that he died before we could administer it.’  Read on and laugh out loud

Controversial atheism site of the week: Somehow, the most religious people in Israel seem to think they are too pious for the army, and yet they expect the more secular Israelis to risk their lives on their behalf. 

And finally . . .

Favourite places: Fingal's Cave

Fingal's surprising cave on the island of Staffa.

Open-minded homeopaths - I don't think!

Last week in 'Mixing Sciences Badly' I touched on the subject of homeopathy, which is one that I should approach much more often and much more directly.  The article was written as a comment on Richard Dawkins' web site, where it was totally ignored by everyone.  However, posting it here on Something Surprising was a little more successful.  The first comment was made by a Dr Nancy Malik, who is a doctor of nothingness - or should I say of homeopathy, which after all is tantamount to nothing at all.

Being a well educated lady (apparently), I think you would expect a well reasoned scientific or rational response.  Instead, relying on the well known 'argument from authority', she posted a link to her own site, where she listed a few Nobel Laureats who have expressed views that could be taken to be supportive of homeopathic treatment, but should have known better.

I left a comment there.  Surprisingly, she approved my comment on her moderated blog post, and then a few others posted comments there too.  Unsurprisingly, most of the other comments were left by her supporters, and as you can imagine, it didn't take long for someone to comment about skeptics not being open-minded.  One other skeptic, @SkeptiGuy, was permitted to speak.

My later reply has not been approved, and indeed I think I have now been blocked.  Clearly open minds are rarer in the homeopathic community than they would like us to believe.  Therefore, I present my claim for the evidence for my open-mindedness about homeopathy here for your delectation (or derision).  I was sure I had saved what I wrote, but since I can't find it I will have to paraphrase.

Since one of your other correspondents has raised the subject of open-mindedness, I think it is only fair that I explain my position on the subject of homeopathy. 

I have personally observed what I thought to be a cure effected by homeopathic treatment on three separate occasions.  Once it appeared to help my wife, once my young son, and once myself.  I always found it to be a pleasurable experience to visit my homeopath.  She listened carefully to what I had to say, she empathised and she seemed to understand. 

I was quite interested in how the remedies might work and my homeopath even suggested several times that I should consider a change of career to become one myself  I did not dismiss the idea completely out of hand.

My current comments on the topic can hardly be called closed minded in the light of that testimony, can they?

In spite of those experiences, I now realise that the homeopathic remedies could not have been the reason for the three recoveries from illness after all.  'Regression to the mean' is a much more likely explanation.  Doctors know that about half their patients just get better without treatment, and that patients often go to their doctor (or alternative practitioner) at the time when their symptoms are at their worst.  This is why there are so many anecdotes about recoveries that seemingly began from an alternative remedy.

Double blinded tests have shown that homeopathy is no more effective than placebo and nobody has provided any plausible mechanism by which it might be expected to work.  Soon I will come back to this topic.  The 'memory' of water is one of the implausible mechanisms that I am aware of, and I have some views on that subject.  Even at the time when I believed in it, I remember saying that whatever it was, it was not chemistry.

Dr Malik also demonstrates a surprising level of ignorance of the peer review process.  She went on the mention a number of 'peer reviewed' publications.  What I think she means is that these articles were published in journals that require a pre-publication peer review.  At that stage, the science is not studied in the amount of detail that she seems to expect.  It is more a matter of checking for obvious flaws, obvious fraud, or failure to provide enough detail for others to reproduce the study.  Only after the paper is published does the real peer review begin.   If other independent researchers can reproduce the results then that is a very good sign that the results are good.  If they can't, they have the opportunity to say so.  Sadly though, repeatability is one thing that can never be claimed by 'studies' of homeopathy.

That is not to say that all homeopaths are charlatans.  I think many of them really believe in it, and they are caring people who believe that they are helping.

Only a few of them are money grabbers who actively or passively cause suffering and death in patients who could have been treated effectively by real medicine.  And remember the words of Tim Minchin - "There is a name for alternative medicine that works.  It is called . . . 'medicine'!"


Dr Malik and her contributors are free to engage in an uncensored and open-minded discussion here if they like.  However, I doubt that any of them are sufficiently open-minded to face the possibility that they might be deluded.

Mixing sciences badly

Publicised today on Richard Dawkins.net, was an account of a Nobel laureate, Luc Montagnier, who has turned his interest to pseudo-science, specifically low frequency resonances in DNA and the memory of water, and thus is gaining interest from the homoeopathy community.  There are quite a few skeptical comments there already, but having a background in the physical sciences I though I would post a comment with that slant.  I have also blogged previously about Schumann Resonances, which the authors claim to be relevant to the subject.

The original article by Steven Salzberg was published by Forbes (here) and the self-published paper by Luc Montagnier can be found at arXiv by following this link.  My comment (number 18) was as follows.  It is rare for anyone to read and respond to my comments on RD.net so I don't do it often and I reproduce it here in the hope that someone will bother to read it!  

Don't get me wrong - I think that the best chance of making discoveries in science is through inter-disciplinary co-operation.  But the question is,"is this a good example of that co-operation?"

There are several interesting aspects in the physics of the measurement. Most importantly, it is actually rather difficult to transmit and measure these low frequencies, and indeed on this scale it is doubtful whether the measurements are even physically meaningful. Part of the problem is that 7Hz electromagnetic waves have a wavelength of around 42,000 km. Normally, in order to transmit any frequency you might aim for an antenna of quarter of a wavelength, or in this case 10,000km in length. Even strands of DNA are not this long, and anyway they are somewhat folded and therefore self cancelling.

Detection of low frequencies can be managed with small coils as long as they have enough turns, (e.g. 5000 to 10,000) so in principle their equipment might be able to make the measurement, if the DNA had a mechanism to transmit it - which it doesn't.

On top of that, there is very little detail about the equipment used, except a kindergarten-level sketch of a coil, an amplifier and a computer to measure something inside a test tube.

Risible physics!

They do happen to mention the impedance of the coil, which is a start. However, unless that impedance is well matched to the amplifier it means nothing. The connecting cable is incredibly important too. How well is it shielded and what is its impedance and does it match? Then the bandwidth of the amplifier matters. Does it work at all in the frequency range in question, and what is its gain? After that we have to ask how the analogue to digital conversion is carried out. What type of D/A converter is used? What frequency range does it cover? How many bits deep are the data?

But of course the controls that they adopt make all this inconvenient physics irrelevant don't they. It must be true after all! This measurement is not at all like the famous measurement of the faster-than-light neutrinos is it? The two are comparable in the surprising nature of their results, but it has taken many months of professional research for the neutrino problem to have something close to an explanation.

The sentence that I liked best in the paper was "At this point the most critical step was undertaken, namely to investigate the specificity of the induced water nanostructures by recreating from them the DNA sequence".
I can't help but crack a smile!

They make a big thing of Schumann Resonances. They, at least, are a real phenomenon. The lowest frequency Schumann resonance is 7.83Hz, and its wavelength corresponds to the circumference of the earth.  (See first paragraph.) For interest, this link shows the sort of equipment that might be used to measure Schumann frequencies. This paper also demonstrates the measurement difficulties. On page 1 there is a graph of the Schumann frequency peaks.

Schumann resonances - the problems of interference (from here)

They are dwarfed by an interference signal from the Deutsche Bahn (railway). The nearest railway is 30km from the place where the measurement was made!

Case not proven!  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence don't they.

The first recorded medical trial?

It is sometimes said that the first documented medical trial is found at the beginning of the Old Testament book of Daniel (1:1-16).  This is the story in which Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are among a group of the most gifted children selected by Nebuchadnezzar, who have just besieged and conquered Jerusalem.  These special children were to be taught to speak Chaldean and to learn the ways of the conquerors in order that they could govern the Israelites.

This claim might make it appear that the bible contains some science, but when you examine it, as usual, the 'science' is more or less at kindergarten level.  Yes, some of the children were fed with pulses for 10 days , while the others were fed portions of the king's meat and wine.  At the end of the trial period their appearances were compared.  Of course Daniel and his three friends'  'countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat'.

This sounds a bit like science doesn't it.  But if a medical trial was carried out like this in the present day, would be really considered to be scientific?  I think there are two possibilities.

1. In alternative medicine circles, such as a test of a homeopathic 'remedy', it could be regarded as 'proof' that the magic remedy worked reliably without side effects.  What a wonderful result.  The results proved exactly what was expected.
2. But in real science this would not be acceptable.  This is the simplest sort of medical trial that could be performed.  The main reason that it would not be considered valid (apart from the very poor statistics of examining only four subjects) is that it is not 'double blind' (and couldn't be).  Indeed it is not even 'single blind'.  In other words, everybody knew which children were in which group, and they all had a suspicion that there might be a difference in the outcomes.  Who judged the results?  Were they independent?  The fact that the bible doe not specifically say so would be enough for the study to be thrown out in the present day.

As usual, the claim that you can find science in the bible is found to be wanting.  I never remember hearing this story in church for some reason. Maybe the clergy have spotted the scientific flaw?  :)  On the other hand at least the story is rational and believable, unlike the great majority of the bible.  Maybe this is the reason.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - famous for a less believable story

As for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, they went on to much greater fame by surviving being thrown into the 'burning fiery furnace' where they met an angel who 'looked like the son of god'.  Yes apparently everyone knew what the son of god looked like!

Subsequently they were promoted to positions in Babylon.

And just for a little fun, here is a song by Louis Armstrong.  I would have embedded it but that feature has been disabled.

A simple myth - homeopathy

A simple myth is more attractive than a complex reality.

So says John Cook in his Debunking Handbook, which is a guide for skeptics who are tempted to challenge the world-views of the credulous people around them.  By 'credulous' you might think I mean only the people who believe in their own local religions, but in fact I use the term much more broadly.

All of us are credulous.  I myself have seen 'evidence' for the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment in a 'miraculous' cure of an annoying ailment that one of my children suffered as an infant.  Remarkably, after two bouts of minor surgery, a homeopathic treatment appeared to clear up the problem.  18 months later, a recurrence of the same ailment appeared to be cured again by the same homeopathic approach.  Obviously homeopathy works, and for a while I was convinced by the idea.  After all, it was quite comforting to find that my grandparents had been believers in it too.  I was left wondering why it was not in the mainstream of medicine if it worked so well.

These instances of luck and coincidence can now be recognised as being just that, because 16 years later I can say that I have seen no more evidence at all that homeopathy works, and have seen a great deal of evidence to the contrary.  Not all homeopaths are charlatans of course.  I believe that many of them believe completely in their art.

Of course the answer, in the words of the great Tim Minchin, is quite simple.  As he says  - there is a name for alternative medicine that works.  It is called "medicine".

Homeopathic cure for terrorism

It has been suggested that, according to homeopathic principles, the Americans might have taken the first step to cure the world of terrorism. 

Dropping bin Laden's corpse into the ocean (after 'succussing' it extensively) might be the first step in producing a remedy.

What a pity that homeopathy has been shown, time and time again, not to be better than placebo.

What is wrong with government?

Have you ever been invited to give your opinion in the Houses of Parliament? (That's in UK by the way.)  I haven't.  Have you ever been un-invited because you are more rational than political?

Andy Lewis has.

See this link to an article on The Quackometer

Isn't it outrageous that parliament works more on patronage than on rationality?

And today someone explained to me that the same applies if you work for the European Commission in Barcelona.  Decisions are political - not rational.

What's the harm?

Have a look at http://www.whatstheharm.net/ which tells you exactly what it says in its name.

It won't give you proof and won't give you evidence, but when someone says to you one day "but what's the harm in it?" this is a great source of information.  There is a nice introduction video from Penn Jillette, the loud half of Penn and Teller.

Unfortunately what you find on that site is not always cheerful reading.  In the section about homeopathy for example there are many stories of people with treatable conditions who decided to try alternative medicine and died unnecessarily.

There is a name for 'alternative medicine' that is proven to work by the way.  That name is "medicine"!

RINSE2 - homeopathic project management

A new project management rationale, based on a revision of the age-old technique of 'Homeopathic Project Management' (HPM), is being pioneered by the UK Government. A two-week training course* will have to be undertaken by anyone running projects for the government. The course will introduce them to the complex new terminology associated with this powerful technique. Replacing the current 'standard' PRINCE2 it is being presented under the pseudonym RINSE2.

Although government organisations have spent many years prevaricating over this idea, you have to admire the simplicity of HPM. In essence the idea is to dilute the resources allocated to the project, followed by thoroughly shaking up the organisation.** The principal technical terms 'dilution' and 'succussion' are new to project managers, but it is claimed by proponents of the technique that the more often they are carried out, the greater the efficaciousness.

Taken to the extreme, there is nobody left in the organisation who knows anything useful, but this helps senior management to drive the project to completion with significant cost savings. Furthermore, if applied correctly there is nobody left to assess effectively whether the completed project has any outstanding deficiencies. This has been found to be a great advantage.

The well-known outspoken author and critic of the analogous homeopathic medicine, Simon Singh, has been notably silent on this topic and this is seen as encouraging news by those who back the initiative.

RINSE2 represents the way that future government efficiency improvements are expected to be delivered and in carefully selected trials it has been found to be at least as effective as the better-known homeopathy. ***.

Press release date: 1st April 2011

© Something Surprising Blog

Notes for editors:
* Training to be provided by 'experts' carefully selected over a series of well planned, lavish business lunches.
** Beating everyone with a leather bound book has been shown to increase the effectiveness further, but only at the cost of legal fees in employment tribunals.
*** Homeopathy has been shown to be no better than placebo but in spite of this it is foreseen that RINSE2 will live up to similar expectations.

++ The previously favoured 'PRINCE2' is now consigned to the same fate as the National Health Service.