tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10790551208852160512024-03-13T10:03:23.546-07:00TetenterreChallenging the Mendacity of Pseudoscience and ReligionTetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-59750173726975012392020-09-04T04:58:00.005-07:002020-09-04T06:12:25.912-07:00"You Can't Prove Homeopathy Doesn't Work"<p>The title is the repeated mantra of homeopathists (i.e homeopaths and their apologists). The point is that we don't have to: they are shifting the burden of proof. <br /></p><p><i>They</i> make the claim that homeopathy works, so the burden of proof is upon them. Until then, as the late Christopher Hitchens put it, "That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."</p><p>I can only assume that homeopathists are ignorant of how proof of efficacy works. This is not written for those people (even if they do understand it, they will likely pretend not to), but for open-minded people who are not aware of this. (This lack of awareness is not entirely surprising, given that this is not the sort of thing that is taught in school unless one is studying statistics, at A level in the UK, and probably a similar level elsewhere.) What follows is somewhat over-simplified, but serves to illustrate the point it seeks to make.<br /><br />When one conducts a scientific test, one needs what are called "controls"; the purpose of these is to ensure that any changing observations are due to the parameter that the experimenter is changing. When testing pharmacologically active compounds for potential use as medicines, if it is ethical to do so the control usually takes the form of a placebo.<br /><br />You may have encountered the saying that "you can't prove a negative". For this reason, the test takes the form of <i>disproving</i> a negative. The experimenter formulates what is called the "<i>null hypothesis</i>" (the negative). This takes the form of a testable statement of the form: <b>"There is no statistical difference at a significance level of [p-value given] between [test substance] and placebo in their effect on [specify condition being tested].</b>" (NB: Significance testing and "p-values" are minefields that are poorly understood by most people. If you are interested in why, there is a <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/140216" target="_blank">superb article on this on the Royal Society's website</a>.)</p><p>The tests are then conducted, adhering to experimental protocols that are established <i>before</i> the test is conducted and should include "blinding" (neither the experimenter nor the test subjects know if the latter are being given the placebo or the test substance) and "randomising" (the selection of the control group is random in order to prevent bias). This adherence to protocols means that, for example, if you are testing something for its analgesic properties and you suspect from the outcomes that it may have, say, antihypertensive effects, you must design a new test for the antihypertensive effects.<br /><br />A key point is that the experiment determines whether or not the <i>null hypothesis</i> (i.e. the statement that there is no statistical difference) is refuted. The outcome is binary, i.e. there are exactly two possible outcomes: either the null hypothesis is refuted or it isn't refuted. There are no other possibilities. If the null hypothesis is refuted, the test is deemed <i>positive</i> for the test substance. Otherwise, the test is deemed to be <i>negative</i>. There are no intermediate states such as the "inconclusive" one so beloved of quacks; what they term "inconclusive" is what honest researchers call "negative".<br /><br />The test is then written up in detail and published to enable other scientists to evaluate and replicate it (outcomes that can't be replicated aren't a lot of use!).<br /><br />Another key point is that the burden of proof of a claim is placed where it belongs, i.e. it is for the person who claims that a substance is efficacious to prove it, not for others to disprove the claim. The touts for homeopathy do not like this, but this simple fact remains:<br /><br /><span style="color: #783f04;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">There is no such thing as an independently replicated robust-quality double-blinded randomised control trial that demonstrates that homeopathy is distinguishable from placebo for any condition or purpose.</span></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">So how can we be sure that it doesn't work?</span></b><br /><br />First of all, homeopathy is not medicine. It is a marketing tool for pseudomedicine that pretends that magic is real and relies upon the gullibility of the people whom its practitioners cynically target in the cause of profit.<br /><br />It is made by serial dilution of an original substance (“mother tincture”) and “succussion”, i.e banging it against a resilient surface (the inventor, Hahneman, reputedly used a leather-bound Bible). This banging, we are told, transfers the “essence” (or “vitality”, depending on which homeopath is quacking) of the original substance to the solvent. Nobody seems to be able to tell you how many bangs are necessary for this magic to occur.<br /><br />In the homeopathic “C” scale, each dilution is 1 part of “magic” per 100 parts of solvent, so by the time you get to 30C, the dilution is 1 part per 10<sup>60</sup> parts of solvent. There are several problems with this:</span></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: small;">The solvent would also dissolve minuscule amounts of the containing vessel; hence, if this was a glass vial, borosilicate glass would be dissolved. For some unexplainable reason, the “magic essence” from the borosilicate is selectively excluded from being transferred to the solvent.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;">Back to the 10<sup>60</sup>: if a sphere the size of Earth’s orbit around the Sun was filled with water, it would contain “only” 4.25x10<sup>49</sup> molecules, i.e. in a sphere that big containing the homeopathic “remedy”, there would be less than a 1:10,000,000,000 chance of a single molecule of the original substance existing.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: small;">We are then invited to suspend our critical faculties and believe that further serial dilution and succussion makes the substance more potent. The 30C dilution previously mentioned is referred to, by homeopaths, as a “low potency”. Something like the flu remedy touted by Boiron (a multi-million pound/dollar/euro manufacturer of this implausible magic) is what the homeopaths call “high potency”: 200C, ie a concentration of 1 part per 10<sup>400</sup> . Given that there are only about 10<sup>80</sup> atoms in the known Universe, you would need 100,000 Universes to have a probability of one molecule of the original substance existing!<br /><br />Obviously, this is nonsense. Nothing can be diluted even as far as the “low potency” 30C level. The homeopaths try to get around that by pretending that water in the solvent has a magic memory of what has been dissolved in it. Somehow this memory is very selective: it remembers only the stuff the homeopaths wants it to remember and selectively forgets all the other stuff that it has dissolved in it (so-called “pure” water is never actually 100% pure). Remember the borosilicate! <i>Anyone who believes this guff cannot possibly have a brain, but merely skull-water with the memory of a brain.</i><br /><br />One of the apologists for homeopathy that regularly posts on Quora states that this water memory phenomenon was endorsed by winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, Prof. Brian Josephson, FRS. It was, but what the apologist neglects to tell us is that Josephson did not actually study it, but merely attended a lecture given by a proponent of the water-memory hypothesis, Jacques Benveniste, who published a paper on the subject in Nature. When corroboration was sought, it could not be found and neither Benveniste nor anyone else has been able to replicate it.<br /><br />A very short duration “water memory” phenomenon does appear to exist, but it endures for only a few femtoseconds.<br /><br />Water memory of the type proposed by homeopaths exists only in the homeopaths’ own deceptions (and delusions?).<br /><br />Could there be some other explanation? Homeopaths claim any number of things, almost always from a position of profound ignorance of the science involved, ranging from quantum mechanics, through some as-yet undetectable “energy”, to an unknown mode of operation unknown to science (or anything else, for that matter). They can produce no evidence, or even a plausible scenario, for any of these things.</span></p><p><span style="color: #783f04; font-size: medium;"><b>For homeopathy to work, most of what we know about chemistry and physics, including the bits that enable me to post this blog and you to read it, would have to be wrong: if homeopathy was plausible, the modern world could not exist. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">So why do some people believe in this stuff?</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: small;">I contend that there are three main things that contribute to the anti-scientific magical-thinking belief that homeopathy works:<br /></span></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: small;">The disinformation and dishonest marketing ploys used by the touts for homeopathy.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;">A combination of human credulity/gullibility and the failure of science education to adequately counter this.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;">A phenomenon whereby people tend to credit the last “remedy” or “treatment” they took for the “cure” (aka the <i>post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> fallacy). If, for example, somebody is taking medicine for a condition, but does not seem to improve, but then tries a pseudomedical intervention like homeopathy and seems to improve, they attribute the improvement to homeopathy and not to the possibility that the medicine takes a while to work. Similar phenomenon with self-limiting conditions.</span></li></ol><p><span style="font-size: small;">This explains why the "skill" of a "good" homeopath lies in "treating" self-limiting (or, better, non-existent) ailments with nothing. For profit. Then you have the other kind of homeopath. These will pretend to be able to treat anything from malaria to autism to cancer with nothing. For profit.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;">It's worth repeating:</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /><br /><span style="color: #783f04;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">There
is no such thing as an independently replicated robust-quality
double-blinded randomised control trial that demonstrates that
homeopathy is distinguishable from placebo for any condition or purpose.</span></b></span><br /></span><br /></p>Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-86396160078677179922017-03-13T11:00:00.001-07:002017-03-13T11:03:56.242-07:00Response to Consultation: The use and promotion of complementary and alternative medicine: making decisions about charitable statusToday, 13th March, 2017, the <b>Charities Commission</b> (the Commission) <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-regulator-consults-on-its-approach-to-organisations-promoting-complementary-and-alternative-medicines" target="_blank">announced</a> that it is conducting a<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-complementary-and-alternative-medicines" target="_blank"> Consultation on complementary and alternative medicines</a>. This will run until 12:00am 20th May 2017, so responses should be submitted by 19th May, 2017.<br />
<br />
This existence of this consultation is due to submissions made by lawyers acting for the <a href="http://goodthinkingsociety.org/about/" target="_blank"><b>Good Thinking Society</b></a>, which <a href="http://goodthinkingsociety.org/good-thinkings-response-to-the-charity-commissions-cam-consultation/" target="_blank">writes</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2c2b2b; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">This consultation represents an opportunity for organisations and members of the public to make their thoughts on CAM charities known to the Charity Commission. This is an opportunity supporters of pseudoscientific charities will almost certainly take up, so</span><b style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #2c2b2b; font-family: arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>it is vital that supporters of science and evidence-based treatments get in touch with the Charity Commission in order to ensure our views are well represented</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #2c2b2b; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">.</span></blockquote>
My responses to the Commission follow. I'm sure you can improve on them.<br />
<hr />
<br />
<br />
<b>Question 1: What level and nature of evidence should the
Commission require to establish</b><b> </b><b>the beneficial impact of CAM therapies?</b><br />
<br />
Ideally any evidence of beneficial impact should be in the form of
replicated, good quality, double-blinded, randomised
placebo-controlled trials that demonstrate that the therapy is
distinguishable from placebo for the medical condition for which it
is being offered. This should be published in a recognised medical
journal such as <i>The Lancet</i>, the <i>British Medical Journal</i>,
or the <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Question 2: Can the benefit of the use or promotion of CAM
therapies be established by</b><b> </b><b>general acceptance or recognition, without the need for
further evidence of beneficial</b><b> </b><b>impact? If so, what level of recognition, and by whom, should
the Commission consider</b><b> </b><b>as evidence?</b><br />
<br />
No. "General acceptance or recognition" falls under the umbrella of
the "Bandwagon fallacy" (<i>argumentum ad populum</i>), i.e. the
fallacy that something should be considered to be true or beneficial
because it is widely believed to be true or widely used. Benefit can
only be established by replicated, good quality, double-blinded
randomised placebo-controlled trials that demonstrate that the
therapy is distinguishable from placebo for the medical condition
for which it is being offered.<br />
<br />
In particular, accreditation of CAM trade bodies (e.g. the <i>Society
of Homeopaths, </i>the<i> General Chiropractic Council</i>) by
bodies like the <i>Professional Standards Agency</i>, the <i>Complementary
and Natural Healthcare Council</i> and the <i>British
Complementary Medicine Association</i> must <u>never</u> be
accepted as evidence of benefit, because these bodies do not require
evidence of efficacy or benefit as a condition of accreditation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Question 3: How should the Commission consider conflicting or
inconsistent evidence of</b><b> </b><b>beneficial impact regarding CAM therapies?</b><br />
<br />
Firstly, the burden of proof lies entirely with the proponent of the
CAM therapy. The proponent must demonstrate that the therapy
concerned is distinguishable from placebo for the medical condition
for which it is being offered. <br />
<br />
If the robust evidence is conflicting or inconsistent, this should
be resolved by an independent (e.g. <i>Cochrane Collaboration</i>)
meta-analysis that gives additional weight to higher-quality trials.
In the absence of a meta-analysis, the adjudication of the
Government Chief Scientist should be sought.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Question 4: How, if at all, should the Commission’s approach be
different in respect of CAM</b><b> </b><b>organisations which only use or promote therapies which are
complementary, rather than</b><b> </b><b>alternative, to conventional treatments?</b><br />
<br />
It should not differ at all. The Commission's sole criterion must be
that of demonstrable benefit over and above that of placebo for the
medical condition for which it is being offered.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Question 5: Is it appropriate to require a lesser degree of
evidence of beneficial impact</b><b> </b><b>for CAM therapies which are claimed to relieve symptoms
rather than to cure or</b><b> </b><b>diagnose conditions?</b><br />
<br />
It would not be appropriate. The Commission's sole criterion must
be that of demonstrable benefit over and above that of placebo for
relief of the symptoms for which the CAM therapy is being offered.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Question 6: Do you have any other comments about the Commission’s
approach to</b><b> </b><b>registering CAM organisations as charities?</b><br />
<br />
Yes. <br />
<br />
1. The absence of any mandatory reporting of harmful or adverse
effects of CAM make it impossible to weigh benefit against harm for
the simple reason that the harms are unknowable. The Commission must
therefore not accept submissions that any CAM therapy either causes
no harm or has more benefits than harms.<br />
<br />
2. The Commission should not register CAM organisations which either
promote their own therapies over, or seek to denigrate,
evidence-based medicine. Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-61633557644762975032014-05-19T07:45:00.002-07:002016-09-14T04:03:58.756-07:00Homœoneologisms<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }</style>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In addition to creating a new form of
pseudomedicine, in order to protect it from reasonable debate, its
touts and apologists have devised a whole new set of fallacies,
red-herrings and diversionary tactics. In order that we need not describe them in full every time we meet them, some are named for convenience (rather in the same way that "homeopathist" (not itself a neologism) is shorthand for "touts, purveyors and apologists for homeopathy"). Here are some of them.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>BrownBagging (aka "Hermann-Courtney Insufficiency"):</b> A bizarre, clueless and complex hotch-potch of <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect" target="_blank">Dunning-Kruger</a> compliance, <a href="http://jdc325.wordpress.com/laws-of-the-internet/" target="_blank">Scopie's Law</a> and its Corrolaries, Willberging (qv) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law" target="_blank">Poe's Law</a>, occasionally modified by <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon" target="_blank">Hanlon's Razor</a> and its variations. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Bruckering:</b> Finding that you're <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116781/whole-foods-pseudoscience-anti-rationalist-creationism?" target="_blank">getting hammered</a> in a debate, so <a href="https://www.facebook.com/elaine.lewis.374/posts/10202069584481480?comment_id=5909369&offset=0&total_comments=6" target="_blank">calling for reinforcements</a> and, when your quackdogs arrive, leaving them to carry the can while you skulk off to postures new.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Dullmann Index: </b>An informal assessment of the degree of inappropriate (i.e. all of them!) citations or <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-homeopathic-medicines_b_389146.html" target="_blank">explanations</a> that attribute a theory of <a href="http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/" target="_blank">how homeopathy works</a> to quantum physics, nano-pharmacology, and other terms from modern science. The unit of measure of the <i><a href="http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/393-dana-ullman.html" target="_blank">Dullman</a> Index</i> is the <i>milGrom</i>.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Inane Lewis Manoeuvre: </b>Posting, in an online discussion, a link in which you have posited some personal information, then trying to divert attention away from criticism of homeopathy by accusing anyone who notices it and subsequently comments on it of "<a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116781/whole-foods-pseudoscience-anti-rationalist-creationism?" target="_blank">snooping</a>" on you.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Jahnigging:</b> Posting huge gish-gallops of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R18S7OBM8D5AYR/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0874778433&cdForum=Fx37P5147W45EB2&cdMsgID=Mx3DMEXRYD2RCHS&cdMsgNo=9&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3BG1ADZ94PFNG&store=books#Mx3DMEXRYD2RCHS" target="_blank">links</a> that supposedly support some unscientific notion or fruit-loop conspiracy theory but which, on inspection, do nothing of the sort (which was pointed out the last time they were posted). (Intimately associated with <i>Redding</i> (qv) - in fact, so intimately that you would be forgiven for thinking that they were the same thing.)<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Redding:</b> Citing impressive sounding documents (often from international organisations like the WHO) which, on inspection, turn out never to have existed. (e.g. go <a href="http://who%20report/" target="_blank">here</a> and search on "WHO report") (Intimately associated with <i>Jahnigging</i> (qv) - in fact, so intimately that you would be forgiven for thinking that they were the same thing.)<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Tactical Janissing:</b> Scattergun gish-galloping of a wide and varied spew of unevidenced bullshit, ranging from <a href="http://jeromeburne.com/2014/04/28/homeopathy-and-the-threat-of-endarkenment/comment-page-2/#comment-12393" target="_blank">ridiculous claims</a> that different sceptics are one person to <i>Jahnigging</i> (qv), all designed to try to hide the fact that the spewer has been spouting a <a href="http://jeromeburne.com/2014/04/28/homeopathy-and-the-threat-of-endarkenment/comment-page-2/#comment-13125" target="_blank">wild hotch-potch of bullshit</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Willberging:</b> Repeatedly getting caught out bullshitting (mostly because the bullshit is usually so mind-numbingly stupid that you'd have to be two neurones short of a synapse to believe it in the first place, eg <a href="http://jeromeburne.com/2014/04/28/homeopathy-and-the-threat-of-endarkenment/comment-page-2/#comment-13289" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://who%20report/" target="_blank">here</a>), then blithely and shamelessly continuing without a shred of contrition, as if it had never happened.<br />
<br />
I suspect there will be more....<br />
<br />
<i>Edit:</i> ...and indeed there are:<br />
<br />
<b>Venkatosh:</b> Claiming the ability to identify homeopathic "remedies" if, and only if, <a href="https://twitter.com/22venkateshN/status/553252660392910848" target="_blank">collusion </a>is possible.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTgaJa18CeilujFPbbhkKG-jfgKuUVGhl3l3E22XxUoZYhYcOHjPgOHTyncvloN4OM8Vc6mX8lf8w7zns9gc7MserMaQQb2tUH1YVsFauHj-DaQy1yoyW0AjTVOtd5i33JtJUvGDbyWtYQ/s1600/venkatosh.png" width="333" /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Edit (Suggested by <a href="https://leeturnpenny.com/2016/03/12/homeopathy-could-be-some-trip/" target="_blank">Lee Turnpenny</a>):</i><br />
<br />
<b>Ros(s)ing</b>: A noisy, dishonest deflection device, characterised by mantric accusations of ‘ignorance’ and ‘prejudice’, employed to obfuscate copious logical fallacies and feigned oblivion to failure to address and correct untruths.<br />
<br /></div>
Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-53726082760617855222014-05-15T04:28:00.001-07:002015-04-03T06:24:28.961-07:00Venus: Stellar Errors — Pseudomedical Misuse of Astronomy (and Logic)<a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Homeopathy">Homeopathy</a> is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience">pseudoscientific</a> system of medical <a href="http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html">quackery</a> that claims to work on the principle that if a substance makes a healthy person ill, it will cure a person with that illness. In homeopathic jargon, this is "the law of similars" and is often stated as "like cures like".<br />
<br />
Homeopaths compound this illogic by claiming that, if a solution of this pathogenic agent is diluted and "succussed", their jargon word for hitting the vessel that contains the solution against an elastic body (apparently this was originally a leather-bound bible), it somehow becomes more effective. Homeopaths call this process "potentisation". We are invited to believe that a solvent, so dilute that were it larger than the known universe the probability is that it would not contain a single molecule of the original pathogenic agent, has somehow become more "potent". Homeopaths assert that this is due to the substance leaving its "imprint" on the solvent. They misrepresent (e.g <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-homeopathic-medicines_b_389146.html">here</a> and <a href="http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/how-homeopathy-works/">here</a>) physics to claim that this is due to the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory">memory of water</a>", conveniently ignoring the <a href="http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/hbond.html">evidence</a> that any "memory" that water possesses lasts, at the most, for a few picoseconds. Exactly how the solvent remembers only the homeopath's pathogenic agent and conveniently forgets all the other stuff it's had dissolved in it for millions of years, or the atmospheric gasses that must be come into contact with it during the "potentisation" process is something that, unsurprisingly, is not adequately explained.<br />
<br />
One can easily understand the appeal of such claims. Homeopaths usually hawk their remedies in either an aqueous solution of ethanol or on pillules of sucrose. There is an enormous profit to be made in selling aqueous ethanol or sugar for several hundred £, € or $ per kilogram. (See <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1079055120885216051#note">note</a>)<br />
<br />
Furthermore, it is now no longer necessary for the homeopath to actually have the original pathogenic substance: it is now possible to buy for £1000 or more, a <a href="http://www.sulisinstruments.com/mk3.html">machine</a> that is <a href="http://www.nicko500.co.uk/MGA.htm">claimed</a> to use something akin to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionics">radionics</a> to imprint sugar pills with the "vibrational energy" of the desired substance at whatever "potency" the user wishes.<br />
In their quest for new "remedies", and perhaps also for fame in the pseudomedicine community, homeopaths seem to be on the lookout for wackier things to use. One of these has been <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010418230629/http://www.home.istar.ca/~oha/stardrops.htm">starlight from Polaris</a> — you couldn't make this up! I was unable to get in touch with the author of that particular example of homeopathic quackery, but have had more luck with an enterprising English homeopath, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010415064501/http://www.btinternet.com/~wellmother/hompractice.htm#chris">Chris Wilkinson</a>, who has created another "remedy" using, I kid you not, the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010411022739/http://www.btinternet.com/~wellmother/venusbase.htm"><i>Light of Venus</i></a>. Following the pretentiousness that seems to infest most so-called pseudomedicine (presumably some misguided attempt to create a veneer of academic authenticity) Mr Wilkinson has Latinised the name of his "remedy" to <b><i>Venus Stella Errans</i></b> (or "Planet Venus" in plain English). Mr Wilkinson is very active on <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisWilki/">Twitter</a>, where he valiantly defends his chosen species of pseudomedicine, so I took the opportunity to quiz him about this "remedy".<br />
<br />
Mr Wilkinson's description of his experimental process is strangely lacking in any of the detail that would enable his experiment to be replicated. In a Twitter exchange on the 25-27 June 2012, Mr Wilkinson seemed reluctant do divulge much more asserted that this is <a href="https://twitter.com/Tetenterre/statuses/217953732812488704">not necessary</a> on the grounds that "<i>any homeopath who knows about remedy making would have enough info to make something close enough … also the remedy doesn't have to be made again for a very very long time, way after we are dead</i>" and that "<i>there were too many minor variables involved to precisely replicate</i>". So that's alright, then! However, I did manage to elicit some experimental detail:<br />
"<i>The telescope was a reflector, about 18in. The lactose was on the eyepiece.</i>"<br />
<br />
I asked what part of the eyepiece (Eye lens, field lens, field stop, somewhere else?); Mr Wilkinson replied:<br />
"<i>the bit your eye looks in! No idea what that was called. It was slightly curved? … convex i mean</i>" <br />
<br />
In response to a question about how he had exluded other light from the lactose and during the "potentising", Mr Wilkinson responded:
"<i>It wasn't "completely" dark of course. Likewise with the initial potentising.</i>"<br />
<br />
"The perpetrator of the Polaris drivel (above) stated:<br />
<i>The procedure was as follows. Having at my disposal an eight-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain Celestron telescope, I inserted a half-inch diameter clear-glass vial encircled by a cork rim into the eyepiece aperture. For autumn viewing the vial was filled with well water; in the winter, I used vodka, neat, to prevent the fluid freezing. The telescope itself was set up in the middle of a free-standing stone enclosure some three feet high and forty feet in diameter, which was oriented on a north/south axis.</i><br />
"<i>By means of the finderscope I kept the telescope contered on a chosen star for an interval of one hour. At the end of the viewing period I removed the vial from the telescope and to avoid human contamination placed it in a plastic container filled with sand.</i> "<br />
<br />
For a moment, let us suspend our critical senses and incredulity and assume, for the sake of argument, that homeopathy might work and that starlight or sunlight reflected from Venus might work homeopathically. The sunlight that Mr Wilkinson "collected" in his lactose took this route: <br />
<ol>
<li>Several million years transiting from the core of the Sun to its surface, where it was radiated into space.</li>
<li>Impinged on the visible surface (i.e. atmosphere) of Venus, where about 25% was selectively absorbed and the other 75% reflected into space.</li>
<li>Some of this reflected light then entered Earth's atmosphere; a tiny amount would have been selectively reflected, some selectively absorbed, some selectively scattered and some would heve entered the aperture of Mr Wilkinson's telescope, either directly or as a minuscule part of the scattered light.</li>
<li>This light would then be reflected off the aluminium coating on the primary mirror (double-passing through any quartz overcoat) and again off the aluminised surface of the secondary mirror.</li>
<li>It would then pass through layers of optical coatings on the eyepiece and through the several lens elements which, in modern eyepieces are of at least two different types of glass. Each of these would selectively absorbed some of the light, and each optical surface would have reflected some.</li>
<li>It then passes onto the surface of Mr Wilkinson's lactose, where it mixes with the ambient light.</li>
</ol>
Even if Mr Wilkinson's "remedy" had some effect (and he has not, to the best of my knowledge, published, in any scientific journal, any <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/316/7126/201">RCTs</a> with evidence of efficacy), he would have no way of knowing whether the effect was due to :<br />
<ul>
<li>Reflection off Venus's atmosphere</li>
<li>Reflection off the aluminised mirror surfaces</li>
<li>Reflection off any other optical elements</li>
<li>Selectivebsorption by the atmosphere or any of the optical elements the light transited</li>
<li>Other scattered light from the atmosphere</li>
<li>Ambient light that the lactose absorbed from the time of its manufacture, up to and including the process of "potentisation"</li>
</ul>
In short, the design of this experiment is so poor that it beggars belief! As far as I can tell, there are no controls at all. Applying the homeopathic theory that "more dilute" equates to "more potent", the reflected sunlight from Venus would be amongst the least active of the different "lights" in the solution!<br />
<br />
The "<i>Polaris</i>" one is even worse: the experimenter used water from a well! How did it manage to "forget" all the myriads of compounds that are found in any well water and "remember" only the starlight of Polaris?<br />
<br />
If this shoddiness and appalling lack of control is typical of the design of homeopathic experiments or in the manufacture of their "remedies" (and I have no evidence to suggest that it is not typical), we should not be surprised at <b>any</b> outome. In my Twitter exchange with Mr Wilkinson, he seemed unconcerned about experimental rigour and much more concerned that I should have experienced homeopaths supervising any subjects I "proved" the "remedy" on ("<i>Can go thru variables at some point, tho thats far less an issue than the proving process</i>")if I decided to make it and test it. (To homeopaths,"proving" is the process by which they decide which "remedies" will treat which symptoms. Again, as far as I can ascertain, it is a shoddy process where experimental rigour is concerned. Although homeopaths try to claim that they are equivalent to clinical trials, they are not randomized, not blinded, highly subjective and prone to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect">expectancy bias</a>. As long as 170 years ago, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Sr.">Oliver Wendell Holmes</a> stated that they are <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c8MNAAAAYAAJ&hl=en">not repeatable and are too vague to be useful</a>.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="note"><b>Note:</b></a> I do not assert that all, or even most, homeopaths are knowingly committing medical fraud. However, I do assert that they are committing quackery, as defined by <a href="http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html">Quackwatch:</a>"<i> Most people think of quackery as promoted by charlatans who deliberately exploit their victims. Actually, most promoters are unwitting victims who share misinformation and personal experiences with others.</i>" I also assert that, most people of integrity who claim efficacy for homeopathy and much other pseudomedicine would not do so if they had a full understanding of the <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html">placebo effect</a> which, contrary to what supporters of pseudomedicine try to tell us, also works on <a href="http://www.thebark.com/content/dogs-and-placebo-effect">animals</a> and <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/10525">children</a>.Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-73099267583741056962013-10-14T08:12:00.001-07:002013-10-17T01:05:39.076-07:00What 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' really told you<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgroM31j6mUylX4kIIbLbpz32QF-Ry2_XD-mfe42ZZKBNCJeB2rExXru0_RTkh8TD2xTpeYOWyela-G7S7Kb8Mb0o6g2MHIbXmccsmgZF6F_K589VTNZwBjSuUjCieM38mr9fl0Jw5R2Bmc/s1600/Waitrose-WDDTY+stockist-detail.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Last updated 2013 October 17 09:05 UT</span></b></div>
<h2>
</h2>
<br />
The <strike>tacky health-scare magazine</strike> self-styled "journal", <i>What Doctors Don't Tell You</i>, has been getting a little hot under the collar recently about things that it claims it is reported to have said but didn't really say. It's also been making some rather surprising assertions about other things. Some of these are clearly silly "couldn't be bothered to check"-type errors, others are more than that. You be the judge.<br />
<br />
This post will be added to as time and information permits. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="left" border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" style="width: 95%px;" valign="middle">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>The Claim</th>
<th>The Reality</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="http://www.zenosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Times-1.jpg" target="_blank"><i>McTaggart (said) her journal would accept no advertising - "we have to remain pure" - </i></a></td>
<td valign="top">Not only is approximately a quarter of each issue devoted to advertising (based on June 2013 issue), in February 2013, the <a href="http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/" target="_blank">Nightingale Collaboration</a> <a href="http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/news/143-wddty-9-taking-stock.html" target="_blank">reported</a> that the <a href="http://www.asa.org.uk/" target="_blank">Advertising Standards Authority</a> had adjudicated against advertising in WDDTY to the tune of 54 <a href="http://www.cap.org.uk/" target="_blank">CAP-Code</a> breaches. This is in addition to eleven "informally resolved" cases (i.e. the advertising was acknowledged to be in breach of CAP-Codes and was amended voluntarily.)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/632555463431736" target="_blank"><i>"...the Nightingale Collaboration, a ragtag group who meet in a pub of the same name..."</i></a></td>
<td valign="top">Errr.. there is no pub called <i>The Nightingale Collaboration</i>.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/632555463431736" target="_blank"><i>"...the pharmaceutically backed organization [Simon Singh] fronts, 'Sense About Science'...." </i></a></td>
<td valign="top"><a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/" target="_blank"><i>Sense About Science</i></a> is a charity. Its accounts are therefore open to scrutiny.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/images/Year_end_April_2013_Funding_pie_chart_500px.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/images/Year_end_April_2013_Funding_pie_chart_500px.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Less than 5% of its funding comes from companies; none of these is a pharmaceutical company.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">WDDTY complained: <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/165637094/what%20the%20times%20didn%27t%20tell%20you.html" target="_blank"><i>"The Times stated: we said vitamin C cures HIV."</i></a></td>
<td valign="top"><img alt="" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv8UTkBrKYQXgchgfXts6GOd5vKsiy744285HZsvBQkClpCqxA7IpmfkuatV83NFmNCh37wibIRVOVWAQibnRZAgWLtE6W8j9DFxE8noPmxIuI1KIQAYykTgSwnTamhxT-yRKMus6qJhut/s320/VitC-AIDS.png" width="320" /><br />
<br />
<img alt="" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ehdNgBj29zKsFqI7VWvvBKDxMYqtaZg_Jde5cB6Ss_eRLlw2cKM7ua1p4DqsM2qToPDvMbeMEi3dzGW39RfccgEb6wsn0IJiBOd8slb3DUiwMFKmNo8nOTYbX9qY6qqLWlcl3Iiw91Kt/s320/VitC-AIDS2.png" width="320" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/632555463431736" target="_blank"><i>"Five Live followed up with a television debate about our magazine."</i></a> </td>
<td valign="top">Five Live doesn't do TV debates. (Clue: It is a radio station!)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/632555463431736" target="_blank"><i>"It's also apparent from the information published in The Times and in all the media following that not one journalist or broadcaster has read one single word we've written, particularly on the homeopathy story, and for very good reason: the article and the magazine containing it in fact have not yet been published."</i></a></td>
<td valign="top">Ummm -- WDDTY published their claims for homeopathy months ago!<br />
<br />
<img alt="" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ2vyWQe2dA1sxOa__q6HVJneM3U0Siarbpjm3G0HSgYx1nYHEuGsMZd5R5D8z2kf_oPOnWqChJ1Z7ykQdDNQHVI0buoS9q_IOYEpf3nGD-A7Nq6qzHDGHSyUf1jQMUV73bemj2qMRq3VN/s320/homeocancer.jpg" width="320" /><br />
<br />
And bragged on Facebook about doing so!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqSQH1ahi6n4mAszc_lATgeskjgXaQC-JluwUzDjUkeJ8A09NjHwPG15Xx_ooN0zxeZzXtf3ZGQkK8z5kJINwxhtkRy6EzuWoVt4C1XDnPdB1pnxmWRvsEmhBSQRlGT2J6JwnXd7QpK_UE/s320/homeocancer2.jpg" width="320" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">(To the Times)<i> </i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://intentblog.com/lynne-mctaggart-stands-attack-alternative-medicine/" target="_blank"><i>"You have no idea yet what we're going to write about, so how can you say we're going to write that homeopathy 'cures' cancer?"</i></a></td>
<td valign="top">Ummm... Maybe they were referring to a claim WDDTY has <b>already</b> made? (See above)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/632901886730427?comment_id=6809775&offset=0&total_comments=83" target="_blank"><i>"Just to clarify yet another lie about us: we are not 'pro' or 'anti' vaccine."</i></a></td>
<td valign="top">From <b><i>WDDTY</i></b>, June 2013: "The safest interpretation is that the MMR increases the risk of autism by 5 per cent"<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMk_TKS1mirG4VAB6rRpT_7IwdBcY0gEKKMGReJSWsZzF5GBkNNET4qQLt07uSwCSFXJZeJznXp_6SeEVwQOo6pMe_suaSP29XW3dkOceWeSB_9s6pozRk-kMQEk6nBhEHCpOq2_0xaLoo/s1600/MMRlies.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMk_TKS1mirG4VAB6rRpT_7IwdBcY0gEKKMGReJSWsZzF5GBkNNET4qQLt07uSwCSFXJZeJznXp_6SeEVwQOo6pMe_suaSP29XW3dkOceWeSB_9s6pozRk-kMQEk6nBhEHCpOq2_0xaLoo/s1600/MMRlies.png" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_qY8BbTSinFYTVD2pvHEeqP1IySCeNikdKQ9jvcMYzDdnH3vjkoRIWTg_eD-7U4Ir1jcawJQq69guzUj4wDPrx4vP5YhMDvL6tgpWgWzEd3Ey0qIJeiaGYScDbrt22-X-39uVywYsSwJy/s1600/dangerofvaccines.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_qY8BbTSinFYTVD2pvHEeqP1IySCeNikdKQ9jvcMYzDdnH3vjkoRIWTg_eD-7U4Ir1jcawJQq69guzUj4wDPrx4vP5YhMDvL6tgpWgWzEd3Ey0qIJeiaGYScDbrt22-X-39uVywYsSwJy/s1600/dangerofvaccines.png" /></a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-fS9NVmv_7yMP10vI__RDOn1OHn2H462tq7NCjCIWY-oKMVNbS8QijuRRGzkgbYuYkg3JFU63dGw9GidPlaPqoQAmd1nlq3smULMCtiXEtUsSVmHqM_1d6aXzL8jX-RtN82SCYhuRVgqd/s1600/vaccines+destroy+health.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-fS9NVmv_7yMP10vI__RDOn1OHn2H462tq7NCjCIWY-oKMVNbS8QijuRRGzkgbYuYkg3JFU63dGw9GidPlaPqoQAmd1nlq3smULMCtiXEtUsSVmHqM_1d6aXzL8jX-RtN82SCYhuRVgqd/s320/vaccines+destroy+health.jpg" width="227" /></a><br />
<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="http://intentblog.com/lynne-mctaggart-stands-attack-alternative-medicine/" target="_blank"><i>"Not one of the newspapers, radio shows or television stations bothered to contact us, even to solicit a comment,,,"</i></a> </td>
<td valign="top">The Times journalist who reported on the campaign to get the magazine off supermarket shelves sent this email:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgciHUzp7OVDpv5yGYA76EgBTXy5LhadQeGWa4cQj3Ju6effr7pKtAsbpmWC56DpXbcH0GvJiPPMXa7aCG_knU1FHsKmJfSkgN_9ParGG4lpSK6MEHdLSqMapjK-HRNqQw_k9oszBbtoPgB/s1600/Whippleemail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgciHUzp7OVDpv5yGYA76EgBTXy5LhadQeGWa4cQj3Ju6effr7pKtAsbpmWC56DpXbcH0GvJiPPMXa7aCG_knU1FHsKmJfSkgN_9ParGG4lpSK6MEHdLSqMapjK-HRNqQw_k9oszBbtoPgB/s320/Whippleemail.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
And phoned twice: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFfU1ipuusXr1NnEi5SHjgR_Iozs_2byvI8MXF1KBvGiA9cg9PdR_mLZNss5tkLZ_O5IaSjhHRHAUUQTORoJ1Uyi03PhbwNz2kYMkY6-fEvo2w0lRYNhZJJS4STYvSMI2KBged6MCWG84k/s1600/Whipplephone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFfU1ipuusXr1NnEi5SHjgR_Iozs_2byvI8MXF1KBvGiA9cg9PdR_mLZNss5tkLZ_O5IaSjhHRHAUUQTORoJ1Uyi03PhbwNz2kYMkY6-fEvo2w0lRYNhZJJS4STYvSMI2KBged6MCWG84k/s320/Whipplephone.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
(Having had no reply from the "Editorial" department, he next tried "Accounts and General Management")<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/632901886730427?comment_id=6813790&offset=0&total_comments=81" target="_blank"><i>"...the Swiss government decided that there is some proof of homeopathy..."</i></a></td>
<td valign="top">It did nothing of the sort! See <a href="http://www.zenosblog.com/2012/05/that-neutral-swiss-homeopathy-report/" target="_blank">Zeno's Blog</a> for what really happened.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="http://www.lynnemctaggart.com/blog/240-how-the-london-times-tried-to-stop-you-from-reading-this" target="_blank"><i>"For months, Singh, whose Sense About Science group has the sponsorship of the British Pharmaceutical Association..."</i></a></td>
<td valign="top">If the <i>The British Pharmaceutical Association</i> actually exists and is not just something else made up by McTaggart, it is not a <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/funding.html" target="_blank">sponsor</a> of <i>Sense About Science</i>.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWkdJP5IAAEYf59.png:large" target="_blank"><i>"[Waitrose] are not one of our stockists"</i></a> </td>
<td valign="top">Curious. That's not what the distributor thinks:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgroM31j6mUylX4kIIbLbpz32QF-Ry2_XD-mfe42ZZKBNCJeB2rExXru0_RTkh8TD2xTpeYOWyela-G7S7Kb8Mb0o6g2MHIbXmccsmgZF6F_K589VTNZwBjSuUjCieM38mr9fl0Jw5R2Bmc/s1600/Waitrose-WDDTY+stockist-detail.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="115" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgroM31j6mUylX4kIIbLbpz32QF-Ry2_XD-mfe42ZZKBNCJeB2rExXru0_RTkh8TD2xTpeYOWyela-G7S7Kb8Mb0o6g2MHIbXmccsmgZF6F_K589VTNZwBjSuUjCieM38mr9fl0Jw5R2Bmc/s320/Waitrose-WDDTY+stockist-detail.png" width="320" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglngypOTOJs6trr2zK4-FRH0XFzx2CkA9ReCzN_nCa6ke3BWTNV4vVgoCzL3Y9NKlLHq0bbb309geveivcR5XzVzLi_8tTIhmwgpMoiey1m0i6ww_Mthoeema_t8eNonYeCK9YHYSwZR7t/s1600/Waitrose-WDDTY+stockist-detail.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><i><a href="https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/636431409710808" target="_blank">"The letter being sent out by the Times to our readers..."</a></i></td>
<td valign="top">The <i>Times</i> is sending out letters to WDDTY readers? <br />
Really?<br />
Is WDDTY implying that the <i>Times</i> somehow get hold of the WDDTY subscriber database?<br />
Has anyone ever actually seen one of these letters?</td>
</tr>
<!--
<tr>
<td valign="top"></td>
<td valign="top"></td>
</tr>
-->
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ehdNgBj29zKsFqI7VWvvBKDxMYqtaZg_Jde5cB6Ss_eRLlw2cKM7ua1p4DqsM2qToPDvMbeMEi3dzGW39RfccgEb6wsn0IJiBOd8slb3DUiwMFKmNo8nOTYbX9qY6qqLWlcl3Iiw91Kt/s1600/VitC-AIDS2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ehdNgBj29zKsFqI7VWvvBKDxMYqtaZg_Jde5cB6Ss_eRLlw2cKM7ua1p4DqsM2qToPDvMbeMEi3dzGW39RfccgEb6wsn0IJiBOd8slb3DUiwMFKmNo8nOTYbX9qY6qqLWlcl3Iiw91Kt/s1600/VitC-AIDS2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
What does become apparent is that WDDTY needs some sort of disclaimer on a lot of what it asserts!</div>
Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-25297479970582305522013-08-02T02:33:00.002-07:002015-04-03T06:25:49.317-07:00Simple Test for the Efficacy of Homeopathy<ul>
</ul>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Take the "Tetenterre Challenge" </span></span></h2>
<ul>
<li>Homeopaths claim that their so-called "remedies" are effective. </li>
<li>By definition, something that is effective has an effect. </li>
<li>If something has an effect, that effect can be observed.</li>
</ul>
<br />
This offers a simple double-blind, randomised test for the claims homeopaths make:<br />
<ol>
<li>An experienced homeopath selects sufficient quantities for a dozen provings of two remedies whose <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proving_%28homeopathy%29" target="_blank">provings</a> show them to have very different, preferably opposite, effects.</li>
<li>This homeopath selects eleven homeopath collaborators. </li>
<li>A researcher, using techniques determined by the homeopath, distributes the pillules of each remedy into a dozen separate identical new vials.</li>
<li>A placebo (physically identical "inert" pillules) are distributed into another dozen identical new vials.</li>
<li>The vials are individually randomly labelled by the researcher with identification numbers.</li>
<li>The researcher records, for each ID number, whether it holds Remedy #1, Remedy #2, or Placebo.</li>
<li>The vials are randomly grouped into threes, each group containing one vial each of Remedy #1, Remedy #2, Placebo.</li>
<li>The homeopath collects a package containing the vials (no contact with the researcher).</li>
<li>The homeopath distributes the groups of vials to his/her homeopath collaborators.</li>
<li>Each homeopath, conducts "provings" of the contents of each vial.</li>
<li>The homeopaths use the results of the provings to identify which vials hold the placebo and which vials hold which of the two known remedies.</li>
<li>The homeopath's identifications are compared with the researcher's records.</li>
</ol>
<br />
Any takers?<br />
<br />
(Yes, I know that there are more holes in this than in a decent roquefort, but if homeopaths can't distinguish between "remedies" with this....)Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-47689603108512381282013-07-02T01:27:00.001-07:002014-03-11T08:30:56.152-07:00The Human Eye: Evolution or Spectacularly Unintelligent Design?As a visual amateur astronomer, I return time and again to considering
the <i>structure</i> and <i>spectral response</i> of the human eye. It soon becomes clear that anyone postulating
that it was created by some sort of divine entity must conclude that the divine entity is either spectacularly ignorant about the nature of light and its
interaction with matter, or is just a bloody-minded sod that has chosen to endow its pinnacle of creation with substandard eyes. With a bit of thought, it could have done so much better — it's not as if it didn't know how!<br />
<br />
<h3>
Structure</h3>
Firstly consider the <span class="posthilit">retina</span>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw9OzFB1Bmf7dvxsoZWR-d6Oz_TQ1RhzAvvSdSvsf3UbyPjJILpH9Ng-C3lyTIXob47JFEY3DaDSj_RxNFykV6CiLoeMl-lN_6KLJK00qgQLBkim3j6XCQv-pfu48riMyvrQa3iKn6u3Cs/s1000/Retina-diagram.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw9OzFB1Bmf7dvxsoZWR-d6Oz_TQ1RhzAvvSdSvsf3UbyPjJILpH9Ng-C3lyTIXob47JFEY3DaDSj_RxNFykV6CiLoeMl-lN_6KLJK00qgQLBkim3j6XCQv-pfu48riMyvrQa3iKn6u3Cs/s400/Retina-diagram.svg.png" height="176" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(Image Source: Public Domain Image from Wikipedia Commons; author: </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Santiago Ramón y Cajal)</span></div>
<br />
<br />
As you can see, the main light receptors (rods & cones) are not
situated on the front surface, but behind (in the simple model, above)
three other (non-transparent) layers of tissue: The light has to pass
through four layers before it is received by the photoreceptors. (If you
want a more complex model, it's 9 layers, but that doesn't really make
any difference to the argument). <br />
<br />
Another
consequence of this arrangement is that the nerve fibres are in front
of the receptors. This means that they have to pass through the receptor
layer, thus creating the Blind Spot. Hmmm -- clever? Nah, not really.
Stinks of evolution!<br />
<br />
<h3>
Spectral Response</h3>
Now let's consider the response of the
different cones to different wavelengths (colours) of light. Human
vision has a range of approx 420nm to 680nm. We are trichromats, which
means we have 3 types of colour receptor (called "cones"), with peak
responses at approximately 430nm, 545nm and 572nm. Why would an intelligent
designer create the clumping around 550nm? The usual excuse is that this is where the Sun's peak output is. This is simply incorrect: it is 504nm. Anyway, even if it was correct, we would not need 2/3 of our colour vision receptors to be closely packed around that wavelength.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvXPVxn4bv3XDc8shfMDCd8qADeYXTxpNJz6RGWJWvsQVLx086jiOHxSntHURRIeOj7_Ny5IpE5xndLHpUhJihM0aDm2Ye10Z3C4mmj-qw4deGnvh3hkGfqGjzT6CLCzcBBqD87sAmKwyL/s772/Cone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvXPVxn4bv3XDc8shfMDCd8qADeYXTxpNJz6RGWJWvsQVLx086jiOHxSntHURRIeOj7_Ny5IpE5xndLHpUhJihM0aDm2Ye10Z3C4mmj-qw4deGnvh3hkGfqGjzT6CLCzcBBqD87sAmKwyL/s400/Cone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.png" height="257" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(Image Source: Public Domain Image from Wikipedia Commons; author: </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Ben Rudiak-Gould)</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So, how could it have done better? The answer is:<i> "Really Easily!"</i> It had lots of practice. After all, in its wisdom, before it created us, this divine entity supposedly also
created the birds, the fishes and the insects, many of which are
tetrachromats (four kinds of cone) and some are even pentachromats (five
kinds). The finch, for example, has its peak colour responses more
evenly spaced:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNEJuRqUjmyL8TIFQ-VTxSfb4n2VwqhS8fL_Epu0fbycZJ27Ceb8jgvxOQ37d0vlux6RL4qEMmBZ8uuHD3niVCbhrLheKu-p0syiBe-zb7Yfy9nAWYiw-2PQD075B_MZeIjrDuikKOPQAg/s535/BirdVisualPigmentSensitivity.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNEJuRqUjmyL8TIFQ-VTxSfb4n2VwqhS8fL_Epu0fbycZJ27Ceb8jgvxOQ37d0vlux6RL4qEMmBZ8uuHD3niVCbhrLheKu-p0syiBe-zb7Yfy9nAWYiw-2PQD075B_MZeIjrDuikKOPQAg/s400/BirdVisualPigmentSensitivity.svg.png" height="286" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(Image Source: Public Domain Image from Wikipedia Commons; author: </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Ben Rudiak-Gould)</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So, why did this divine entity give us such relatively poor vision, when it could so easily have done better?<br />
<br />
Or did our vision just evolve, with inherited characteristics from folivorous and frugivorous mammalian ancestors, for whom an ability to finely discriminate colours in the yellow-green would have conferred an evolutionary advantage?Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-64086439447085978022013-06-19T05:53:00.000-07:002014-05-16T01:30:01.082-07:00Freedom of Choice and PseudomedicineAs the demand for evidence-based medicine gathers grows, especially in the NHS where many so-called <i>Complementary and Alternative Medicines</i> (CAM) are being re-examined for efficacy, the CAM proponents are increasingly declaring that their particular "health modalities" should be available on the NHS as a matter of "freedom of medical choice". It is reasonable to ask what the implications of this are.<br />
<br />
Freedom of choice is a laudable thing, provided that it is informed and responsible. Choosing something about which we know nothing is potentially as stupid as choosing to walk across a motorway -- and it can have similar consequences. The tragic example of <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371640489OLAGCLMALO" target="_blank">Penelope Dingle</a> is a case in point, but she is only the tip of a <a href="http://whatstheharm.net/" target="_blank">huge iceberg of harm</a> caused directly or indirectly by pseudomedicine. As in Ms Dingle's case, she was not directly killed by homeopathy (clearly, that which has no pharmacological effect can, by definition, have no adverse pharmacological effect), but because reliance on ineffectual pseudomedicine caused her to reject conventional interventions that would have prolonged her life and which may have cured her.<br />
<br />
<br />
I should be clear that I am not claiming that conventional medicine never gets it wrong or that it is squeaky-clean in its methodology. It isn't; there have been some appalling errors and frauds. However, using that as a reason to use something of unknown or unproven efficacy is about as illogical as using a fatal motorway pile-up as a reason to leave the car at home and choose to skate-board in the middle lane instead! The blogger <a href="http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/" target="_blank">Guy Chapman</a> puts it rather more eloquently: "<a href="http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/05/homeopathic-rebunking-debunked/" target="_blank"><i>Problems with medicine validate homeopathy in precisely the same way that plane crashes validate magic carpets.</i></a>"<br />
<br />
Making an uninformed choice for yourself is one thing. It is another to make such a choice for those for whose health you bear responsibility. Parents who, for example, make an uninformed -- or, as in the case of MMR vaccine refusal, misinformed -- choice are unwittingly putting the health of their children at risk. This is one reason that it behoves the sceptic community to contest unevidenced claims for pseudomedicine, wherever they occur.<br />
<br />
The beneficial claims made for a number of pseudomedical practices effectively boil down to an "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition" target="_blank">argument from tradition</a>", i.e. that they have been used for centuries or millennia. Apart from the inherent illogic of this (as <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/" target="_blank">David Colquhoun</a> says of herbal medicine, it is "<a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371641173ZEVOXUYKCD" target="_blank"><i>giving patients an unknown dose of an ill-defined drug, of unknown effectiveness and unknown safety</i></a>") there is also the question of harm to those species whose body parts are used for pseudomedical practices. The "traditional medicine"-induced <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371641258ATLXAVVTKX" target="_blank">demise of the Amur tiger</a> and <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371641346WPLSLHJVQI" target="_blank">poaching of rhinoceroses</a> for their horns are both well known and well documented, but this is merely the tip of another iceberg. According to the <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371641504OBTEPBILPE" target="_blank">Smithsonian</a>, other animals that are endangered because their body-parts are used in traditional medicine include water buffalo, the Chinese alligator, the Asian elephant, musk deer, the sun bear, Grevy's zebra, wild banteng, and the hawksbill sea turtle. This is by no means a comprehensive list of animal species that are killed or maimed in order to meet a selfish demand for "freedom of choice in medical modalities".<br />
<br />
Some may object that the use of animals for testing conventional medicines is equally cruel. That is a matter of opinion and individual judgement (and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque" target="_blank">tu quoque fallacy</a> to boot), but the two things are not equivalent. The one is experimenting animals to establish whether there is robust evidence of efficacy for pharmaceutical substances for whose efficacy there is already some evidence. The other is killing and maiming animals to satisfy a demand for a product for whose efficacy there is no robust evidence. <br />
<br />
As I write this, it is "<i>Homeopathy Awareness Week</i>", so where does homeopathy fit into this? According to the principles of homeopathy, "<i><a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371641955WFKQESOBUQ" target="_blank">Medicines derived from the animal kingdom act energetically and rapidly</a></i>" and "<a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371642047JNVLSSNSPM" target="_blank"><i>are especially indicated in potentially fatal crises or acute disorders as well as chronic diseases that have the character of the rapid destruction of organic tissue</i></a>". Amongst the <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371642312ETGPWBLWGO" target="_blank">animals used by homeopaths</a> are the medusae (e.g. jellyfish), various arthropods (insects, arachnids, etc.), and numerous reptiles, including snakes and lizards. There is a recent interest in the use of <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371642148TGUUSOSLID" target="_blank">body-parts of birds</a>, including those of humming birds, ospreys, herring gulls, pea-fowl and protected (in the UK) species such as the peregrine falcon and the golden eagle. Various mammals (or their body parts or secretions thereof) are also included in the homeopathic repertory, including <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371642652VZZOQADLEU" target="_blank">bottlenose dolphin</a>, <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371642805JPSKUOJTMG" target="_blank">badgers</a>, beavers, cats, cattle, sheep, musk-deer, horses and skunks. And "<a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371642507PYJDWIGQVP" target="_blank">testicular extracts of man</a>" (i.e. <i>semen</i> to the rest of us. Please don't ask.).<br />
<br />
<br />
Whilst we are on the subject of homeopathy awareness, any gay readers might be interested to know that, according to the principles of homeopathy as elucidated by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tyler_Kent" target="_blank">James Tyler Kent</a>, they suffer from "<a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371644435PAQVGHBDUV" target="_blank"><i>a sexual perversion caused by the miasms</i></a>" . You would be forgiven for thinking that this is an archaic view that is no longer held in the 21st Century. You would be <a href="http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=2718" target="_blank">wrong</a>.<br />
<br />
Lastly, on this topic, I would not want to leave you with the false impression that homeopaths all exploit the animal kingdom for their remedies. This is simply not the case. In this <i>Homeopathy Awareness Week</i> it is my duty to give fair balance by ensuring that you are aware that they also use such diverse non-animal things as <a href="http://thethoughtstash.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/weird-homeopathy-oscillococcinum/" target="_blank">bacteria that don't actually exist</a>, the light of the <a href="http://tete-enterre.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/venus-stellar-errors-pseudomedical.html" target="_blank">planet Venus</a> or the star <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010418230629/http://www.home.istar.ca/~oha/stardrops.htm" target="_blank">Polaris</a>, various <a href="https://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=linkrem&sku=Green" target="_blank">colours</a>, a <a href="http://thethoughtstash.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/weird-homeopathy-tempesta-the-storm/" target="_blank">thunderstorm</a>, the <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371645764TSQVRLNWIQ" target="_blank">Berlin Wall</a>, and <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371646143NLSZEZTYQV" target="_blank">water</a> (which is dissolved in ethanol and - wait for it - water!). They have even outdone ordinary physics and managed to isolate a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole" target="_blank">magnetic monopole</a> for <a href="http://www.freezepage.com/1371645924JHAGBCRLZT" target="_blank">this gem</a>.<br />
<br />
So, please be aware and make informed decisions on your "choice of health-care modalities".Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-66801565208106999852012-12-17T07:32:00.000-08:002015-04-03T06:25:49.321-07:00Coins, Astrology, Pseudomedicine and Gun ControlYou <b>can</b> try this at home!<br />
<br />
I have just tossed a coin ten times. I got three heads and seven tails. Should I assume that this coin has a probability of 0.7 for tails and 0.3 for heads? Let's see.<br />
<br />
That sample of ten times was one of a hundred such samples that I recorded when tossing the same coin 1000 times. Taken as a whole, I had 503 heads and 497 tails, giving a probability (to two significant figures) of 0.50 for each possible outcome. What should I assume now? That the other 900 trials were flawed, or that my penny has a statistically equal probability of heads or tails?<br />
<br />
I suggest that reasonable people will assume that the cherry-picked ten times was a normal statistical "blip" and that the coin is, in fact, "fair".<br />
<br />
Apologists for pseudomedicine, which include the present <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22241-hail-jeremy-hunt-the-new-minister-for-magic.html">Secretary of State for Health</a>, eschew the same reasoning when it comes to clinical trials. They focus on the equivalent of the trial that gave seven tails and proclaim that "some trials show that homoeopathy <i>[or antidepressants, or some other pseudomedicine]</i> works better than placebo". Somehow they refuse to acknowledge that it is the totality of trials -- the thousand coin-tosses -- that must be taken into account, not just the few subsets that show a balance in favour of their pet species of pseudomedicine.<br />
<br />
Similarly, those who subscribe to belief systems like astrology systematically ignore the many trials that demonstrate that, as a predictive or descriptive tool, it is no better than random chance and, instead, focus on those whose statistical-blip outcomes favoured the belief system.<br />
<br />
So why do so many otherwise intelligent people seem reluctant to apply the same
reasoning to beliefs like astrology or the efficacy of pseudomedicine as they effortlessly do to coins?<br />
<br />
The short answer is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">confirmation bias</a>, probably reinforced by <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html">backfire effect</a>. The unfortunate consequence is that those of us who are open to rational argument are unlikely to ever be able to convince those that are not.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, this also feeds into things like arguments for gun control, so it is unlikely that the recent <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20738998">appalling events</a> in Connecticut will do anything other than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_polarization">polarise opinion</a> even further.<br />
<br />
And, following this argument to its rational conclusion, why did I even bother even to write this blog post?<br />
<br />
I would be delighted to be shown to be wrong.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-72119845270355189352012-03-12T02:42:00.000-07:002012-03-12T02:42:19.684-07:00Sex, Marriage and Religious Privilege<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Preface:</b> <i>I am not gay. I am married, but we would have much preferred to have had a civil partnership, had it been available to us: the institution of marriage, with its implied subservience, is not something I naturally support. Although I do not support it, I find it utterly abhorrent that some religious people are trying to impose their dogmas on some of those who do support it.</i></span><br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
Last week, Cardinal Keith O'Brien characterised plans for same-sex marriage as "grotesque" and asserted that they would "redefine" marriage. Yesterday, Roman Catholic congregations in Britain were read a letter written by Archbishops Vincent Nichols and Peter Smith. This letter tells Catholics that changing the nature of marriage (so as to include same-sex marriage) would be a "profoundly radical step". If it is "radical" for the Roman Catholic Church to afford equality to all, then I have to agree: as with most, if not all, Abrahamic religions, the Roman Catholic Church has a long and ignoble history of maintaining privilege by reinforcing inequality. However, what is truly grotesque here is not, as O'Brien insists, same-sex marriage, but the Christian Churches' attempts to impose their dogma on others and to ignore and rewrite their own history where marriage is concerned. <br />
<br />
If one refers to the Christian guide-book, it opposes both marriage and sex between people of opposite sexes: the first Pope taught, in his first letter to the Corinthians, <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (...) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I."<br />
(1 Corinthians 7: 1,7&8)</blockquote>
Roman Catholics, of course, hold the Pope to be infallible, so presumably they should still endorse this. However, it is also clear that Roman Catholics don't <i>really</i> hold Popes to be infallible and that, when it is convenient for them to do so, Popes will utter things that are contradictory to previous papal utterances.<br />
<br />
Marriage is a case in point: O'Brien hypocritically complains that the plans for same-sex marriage would "redefine" marriage, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has redefined it whenever it has suited it to do so for millennia. It wasn't until the 1215 that marriage became regarded as a Christian sacrament. Prior to the Council of Trent (1543), the presence of a priest at a marriage was not required: all that was necessary was that the couple declared, "I marry you." The function of the Church was primarily to register marriages. It was a catechism issued subsequent (1566) to the Council of Trent that first declared that marriage was<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life,"</blockquote>
and required that a priest officiate at the marriage ceremony. The Roman Catholics did a major redefinition of marriage in 1962 at the Second Vatican Council. To the procreative purpose of marriage, it added the unitive purpose, in which it asserted that sex was good if it promoted love and friendship between the participants.<br />
<br />
Since the Christianisation of Britain in the 4th Century CE, marriage has become part of canon law so, in that sense at least, the Church did "own" it. However, whilst it is true that, prior to the Marriage Act of 1753, an Anglican priest had to be present at a wedding ceremony for a marriage to be considered legal, it was not mandatory for banns to be called, a marriage license issued, or even for the wedding to occur in a church. The 1753 Act was introduced primarily to put an end to clandestine (aka "Fleet") marriages and was largely concerned with legitimacy of property inheritance. In reality and practice, unpropertied people took a far more casual attitude to marriage. The Marriage Act of 1836 reintroduced the notion of a civil marriage (which was first available in England in the 1650s during the Republic), largely in order to circumvent an anomaly in the 1753 Act, in which Hindus, Muslims, atheists and Roman Catholics (but not Jews and Quakers, who were exempt) had to be married with an Anglican ceremony. In this context, it is fair to say that the Church has not "owned" marriage for the last century and three quarters.<br />
<br />
Other arguments wheeled out against same-sex marriage include "tradition". Prior to the Roman invasion, the "tradition" included polyandry and polygamy (the latter is, of course, also promoted in the Old Testament). At least as late as the 13th Century, marriage was essentially a business arrangement, largely centred around maintaining and combining wealth within families. Under Norman rule, the Church and the Norman authorities worked together to promote marriage; the authorities promoted it with respect to ensuring that land inheritance passed through legitimate lines of descent, and the Church promoted it as part of its obsession with controlling sexuality. Until relatively recently it was "tradition" in Britain that a woman was her husband's chattel and that she must obey him. Perhaps the Christians want us to go back to that as well, on the grounds of not undermining what the Bible says? "Tradition" has long been used as an argument to maintain privilege; one would hope that, in a civilised society, traditions that discriminate against people on the grounds of race or gender will be considered to be obviously outdated and inappropriate. Similarly, one would hope that traditions of discriminating on the grounds of sexual preference would be similarly viewed.<br />
<br />
Christianity has, like so many other religions, a tradition of trying to exercise control over sexuality. The reproductive urge, and hence sex, is fundamental to the continued existence of the species, which is why it is such a powerful urge. By turning many normal sexual practices into sins, it produces feelings of guilt for these "sins" that it is inevitable that many will commit and which, according to its doctrines, only it can forgive. It's a cynical, yet powerful, ploy to exercise control. The issue here for O'Brien and his like is not really anything to do with matrimonial tradition or redefinition of marriage; as we have seen, his sect is has been willing to redefine marriage whenever it has suited it to do so. It is a matter of trying to stem the gradual erosion of the privileged position that religion in general and Christianity in particular enjoys in Britain. <br />
<br />Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-85082271455350491492011-07-12T02:43:00.000-07:002011-07-12T02:58:14.106-07:00Model Answers to Homoeopathy SurveyThere is a survey on homoeopathy at:<br />
<a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KJL3D2N">http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KJL3D2N</a><br />
<br />
Here are some suggested answers:<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" /><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">* 4. Do you think Homeopaths should be allowed to explain how Homeopathy works?</b></span><br />
<i><span style="color: #38761d;">Very poorly phrased survey question; it makes the assumption that homoeopathy works which, of course, it doesn't! If something doesn't work, it is impossible to explain "how it works" without lying. I acknowledge that this does not necessarily present a moral dilemma for all homoeopaths.</span></i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">* 5. If you visited a Homeopaths website, would you find it useful or not useful to know which conditions they can treat?</b></span><div style="color: #38761d;"><i>Given that the scientific evidence is that homoeopathy is no more effective than a placebo, and placebos can, in similar circumstances, treat almost anything, this would be entirely useless information. It would also be misleading. </i></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">* 6. Do you think testimonials giving details of improvement from genuine patients should be not allowed or allowed?</span></span></b></span><div style="color: #38761d;"><i>If homoeopaths want to be taken seriously, they should advertise only the results of objective peer-reviewed randomised double-blinded trials of their magic sugar pills, not some entirely unscientific subjective "testimonial". </i></div><div style="color: #38761d;"><br />
</div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">* 7. Why do you think Homeopaths are being treated in this way?</span></span></b></span><div style="color: #38761d;"><i>So that the public is less likely to be misled by the deceptions of well-meaning but self-delusional ignoramuses or unscrupulous charlatans. Take your pick: <b>EITHER</b> they are medical practitioners and must be treated the same way as proper medical practitioners and provide proper evidence <b>OR</b> they are charlatans.</i></div>Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-35195520424234749932011-03-06T06:57:00.000-08:002011-03-06T06:57:00.786-08:00Adults With Imaginary Friends Are StupidInspired by the excellent work of <a href="http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2011/03/offensive-census-campaign-posters.html">Crispian Jago</a>, I present my own meagre offering:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="census campaign poster" src="http://astunit.com/images/census_sft.png" /><br />
<br />
<br />
(<b>NB: This poster is NOT approved by the BHA <a href="http://census-campaign.org.uk/">Census Campaign</a></b>)Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-81984882630420853582011-02-27T06:08:00.000-08:002011-02-27T06:19:38.268-08:00Don't Call Me an Atheist!There are thousands of irrational things I don't believe: I don't believe the world was created by magic unicorns. I don't believe that murder should be the first recourse for resolving a dispute. I don't believe that only males between the ages of 7 and 14 should receive education. I could go on ... and on ... but, to save boring you, I shall list only one more: I don't believe in any form of deity. So why do so many people think that it is either rational or acceptable to define me by the last of these things?<br />
<br />
One of the more insidious trappings of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid">apartheid</a> in South Africa or the <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#One_drop_rule">One Drop Rule</a></i> in the United States was the arbitrary classification of humanity into "<a href="http://www.wizzewasjes.be/wp-content/uploads/blankesnieblankes01.jpg">whites</a>" and "<a href="http://www.ipv.pt/millenium/millenium27/30.gif">non-whites</a>". The definition of one race in terms of another is itself racist: these terms assume that "white" is the norm against which other racial attributes are measured. It demeans dark-skinned people by euphemising a characteristic they have and defining that characteristic in terms of what it is not. We don't call homosexual people "non-heterosexual" (or heterosexual people "non-homosexual").<br />
<br />
An "atheist" is, by definition, a "non-theist", a person who does not believe in deities. Like to the race and sexuality examples above, it defines us in terms of what we are not and ignores what we are. It makes the assumption that some form of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/">theism</a> or religion is the norm against which we should be measured. It is similarly insidious.<br />
<br />
I'm not referred to as a "non-murderer" or a "non-discriminatory-educator" (even though they are true), so why should I be referred to as a "non-theist". I'm a <a href="http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism">humanist</a>, I'm a <a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/whatissecularism.html">secular</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism">rationalist</a> -- refer to me by those positive things, by things I choose for myself, not by my lack of credulity for superstitious mythology!<br />
<br />
Yes, this is important. The coming census will not ask me to define my position in terms of a belief in magical unicorns or a position on the education of males. Quite correctly, there will not be a <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html">loaded question</a>: "What kind of murder do you commit?" with response options of subspecies (genocide, uxoricide, drive-by shooting, etc.) and "non-murderer", but there will be one that asks: "<a href="http://astunit.com/images/census2011_religion.jpg">What is your religion?</a>" with response options of subspecies and "no religion". The unspoken assumption from this question, entirely unencumbered by such inconvenient things as <a href="http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-surveys-statistics">contrary evidence</a>, is that religion is the norm.<br />
<br />
Every time we permit others to define us in terms of religion, by getting us to respond to loaded questions or calling us "atheists", we are playing into their hands by allowing them, instead of accepting us for what we are, to pass off their irrational superstition as the norm. It isn't.Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-91722765330077197592011-01-27T11:19:00.000-08:002011-01-27T11:26:18.967-08:00Anti-Christian Discrimination? What a load of Bull!<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the Christian B&B owners who refused to let a homosexual couple share a bed in their B&B, have decided to <a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/26/Christian_BB_Owners_Appeal_Ruling/">appeal</a> against the judgement that declared that they should pay damages to the two men they offended. The appeal is reportedly being funded by a <a href="http://www.christian.org.uk/who-we-are/">fundamentalist Christian organisation</a>.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Christians in Britain claim that they are being discriminated against. If they are, this case does not support that thesis: the law does not allow the people with <b>any</b> religious affiliation (or with no religious affiliation) to behave in the bigoted way the Bulls did. To be treated, in the eyes of the law, exactly the same way everybody else is treated, is not discrimination.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">On 2011 Jan 26, the BBC programme, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11">The Moral Maze</a>, addressed another aspect of this issue. <strike>Many</strike> Several contributors seemed to suggest that religious principles are being subverted by laws that prohibit discrimination against protected groups. This is entirely incorrect. To take the Bulls' case as an example, nobody has compelled them to run a B&B. It is illogical in the extreme to choose an occupation if the laws that govern it do not permit you to exercise your own particular brand of bigotry. The Bulls chose to sell a service; like the sellers of any other service, they have to abide by all the laws that govern that service. To permit them to contravene those laws because they believe a particular species of superstitious irrationality would, in effect, be discriminatory against anyone who does not share that belief.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Christians in this country have a 2000 year history of holding a privileged position under the law; they have enjoyed two millennia of positive discrimination. Now that this discrimination is being (too gradually) eroded, they bleat that they are being discriminated against. This is both false and illogical. <i>There is no argument that does not involve special pleading by which any religion should hold privileges that are not granted to the followers of any other hobby or irrational superstition.</i> Yet the Christians in this country have 26 seats reserved for them in the legislature (the only other country with reserved seats for clerics is Iran), do not pay council tax on the (publicly funded) buildings where they gather to exercise their superstition, have publicly funded schools where they can inculcate the young with their weird superstitions, and <a href="http://tete-enterre.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-church-can-bankrupt-you.html">can force</a> local residents to pay for the upkeep of those buildings.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Discriminated against? What a load of Bull!</span></span>Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1079055120885216051.post-60387123855067637632010-12-02T03:50:00.000-08:002010-12-02T04:57:22.881-08:00How the Church can Bankrupt You<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;">A couple of years ago, we moved house. As we were in the process of buying the new house, our solicitor advised us to take out <i>Chancel Repair Liability Insurance</i>. This was the first we had heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability">Chancel Repair Liability</a>. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England">Church of England</a> has a right to impose this liability on anyone owning land that it (the Church) used to own at the time of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Monasteries">Dissolution of the Monasteries</a> (middle of the 16th Century). The liability, which can be imposed by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parochial_church_council">Parochial Church Council (PCC)</a>, on each and every landowner of these "rectorial lands" is to bear the cost of any repairs to the chancel (the bit of the church where the altar is). <br />
<br />
It does not matter whether the landowner owns 100 hectares or 1 square metre; he or she can still be made liable, on the whim of the PCC and without any right of appeal, for repairs costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. The <a href="http://www.chancelrepair.org/">Wallbanks case</a> (more about this later) is evidence that the Church of England is willing to exercise this right even if it means bankrupting people or forcing them to sell their homes.<br />
<br />
In response to a <a href="http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Chancel-Repair/">petition</a>, 10 Downing Street said in March 2008:<br />
</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> <i>Chancel Repair Liability has existed for several centuries and the Government has no plans to abolish it or to introduce a scheme for its redemption. The Government has, however, acted to make the existence of the liability much simpler to discover. From October 2013, chancel repair liability will only bind buyers of registered land if it is referred to on the land register. By that time, virtually all freehold land in England and Wales will be registered. The Government believes that this approach strikes a fair balance between the landowners subject to the liability and its owners who are, in England, generally Parochial Church Councils and, in Wales, the Representative Body of the Church in Wales.</i></span></span></span><i><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"></span></span></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"> The Government acknowledges that the existence of a liability for chancel repair will, like any other legal obligation, affect the value of the property in question, but in many cases this effect can be mitigated by relatively inexpensive insurance. It is for the parties involved in a transaction to decide whether or not to take out insurance.</span></span></span></i><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"></span></span></span></blockquote><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
The assertion: "<i>From October 2013, chancel repair liability will only bind buyers of registered land if it is referred to on the land register,</i>" is misleading if not downright deceptive. If, after October 2013, the property has not changed hands and the liability is subsequently "discovered", the landowner is still liable for this "blank cheque" charge.<br />
<br />
The "<i>relatively inexpensive insurance</i>" that Downing Street says is available, is <b>only</b> available if you don't know if you are liable. If a search shows that your property is on rectorial land, you cannot take out insurance and your property may effectively be unsaleable -- i.e. valueless.<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="http://www.chancelrepair.org/">Wallbanks case</a>. The Wallbanks family was found to be liable by the High Court, but the Appeal Court subsequently found in the family's favour, stating that Chancel Repair Liability is contrary to <a href="http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html">European Convention on Human Rights</a> and that the PCCs are subject to <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents">Human Rights Act, 1998</a>. <br />
<br />
The PCC appealed to the House of Lords, which decided that PCCs are not public bodies and are therefore not bound by the Human Rights Act or the Convention on Human Rights. The PCC was funded by the Archbishops' Council, which requested donations of approx. £10,000 from each diocese, to take its case to the House of Lords. The Archbishops are, of course, among the 26 (maximum) "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Lords_Spiritual">Lords Spiritual</a>" in the House of Lords.<br />
<br />
What we have here is a clear case of archaic practices being maintained for the benefit of the established church. The United Kingdom is one of only two modern countries to have reserved seats for clerics in its legislature (the other is Iran). There is no case, either in logic or in natural justice, for this or for the persistence of a law that requires those of us who are not members of a church to pay for the maintenance of its property.<br />
<br />
The only just solution is the <a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/disestablishment.html">disestablishment</a> of the Church of England and the repeal of all its <a href="http://www.humanistfederation.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=99">privileges</a>, including the public funding of its <a href="http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/eh-support-cathedrals/">places of worship</a> and its <a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/religion-in-schools.html">schools</a>.</span></span></span>Tetenterrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01871212426075019472noreply@blogger.com0