• IRVINE HISTORIAN & ARAB HEADBANGERS. .....I finally got around to reading that interview in yesterday’s OC Reg with UCI historian Mark Levine (UCI historian plunges into Middle Eastern underground), and it’s actually damned interesting. The hairy Professor LeVine (the Reg reporter calls him “hirsute-headed”) has spent some time hanging out with headbangers (aka “heavy metal” fans) in the Middle East—even in Baghdad—and he’s got lots to say about it. Check it out. (See also an interview with UCI anthropology professor Leo Chavez : Are Latinos a threat to the U.S.?)
• CANCER GOOFBALL.
.....Perhaps you’ve heard that the head of a major cancer research center (University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute) has sent a warning to staff to limit their use of mobile phones, owing to the risk of cancer. (Limit mobile phone use, cancer expert tells staff.) Meanwhile, many health authorities say there is no reason to suppose that there is a risk.
.....Yesterday, our pal (well, he did email me once) Bob Park (What’s New) wrote that (Pittsburg director) Ronald Herberman’s concerns are “nonsense.”
All cancer agents act by disrupting chemical bonds. In a classic 2001 op-ed, LBL physicist Robert Cahn explained that Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker.
• GUARDIAN ON HOMEOPATHY. .....Lemme make a pitch for the Guardian’s Science page, which seems to do a good job covering science news. For instance, on Monday, they offered a fine article about UK pharmacists, who persist in handing over homeopathic “remedies” to customers without comment, despite their own ethical guidelines, which compel them to inform customers of relevant info.
.....What’s the relevant info? That these homeopathic remedies have nothing in them (“no biologically active agents”) and, in study after study, they have been shown to be no more effective than sugar pills.
.....How come they have nothing in them? Well, according to homeopathic theory, you start off with the active ingredient (say, arsenic), but you don’t want to actually give that to people, cuz it’s toxic. So what do you do? You dilute it. As you dilute it, say the homeopaths, it becomes stronger as a medicine.
.....But they don’t just dilute it. They dilute it to the point that likely not one molecule of the ingredient is left (they acknowledge this). That’s when it’s really powerful.
.....What’s the matter with people?
• MINDLESS GASOHOL SKEPTICISM GROWING......Meanwhile, as a New York Times article (In Gas-Powered World, Ethanol Stirs Complaints) explains, lots of people in those parts of this country where “gasohol” is available, have come to believe that the stuff seriously cuts fuel economy and causes poor performance, so they pay extra for “pure” gasoline.
.....Now, I’m not a big fan of ethanol (not at least the kind that comes from corn), but this looks like another classic case of people believing exactly what they want to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary. Things happen; exaggerated stories are told; paranoia sets it—it’s a kind of Americana, like lovable coots sittin’ around the local hangout, telling Bigfoot or UFO stories, and blaming the government for the whole dang thing.
• HOW WE KNOW THAT HOMEOPATHY DOESN'T WORK. .....Which reminds me. Why should we pay attention to clinical trials and similar tests?
.....Well, it’s like this. Scientists believe (roughly speaking) that nature is very regular. It’s not the kind of place where X causes Y irregularly or on certain days. No, if X causes Y under conditions C, then that’s the pattern, period.
.....Now, if nature weren’t regular in this way, NASA could never send off one of its rockets and hit the right spot in space every time. Science and technology depend on nature's regularity.
.....Here’s the good news: the fact of regularity means, among other things, that you can find out if an alleged cure works. Whether something works isn’t really a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of demonstrable fact. You’ve just got to do the right tests.
.....Let’s say that someone asserts that eating goofballs cures cancer. Here’s what you do (and it’s expensive): you set up a study in which lots of people with cancer are eating goofballs over here and lots of (very similar) people with cancer are eating fake goofballs over there.
.....It’s important that none of these people knows whether they’re in the real or the fake goofball group because of the phenomenon that the very thought that one is receiving a cure will cause improvement (this is the placebo effect, which is somewhat controversial). That’s why you’ve got to have two groups and compare ‘em. If you just give people goofballs and see what happens, some might get better, but how do you know that isn’t the placebo effect? You don’t. So you compare these two groups. If both groups improve, you know it isn’t the goofballs doing it. It’s the placebo effect.
.....Now, remember, nature is regular. You don’t get to say that, “Yeah, goofballs work, but maybe not for you, cuz you’re a skeptic and a Democrat.” Either goofballs cause improvement or they don’t. You don’t get to be an asshole about this......So now, if you’ve done everything right, and if it turns out that there’s no difference in improvement between the two groups, then you’ve got prima facie evidence that goofballs don’t work on cancer. If others repeat the experiment and get the same results (that’s called “replication”), then you’ve pretty much sealed the deal.
.....And that’s why we know that homeopathic remedies don’t work.
Back in November, we held a caption contest, but I don't believe we ever announced a winner! (Age of Stupidity) So here it is. Imagine a drum roll:
5 comments:
Well, it works for me.
For a brief discussion of the "it works for me" fallacy, go to
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/explanation.php?dir=articles/explanations&article=regressive_fallacy.php
The main point made there is this. Typically, if one has a malady, one grows worse, and then one begins to grow better and the malady eventually disappears. This is typically what occurs whether the malady is treated or not. (Think of headaches, colds, etc.)
Naturally, people will often seek help for their malady about the time that it is at its worst or is approaching its worst. Let's say that Smith's "back is out," and so he goes to a chiropractor when the condition is getting especially bad. He receives an adjustment. He goes home.
Naturally, after a bit, or right away, he gets better, for that is to be expected; that is the natural course of maladies. (The link above discusses "bell curves.") But Smith, who has not taken an informal logic course, is liable to interpret the fact that he got better after he received the chiropractic adjustment as "proof" that chiropractic "works for him." ("Post hoc ergo propter hoc.")
But it isn't proof.
Naturally, there are other explanations for improvement besides the natural course of maladies. For instance, possibly Smith is experiencing the placebo effect. If the PE made him get better, then the chiropractic adjustment did not.
Does Smith know that his improvement occurred (1) owing to the natural course of the malady, (2) because of the placebo effect, or (3) because the chiropractic adjustment caused him to get better? HE DOES NOT. Hence, his inference that the chiropractic adjustment "worked" is illogical and unwarranted.
Observe that, using the standard criteria for explanation quality, the best of the above explanations is probably 1. I can see no warrant for judging 3 to be best, since there has been no significant validation of the efficacy of chiropractic in clinical trials. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Effectiveness)
It is unfortunate that your knowledge of homeopathy is so limited. I would like to suggest that perhaps you educate yourself on your subject prior to writing about it. Start with reading Dr. Hahnemann's Organon and then move on to the 200 years of documented case studies, remedy provings and other endless writings on homeopathically cured cases.
If you need more, I am sure many of my patients would be happy to share their stories.
Dianna Glick, CHom
Back in the 90s, the federal government instituted the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (see http://nccam.nih.gov/) that exists to rigorously, scientifically test efficacy claims of alternative medicines such as homeopathy. As Wikipedia explains, "despite the publicized intentions at its founding, NCCAM and its predecessor, the Office of Alternative Medicine, have spent more than $800 million on … research since 1991 but have neither succeeded in scientifically demonstrating the efficacy of a single alternative method nor declared any alternative medicine treatment effective."
As for the "stories" of happy patients, that there are many happy homeopathy patients is entirely consistent with the utter worthlessness of homeopathy, as I explained in a comment above. During Hahnemann's lifetime, conventional medicine did more harm than good, and yet most patients swore by their doctors.
You underestimate human foolishness and folly.
Skepticism of Homeopathy is quite appropriate and reveals Homeopathy as a form of superstition. I imagine that foolishly relying on homeopathic cures has killed many people. Yes, generally, superstition is bad and skepticism good.
Still, skepticism is not an absolute value, and is thus overrated and overused by many philosophers. Skepticism applied absolutely protects us from falsehood, but can cause us to filter out, and thereby miss, important truths.
Something can be said even for superstition (with apologies to Chunk):
"...awful and disastrous though the consequences
of superstition are, I doubt whether,
under all circumstances (Bacon notwithstanding),
superstition is an unmitigated or unmixed evil. It
has this good effect, at any rate, of still keeping
alive some consciousness of the supernatural and
not allowing people altogether to lose their sense
of guilt and of responsibility to a higher Power.
Indeed, I can conceive a state of things where it
would exercise a decidedly beneficial and beneficent
function. Better far be superstitious than wantonly
irreverent. Better superstition, too, than dogged
indifference to religion, and supercilious contempt.
Better rear an altar to an "unknown God" than
not rear an altar at all. -William Leslie Davidson
Post a Comment