First. Yes, it had been a very, very long time since my last post. But there is a very good reason for this.
I moved. And I started a new job.
Actually I started two new jobs. And I moved to a completely new city. So I have been a bit distracted. Life changes and all.
I may get into that later. Or maybe not. Any way. I want to mention Darcy Cowan on Sciblogs. He has filed a complaint against the IAS. YAY!
I have talked about the IAS before here. And I was reading their blogs and leaving comments for awhile. Until I was overwhelmed by their spectacular ability to deny reality. Darcy has made a complaint to the New Zealand Charities Commission in the hope of getting the IAS deregistered as a charity. This is a good move. Charitable status should be reserved for organisations that are doing good for the community. The IAS is certainly not doing good. They in fact cause harm. And due to the tax exceptions they enjoy as a charity, we the tax payers, are indirectly supporting their efforts!
That's nuts! Crazy! Batshit insane! How can an organisation that advances dangerous misinformation and bald face lies to the public be a charity. The IAS is a danger and should be ignored and shunned until they eventually wither and disappear under the crushing mass of the forces set against them. Reason, science and proper public education that will eventually render such organisations impotent and helpless. At least that's what I'd like to see happen.
Darcy is quite clear that he doesn't want the IAS shut down. Just that they not be allowed to mascaraed as a charity. And, well I agree. I also think that such dangerous people need to be opposed. They need to be shown up as the enemies of reason and public health that they are.
You can read Darcy's post on the complaint here.
Also details of the actual submission here, here, here and here.
It's good shit. Do read it.
It makes me happy that there are people in NZ with the drive, time and expertise to do things like this.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Germany Exits on Nuclear Power
Germany's decided that they will shut down all their nuclear reactors by 2022. There are currently 17 nuclear power stations in operation in Germany and they will be progressively phased out over the next 11 years.
This is not a surprising decision, given the direction this issue has been going in Germany since the incident at Fukushima. But is it a bad choice, or a inspired vision? At first glance it would seem that Germany has simply fallen victim to unjustified fears and the agenda of environmentalists. However the issue of atomic energy production in Germany is actually more complex.
There has always been a strong environmental movement in Germany. And it seems there has been a more or less continuous opposition to nuclear reactors. Both of these movements have grown stronger in the last decade or so and it may just have been the case that Fukushima was the proverbial final straw. It does seem to be that a large section of German society is opposed to the continuation of nuclear power production. And that they have finally managed to make themselves heard.
It is not mine or anyone else's place to tell the Germans what they should or shouldn't do. But It would be nice if their decisions were based on the science and the evidence. And not on a knee jerk reaction or misguided ideology. I'm not saying that this latest development is either. But let's take a quick look at it.
The global media has certainly made a big deal of the incident at Fukushima. But it really doesn't warrant all the attention it's been getting. And it certainly isn't the striking blow against nuclear safety that many think it is. The Fukushima plant was old. It was not equipped with the same safety features that define more modern reactors. It was hit by a massive earthquake. Which it survived, intact and functioning. Then it was struck by a massive tsunami. This caused extensive damage and rendered some of the necessary backup systems non operational. After all this. There was no large scale release of radioactive material and no full meltdown. And perhaps most importantly. No one has yet died as a result of the incident.
For Germany, a country at little risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, to take Fukushima as a warning about reactor safety seems bizarre. If anything it shows how such incidents can be managed to mitigate the risks. And stands in start contrasts to incidents involving other forms of power generation in which many lives have been lost. Or the estimated tens of thousands that die every year due to the pollution released form fossil fuel power generation.
What will Germany use to replace the lost capacity. There will probably have to be some increase in their quantity of fossil fuel consumption. But it seems that they mostly plan to use renewable sources of power to cover the replacement. Can they do it?
The general consensus seems to be that the technology is not yet viable or cost effective to achieve such a goal. There would need to be a significant investment in things like solar, wind and hydro. And each of these has it's not inconsiderable problems to be overcome. Particularly hydro power with it's large environmental impact. And solar and wind power have the problem of not being able to generate on demand. But there is also the potential for Germany to get this right and become a world leader and pinup for sustainable energy. This is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel thinks. And it is possible that they will succeed.
The bottom line: If Germany is able replace the lost generation capacity with sustainable and Eco friendly power it will be giant step forward. If they are unable to do it in a cost effective way. Or if they have to fall back on fossil fuels. It will be a giant step backwards.
This is not a surprising decision, given the direction this issue has been going in Germany since the incident at Fukushima. But is it a bad choice, or a inspired vision? At first glance it would seem that Germany has simply fallen victim to unjustified fears and the agenda of environmentalists. However the issue of atomic energy production in Germany is actually more complex.
There has always been a strong environmental movement in Germany. And it seems there has been a more or less continuous opposition to nuclear reactors. Both of these movements have grown stronger in the last decade or so and it may just have been the case that Fukushima was the proverbial final straw. It does seem to be that a large section of German society is opposed to the continuation of nuclear power production. And that they have finally managed to make themselves heard.
It is not mine or anyone else's place to tell the Germans what they should or shouldn't do. But It would be nice if their decisions were based on the science and the evidence. And not on a knee jerk reaction or misguided ideology. I'm not saying that this latest development is either. But let's take a quick look at it.
The global media has certainly made a big deal of the incident at Fukushima. But it really doesn't warrant all the attention it's been getting. And it certainly isn't the striking blow against nuclear safety that many think it is. The Fukushima plant was old. It was not equipped with the same safety features that define more modern reactors. It was hit by a massive earthquake. Which it survived, intact and functioning. Then it was struck by a massive tsunami. This caused extensive damage and rendered some of the necessary backup systems non operational. After all this. There was no large scale release of radioactive material and no full meltdown. And perhaps most importantly. No one has yet died as a result of the incident.
For Germany, a country at little risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, to take Fukushima as a warning about reactor safety seems bizarre. If anything it shows how such incidents can be managed to mitigate the risks. And stands in start contrasts to incidents involving other forms of power generation in which many lives have been lost. Or the estimated tens of thousands that die every year due to the pollution released form fossil fuel power generation.
What will Germany use to replace the lost capacity. There will probably have to be some increase in their quantity of fossil fuel consumption. But it seems that they mostly plan to use renewable sources of power to cover the replacement. Can they do it?
The general consensus seems to be that the technology is not yet viable or cost effective to achieve such a goal. There would need to be a significant investment in things like solar, wind and hydro. And each of these has it's not inconsiderable problems to be overcome. Particularly hydro power with it's large environmental impact. And solar and wind power have the problem of not being able to generate on demand. But there is also the potential for Germany to get this right and become a world leader and pinup for sustainable energy. This is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel thinks. And it is possible that they will succeed.
The bottom line: If Germany is able replace the lost generation capacity with sustainable and Eco friendly power it will be giant step forward. If they are unable to do it in a cost effective way. Or if they have to fall back on fossil fuels. It will be a giant step backwards.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The End is Comming
Yet another prediction of the end of the world is due to pass this Saturday. This latest one is brought to us by Harold Camping. A bible thumping nut job from the USA. Camping owns the family radio network. A large non profit(?) that is reportedly worth around $100 million. And Camping has done this before. With at least one previous prediction of the end times failing to come true.
Should you be afraid? I don't think so. Many, Many people and groups have predicted the end before. The end of what? In the case of the religious types. It usually involves some form of judgement followed by death for the wicked and salvation for the devout. And there are some UFO cults that have similar salvation and/or judgement/death scenarios. There are also plenty of secular apocalyptic type events that have been predicted. Things like the collapse of the world economy due to any number of factors. Or being destroyed by a meteor, or other space related event.
Most such predictions are of course nonsense. We know this because the dates have come and gone and the world is still here. And while a catastrophic event like an impact from a giant space rock is all but inevitable I'm not particularly worried about it. (Interestingly, you are more likely to be killed by an asteroid impact in your life time than win the lottery or die from an act of terrorism). The chance that the world will end in some kind of supernatural rapture is as close to zero as it is possible to get. In fact I think the odds that the entire earth will suddenly stop spinning tomorrow are better.
Camping is basing his prediction on the bible of course. He's done some selective reading an interpretation along with a bit of math (adding two numbers). I won't put forth the details here (as I feel my pages may not be able to fully contain his stupid). I always find this sort of attempt to gain real information from ancient texts to be so laughably ridiculous. It's a wonder that these people expect to be taken seriously. But they are! Camping has thousands sucked into his delusion and there is a long history of such ideas taking hold and spreading.
And what do you suppose will happen when the world keeps on keeping on after Saturday? Well of course the excuses and rationalisations will flow. These will be no admission that they were wrong. Here are three of the often supplied excuses that they may use.
*The date was off. It's actually still coming.
*The prayers of the devoted changed the mind of god and he decided to cancel/postpone the rapture.
*The prophecy was actually fulfilled but not in the way anyone expected.
And so on and so forth.
I'm not really afraid that the world will end. On my scale of things I'm concerned about. I'm actually far more worried that one of my flatmates will illegally import a deadly snake and hide it in my bed as a joke. But then I don't see the snake and it bites me. And despite living just down the road from the Hospital. They won't be able to save me because there are no snakes in NZ so they have no anti venom. And I die a horrible and painful death.
And I'm not really very worried about that at all.
Should you be afraid? I don't think so. Many, Many people and groups have predicted the end before. The end of what? In the case of the religious types. It usually involves some form of judgement followed by death for the wicked and salvation for the devout. And there are some UFO cults that have similar salvation and/or judgement/death scenarios. There are also plenty of secular apocalyptic type events that have been predicted. Things like the collapse of the world economy due to any number of factors. Or being destroyed by a meteor, or other space related event.
Most such predictions are of course nonsense. We know this because the dates have come and gone and the world is still here. And while a catastrophic event like an impact from a giant space rock is all but inevitable I'm not particularly worried about it. (Interestingly, you are more likely to be killed by an asteroid impact in your life time than win the lottery or die from an act of terrorism). The chance that the world will end in some kind of supernatural rapture is as close to zero as it is possible to get. In fact I think the odds that the entire earth will suddenly stop spinning tomorrow are better.
Camping is basing his prediction on the bible of course. He's done some selective reading an interpretation along with a bit of math (adding two numbers). I won't put forth the details here (as I feel my pages may not be able to fully contain his stupid). I always find this sort of attempt to gain real information from ancient texts to be so laughably ridiculous. It's a wonder that these people expect to be taken seriously. But they are! Camping has thousands sucked into his delusion and there is a long history of such ideas taking hold and spreading.
And what do you suppose will happen when the world keeps on keeping on after Saturday? Well of course the excuses and rationalisations will flow. These will be no admission that they were wrong. Here are three of the often supplied excuses that they may use.
*The date was off. It's actually still coming.
*The prayers of the devoted changed the mind of god and he decided to cancel/postpone the rapture.
*The prophecy was actually fulfilled but not in the way anyone expected.
And so on and so forth.
I'm not really afraid that the world will end. On my scale of things I'm concerned about. I'm actually far more worried that one of my flatmates will illegally import a deadly snake and hide it in my bed as a joke. But then I don't see the snake and it bites me. And despite living just down the road from the Hospital. They won't be able to save me because there are no snakes in NZ so they have no anti venom. And I die a horrible and painful death.
And I'm not really very worried about that at all.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Money Trouble at SETI
SETI has been forced to temporarily (I hope) shut down it's Allan Telescope Array in California due to a lack of funds. This makes me sad.
There have always been people who have argued against funding for SETI. They think it is too expensive, and is never likely to provide us with significant returns. Some people criticize the program as not being real science. They say no matter how long we look. We will never be able to make a conclusive statement about the existence of other technological civilisations.
I think that both these points are true. SETI may never give us any real return on our investment. And it may never reach an end point where they can say we are alone. And yet I still feel strongly that SETI is worth doing. And worth funding. Why?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that we live on the only planet capable of supporting life. And I find it difficult to believe that life will not arise where conditions are right. I also find it equally difficult to believe that we are the only intelligent species to emerge in our galaxy. Everywhere we look on our own plant we find life. And I think that it's likely that we will find life on other bodies in our solar system. Like on Europa. It's my bet that life will exist wherever it is possible for life to exist. And that intelligent societies will develop wherever it is possible for that development to take place. If these things are true. It could mean our galaxy is populated with hundreds of intelligent forms of life.
It might be that it isn't true. Maybe life is extremely rare. Maybe the development of technological civilisations is rare. Maybe technological civilisations have a habit of destroying themselves rather quickly once they arise. All these things are unknowns. But SETI has the potential to at least shine a tiny light into the vast darkness of our ignorance and maybe answer one critical question. Are we alone?
In my mind. The potential answer to that one question is worth all the money and all the effort of a program like SETI. The search for that answer may be the greatest pursuit Humanity ever engages in. And even though we may never find an answer. If we did. The consequences are far beyond my imagination. I'll let the great Carl Sagan have the last word.
There have always been people who have argued against funding for SETI. They think it is too expensive, and is never likely to provide us with significant returns. Some people criticize the program as not being real science. They say no matter how long we look. We will never be able to make a conclusive statement about the existence of other technological civilisations.
I think that both these points are true. SETI may never give us any real return on our investment. And it may never reach an end point where they can say we are alone. And yet I still feel strongly that SETI is worth doing. And worth funding. Why?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that we live on the only planet capable of supporting life. And I find it difficult to believe that life will not arise where conditions are right. I also find it equally difficult to believe that we are the only intelligent species to emerge in our galaxy. Everywhere we look on our own plant we find life. And I think that it's likely that we will find life on other bodies in our solar system. Like on Europa. It's my bet that life will exist wherever it is possible for life to exist. And that intelligent societies will develop wherever it is possible for that development to take place. If these things are true. It could mean our galaxy is populated with hundreds of intelligent forms of life.
It might be that it isn't true. Maybe life is extremely rare. Maybe the development of technological civilisations is rare. Maybe technological civilisations have a habit of destroying themselves rather quickly once they arise. All these things are unknowns. But SETI has the potential to at least shine a tiny light into the vast darkness of our ignorance and maybe answer one critical question. Are we alone?
In my mind. The potential answer to that one question is worth all the money and all the effort of a program like SETI. The search for that answer may be the greatest pursuit Humanity ever engages in. And even though we may never find an answer. If we did. The consequences are far beyond my imagination. I'll let the great Carl Sagan have the last word.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Do you need Real Water?
Did you know that the water you drink has been damaged by it's journey through pipes and filters. The water has been stripped of it's electrons and is acidic, positively ionized and clumpy.
These are the claims made by the company Affinity on their site selling Real Water. But not only do they know all this terrible stuff about our water. They will sell you the solution. Red flag!
"Is the water you drink slowly killing you?"
That's the scare mongering they open with. They then launch into a spiel of nonsense and scientific sounding crap. There really is far too much rubbish here to deal with, or I shall be typing away for hours. So I'll just pick out a few of the good(?) ones.
Affinity claims that the water we drink is stripped of electrons and clumps up to form larger molecules that then cannot get into our cells.
The water we drink is not stripped of electrons. There really is not other way to say it. It's a meaningless claim that has no evidence and goes against all know chemistry. Water does not form permanent "clumps". Water is bound together by very weak van der Waals forces. The Brownian motion of the water molecules (the random movement they experience in a still liquid) is more than enough to ensure all the molecules are always in motion relative to each other.
Affinity claims that many of the processed foods we eat are acidic. While the fresh fruits and vegetables are alkaline.
Um.. Have they never heard of citric acid? Many fruits are extremely acidic. The fact is that the acidity or alkalinity of any food is entirely determined by its composition. And there is no evidence to suggest that eating processed food as opposed to fresh food has any of the effects they claim.
Affinity claims that many nutritionists believe that most diseases flourish and grow rapidly in an acidic environment and not in a alkaline environment.
Who are these many nutritionists? Where is the evidence for this? Is there any evidence that drinking water of a higher pH will lead to "more alkaline environment" (whatever that means) within the body?
Affinity claims that the ionized water acts as free radicals that steal electrons from our cells.
Well we already saw that the claim of missing electrons is false. But in addition to that. Free radicals are not found in water. They are short lived molecules that result as a byproduct of normal body functioning.
The water we drink will vary in pH depending on it's source. Pure water is pH neutral (pH of 7) but most water will be slightly acidic due to carbon dioxide that dissolves out of the atmosphere. Carbonated water can have a pH as low as 5. Where as ground water with a lot of calcium carbonate (Lime) dissolved in it can have a pH as high as 12. Though you probably would not drink that. There is no evidence that variations of pH in the water we drink has any affect on our health.
This is just another of those scams that throws in plenty of misconceptions along with misstatements of fact and out right lies. Puts it all together with scary warnings all couched in scientific sounding language. Then they give it the trappings of legitimate technology by throwing in trademark symbols and words like proprietary. And all this is done in the hope that they will fleece some stupid people out of their money. They probably won't go away quickly. Their bullshit "eastern" counterpart, Kangen Water, which they actually reference on their site, have been selling their magical water machines for years. And those things aren't cheap.
These are the claims made by the company Affinity on their site selling Real Water. But not only do they know all this terrible stuff about our water. They will sell you the solution. Red flag!
"Is the water you drink slowly killing you?"
That's the scare mongering they open with. They then launch into a spiel of nonsense and scientific sounding crap. There really is far too much rubbish here to deal with, or I shall be typing away for hours. So I'll just pick out a few of the good(?) ones.
Affinity claims that the water we drink is stripped of electrons and clumps up to form larger molecules that then cannot get into our cells.
The water we drink is not stripped of electrons. There really is not other way to say it. It's a meaningless claim that has no evidence and goes against all know chemistry. Water does not form permanent "clumps". Water is bound together by very weak van der Waals forces. The Brownian motion of the water molecules (the random movement they experience in a still liquid) is more than enough to ensure all the molecules are always in motion relative to each other.
Affinity claims that many of the processed foods we eat are acidic. While the fresh fruits and vegetables are alkaline.
Um.. Have they never heard of citric acid? Many fruits are extremely acidic. The fact is that the acidity or alkalinity of any food is entirely determined by its composition. And there is no evidence to suggest that eating processed food as opposed to fresh food has any of the effects they claim.
Affinity claims that many nutritionists believe that most diseases flourish and grow rapidly in an acidic environment and not in a alkaline environment.
Who are these many nutritionists? Where is the evidence for this? Is there any evidence that drinking water of a higher pH will lead to "more alkaline environment" (whatever that means) within the body?
Affinity claims that the ionized water acts as free radicals that steal electrons from our cells.
Well we already saw that the claim of missing electrons is false. But in addition to that. Free radicals are not found in water. They are short lived molecules that result as a byproduct of normal body functioning.
The water we drink will vary in pH depending on it's source. Pure water is pH neutral (pH of 7) but most water will be slightly acidic due to carbon dioxide that dissolves out of the atmosphere. Carbonated water can have a pH as low as 5. Where as ground water with a lot of calcium carbonate (Lime) dissolved in it can have a pH as high as 12. Though you probably would not drink that. There is no evidence that variations of pH in the water we drink has any affect on our health.
This is just another of those scams that throws in plenty of misconceptions along with misstatements of fact and out right lies. Puts it all together with scary warnings all couched in scientific sounding language. Then they give it the trappings of legitimate technology by throwing in trademark symbols and words like proprietary. And all this is done in the hope that they will fleece some stupid people out of their money. They probably won't go away quickly. Their bullshit "eastern" counterpart, Kangen Water, which they actually reference on their site, have been selling their magical water machines for years. And those things aren't cheap.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Homeopathy Truth in the Australian Media
It's nice and refreshing to see the main stream media actually come together with a story that presents the truth as it really is. It's more often the case that so called "sensitive" or "controversial topics are treated with white gloves. One usually assumes this is an attempt to appear fair and balanced. So that they aren't seen to be taking sides and pissing off some of their viewers. And they do it all in the name of objective reporting. But more often than not this just leads to false balance.
So it's really nice to see Australian show Today Tonight airing a story with the truth about Homeopathy.
Here tis'
This is a good story. Featuring notable skeptics Simon Singh, James Randi and Richard Saunders of the Skeptic Zone podcast. It's also good that they didn't allow a Homeopath equal time to spout mountains of garbage as is the usual treatment.
The President of the Australian Homeopathy Association, Michelle Hookham, was featured though. And predictably. She spouted garbage. Let's have a looksee at what she said.
At 4:20:
"People think that one day Quantum Physics will be able to explain just how such ultra dilutions of substances can still have a medicinal effect."
lol. What's wrong with this? She throws out the old appeal to Quantum Physics. Brian Dunning has (jokingly?) suggested that this should be it's own logical fallacy. And sometimes I'm inclined to agree. This is a classic response of the pseudo scientist and alt med proponent. And it's complete and utter rubbish. It's almost always said by people who don't have the slightest idea what Quantum Physics is or even how science works.
Iv'e had it argued to me that we don't know everything. And that one day we may discover new Quantum Physics or "anther layer" that will enable us to understand Homeopathy. This is flawed reasoning. Science is cumulative and builds on itself. It's also internally and logically consistent. As is the universe (If it wasn't, we would not be able to study it with science). This means that any new science we discover must agree with the science we already have. If it didn't. It would mean that the laws of physics and chemistry are changing all the time. And in such a universe. Doing science becomes impossible. All or experience indicates that the universal laws are static. Therefore. The laws that rule out Homeopathy as an impossibility now. Also rule out the discovery of a mechanism for it.
At 5:02:
"It's very hard to measure Homeopathy using the benchmark of the randomized clinical trial. And the reason for that is because of the individualised nature of the treatment itself."
What's that I hear? It's the sound of special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy where by one effectively makes convenient excuses for why the result is not the one you want. If Homeopathy worked, as she claims it does, then it must have an effect in the real world. If it has an effect then it can be tested. End of story. And it has been tested. And it fails every time.
Her point about the individualised nature of the treatment is just bullocks. Homeopathy is a billion dollar industry where sugar pills and bottles of water are massed produced in enormous quantities. There is nothing individualised about it.
The patient in Michelle Hookham's office also throws out a couple of the standard replies in defense of alt med.
"It's worked for 250 years."
Well leaving aside the fact that it actually has never worked. The fact that something is old gives it no more validity then anything else. Homeopathy was invented (not discovered) at a time when almost nothing useful or correct was known about the human body. This argument is a logical fallacy know as the argument from antiquity.
"...millions of people use it."
Ah yes. We couldn't have a defense of alt med with out the fallacious argument from popularity. Does it really need to be explained that just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean that it is effective or even a good idea. Billions of people prey to invisible deities and it has no effect. Millions of people smoke tobacco. Does that mean that smoking is good for you?
The scary thing is that the reports of people using Homeopathy to immunize children in place of vaccines is true. And the case of the Homeopath and his wife sent to jail for the manslaughter of their baby is so tragic. But these things are the result of this kind of nonsense and broken thinking making its way into our society. It's not just a harmless issue of peoples freedom to so what they want with their own bodies. it's an issue of education. So that the venerable are protected from not only those that would prey on them. But also those that would do harm while honestly believing they are helping.
Good on Today Tonight for reporting things as they really are. Like it or not many people rely on the information they receive form the mainstream media. And these kinds of stories are just too rare.
So it's really nice to see Australian show Today Tonight airing a story with the truth about Homeopathy.
Here tis'
This is a good story. Featuring notable skeptics Simon Singh, James Randi and Richard Saunders of the Skeptic Zone podcast. It's also good that they didn't allow a Homeopath equal time to spout mountains of garbage as is the usual treatment.
The President of the Australian Homeopathy Association, Michelle Hookham, was featured though. And predictably. She spouted garbage. Let's have a looksee at what she said.
At 4:20:
"People think that one day Quantum Physics will be able to explain just how such ultra dilutions of substances can still have a medicinal effect."
lol. What's wrong with this? She throws out the old appeal to Quantum Physics. Brian Dunning has (jokingly?) suggested that this should be it's own logical fallacy. And sometimes I'm inclined to agree. This is a classic response of the pseudo scientist and alt med proponent. And it's complete and utter rubbish. It's almost always said by people who don't have the slightest idea what Quantum Physics is or even how science works.
Iv'e had it argued to me that we don't know everything. And that one day we may discover new Quantum Physics or "anther layer" that will enable us to understand Homeopathy. This is flawed reasoning. Science is cumulative and builds on itself. It's also internally and logically consistent. As is the universe (If it wasn't, we would not be able to study it with science). This means that any new science we discover must agree with the science we already have. If it didn't. It would mean that the laws of physics and chemistry are changing all the time. And in such a universe. Doing science becomes impossible. All or experience indicates that the universal laws are static. Therefore. The laws that rule out Homeopathy as an impossibility now. Also rule out the discovery of a mechanism for it.
At 5:02:
"It's very hard to measure Homeopathy using the benchmark of the randomized clinical trial. And the reason for that is because of the individualised nature of the treatment itself."
What's that I hear? It's the sound of special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy where by one effectively makes convenient excuses for why the result is not the one you want. If Homeopathy worked, as she claims it does, then it must have an effect in the real world. If it has an effect then it can be tested. End of story. And it has been tested. And it fails every time.
Her point about the individualised nature of the treatment is just bullocks. Homeopathy is a billion dollar industry where sugar pills and bottles of water are massed produced in enormous quantities. There is nothing individualised about it.
The patient in Michelle Hookham's office also throws out a couple of the standard replies in defense of alt med.
"It's worked for 250 years."
Well leaving aside the fact that it actually has never worked. The fact that something is old gives it no more validity then anything else. Homeopathy was invented (not discovered) at a time when almost nothing useful or correct was known about the human body. This argument is a logical fallacy know as the argument from antiquity.
"...millions of people use it."
Ah yes. We couldn't have a defense of alt med with out the fallacious argument from popularity. Does it really need to be explained that just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean that it is effective or even a good idea. Billions of people prey to invisible deities and it has no effect. Millions of people smoke tobacco. Does that mean that smoking is good for you?
The scary thing is that the reports of people using Homeopathy to immunize children in place of vaccines is true. And the case of the Homeopath and his wife sent to jail for the manslaughter of their baby is so tragic. But these things are the result of this kind of nonsense and broken thinking making its way into our society. It's not just a harmless issue of peoples freedom to so what they want with their own bodies. it's an issue of education. So that the venerable are protected from not only those that would prey on them. But also those that would do harm while honestly believing they are helping.
Good on Today Tonight for reporting things as they really are. Like it or not many people rely on the information they receive form the mainstream media. And these kinds of stories are just too rare.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
CAM in Modern Medical Care
When it comes to the integration of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) into modern medical care two questions immediately come to mind. Is it safe? And does it work?
Contrary to the beliefs of most CAM proponents. There are not two types of medicine. There is only medicine that has been tested and found to be safe and effective. And everything else. The everything else is things that either have not been proven to be safe and effective. Or things that have been tested and found to be either not safe or not effective.
A few examples if I may. Aspirin: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. Antibiotics: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. The smallpox vaccine: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. Homeopathy: Tested and found to be safe yet ineffective. Acupuncture: Tested and found to be safe (provided sterile technique is used) and no more effective than sticking random needles in anywhere.
If a modality is proven to be both safe and effective it then becomes medicine.
So what about modalities that are safe but ineffective? If this is what the patient wants, should the medical profession offer these treatments to patients?
The first question is whether or not it is ethically responsible to offer a patient a treatment that provides no actual benefit? In effect should a doctor administer a placebo? This is a tricky issue and one that I'm not in the least bit capable of doing justice to. But it is my opinion that it isn't right for doctors to offer treatments they know have no benefit other then placebo when an effective treatment exists. Full disclosure requires, in my opinion, that the doctor explain that the treatment being sought is in fact proven ineffective. And I think all efforts should be made to convince the patient that a proven, effective treatment would be in their interest. Even in the case where no known effective treatment exists. It is still wrong to offer an ineffective treatment that may create false hope in the patient.
The second question is should such modalities even have a presence in modern medical care? My preference is no. Modern medicine should be science based. Training and practice should be limited to treatments and care that has backing and basis for proven safety and efficacy. However. If quacks, the deluded and the general con artists insist on promoting and practicing unsafe and ineffective modalities. And the public continues to see these as acceptable forms of treatment. And even sometimes viable and equal alternatives to real medicine! Would it not be better to at least being them into the supervision of qualified medical professionals. So that when the inevitable intervention is required. It can be administered quickly and competently? On this issue I am tempted to say yes. But I have strong objections on two grounds.
First. I feel that this would severely weaken the scientific base upon which modern medicine stands. And would be an enormous waste of health care resources.
Second. Such a move would seem to legitimise CAM as an acceptable medical option. This would have a severe negative impact on the public understanding of science and the role it plays in medicine.
The danger of CAM when practiced outside of legitimate medical supervision, (if it needs to be stated) is that it both delays, or entirely prevents, real and effective medical intervention. Which has the possibility of causing severe injury or death. And it contributes greatly to the public misunderstanding of science and it's role in society. Which in turn leads to a public that is less scientifically literate as a whole.
So what is the solution? I think that the only answer is to raise the public understanding of science and the role it plays in our modern medical system. There needs to be a better general understanding of why CAM persists and why it isn't the legitimate competitor to medicine that some believe it to be. This can only be done through positive public education on the subject.
Proponents of CAM often site the broken medical system that we have now as justification for pushing their alternatives. In reality, the actual medical system has nothing to do with the science. If the science is solid then it speaks for itself. Those same people will often grossly underestimate the profits involved in CAM. Homeopathy is itself a billion dollar industry. There is enormous profit in selling water to the deceived. The supplement industry makes billions selling pills that will have no effect. Other than causing you to produce expensive urine. CAM is not an alternative to big business. It is big business. The largest producers of CAM "medicine" are the same companies that produce the science based medicine.
Magic and superstition may have served us in the past. But there is a better alternative now. One that has been proven to work and been more successful than any other method of investigation in human history.
Science is the best tool we have for investigating the world and distinguishing what is real from what we want to be real. This is why we base our medicine in science. This is why our average life span in the developed world has doubled. And it's why things like malaria, AIDS and Cancer no longer mean automatic death. To disregard all this in favor of magic is to reject reason itself.
Contrary to the beliefs of most CAM proponents. There are not two types of medicine. There is only medicine that has been tested and found to be safe and effective. And everything else. The everything else is things that either have not been proven to be safe and effective. Or things that have been tested and found to be either not safe or not effective.
A few examples if I may. Aspirin: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. Antibiotics: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. The smallpox vaccine: Tested and found to be both safe and effective. Homeopathy: Tested and found to be safe yet ineffective. Acupuncture: Tested and found to be safe (provided sterile technique is used) and no more effective than sticking random needles in anywhere.
If a modality is proven to be both safe and effective it then becomes medicine.
So what about modalities that are safe but ineffective? If this is what the patient wants, should the medical profession offer these treatments to patients?
The first question is whether or not it is ethically responsible to offer a patient a treatment that provides no actual benefit? In effect should a doctor administer a placebo? This is a tricky issue and one that I'm not in the least bit capable of doing justice to. But it is my opinion that it isn't right for doctors to offer treatments they know have no benefit other then placebo when an effective treatment exists. Full disclosure requires, in my opinion, that the doctor explain that the treatment being sought is in fact proven ineffective. And I think all efforts should be made to convince the patient that a proven, effective treatment would be in their interest. Even in the case where no known effective treatment exists. It is still wrong to offer an ineffective treatment that may create false hope in the patient.
The second question is should such modalities even have a presence in modern medical care? My preference is no. Modern medicine should be science based. Training and practice should be limited to treatments and care that has backing and basis for proven safety and efficacy. However. If quacks, the deluded and the general con artists insist on promoting and practicing unsafe and ineffective modalities. And the public continues to see these as acceptable forms of treatment. And even sometimes viable and equal alternatives to real medicine! Would it not be better to at least being them into the supervision of qualified medical professionals. So that when the inevitable intervention is required. It can be administered quickly and competently? On this issue I am tempted to say yes. But I have strong objections on two grounds.
First. I feel that this would severely weaken the scientific base upon which modern medicine stands. And would be an enormous waste of health care resources.
Second. Such a move would seem to legitimise CAM as an acceptable medical option. This would have a severe negative impact on the public understanding of science and the role it plays in medicine.
The danger of CAM when practiced outside of legitimate medical supervision, (if it needs to be stated) is that it both delays, or entirely prevents, real and effective medical intervention. Which has the possibility of causing severe injury or death. And it contributes greatly to the public misunderstanding of science and it's role in society. Which in turn leads to a public that is less scientifically literate as a whole.
So what is the solution? I think that the only answer is to raise the public understanding of science and the role it plays in our modern medical system. There needs to be a better general understanding of why CAM persists and why it isn't the legitimate competitor to medicine that some believe it to be. This can only be done through positive public education on the subject.
Proponents of CAM often site the broken medical system that we have now as justification for pushing their alternatives. In reality, the actual medical system has nothing to do with the science. If the science is solid then it speaks for itself. Those same people will often grossly underestimate the profits involved in CAM. Homeopathy is itself a billion dollar industry. There is enormous profit in selling water to the deceived. The supplement industry makes billions selling pills that will have no effect. Other than causing you to produce expensive urine. CAM is not an alternative to big business. It is big business. The largest producers of CAM "medicine" are the same companies that produce the science based medicine.
Magic and superstition may have served us in the past. But there is a better alternative now. One that has been proven to work and been more successful than any other method of investigation in human history.
Science is the best tool we have for investigating the world and distinguishing what is real from what we want to be real. This is why we base our medicine in science. This is why our average life span in the developed world has doubled. And it's why things like malaria, AIDS and Cancer no longer mean automatic death. To disregard all this in favor of magic is to reject reason itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)