Two posts in one day? I must be on crack. Anyway, I came across an article called 'Proof that Homeopathy Skeptics are Still Losing the Debate'. Apparently, 13 reasons why skeptics haven't convinced people homeopathy is bollocks (my words not hers). Lets see what Sandra Courtney has to say for herself.
1) Health care consumers have not been convinced that "real drugs" (versus "sugar pills") are a better option
Maybe you haven't, but the majority of people go to their doctor when they are ill. Surprisng that.
(For the record, I'm quoting select treats from the article. I'd be sorting through slurry until next week otherwise)
2) Perhaps a bit trite, but still significant when one considers sales and market trends, the number of books about the effectiveness and theory of homeopathy for sale on Amazon at the time of this writing is 2,772.
There are over 400,000 results for the term 'medicine'. 2772 is not significant in comparison to this.
3) Every state in the U.S. now recognizes the practice of homeopathy and homeopathic doctors.
7 states make it illegal for atheists to hold office in the US. In 31 states, gay marriage is illegal. Recognition or non-recognition by government does not make something true
4) The number of online and campus setting teaching courses in all the CAM practices, including homeopathy, is steadily growing.
Scientology claims to be growing as well.
5) The number of cancer research and treatment centers in the U.S. that are using integrative medicine, including homeopathy is also expanding
If true, this is a little bit terrifying.
6) If one multiplies $5.35 billion by just 1.25% annually, without adjustment for inflation, one gets a $1.1 trillion dollar global market by 2035.
If Miss Courtney thinks this will actually happen, she's on more drugs than I've had cups of coffee.
7) Homoeopathy is the third most popular method of healing in India, after conventional medicine and Ayurveda
So homeopathy isn't even the most popular type of woo in India. Fantastic outcome there.
8) There are growing numbers of research studies and controlled clinical trials proving the efficacy of homeopathy dating back to January,1988.
Here's the Cochrane Library results for 'homeopathy'. I'm willing to bet most, if not all, are not in homeopathy's favour.
9) The homeopathy skeptics are coming under fire. (It's about time). One of the skeptics' top personalities, Brian Dunning was indicted for fraud.
Dana Ullman was arrested for practicing medicine without a license.
10) Generic argument against Edzard Ernst, who is apparently 'not a credible source on homeopathy'. The only source for why is a dead link. For reference, Edzard Ernst was the first ever professor for complementary medicine in the UK.
11) The quackbusters were soundly, and publicly, beaten in this courtroom.
A court case on America in which someone didn't successfully sue a homeopathic manufacturer for fraud. What strong evidence you have.
12) Your stupidity is boundless and it is no surprise that you believe in magic pills. So what do you ultimately hope to achieve, Sandra? If your objective is to demonstrate the rank idiocy and nastiness of followers of cult of homeopathy, then please carry on because it is behaviour like yours that keeps me going.
This is a comment from Ms Courtney's blog. Not sure I'd have put it in quite these words but it pretty much sums up what I think of her too. The whole rant is spectacular, especially the use of 'excrementum caninum' to treat 'shit-for-brains' syndrome.
13) The medical journalist and author Jerome Burne of the UK had this to say about the "arrogant batty" (Mr. Burne's terminology) skeptics, particularly the Nightingale Collaboration.
One man's opinion about skeptics? Well that definitely proves skeptics are losing the argument. SPeaking of losing arguments, follow me on Twitter and there's a couple of homeopaths who are having a good go at the 'not answer any questions directly game'.
Sunday 31 August 2014
A Dangerous Doctor
Frank Lipman MD recently posted this to his Twitter feed.
'100% of statin takers have a serious adverse effect - their body is impaired from producing cholesterol'
This was a retweet from a lady called Zoe Harcombe, who appears to be a 'nutritionist'. To steal a Dara O'Briain line, if a dietician is a dentist, then a nutritionist is a toothologist. Judging the nature of Ms Harcombe's tweets, I'll probably be looking at her in more detail in the future.
Dr Lipman is, of course, wrong. The Cochrane Collaboration found statins 'reduced all cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisation' with 'no excess of adverse events'. For those interested in the systematic review, here it is in its entirety.
For those who don't want to, I'll talk about the stats on adverse effects in more detail. The trials that were pooled in the systematic review looked at 56, 934 patients, of which 19% had an adverse effect. Now adverse effects are never great, but some such as aching joints, mild fever and occasional headaches are tolerable. Not ideal, but if its a one-off headache for protection against heart attack then its probably worth it. Others, such as cancer and liver failure, are less tolerable.
Specifically mentioned in the Cochrane Review are cancer, rhabdomyolosis, myalgia, type 2 diabetes and haemorrhagic stroke. Here's a breakdown below:
Cancer - Eleven trials looked at this. 5.8% of patients developed cancer. There was no increased risk in those taking statins.
Rhabdomyolosis - Six trials looked at this, with three cases seen in over 19,000 patients. There was no increased risk in those taking statins
Myalgia - Just under 10% of patients developed this in the seven trials that noted it. There was no increased risk in those taking statins
Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) - Only two trials recorded this. 2.4% of those in control groups developed T2DM. 2.8% of those taking statins developed T2DM. This represents a relative risk in those taking statins. However, this risk was only seen in those taking part in the second study, which used higher doses. At lower doses, no increase in risk was seen.
Haemorrhagic stroke - only two trials reported this. 0.2% of those in the studies had this type of stroke. This is higher than expected, but as ischaemic strokes were lowered by the statins, overall stroke numbers were down.
Out of the five specific adverse events the review looked, three showed no increased risk when taking statins. A fourth (haemorrhagic strokes) showed a net benefit when looked at in the context of total strokes. Only T2DM showed an increased and the risk was only seen in those taking a higher dosage of statins.
The review also reports in less detail that there is weak evidence suggesting that statins cause elevated liver enzymes, renal dysfunction and arthritis.I can't say why there is less detail or why the evidence is weak but there we go.
Dr Lipman is conclusively wrong in his tweet. Yes, I know it isn't his tweet originally but he must take the blame for it. He is a doctor. He should know better than to shout nonsense from the rooftops. And sometimes it does. Here's two consecutive tweets he sent out. Try and spot the difference.
'Did you know that the US makes up only 5% of the world's population, yet it consumes over 50% of all the world's pharmaceutical drugs?'
'The cellphone industry doesn't want to admit it, but the science is now clearer: Sustained EMF exposure is dangerous http://ow.ly/AKQ9k'
The first actually talks about a pretty serious problem. Polypharmacy is a huge problem, and especially so in America. I'm not sure I quite buy his figures but the point remains sensible.
The second is essentially something a hobo at a bus stop might say to you.
Dr Lipman, you have a privileged position. You are seen to be an authoritative voice. You should hold yourself to higher standards than this. When doctors say silly things, people can die in droves. Andrew Wakefield sparked the anti-vaccine movement we see today, which has resulted in over 6000 vaccine preventable deaths since 2007 in the US only. You should know better.
'100% of statin takers have a serious adverse effect - their body is impaired from producing cholesterol'
This was a retweet from a lady called Zoe Harcombe, who appears to be a 'nutritionist'. To steal a Dara O'Briain line, if a dietician is a dentist, then a nutritionist is a toothologist. Judging the nature of Ms Harcombe's tweets, I'll probably be looking at her in more detail in the future.
Dr Lipman is, of course, wrong. The Cochrane Collaboration found statins 'reduced all cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisation' with 'no excess of adverse events'. For those interested in the systematic review, here it is in its entirety.
For those who don't want to, I'll talk about the stats on adverse effects in more detail. The trials that were pooled in the systematic review looked at 56, 934 patients, of which 19% had an adverse effect. Now adverse effects are never great, but some such as aching joints, mild fever and occasional headaches are tolerable. Not ideal, but if its a one-off headache for protection against heart attack then its probably worth it. Others, such as cancer and liver failure, are less tolerable.
Specifically mentioned in the Cochrane Review are cancer, rhabdomyolosis, myalgia, type 2 diabetes and haemorrhagic stroke. Here's a breakdown below:
Cancer - Eleven trials looked at this. 5.8% of patients developed cancer. There was no increased risk in those taking statins.
Rhabdomyolosis - Six trials looked at this, with three cases seen in over 19,000 patients. There was no increased risk in those taking statins
Myalgia - Just under 10% of patients developed this in the seven trials that noted it. There was no increased risk in those taking statins
Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) - Only two trials recorded this. 2.4% of those in control groups developed T2DM. 2.8% of those taking statins developed T2DM. This represents a relative risk in those taking statins. However, this risk was only seen in those taking part in the second study, which used higher doses. At lower doses, no increase in risk was seen.
Haemorrhagic stroke - only two trials reported this. 0.2% of those in the studies had this type of stroke. This is higher than expected, but as ischaemic strokes were lowered by the statins, overall stroke numbers were down.
Out of the five specific adverse events the review looked, three showed no increased risk when taking statins. A fourth (haemorrhagic strokes) showed a net benefit when looked at in the context of total strokes. Only T2DM showed an increased and the risk was only seen in those taking a higher dosage of statins.
The review also reports in less detail that there is weak evidence suggesting that statins cause elevated liver enzymes, renal dysfunction and arthritis.I can't say why there is less detail or why the evidence is weak but there we go.
Dr Lipman is conclusively wrong in his tweet. Yes, I know it isn't his tweet originally but he must take the blame for it. He is a doctor. He should know better than to shout nonsense from the rooftops. And sometimes it does. Here's two consecutive tweets he sent out. Try and spot the difference.
'Did you know that the US makes up only 5% of the world's population, yet it consumes over 50% of all the world's pharmaceutical drugs?'
'The cellphone industry doesn't want to admit it, but the science is now clearer: Sustained EMF exposure is dangerous http://ow.ly/AKQ9k'
The first actually talks about a pretty serious problem. Polypharmacy is a huge problem, and especially so in America. I'm not sure I quite buy his figures but the point remains sensible.
The second is essentially something a hobo at a bus stop might say to you.
Dr Lipman, you have a privileged position. You are seen to be an authoritative voice. You should hold yourself to higher standards than this. When doctors say silly things, people can die in droves. Andrew Wakefield sparked the anti-vaccine movement we see today, which has resulted in over 6000 vaccine preventable deaths since 2007 in the US only. You should know better.
Friday 29 August 2014
Stay Calm About Ebola. I Said Stay F**king Calm!
Another sensationalist tweet from Natural News today, the site I previously took to task for spreading lies about what a deceased man had said about vaccines. This one is about the small problem that is currently spreading through West Africa, the ebola virus. What was the headline?
The US population currently stands at a shade under 314 million, so by my reckoning (and actual maths) that should be 157 million requests for information. Clicking on the actual article, it turns out that the number is lot less. Maybe its only 15.7 million requests and only 5% of the population? How about just over 3 million and around 1% of the population?
Nope. It's 70 since late July.
That's 1/39747th of a percent of the population of the US, which I'm sure we can all appreciate is less than half. Actually clicking on the article posted, it appears that what the over generous author was trying to say was that 70 requests for information on what do with a patient they suspected might have Ebola. And that these 70 requests came from 30 states and Washington DC meaning half of the political area of the US had requested information. A little bit of stretch to get to 'half of the US begging the CDC'?
But guess what? This really doesn't matter as only 10 had blood samples sent for testing, as the CDC said the rest weren't worth worrying about. This means we're looking at 60 cases where doctors, who presumably have a little bit of bias towards spotting Ebola, thought there might be a chance that the bleeding orifice of their patient was down to our viral friend and were told, 'No, thanks for playing.'
This is both sensible in the current environment, and perfectly displaying that when diseases become big news people start spotting them everywhere. Given the media exposure Ebola has, and the fact that US citizens have had Ebola, is it any wonder that doctors have moved Ebola a couple a spots of their differential diagnoses for internal bleeding. Put simply, it's still probably a Mallory-Weiss tear or some other trauma but its worth remembering Ebola exists and asking for more help if I really think it might be Ebola.
So what we have here is a bit of extra vigilance from doctors, a bit of assurance from the CDC that its nothing, and some woeful reporting all packaged together under one sensationalist headline.
PS: Other gems from the rest of the article include:
'This supposedly low-risk disease' in reference to Ebola, not sure there's anyone in the Western world who thinks Ebola is low risk.
'Ebola is spreading through the air' - pretty sure this is total bollocks. Though there are suspicions that it the outbreak may have started amongst a natural healer than Natural News is so fond of.
Why is more than half of the U.S. begging the CDC for more information about how to spot potential cases of Ebola?
The US population currently stands at a shade under 314 million, so by my reckoning (and actual maths) that should be 157 million requests for information. Clicking on the actual article, it turns out that the number is lot less. Maybe its only 15.7 million requests and only 5% of the population? How about just over 3 million and around 1% of the population?
Nope. It's 70 since late July.
That's 1/39747th of a percent of the population of the US, which I'm sure we can all appreciate is less than half. Actually clicking on the article posted, it appears that what the over generous author was trying to say was that 70 requests for information on what do with a patient they suspected might have Ebola. And that these 70 requests came from 30 states and Washington DC meaning half of the political area of the US had requested information. A little bit of stretch to get to 'half of the US begging the CDC'?
But guess what? This really doesn't matter as only 10 had blood samples sent for testing, as the CDC said the rest weren't worth worrying about. This means we're looking at 60 cases where doctors, who presumably have a little bit of bias towards spotting Ebola, thought there might be a chance that the bleeding orifice of their patient was down to our viral friend and were told, 'No, thanks for playing.'
This is both sensible in the current environment, and perfectly displaying that when diseases become big news people start spotting them everywhere. Given the media exposure Ebola has, and the fact that US citizens have had Ebola, is it any wonder that doctors have moved Ebola a couple a spots of their differential diagnoses for internal bleeding. Put simply, it's still probably a Mallory-Weiss tear or some other trauma but its worth remembering Ebola exists and asking for more help if I really think it might be Ebola.
So what we have here is a bit of extra vigilance from doctors, a bit of assurance from the CDC that its nothing, and some woeful reporting all packaged together under one sensationalist headline.
PS: Other gems from the rest of the article include:
'This supposedly low-risk disease' in reference to Ebola, not sure there's anyone in the Western world who thinks Ebola is low risk.
'Ebola is spreading through the air' - pretty sure this is total bollocks. Though there are suspicions that it the outbreak may have started amongst a natural healer than Natural News is so fond of.
Thursday 28 August 2014
Homeopathy Clinic Violating ASA Adjudication
Scrolling through Twitter I saw a gem of a tweet from 'so-called' Evidence Based Homeopathy. Now I'm not going to address all that is wrong with combining 'Evidence-Based' and 'Homeopathy'. Frankly, I have better things to do than say 'THERE'S NO EVIDENCE' in as many ways I can think of.
This is especially true when people such as a little organisation called the Advertising Standards Authority agree with me. Back to the tweet that prompted this:
UK Homeopathy sites which rejected 'ASA private limited' ruling http://www.homeopathyislington.co.uk/ http://www.stevehomeopath.co.uk/Core/steve-homeopath/Pages/Default.aspx …
Yes, that's right - a pro-homeopathy account is telling you who is flouting a rather damning adjudication from the ASA. Naturally being a good little skeptic, I checked out the websites and it turns out Dr Nancy Malik (the lady who runs the account, more on her later) is only half right. The second appears to have cleaned up its act and now tells visitors the conventional medical treatments for the all the conditions it purports to treat.
The first website is less of a happy sight though. 'Homeopathy is a safe and effective treatment' - this is always a bit scary to see but is especially terrifying when the list of conditions homeopathy can apparently treat includes:
Even more terrifying, homeopathy is apparently 'especially suitable for pregnant women, children and newborns'. Given that the ASA specifically warns homeopaths against saying they can treat conditions (beacuse they can't), its particularly ballsy of Islington Homeopathy Clinic to claim their magic water can safely treat three groups of patients that are all at high risk of illness anyway. Especially when underneath a sentence saying '87% of patients reported reducing or stopping prescribed medication', specifically violating the ASA ruling that homeopaths should not discourage people from seeking actual medical help.
Naturally, I have fielded a complaint to the ASA about this website, thank you Dr Nancy Malik for sending in the right direction. Who is Dr Nancy Malik? Well, it turns out she's a Indian homeopath. Here is a quote from a tweet she chose to highlight in her latest blog post.
If a surgeon knows the use of few remedies like veratrum album,arnica and camphora,many deaths from surgical shock can be prevented.
Having shown just how rational and clearly sane Dr Malik is, I think I'll leave it at that.
This is especially true when people such as a little organisation called the Advertising Standards Authority agree with me. Back to the tweet that prompted this:
UK Homeopathy sites which rejected 'ASA private limited' ruling http://www.homeopathyislington.co.uk/ http://www.stevehomeopath.co.uk/Core/steve-homeopath/Pages/Default.aspx …
Yes, that's right - a pro-homeopathy account is telling you who is flouting a rather damning adjudication from the ASA. Naturally being a good little skeptic, I checked out the websites and it turns out Dr Nancy Malik (the lady who runs the account, more on her later) is only half right. The second appears to have cleaned up its act and now tells visitors the conventional medical treatments for the all the conditions it purports to treat.
The first website is less of a happy sight though. 'Homeopathy is a safe and effective treatment' - this is always a bit scary to see but is especially terrifying when the list of conditions homeopathy can apparently treat includes:
- Psoriasis - a potentially lethal skin condition
- Food poisoning - this includes Botulism, a Class A terrorist agent
- Asthma - again a killer
- Lupus - IT'S NEVER LUPUS! But again a killer
- PTSD - pretty serious
- Infertility - maybe see a qualified professional instead
- Mumps, measles, whooping cough - specifically helpful at weeding out immunocompromised infants
- Traumas - seriously, what the actually f**k? Been in a road traffic accident? Here, have a bit of diluted Mondeo. Speaking of diluted Mondeo...
Even more terrifying, homeopathy is apparently 'especially suitable for pregnant women, children and newborns'. Given that the ASA specifically warns homeopaths against saying they can treat conditions (beacuse they can't), its particularly ballsy of Islington Homeopathy Clinic to claim their magic water can safely treat three groups of patients that are all at high risk of illness anyway. Especially when underneath a sentence saying '87% of patients reported reducing or stopping prescribed medication', specifically violating the ASA ruling that homeopaths should not discourage people from seeking actual medical help.
Naturally, I have fielded a complaint to the ASA about this website, thank you Dr Nancy Malik for sending in the right direction. Who is Dr Nancy Malik? Well, it turns out she's a Indian homeopath. Here is a quote from a tweet she chose to highlight in her latest blog post.
If a surgeon knows the use of few remedies like veratrum album,arnica and camphora,many deaths from surgical shock can be prevented.
Having shown just how rational and clearly sane Dr Malik is, I think I'll leave it at that.
Wednesday 27 August 2014
Why Vaccines Are Not (Always) Safe
This is my blog where I'll be shouting and spewing mindless vitriol into the Internet, in the hope that Big Pharma will give me millions to keep you schills to the vaccines and chemtrails. Follow the money!
That should be enough buzzwords to upset the altmed crowd, for the rest of you - hello and welcome to my little piece of virtual real estate! I'll be trying to post regularly and will attemot to keep things of a vaguely scientific and skeptical nature. Though I might post pictures of kittens every so often, who knows?
Without further ado, away we go. Earlier today I came across the photo below on Twitter.
That should be enough buzzwords to upset the altmed crowd, for the rest of you - hello and welcome to my little piece of virtual real estate! I'll be trying to post regularly and will attemot to keep things of a vaguely scientific and skeptical nature. Though I might post pictures of kittens every so often, who knows?
Without further ado, away we go. Earlier today I came across the photo below on Twitter.
If like me, you think 'That seems a bit unusual for a Dr to say...' it might be because the Dr quoted never said such a thing. How do I know? Well, lets go through the ground rules for checking Internet quotes: did the person exist? Is there another source for the quote? Is it their quote? Is the quote/evidence believable? Is it true?
A) Did the person exist?
Yes, here's the good doctor's obituary. And yes, he did work at the National Institutes of Health, though never had a specific interest in vaccinations
B) Is there a non-Internet based source for the quote? Or a credible Internet based one?
Ideally, I'd try to contact the person to ask if the quote is theirs, and if it was, is it still in the correct context. By my previous use of the word obituary, you may have guessed that this isn't possible in this case.
Not to worry, a quick Google search for James A Shannon turns up three links that appear to mention the quote. The first appears to have the words 'sheeple', 'psychic warfare' and 'breaking the Jewish money power' on the front page so I'm edging towards non-credible. The second is from Snopes, and is no help in finding anymore about where the quote arises. The third is another forum post, who annoyingly has done exactly what I'm doing in this post. Only she got there 4 years earlier. Bugger.
So nothing credible via his name, how about the quote itself? Ah...no. Search results show me hits from such brilliant sites such as TheLibertyBeacon, NaturalHealthExplained, VaccinesUncensored, VacTruth, NewsWithViews and GodLikeProductions. I won't give the sites hits but if you're desperate you can search yourself for them. Not one gives a printed source, or even something as simple a date, for the quote. They also start sourcing one another. After all, incestuous crackpottery is best crackpottery.
C) Could the quote be someone elses?
This is always possible but even if true does not excuse the use of it next to Dr Shannon's name. I can't find the quote next to any other name so I find it unlikely.
D) Even if I can't find a source, is it believable?
This is where the terrified blondy comes in as context becomes absolutely key
Imagine you're a doctor who's been asked about whether vaccines are always safe. No, you explain, all vaccines have potential for side effects so the 'only safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never taken'. You'd then add something to the end explaining how the benefits far outweigh the risks and how vaccines rid the world of smallpox. All in all, pretty sensible and rational.
Now put the quote next to a terrified child and suddenly we're into Twilight Zone levels of sinister. Add in the lack of context and explanation, and you've got a fairly misleading quote.
Not to say that this is actually what happened.. Given that I can find no evidence Dr James A Shannon said anything remotely close to the quote above ever, it's entirely possible it is entirely fabricated.
E: Are the words true even if Dr James A Shannon didn't say them?
Well, technically yes. But only so far as the only totally sage way to live life is to not do anything. And you could still die in your sleep. The quote totally ignores the benefits of doing the action, which might be more important than the inherent danger of the action.
'The only safe coffee is one that is not drunk' - But you never get to have coffee over looking the Italian Lakes
'The only safe car journey is the one not taken' - But you can never drive an awesome road trip
'The only safe vaccine is the vaccine that is never used' - But you can never have the protection from horrible diseases such as polio, mumps, Hepatitis B, rubella, whooping cough, yellowfever, rabies and measles and might die young of a really preventable disease.
All in all, there is NOTHING of substance to support the link between Dr James A Shannon and the words attributed to him. In all likelihood, the quote was invented by an anti-vaccine campaigner years ago and has been misattributed ever since. If by some miracle the good doctor did say the quote, I'd be frankly amazed if it hadn't been taken out of context in fairly immense fashion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)