Archive for November, 2007

The danger of delusions

Published
by
badchemist
on November 19, 2007
in Badscience and homeopathy
. 1 Comment

I’m not sure I should really be commenting on this as some may consider it exploitation of someone else’s grief in attempt to prove my argument. If it comes across that way I apologise in advance, it is not intentional I am merely righting this to highlight the dangers that misinformed delusions can produce.

Many of you will already have heard about the tragic death of 9-month old Gloria Thomas. Briefly, she Gloria died from sepsis which is likely to have been contracted through her cracked skin as a result of improper treatment of severe eczema; eczema that her father, homeopath Thomas Sam, had tried to treat with magic water. It has been announced today that her her parents may face criminal charges over her death.

This demonstrates the awful consequences that can befall those who are too wrapped up in their delusions to realise that proper medical intervention is required. I am sure that Thomas Sam believed he was doing what was best for his daughter when he tried to treat her with magic water, faith healing if you will, which makes this case all the more tragic. Due to his unwavering belief in a practice that has no basis is evidence not only has he lost a daughter but he and wife may lose their freedom and their son may lose his parents, temporarily at least.

Can anybody out continue to tell me that homeopathy is harmless, even for treating ailments that would generally be considered to be self limiting, such as eczema?

Jazz to cure all ills

Published
by
badchemist
on November 18, 2007
in Badscience, Barking, Medicine and Health, Resonance, Society of Homeopaths and homeopathy
. 5 Comments

I realise that I seem to be posting a lot tonight but boredom, beer and thesis avoidance has led to me following some interesting links. Thanks to the comments on DC’s latest post of homeopathy I’m come across this gem from Peter Chappell.

Those of you who read Bad Science will already have heard of this chap and his supposed ability to cure AIDS with iTunes. Not only can he do that but he cure H5N1 bird flu in humans with it too. You can download a free version of his resonance recordings from that site or you can download it here.*

Now to my, admittedly untrained, ear this just sounds a bit like rather mediocre jazz. Consequently I propose that if we take the Miles Davis back catalogue and use it to cure all ills. Although, as Peter Chappell is a homeopath, we may need to dilute it infinitesimally - Robbie Williams’ swing album should suffice.

Disclaimer

*According to the original download site:

In the event of Bird Flu (avian influenza - H5N1), we will endeavour to sustain pressure on our servers due to any increase in traffic however we are unable to guarantee uptime. Not only failure of the servers that support our site but electricity might fail, other unforseen factors may come in to play. For this reason, it is much wiser if you get supplied now.

Therefore I am mirroring the file here to reduce load on their servers in the event of a H5N1 break out. If the owners of the file wish for me to remove this file contact me at the email address here.

Australian homeopaths flout code of conduct too

Published
by
badchemist
on November 18, 2007
in Badscience, Regulatory Bodies and homeopathy
. 2 Comments

In my previous post I commented on some rather dubious content on the website of an Australian homeopath. This website belongs run by Frances Sheffield, RN, CM, DRM, MHlthSc.Ed., a professional member of the Australian Homeopathic Association. The AHA describes itself as (emphasis mine):

The Australian Homoeopathic Association is the largest and only national association of professional Homoeopaths in Australia, with branches throughout the country.

consequently it has a Code of Conduct (PDF). Section 2.9 of this code of conduct reads thus:

In announcing homoeopathic services, members shall state no more than the place and time of their practice, their qualifications and the services they are offering. The information contained in such announcements shall be factual and explanatory, not in the form of emotionally persuasive advertising, not claiming superior competency or implying cure of any named disease and not offering guarantees of a particular outcome as an inducement.

Now does implying protection from a disease that can not be prevented using conventional medicine contravene these regulations? A complaint may have to be made…

Homeopaths screwed over Meningococcal vaccine

Published
by
badchemist
on November 18, 2007
in Badscience, Victories and homeopathy
. 0 Comments

Via Bad Science and Bad Homeopathy I’ve learned that, due to some intervention by the Australian Skeptics, Australian authorities have banned 200C Meningococcal vaccine. There’s a video news report about it at Bad Homeopathy.

Obviously, being Homeopaths, they’re feeling hard done by. They aren’t trying to sell Meningococcal vaccines, they’re trying to sell a homeopathic remedy for side effects of the real vaccine. If you watch the video around about 15 seconds in you’ll see a bottle of the remedy in question. It’s quite understandable that a lay-person could mistake this for an effective vaccine - thank goodness the Aussies have regulated against this misleading and utterly useless piece of crap.

Another thing that struck me about this ‘vaccine’ is that it’s supposed to treat the side effects of the real vaccine. Now if, hypothetically, homeopathy worked and someone was to take both the real vaccine and the 200C version how does the magic water differentiate between the useful effects of the vaccine, i.e. prophylaxis for Meningococcal C, and the potential side effects?

Although this may have been genuine case of a misunderstanding, worryingly there are Australian homeopaths that claim to be able to protect you against Men. C. Don’t worry though, apparently they are not homeopathic vaccines:

…article regarding homeopathic immunisation - the use of Homeopathy to protect against epidemic diseases. It is important to note that while it is certainly possible to immunise homeopathically, there is no such thing as a homeopathic vaccine or a process known as homeopathic vaccination. Both terms are inaccurate when referring to homeopathic immunisation.

As normal this site contains the usual list of homeopathic half truths; protecting themselves from litigation (surely a 200C dilution of lawyer could do this) whilst slamming evidence-based medicine. Look at the this from the readers questions (my emphasis):

1. Are you telling people not to vaccinate? This could place their lives at risk.

Not at all. Vaccines may be an appropriate option for some people but unfortunately, as acknowledged by their manufacturers and health officials, vaccines do carry risks. I am providing information about another option that is both safe and effective so people can make fully informed decisions on how to best immunise for their situation.

For some, vaccines are inappropriate or even dangerous. They can be contraindicated in those who have severe illness, suppressed immunity, or who have had previous reactions to them. For these people, homeopathic immunisation is a safe and effective alternative - something I am sure they would like to know.

Finally, in the case of meningococcal disease, homeopathic immunisation can also save lives and reduce disability from strains for which there is no vaccine. The following question addresses this issue more fully.

So, in answering one question they manage to criticise EBM and make unsubstantiated claims about homeopathy several times. The Meningococcal vaccine does have side-effects and can’t be given in certain circumstances , this is known due to scienific research; unfortunately it’s the best thing we have for the prevention of meningitis C. Homeopathic immunisation has NO evidence and is NOT effective in the prevention of meningitis. Such unsubstantiated claims are outright dangerous and go further to show that the homeopaths are either too wrapped up in their own delusions to realise how dangerous their advice can be or are unscrupulous quacks profiteering from the anxieties of others. I’ll let you make up your own minds.

BBC Misunderstands Processor Technology Again

Published
by
badchemist
on November 12, 2007
in Badscience, Media, Science Communication and Tech
. 0 Comments

I wouldn’t normally bother with this as it’s just too easy but it’s not the first time I’ve seen the BBC misunderstand the technology of processors.

…Intel has replaced the gate dielectrics, previously made from silicon dioxide, with a material based on the metal hafnium.

Hafnium is a so-called high-K material, which refers to its dielectric constant, and has a greater ability to store electrical charge than silicon dioxide.

Between these two lines they seem to change their mind what they are taking about. Intel has replaced the gate dielectrics with a hafnium based material, hafnium dioxide. If, as they claim in the second line, they had used hafnium they would have made a useless processor. They tell us themselves that hafnium is a metal - it therefore cannot be a dielectric.

Sadly even Intel seem to make this mistake on their own site.

Intel has made a significant breakthrough in solving the chip power problem, identifying a new “high-k” (Hi-k) material called hafnium to replace the transistor’s silicon dioxide gate dielectric

But at least they get it right later on

“High-k” materials, such as hafnium dioxide (HfO2), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) inherently have a dielectric constant or “k” above 3.9, the “k” of silicon dioxide.

I know this is pedantry to the extreme but it really isn’t that hard to grasp, is it?

The Pill and Cervical Cancer

Published
by
badchemist
on November 9, 2007
in Good Science, Media, Medicine and Health, Science Communication and Statistics
. 1 Comment

In the media today there have been several reports of the increased risk of cervical cancer for women taking the contraceptive pill. All these reports relate to a Lancet article that has been published this week - unfortunately I won’t get access until next week when it hits “Pill cancer risk soars”. This seems a little strong for a headline considering the story continues thus:

The rate of cervical cancer for women up to 50 who have not used the Pill is 3.8 per thousand.

This increases to 4.0 per thousand in women on the Pill for five years and to 4.5 per thousand on the popular combined contraceptive pills for 10 years.

So, even if you want to reduce to simple percentages, women who have been on the pill for 5 years they have increased their risk from 0.38 % to 0.4 %. That’s just over a 5 % increase if you want to use the typical tabloid method of mishandling such figures. For 10 year users the increase is ~18% using the same rather dubious methodology.

What really matters is that the actual change in risk is actually rather small, 0.38 % to 0.45 % is probably not much to worry about considering the huge number of other factors that influence a persons well-being.

The other thing I want to comment about on this is an avenue that may or may not have been raised in the Lancet article - I’ll update when I know. One of the known causes of cervical cancer are certain forms of Human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. Is it not possible that, due to the use of the contraceptive pill, some women may be less meticulous with the use of barrier contraceptives thus leaving themselves open (that wasn’t supposed to be an innuendo) to infection with HPV and therefore an increased chance of cervical cancer?

Obviously this is all speculation so if anyone out there has more information on the subject please comment below or email me (address on the about page).

Poll

Published
by
badchemist
on November 5, 2007
in Pointless Nonsense
. 0 Comments

[poll=1]

If this makes no sense see here.