Denialism Blog

Denialism Blog

  • The Placebo effect, how significant is it?

    Are placebo’s really effective? So asks Darshak Sanghavi in Slate, citing this study from 2001 that shows the placebo effect, compared to passive observation, to be relatively minor for improvements in pain or objective measures of health.

    This is an interesting topic, but unfortunately, a really bad article. Given how many alties love to stress the role of placebo and its apparent proof of the benefit of positive thinking, we should critically re-evaluate the evidence that placebos on their own can do anything more than improve subjective symptoms. Although there is a fair amount of proof that the placebo effect is a lot less significant than many believe even for those. It would be worth evaluating the effect of placebo itself – if ethically possible – more rigorously for specific symptoms and illnesses.

    It’s an interesting article all the same and, deserves some consideration, but I worry Sanghavi’s analysis is so unsophisticated it damages an otherwise worthy goal. For one, he starts with a pretty egregious genetic fallacy:
    (more…)

  • How to triage nonsense

    Both Orac and MarkCC have been having a blast tearing to shreds virtually every aspect of the latest nonsensical piece by Dennis Byrne based on this idiotic study at JPANDS.

    One thing struck me in the two analyses, was MarkCC’s emphasis on the idea of triage in assessing the scientific literature. This is fundamentally a good concept, but I think he was too kind to JPANDS in saying that they merely lacked credibility as a journal thus raising red flags. If we’re going to look at this from the perspective of triage, an article from JPANDS is like encountering a dead body on a gurney accidentally misplaced from the morgue in your ER . This is beyond dead-on-arrival. This is dead a few days ago, frozen, with a toe-tag.

    This of course doesn’t stop the egregious liars from the fake family values groups from saying this is new proof of the relationship they’ve failed to prove for the last decade. They would love to have proof of the conspiracy of evil doctors trying to poison women with abortions so we can line our pockets with sweet sweet breast cancer dollars. Recent articles in real journals have shown in cohorts of over a hundred thousand women there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

    Now, liars who have no interest in truth or science will of course latch on to anything that conforms to their ideology, even if it is a pathetic piece of correlative nonsense from artificially selected data, based on false assumptions and an obviously false model of risk. That’s because they’re worthless liars. However, those of us who care about truth, no matter feelings on abortion, must say that the evidence unequivocally shows that there is no link between abortion at any age and breast cancer.

    Anyone who says the opposite is a liar or a fool. It’s that simple.

  • 72nd Skeptics' Circle

    Le Canard Noir scolds me at the Quackometer for the 72nd installation of the skeptic’s circle. Check it out!

  • Phenomenon: It's just magic tricks (and not very good ones)

    As promised, I watched Phenomenon, and I’ve got to say, I’m unimpressed. The premise of the show is there are 10 people with paranormal abilities vying for a 250,000 prize (they could make more if they tried Randi’s challenge – I wonder why don’t they?). The one that impresses the judges – fraud and huxster Uri Geller, and magician Criss Angel – as well as the studio audience who calls in and votes.

    Not only are they obviously using simple tricks to pass themselves off as psychics, but they’re not even that good at it. Geller, of course, is such a pathetic creep, and acts as if each act is showing some psychic ability, all while maintaining this stupid expression on his face like he knows something we don’t. In his introduction, in what I’m sure is a preemptive strike against skeptics, they even show little bits of the failed Carson interview and say he “bounced back”, as if he’s some kind of underdog rather than a fraud. What almost redeems the show is that after each act Criss Angel says something along the lines of, “that’s an old trick, try harder”, or “I can do that – I used a real gun”. If only the producers made that the premise, that rather than convincing a cheesy fake psychic like Geller, they had to convince real magicians like Angel or Penn & Teller.
    (more…)

  • WSJ on Credit Freeze, Monitoring, Alerts

    In today’s Journal, Jane J. Kim writes very clearly about the different tools that are now available to consumers to protect themselves against identity theft. The article explains the advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Great reporting!

  • Missile defense is a boondoggle

    This is why we need the Office of Technology Assessment (and listen to it), Bush is trying to bring back SDI, big time.

    President Bush said yesterday that a missile defense system is urgently needed in Europe to guard against a possible attack on U.S. allies by Iran, while Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested that the United States could delay activating such a system until there is “definitive proof” of such a threat.

    The seemingly contrasting messages came as the Bush administration grappled with continuing Russian protests over Washington’s plan to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. The Kremlin considers the program a potential threat to its own nuclear deterrent and has sought to play down any threat from Iran.

    Both Bush and Gates affirmed that they want to proceed with deployment of the system, including 10 antimissile interceptors in Poland and a radar-tracking facility in the Czech Republic projected for completion in 2012. Bush cited Iran’s development of ballistic missiles that could strike Israel and Turkey, and said Tehran is also developing missiles that could strike NATO countries.

    This cold-war boondoggle was shown to be worthless and fundamentally flawed as a political concept and as a feasible technology over 20 years ago (PDF) by the OTA, and I think their basic findings remain unchallenged. These systems have failed every test so far except for what, one? The last test I remember cost 87 million dollars and the missile didn’t even leave the silo! In general missile defense, even Patriot Missile defense against the relatively unsophisticated Scud missile, has been shown to only be an effective psychological weapon and physically ineffective in actually destroying missiles. In fact, even in the first Iraq War the Patriot countermeasures against Scud missiles, when retrospectively analyzed showed success in only a tiny minority of intercepts (possibly zero) – not to mention all the friendly-fire incidents and planes they shot down (not surprising since the system was designed to attack planes).

    Missile defense is flawed as a concept too, as it could be overwhelmed easily by simultaneous launch of dummy missiles, other decoys deployed in flight, and other countermeasures to prevent the rather rare event of two bullets successfully colliding in midair. It is politically treacherous, as it angers the Russians, and merely escalates arms races. If the enemy knows and is prepared for their deployment, clearly other methods such as bombers, smuggling of bombs into enemy territory, or short range technology would be used to attack easier targets.

    Finally, I am unimpressed that a nuclear Iran actually represents such an extreme threat to America or our allies. Even with ICBM technology Iran would never have the capability to challenge real nuclear powers such as Israel, or the US without certain annihilation. MAD worked as a strategy against a far more powerful and threatening enemy for 50 years, and while not ideal, was effective. Missile defense has only shown itself to be tremendously expensive, politically unfeasible, and, after 25 years of R&D completely unproven as a defensive technology. It’s all in the OTA report, maybe after all this time and money we should consider listening to what the science says about this endeavor, and abandon it. If we’d done that in the first place the savings would have been in the hundreds of billions.

  • Michael Gerson is taking cues from the ID cranks

    Or is unintentionally channeling them is my conclusion from reading his latest WaPo Op-Ed entitled, “The Eugenics Temptation”. This Watson nonsense has somehow convinced all these conservatives that lurking beneath the surface of every scientist is a seething eugenicist, biting at the bit to escape and kill off all we see who are inferior. I’ve agreed with Gerson on a thing or two, but this essay is a real stinker.

    “If you really are stupid,” Watson once contended, “I would call that a disease.” What is the name for the disease of a missing conscience?

    Watson is not typical of the scientific community when it comes to his extreme social application of genetics. But this controversy illustrates a temptation within science — and a tension between some scientific views and liberalism.

    The temptation is eugenics. Watson is correct that “we already accept” genetic screening and selective breeding when it comes to disabled children. About 90 percent of fetuses found to have Down syndrome are aborted in America. According to a recent study, about 40 percent of unborn children in Europe with one of 11 congenital defects don’t make it to birth.
    …
    This creates an inevitable tension within liberalism. The left in America positions itself as both the defender of egalitarianism and of unrestricted science. In the last presidential election, Sen. John Kerry pledged to “tear down every wall” that inhibited medical research. But what happens when certain scientific views lead to an erosion of the ideal of equality? Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a rising academic analyst of these trends, argues: “Watson is anti-egalitarian in the extreme. Science looks at human beings in their animal aspects. As animals, we are not always equal. It is precisely in the ways we are not simply animals that we are equal. So science, left to itself, poses a serious challenge to egalitarianism.”

    “The left,” Levin continues, “finds itself increasingly disarmed against this challenge, as it grows increasingly uncomfortable with the necessarily transcendent basis of human equality.

    Aside from the obvious absurdity of such statements, I find it offensive how willing these conservative commentators are to deny the humanity of scientists and liberals. For one, the data quoted in the article stands in direct contradiction to this statement. Think about it. “…90 percent of fetuses found to have Down syndrome are aborted in America” so are 90% of us liberal? Are 90% of Down’s kids born to liberal parents? 90% of Down’s kids are born to evil eugenicists scientists? Of course not. But 100% of us are human, and humans have a very real tendency to want their children to be born with every advantage possible, as close to perfect as the parents can manage. This isn’t liberalism, this is human freaking nature, and if anything it exposes the hypocrisy of the right wing’s stance against abortion. They yell and scream it should be banned but clearly for large numbers of conservatives aborting fetuses for genetic disorders abortion is only proscribed for other people.

    These attacks from Gerson and the ID cranks deny the humanity of scientists and liberals. They are based on small-minded and simplistic bigotries of right-wingers, that ignore their own participation in this problem, and try to lay the blame with those who have the decency to at least not be hypocrites. Further, there is not a trend towards eugenics among scientists as a group. This is a tendency in people, to want to improve their fitness and the fitness of their offspring. Scientists know that eugenics, historically, was not practiced in a scientifically-legitimate way but was instead racism masquerading as science. Ideology and bias was the basis of the eugenics movement, not rigorous observation and collection of data. If anything it’s the the Disco Institute’s behavior that resembles the bad science of eugenics. I tire of having members of my profession, and a broad swath of people being denigrated for being somehow morally incomplete and inhuman as if we are to blame for this tendency.

    We will have to address the ethics of eliminating and propagating certain traits in our offspring as the science improves and we have the ability to screen for positive or negative traits. We’ve all seen Gattaca, we get it. But it doesn’t help when these assholes sit around saying it’s our problem, or a defect in our morality, when clearly they engage in this behavior too, only while hypocritically mouthing platitudes against it. We should acknowledge the desire to artificially improve the biology of our offspring is ultimately a very understandable motive for people, and instead of casting blame on the scientists who have figured out how it all works, come to an understanding of what will be acceptable and unacceptable based on a balance between the rights of individuals and society.

  • Toxins!

    I’d love to see what the angry toxicologist thinks of this scary article from CNN Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids’ bodies.

    Michelle Hammond and Jeremiah Holland were intrigued when a friend at the Oakland Tribune asked them and their two young children to take part in a cutting-edge study to measure the industrial chemicals in their bodies.

    “In the beginning, I wasn’t worried at all; I was fascinated,” Hammond, 37, recalled.

    But that fascination soon changed to fear, as tests revealed that their children — Rowan, then 18 months, and Mikaela, then 5 — had chemical exposure levels up to seven times those of their parents.

    “[Rowan’s] been on this planet for 18 months, and he’s loaded with a chemical I’ve never heard of,” Holland, 37, said. “He had two to three times the level of flame retardants in his body that’s been known to cause thyroid dysfunction in lab rats.”

    Oh noes! The toxins!

    I kid, but in the midst of an article which is a bit over-the-top in scaremongering are some important issues that probably should result in increased regulation of chemicals going into everyday products. For one, Elizabeth Whelan of the ACSH, true to form, spouts the standard industry denial – no problem:

    i-e80414ff40124a19710b000fc9c565bc-2c.jpg

    Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, a public health advocacy group, disagrees.

    “My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood is it’s leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false,” she said. Whelan contends that trace levels of industrial chemicals in our bodies do not necessarily pose health risks.

    Public health advocacy group? The ACSH? Please. Try instead, an industry can do no wrong advocacy group. While I agree that trace measurements of most of these chemicals is likely not a health problem, that doesn’t mean there is “no problem”.

    (more…)

  • Denialists should not be debated

    Orac has brought up the interesting point that debating the homeopaths at U. Conn might not be a good idea.

    On a related note, in a post derriding attacks on consensus I was asked by commenters if isn’t it incumbent on science to constantly respond to debate; to never let scientific questions be fully settled. And I understand where they’re coming from. These ideas represent the enlightened ideals of scientific inquiry, free speech, and fundamental fairness.

    However, they’re also hopelessly misplaced in regard to the problem at hand. That is, denialists, cranks, quacks, etc., are not interested in legitimate debate or acting as honest brokers trying to bring clarity to a given issue through discussion. Orac dances around this issue a little bit, talking about the challenges of debates with pseudoscientists because they are hard to pin down, but the fundamental problem, simply put, is the absence of honesty and standards. Academia and science are critically dependent on debate, this is true, but the prerequisite for having the debate is having people who are honestly interested in pursuing the truth and operate using the same rules of evidence and proof. It’s not about censoring dissent, which the cranks insist is the issue in their eternal pursuit of persecution. It’s about having standards for evidence and discussion. This is why these debates, when confined to a courtroom, often fare so disastrously for the denialists. In the presence of standards that exist before evidence can be introduced, they are left with nothing.

    In what is probably the best book on denialist tactics Deborah Lipstadt’s “Denying the Holocaust”, are the best arguments for not engaging in debate with denialists. Now, I realize we’re not talking about scum-of-the-earth holocaust deniers here, but the fact is, the tactics and the methods are ultimately the same no matter how noble or evil the motive. Just because the motives or ideologies of the other cranks or denialists are different, doesn’t mean that they don’t have the exact same flaws in their arguments, use of evidence, or fundamental honesty. Lipstadt explains the risks then of entering into debates with deniers:
    (more…)

  • I'm Back

    Sorry for the absence. Between travel, catching up from travel, and preparing manuscripts, I’ve been slow to blog. I’m back now, but still busy.

    Meanwhile, I’ve been enjoying cectic’s comics immensely. I can no longer figure out who in my RSS feed linked these strips, but they are awesome!

    Case in point, anyone want to venture a guess who this refers to?

    Ha!