Goodbye And See You Soon!

And thus it came to pass that Cracked Science was no more.

This is not a dead-end; the road, once gravely, makes way for a paved highway.

In the summer of 2013, a former graduate student with a craving for bad-science denouncing and public education started a blog.

There are over 150 million blogs on the Internet.

His was not so much a lone voice in the wilderness as a rookie trader on the floor of the world’s biggest stock market.

He wrote and wrote and wrote, on science education, science criticism, and straight-up pseudoscience, somewhat aimless at first but driven by sheer exuberance.

When words were not enough, he dusted off his lenses. He spent two hours in an indoor pool with the fan turned off to talk about homeopathy and bought 200 styrofoam cups to prove his point. The whereabouts of these cups are unknown.

He rolled his blog into a brand-new production team that he created to bring reason to the public. He started a podcast. He interviewed a cardiologist and budding medical journalist. They thought, “one voice is fine but two voices are better.” Especially when they bicker.

***

Cracked Science was a first trial for me, an experiment, and it was fun. But I am now taking the skills I developed blogging, podcasting, and making videos to a single destination: The Body of Evidence.

CrackedScience.com will remain active for the foreseeable future, but no new material will be posted there.

If you want to see my videos, if you want to read me (including an all-new post on the science behind Chewpods, that chewable natural health product that’s being plastered on the walls of our metro stations), if you want to hear my lovely voice, there’s one destination for that, and that’s www.bodyofevidence.ca.

Plus, you get to read, see, and hear my buddy, Dr. Christopher Labos, so it’s a two-for-one deal, really. Click on our pretty faces below. You’ll be taken to the new site, of which we are immensely proud. Enter your email address in the “Subscribe” box on the right and you won’t miss a thing.

All of you, the 100+ subscribers to Cracked Science, go to The Body of Evidence. If Cracked Science was A New Hope, The Body of Evidence is The Empire Strikes Back.

And I promise: I will never give you Ewoks.

 

Promo - Tagline 300

Health Canada Says a Nosode Is Not a Vaccine… But You Can Buy It Anyway (For Fun?)

Health Canada is finally making (baby) steps toward better informing the public when it comes to homeopathy.

As readers of the blog should know by now, homeopathy is based on really silly, counterfactual beliefs that, if true, would lead to a complete rewrite of biology and chemistry textbooks.

Despite this, Health Canada routinely approves homeopathic remedies for sale in Canada.

On July 31, 2015, it introduced “label changes” for certain homeopathic preparations.

Labels on nosodes, which are homeopathic preparations of heavily diluted infectious pus and spit sold as natural alternatives to vaccines, will have to mention this: “This product is neither a vaccine nor an alternative to vaccination. This product has not been proven to prevent infection. Health Canada does not recommend its use in children and advises that your child receive all routine vaccinations.” The change is effective January 1, 2016.

Secondly, “Health Canada is no longer allowing companies to make specific health claims on homeopathic products for cough, cold, and flu for children 12 and under, unless those claims are supported by scientific evidence.” This simply means that these products, like most natural health products, will have to resort to vague claims such as “helps with” and “can be used as part of”.

While this is a step in the right direction, I feel the need to point out that these useless preparations will still carry a Health Canada product number and will continue to be sold in Canada.

Health Canada does not recommend the use of nosodes in children but continues to allow for their sale. Just like cigarettes.

Celebrities and Science: The Darko Side of the Moon

One’s acting talent does not always correlate with one’s scientific literacy. Or even one’s critical reasoning skills.

An article from the Toronto Sun quotes Hollywood actor Jake Gyllenhaal as saying the following: “I believe deeply in the unconscious. That you literally accumulate the molecules of the space that you’re in. We’re like 90% water, so naturally we are going to be affected by the moon when it’s full: if the sea is, why wouldn’t we be? That seems scientific to me.”

The actor made famous by his lead role in Donnie Darko went on to say that the molecules of his environment stick with him, and this incorporation apparently explains why he’s such a great actor. Surround yourself with cops for six months and cop molecules will become a part of you.

Sure, you may come into contact with cop dandruff but I don’t think this molecular transfer can impact your thespian skills.

As for his statement regarding the influence of the moon on the water content of our bodies, a few scientific facts deserve to be showcased (since the journalist, Liz Braun, obviously didn’t do it for us):

  • We are not, “like”, 90% water; our human bodies are made up of up to 60% water. Not 90%; 60% at the most, on average. A little over half.
  • The moon’s gravity does not create tidal forces inside our bodies. The Pacific Ocean is so vast that lunar gravity can act on two ends of it; the distance from your head to your feet, by comparison, is just negligible. Do you know what has a much bigger impact on the water in your body? Walking. Dancing. Driving in a car. Having sex. The sea may be affected by the moon, but we are not.
  • So what about this full moon? Does it turn people into lunatics? No. Many studies have looked for correlations between any phase of the moon and pretty much anything imaginable. This meta-analysis was particularly comprehensible. Homicides? No link. Criminal offences? No link. Crisis calls? No link. When the science is thorough and the analyses are done well, there is no correlation between any phase of the moon and, well, anything else. Except nights are bit brighter during a full moon. There’s a correlation! Why do people still believe this myth? Confirmation bias. When you think the full moon makes people edgy, you notice the hits but not the misses, in much the same way that we tend to remember the good things our favourite political candidate did and not the ill-judged moves.

So, what have we learned? The human body is made up of 60% water; the moon’s gravity does not influence the water in our bodies in the same way as the oceans; and full moons don’t make us go berserk.

What you said may “seem scientific” to you, Mr. Gyllenhaal, but it’s not scientific at all. Maybe actors should stick to what they know.

 

Listen: Science Says, “The Best Beauty Product Is…”

What do you think is the best beauty product out there? The one that science has shown has the greatest impact on your health? The one with tested rejuvenating powers? The one the evidence says, “Buy it, use it, and you will see the difference”?

Is it Retin-A? Coconut oil? Kakadu plum?

Listen to this podcast and you’ll know the answer. Look, it’s got a comedic vox pop segment; two guys with science degrees insulting each other; original music by a local music whiz; and high-end production values.

Subscribe to The Body of Evidence today and find out what the evidence says on…

(Also available on iTunes!)

Listen: Science Says, “The Best Beauty Product Is…”

What do you think is the best beauty product out there? The one that science has shown has the greatest impact on your health? The one with tested rejuvenating powers? The one the evidence says, “Buy it, use it, and you will see the difference”?

Is it Retin-A? Coconut oil? Kakadu plum?

Listen to this podcast and you’ll know the answer. Look, it’s got a comedic vox pop segment; two guys with science degrees insulting each other; original music by a local music whiz; and high-end production values.

Subscribe to The Body of Evidence today and find out what the evidence says on…

(Also available on iTunes!)


Read: Vermont’s Pro-Vaccine Position

The State of Vermont officially says “no” to philosophical objections to vaccination:

“Like most states, Vermont currently offers parents an exemption for medical conditions and one for religious beliefs. It has been one of about twenty states that allow for philosophical exemptions, and the majority of exemptions in Vermont have been for philosophical reasons.”

Vermont’s Governor has signed a piece of legislation that removes philosophical exemptions from its vaccination law.

You can read Michael Specter’s short article in The New Yorker here.

A parent choosing to exempt their child from vaccination for philosophical reasons is not unlike a company choosing to exempt themselves from carbon-cutting measures. It’s saying, “We don’t believe in the science; we believe in freedom for all no matter the consequences; and we will carry on being a danger to the world because of our scientific illiteracy.”

Vermont is taking a step in the right direction. Let’s see who follows.

Read: 23andMe or the Fallacy of ‘More Is Better’

A few months ago, a fellow skeptic told me he was considering personalized genetic testing and wondered what my opinion was on the service. The idea is that any consumer who desires can send a DNA sample to a company, like 23andMe, and get a report back on various genetic risk factors. Sounds like a good idea, but it is based on the fallacy that “more information is better for you” and, more specifically, that knowing about risks will alter your behaviour.

In a way, this direct-to-consumer service is trotting out that old American obsession with freedom: these are my genes, so I get to know. You can’t come between me and my biology.

The problems with personalized genetic testing are many: the communication of risk factors to a population that is statistically illiterate; the lack of subscription to quality control and assurance standards; and the revelation of risks that may not be clinically actionable and will only cause anxiety. Oh and, as mentioned before, the fact that knowing what you have to do rarely translates to action.

If you don’t believe me, go read Dr. Christopher Labos’ piece in the Gazette: it’s short, sweet, and well argued.

And then listen to us bicker as we tackle common medical misconceptions on The Body of Evidence.

Read: How Antibodies Let Biomedical Research Down

Antibodies are used a lot in research labs around the world and scientists tend to trust what’s on the label. But antibodies aren’t as reliable as researchers may think, with some scientists now arguing that “due diligence” in their use should include considerable time and money.

I remember comparing my own experimental results to published blots. We were in theory using the same antibody, and yet the pattern on the blot was completely different. Leave it to an eager principal investigator to squint really hard to see the band he or she wants to see.

“Scientists often know, anecdotally, that some antibodies in their field are problematic, but it has been difficult to gauge the size of the problem across biology as a whole. Perhaps the largest assessment comes from work published by the Human Protein Atlas, a Swedish consortium that aims to generate antibodies for every protein in the human genome. It has looked at some 20,000 commercial antibodies so far and found that less than 50% can be used effectively to look at protein distribution in preserved slices of tissue. This has led some scientists to claim that up to half of all commercially available antibodies are unreliable.”

You can read the whole article here. It’s not exactly meant for the general public, but it is quite interesting if you are interested in reproducibility issues in science.

Read: Exercise alone won’t make you lose weight

Exercise has many virtues but, contrary to popular belief, it is not an efficient way to lose weight.

So what is?

“The idea that our obesity epidemic is caused by sedentary lifestyles has spread widely over the past few decades, spurring a multibillion-dollar industry that pitches gadgets and gimmicks promising to walk, run and kickbox you to a slim figure. But those pitches are based on a myth. Physical activity has a multitude of health benefits — it reduces the risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and possibly even cancer — but weight loss is not one of them.

“A growing body of scientific evidence shows that exercise alone has almost no effect on weight loss, as two sports scientists and I described in a recent editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. For one, researchers who reviewed surveys of millions of American adults found that physical activity increased between 2001 and 2009, particularly in counties in Kentucky, Georgia and Florida. But the rise in exercise was matched by an increase in obesity in almost every county studied. There were even more striking results in a 2011 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that people who simply dieted experienced greater weight loss than those who combined diet and exercise.”

 

I encourage you to go read Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s entire article in The Washington Post.

If you prefer to listen to the information, check out my conversation with Timothy Caulfield, public health researcher at the University of Alberta, on the podcast Within Reason. It’s a lot of fun and you may find yourself confronted with an avalanche of myths you thought were true.

 

 

I’m Majoring in Science, With a Minor in Wishful Thinking

The infiltration of pseudoscience in academia, either universities proper or academic health centres, is very real. Dr. David Gorski is doing a great job reporting on the American side of this disturbing inroad, but I thought it was time to tackle the Canadian (and more specifically the Quebec) perspective.

The Prince Arthur Herald recently published an article of mine entitled “I’m Majoring in Science, With a Minor in Wishful Thinking”. You may be surprised to learn that chiropractic, reflexology, and acupuncture have all made forays into academia in Montreal.

From the article,

“What used to be a shibboleth—a phrase such as “evidence-based”—is now commonly used by quackademics as a smokescreen to deceive funding agencies, the general public, and perhaps the quackademics themselves. Everyone is engaging in “evidence-based practice”. The phrase has stopped to carry the meaning it once had and now serves as a fashion rule. If you don’t put “evidence-based” in front of what you practice or research, you will not be taken seriously. The critical assessment of the evidence that used to follow is no longer a requirement.”

You can read the full article here.

I would also encourage you to post it on social media and to comment on it. My last article for the Herald elicited a number of irrational comments from the hardcore believers in the power of sugar pills. Let’s hear it for rationality.