Category Archives: required reading

27May / 2015

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.

Posted by in criticism, dna, genetics, Health, medicine, Podcast, required reading, Science Criticism, Science Journalism

Permalink

25Apr / 2015

Follow-Up on the Makayla Sault/J.J./Hippocrates Health Institute Case: J.J. Went Back to Chemo

Finally, two items of good news come out of this dreadful affair in which Aboriginal families stopped chemotherapeutic treatment for their leukemic daughters and sought nonsensical pseudoscientific treatment in Florida.

While one of the children passed away this winter, the other, known in the media as “J.J.”, is being reported as feeling well. Could it be that the raw vegan diet and the Aqua Chi Ionic Foot Bath really work to fight off cancerous tumours?

Or could it be that the family reversed their initial decision and sent their daughter back to chemotherapy?

“But [J.J. was feeling] good, as became abundantly clear, because she resumed chemo treatment in March, as soon as hospital tests confirmed that the cancer had returned.

“The cancer that her parents claimed, early this year, was no longer in evidence, as the child was treated with traditional indigenous medicine, and after the family had returned from a quack therapy regime at a Florida establishment that preaches curing cancer with a positive attitude and a raw plant-based organic diet.

“But J.J. wasn’t ‘cured,’ and to her parents’ credit, they turned back to the conventional if debilitating chemo treatment they’d fought so hard to avoid.”

It is not an easy decision to admit having been wrong, especially when it comes to the survival of your child.

But what about the judge, who had ruled in November that J.J. could not be taken for her family and forced back into chemotherapy, because it was well within the rights of her parents to pursue so-called “traditional medicine” in lieu of a debilitating treatment that had an incredibly high cure rate?

Judge Edward has issued a “clarification” to his ruling.

“Implicit in this decision is that recognition and implementation of the right to use traditional medicine must remain consistent with the principle that the best interests of the child remain paramount. The Aboriginal right to use traditional medicine must be respected and must be considered among other factors in any analysis of the best interests of the child, and whether the child is in need of protection.”

The judge has, in my opinion, displayed a shocking lack of understanding of human psychology and the strength of beliefs that are often not founded on evidence:

“Now Edward tells us that he always knew, instinctively, the parents would do what was best for J.J. He took that comforting view from the testimony of an intake manager with the Brant child welfare agency, in which she quoted the child’s mother as saying, ‘I will not let my baby die.'”

Unfortunately, that is precisely what happened with Makayla Sault. The parental impulse to ensure the survival of one’s child is no insurance against the use of quackery. There often is a gap of information between a willingness to take action and an informed decision.

You can read Rosie DiManno’s report in the Toronto Star here.

You can also hear my discussion of this case back in November with Dr. Christopher Labos on episode 204 of the podcast Within Reason.

Posted by in alternative medicine, cancer, Health, medicine, miracle cures, Podcast, Pseudoscience, required reading, treatment, tumour

Permalink

16Feb / 2015

Book Review: Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? by Timothy Caulfield

BookCover

“Evidence-based entertainment” is the motto and mandate of the production team under whose banner this blog exists. It expresses a desire for subversive education in light of growing apathy, for using the tools of entertainment to foster skepticism. The pill is always easier to swallow in a scoop of ice cream.

I love stumbling upon like-minded individuals who have found creative ways of bringing real science to an indifferent audience. Law professor and author Timothy Caulfield struck the perfect balance with his first outing, The Cure for Everything! With this sophomore tome, Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?, he shows us the potential longevity of a writing approach that weaves scientific results into a tapestry of funny encounters and personal experiences. I look forward to future iterations of the formula: it makes for compelling and enriching reads.

The first half of Gwyneth seems like the natural continuation of Cure: from nutrition and fitness, we move to detox cleanses, unproven cosmetics, and drastic surgeries. The lens through which these cure-alls are described is that of Hollywood celebrities, most particularly their unelected spokesperson, Gwyneth Paltrow, whose website Goop promises to be that rare place “where food, shopping, and mindfulness collide.” “In the preface [to Gwyneth Paltrow’s cookbook, It’s All Good], she credits [Dr. Alejandro Junger], and the Clean Cleanse, with curing her of a variety of ailments, including the banishment of an intestinal parasite that went undetected by Gwyneth’s conventional physicians, the adjustment of her ‘sky-high’ adrenals and the unclogging of her horribly clogged liver.” For a reader like me who knows the world of pseudomedicine and its simpler, rational counterpart, this is like shooting fish in a barrel; but to Caulfield’s credit, he integrates the bucket of cold water (“absolutely no evidence supports the idea that we need to detoxify our bodies”) amidst a page-turning narrative: he visits Goop headquarters in London; has his face scanned by two dermatologists (before and after a costly beauty routine); and even makes it to an American Idol audition. Well, sort of.

The second half of the book was more illuminating to me: putting aside what celebrities peddle, how likely is it to become one of them? We may all think we know the answer but the numbers Caulfield cite give lottery probabilities a run for their money. Chances of becoming a movie “star”: 1 in 1.5 million. Chances of a pro career in football: 0.08%. Chances of becoming a full-time independent musician who lives on an average salary: 1 in 477,000. And while you are awaiting your turn into the rock-star spotlight, you will be making, on average, 7,228$ a year, which is “less than half of the Canadian poverty line cutoff.” And yet fame is, according to a recent survey, “the number-one cultural value of children between the ages of ten and twelve”, with a depressingly high number of students believing celebrity status was within reach. The author summarizes the cognitive dissonance at play here with this gem: “People think the statistics apply to other people, but not to them.”

With so many studies quoted, some facts are bound to surprise the reader, how ever well informed he or she is. Did you know that the rural lifestyle is not all it’s cracked up to be? Life expectancy goes down as you move to the countryside. But don’t worry, because beautiful pianists play what sounds like better music compared to their uglier counterparts. The final section of the book, on whether fame is worth having, drags on a bit. After reading nearly 300 pages on celebrities, I must admit the message was clear and I couldn’t wait to move to a less glamorous subject.

Putting aside the nay-say, what positive message there is boils down to, “You aren’t going to be rich and famous. Stop worrying about it.” The lesson reminded me of the much-publicized atheist bus ad campaign of 2009: “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Irrationality of all ilk thrives amidst fear-mongering. The more people worry, the likelier they will be tempted to seek out all-encompassing answers, which tend to be unscientific and complex. In both The Cure for Everything! and his latest book, Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?, Timothy Caulfield beautifully reinforces the best kept secret of life: keep it simple. Eat well, exercise regularly, get a good night sleep, and accept that you will never be a celebrity. Will the message reach the people who need it most? If any messenger can make it happen, it is one whose writing is compelling, disarming, and entertaining. Gwyneth Paltrow may not be wrong about everything, but Timothy Caulfield shows us the dangers of following the siren song of scientifically illiterate celebrities. And he makes it fun.

The Trojan horse of rationality has arrived.


Posted by in education, Health, Pseudoscience, required reading, Science Criticism, Science Education, Science Journalism

Permalink

12Feb / 2015

Darwin Day 2015: Refute Erroneous Arguments

On February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born.

Along with Alfred Russel Wallace, he formulated the theory of evolution, according to which the struggle for life leads to the survival of the species most fit to their environment.

If you are skeptical about evolution (“it’s just a theory!”) or if you know people who are but you lack the knowledge to refute their erroneous arguments, here is a PDF document to the rescue.

Top 10 Myths About Evolution.

For those who claim that no fossil of intermediate forms have been found, “there are now at least six intermediate fossil stages in the evolution of whales, and in human evolution there are at least a dozen intermediate fossil stages since hominids branched off from the great apes six million years ago.”

The PDF was released by the Skeptics Society.

And if you are not satiated in your Darwin Day celebrations, you can also read what I wrote last year.

Let’s end with a quote:

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

— Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man


Posted by in Biology, education, Evolution, required reading, Science Education

Permalink

29Jan / 2015

Read: What Is the Gap Between Evidence and Its Acceptance?

It is one thing for scientists to agree on the evidence, but what is the gap between scientific consensus (or near-consensus) and public acceptance of these same facts?

“Asked whether genetically modified food is safe, 88 per cent of the scientists say Yes, but only 37 per cent of the public agreed. That’s a gap of 51 percentage points.

“The idea that humans are changing the climate got support from 87 per cent of the scientists and 50 per cent of the public in the U.S.”

Should animals be used in research? 89% of polled scientists said “yes”; the public?

You can read the Vancouver Sun’s reporting of the latest Pew Research Centre poll here.


Posted by in education, required reading, Science Education

Permalink

12Sep / 2014

Read (or Listen): NPR on Scientists Giving Up

It used to be that a university degree was not only a rarity but a ticket to job security. Not anymore.

In a world in which more and more of what we use is a product of science, should we be training more scientists? I don’t think so.

Richard Harris from NPR reports on scientists who left their field when finding research money became too difficult. It’s a poignant story, one all-too familiar to me. I saw Ph.D. graduates working as research assistants in laboratories; I also saw someone with a Ph.D. and a postdoctoral fellowship under his belt apply and be interviewed for a position which required him to do cell culture and place orders for the lab.

The NPR story is interesting, but the comments are even more arresting. Here are a few excerpts:

“Me? I’m on SNAP and on Medicaid, without a dime to my name. And I am hardly the only biomedical Ph.D. in that boat.

“When someone tells me we need more STEM people, I either just laugh in their face, or I tell ‘em “How about we employ the ones we already bloody have, first?””

“30k a year and I’m barely floating… sharing a rent with 2 others.”

“With my MS in biological oceanography, published research and a decade of adjunct teaching experience, I wasn’t able to get hired as a middle or high school teacher. I had to go back to school (and no, I counted find grants for scientists to go to school for teaching credentials), get another masters degree and enter the job market as a “new teacher” with zero years of “relevant teaching” experience.”

“I left science for sales, because i just couldn’t live like a welfare case anymore and travel 40 miles to work every day so I could afford the rent. It was highly educated poverty.”

Highly educated poverty.

Within the last 25 years, we decided that, not only were universities accessible to anyone, but that everyone should go to university. I remember watching a Canadian home improvement program seven or eight years ago in which the host decried the lack of qualified labour in the trades. These jobs pay extremely well, are in high demand, and would make a lot of people happy. Yet many families still aim for “university or nothing”. But there’s nothing embarrassing about being a welder.

For what it’s worth, I believe universities should start accepting significantly fewer students in science programs, while elementary and high schools should start teaching more critical thinking material. Every citizen with an average or above-average intelligence should have an understanding of basic science, logic, and critical thinking, but not every citizen should be making this their career. Let’s teach our kids to be more rational in all aspects of their lives and encourage them to go into the trades. Let the smartest of the smartest and the most passionate would-be scientists make it to university. Maybe having fewer scientists competing for the money will help them design experiments with more than five samples and reduce the number of times they feel compelled to write “more research is needed to see if this holds up”.

You can read (or listen to) the whole NPR story here.


Posted by in criticism, education, jobs, required reading, Science Criticism

Permalink

09Aug / 2014

Read: Vitamin D, Dementia, and the Missing Link

Do low levels of vitamin D increase your risk of developing dementia? From reading recent headlines, you might think it does. But what did the scientific study actually show?

HealthNewsReview.org is a great resource to help separate facts from hype, and they most recently tackled the erroneous reporting that low levels of vitamin D cause dementia.

Correlation, causation. If you’re still unsure of the difference, read the article here.


Posted by in Biology, criticism, Health, required reading, Research, Science Criticism, Science Journalism, scientific publishing

Permalink

06Aug / 2014

Read: The Food Babe’s Friends… and Critics

If you listen to my podcast, Within Reason, you know my thoughts on Vani Hari’s crusade against ingredients whose  names she can’t pronounce. On her blog, FoodBabe.com, she regularly commits logical fallacies in her attempt to “educate” the public on what constitutes healthy food.

Kathleen Purvis of the Charlotte Observer recently wrote a fairly lengthy article addressing the Food Babe phenomenon. Its author gets quotes from people on both sides of the debate, which might strike one as a fallacious “equal balance” approach but which I found nonethless interesting. Our very own Dr. Joe Schwarcz is among the Food Babe critics who get to express their opinion:

“”Whatever the story is with azodicarbonamide has nothing to do with whether it’s a yoga mat chemical,’ Schwarcz says. ‘This is absurdity, to say if something is used in one context, it can’t be used in food.

‘We use water to wash our cars. Vinegar can be used to kill weeds. If she ever found out, she’d want salad dressing banned.'”

I would encourage you not only to read the full article but to send it to some of your more impressionable friends.
My favorite sentence from the article?
“Although appendicitis is not often linked to nutrition, she decided hers was caused by inflammation she blamed on her diet.”
And that is why claims made by Vani Hari are often spurious, ridiculous, and sometimes even dangerous: they come from wishful thinking, not rational investigations.
The full article can be accessed here.
If you want to hear Dr. Schwarcz speak at length on this issue and don’t mind apparent irreverence on the subject, check out episode 106 of Within Reason (also available on iTunes)!

Posted by in food, Food Babe, Health, Joe Schwarcz, Podcast, Pseudoscience, required reading, Science Education

Permalink

13Jul / 2014

Read: The Med Student Who Wants to Bring Down Dr. Oz

A very interesting read. Some physicians have had enough of Dr. Oz’s pseudoscience and its effect on their patients.

“‘Dr. Oz has something like 4-million viewers a day,’ Mazer told Vox. ‘The average physician doesn’t see a million patients in their lifetime. That’s why organized medicine should be taking action.’

“Last year, Mazer brought a policy before the Medical Society of the State of New York—where Dr. Oz is licensed—requesting that they consider regulating the advice of famous physicians in the media. His idea: Treat health advice on TV in the same vein as expert testimony, which already has established guidelines for truthfulness. I asked Mazer about what inspired the policy, and what became of his efforts.”
You can read the full article on Vox.com.

Posted by in alternative medicine, doctor, Dr. Oz, Health, hospital, medicine, miracle cures, Pseudoscience, required reading

Permalink

30Jun / 2014

Read: Scientific Journal Nature Chemistry Finally Publishes List of Chemical-Free Products

Via @edyong209 on Twitter, here is some good news for people like The Food Babe.

Prestigious scientific journal Nature Chemistry has published a fantastic paper by A.F.G. Goldberg and C.J. Chemjobber entitled “A comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products”.

I invite all of you to have a look at it. It’s a short read.

If you’re still worried about chemicals in our environment after reading this groundbreaking paper, I would encourage you to listen to my conversation with Dr. Joe Schwarcz on chemophobia.


Posted by in chemistry, education, Health, Joe Schwarcz, Podcast, required reading, Science Education

Permalink