Tomfoolery Blog

Archive for April, 2010

Today was a good day in the fight against woo. The Prince of Wales Foundation for Integrated Health has announced that it is to close. But why is this cause for celebration?

When the FIH talk about ‘integrated health’, they aren’t talking about a considered approach to evidence-based healthcare. They are talking about debunked nonsense such as homeopathy, reiki and reflexology. The charity’s aim was to promote that sort of garbage on the NHS, in an effort to waste taxpayers money.

What caused the downfall of this “charity”? The answer is simple: fraud. The Foundation has failed to submit it’s accounts, and on Monday 26th of April two people were arrested on suspicion of fraud and money laundering. £300,000 is reportedly unaccounted for.

So, hopefully that will be the end of them, but the fact they existed in the first place sickens me somewhat. The foundation was set up by Prince Charles, a man in a hereditary position. We no longer live in the 16th century. How on earth is it right for someone in an extremely privileged position to use said position to support such utter bunk? If and when Charles becomes King, the UK is in danger of becoming a laughing stock.

It’s election time! I’m supporting the Lib Dems because of their evidence based policies, but what about the other parties? To give scientists an idea of the performance of the various parties, the Guardian have got some of the finest minds in the country (Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh and David Nutt, to name but a few) to pose a few questions on science policy. Today it was the turn of UKIP.

UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) has fashioned itself as the party of the right-wing “Little Englander”, the type of person who likes to hide away in a hovel pretending the rest of the world doesn’t exist. They are very anti-european, and members of the party are known supporters of homeopathy.

So how did they fare when asked about issues of science? As you might expect, the answers from their climate change spokesperson Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (obviously a man with a firm grip on reality) are decidedly lacking.

When asked about science funding, they say that they would stop all funding into climate change research. They plant themselves firmly in the climate change denialist camp, wanting a judge to hear evidence from ‘both sides’. The ‘both sides’ argument comes straight from the creationist movement, whereby science is pitted against superstition. So, having insulted science, they continue.

When asked about ‘placebo’ treatments (an obvious reference to homeopathy) they say that they should be funded on the NHS, despite ‘scientific’ proof. They continue to show a callous disregard for science, and I can’t imagine they are making any friends amongst scientists.

Worryingly, they see nothing wrong with the UK libel laws, which shows just how out of touch UKIP are.

In response to drug policy, they come up with a very odd answer:

Scientific evidence, as well as factual evidence in relation to the particulars of each case, is of course necessary in formulating a responsible policy on the availability of recreational drugs.

This shows further contempt for and misunderstanding of the scientific method. What on Earth could they mean by ‘scientific evidence’ and ‘factual evidence’? It just paints a further picture of a little man in a hovel, not just in hatred of the rest of the world, but terrified of ‘the scientists’, men in white coats bent double over their strange experiments, cackling maniacally as they mix their noxious chemicals. Forget the scientists, UKIP know the facts!

Their response to the question of stem cell research does nothing to dispel this image. They say that stem cell research would be fine if stem cells weren’t ‘obtained from very small children’. This ignorance of reality is staggering. Of course, stem cells aren’t taken from children, they are taken from embryos. If you can’t work out the difference, I can only assume you are some kind of religious fundamentalist.

So, in conclusion, UKIP have no clue when it comes to science, and they appear to show a complete disregard for the scientific method. If you want some relief from their nonsense, I suggest you check out the blog of Dr Evan Harris MP, a Lib Dem who stands for evidence based policy. Vote Lib Dem!

Dr Simon Singh has been involved in a libel case brought forward by the British Chiropractic Association for some time now. Following an appeal ruling on the 1st of April, the BCA has finally dropped their case. Hooray!

It’s been said many times before, but vaccination has been one the great medical advancements. With it, we have been able to eradicate diseases like smallpox and polio, and severely reduce others such as measles.

However, there remain a small minority who are convinced that vaccines are bad. Why would anyone think that? In this post, I give my own opinions based on years of ‘debating’ antivaxxers on various websites. These are very much my own opinions. They haven’t been through the peer review process, so please take them with a pinch of salt.

The first thing that stands out is the MMR-autism controversy. This was started by Dr Andrew Wakefield and his (now retracted) Lancet paper. The paper itself did not provide evidence of a link between MMR and autism, and numerous peer reviewed studies have not found evidence for a link. So why do some still believe in this mythical link?

I believe (and I’m going to be controversial here) that a major factor of a parent deciding what caused their child’s autism is blame. If autism is just something that happens, in other words “bad luck”, then that isn’t particularly attractive to believe because there is nothing to blame. If the parent is religious, they may feel that they must have done something bad because they are being punished by their chosen deity. On the other hand, if autism is genetic, then the parent may (wrongly) feel that they are to blame because they have passed their genes to their child. Who would want to think that?

So far, the options are to blame no-one, or to blame yourself. But what if you could blame something else, something that is there, something that can be pinpointed, something that others are suspicious of? I believe that this is why people blame vaccines. If this view is enforced by others, the argument to blame vaccines becomes more compelling. Just to make it clear, I do not believe that anyone should be blamed for a child being autistic. Like I say, these are just my opinions, so if you think you can tell me why I’m off the mark here, please leave a comment below.

A more simple factor to consider as to why parent don’t vaccinate is the fact that administering a vaccine can be traumatic for a child. The child cries and screams because being injected hurts, and a parent’s natural instinct is to think that the vaccine is bad because it causes their child to be in pain. The parent may think “I don’t want to put my child through that again” and look for any excuse to not get their child vaccinated.

The final factor I will consider is the lack of scientific education on behalf of the parents. In my years of ‘debating’ antivaxxers, I never get pointed to peer reviewed studies to back up their claims, I only get post hoc fallacies, scare stories, misunderstandings and outright lies on crank websites. Most don’t seem to realize that any old idiot can get a website and put something on it (like I’m doing now), and the fact that something is ‘on the internet’ is not proof of anything. I consider this further evidence as to the importance of teaching the scientific method.

So, that is why I think some parents don’t vaccinate their children. If you think you can say why I’m wrong please leave a comment. Thanks!

It’s Easter, where we commemorate the resurrection of Jesus by eating chocolate eggs. Whatever. Here’s some Eddie: