Download Lectures on Biostatistics (1971). Corrected and searchable version of Google books edition
Download review of Lectures on Biostatistics (THES, 1973).
Bad journalism
The Consumers’ Association has had a good record in distinguishing true claims from false in washing machines and dishwashers. But in CAM, they seem to be out of their depth. They have been giving some very bad advice, of the sort you might expect from the lifestyle pages of the Daily Mail.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
An even more than usually crackpot idea from homeopath Carol Franske is that shaking the bottle splits atomic nuclei. And a discussion on recent work which suggests that the real memory of water is even less than a millionth of a millionth of a second.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
Brain Deer has produced a very detailed account of the MMR scandal. It shows the corrupting influence of money on research, and the harm done, bath by Dr Wakefield, and by the Royal Free Hospital which sought to profit from him.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
The Independent recommended the Helios Homeopathy Travel kit as one of its Ten Best. They made amends by publishing a letter pointing out that the pills contained nothing whatsoever.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
This an essay by Alan Sokal, published in Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, edited by Garrett G. Fagan (Routledge, 2006), pp. 286-361. It is available on-line.
This is a wonderful essay. It could hardly be more relevant to the Barry paper. It explains why so much of the philosophy science has moved so far in a relativist direction that it has become barely distinguishable from CAM and astrology, apart from the more pretentious language of the former. Little wonder that it is almost entirely ignored by scientists.
Here are some quotations.
| IntroductionIn this essay I propose to investigate the paradoxical relation between two broad categories of thought: pseudoscience and postmodernism (both will be defined more precisely in a moment). At first glance, pseudoscience and postmodernism would appear to be opposites: pseudoscience is characterized by extreme credulity, while postmodernism is characterized by extreme skepticism. More specifically, adherents of pseudoscience believe in theories or phenomena that mainstream science considers thoroughly unsupported by evidence (at best) or even preposterous, rejects as utterly implausible, while adherents of postmodernism withhold belief in theories that mainstream science considers to be established beyond any reasonable doubt. Or rather, postmodernists profess to withhold such belief. Whether they actually do so in practice for example, when they are seriously ill and must decide which type of medicine to follow is a different question. And yet, I will argue, there is, at least in some instances, a curious convergence between pseudoscience and postmodernism. Part of conclusions I am indeed mildly disconcerted by a society in which 50% of the adult populace believes in extrasensory perception, 42% in haunted houses, 41% in possession by the devil, 36% in telepathy, 32% in clairvoyance, 28% in astrology, 15% in channeling, and 45% in the literal truth of the creation story of Genesis. But I am far more profoundly worried by a society in which 21-32% believe that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, 43-52% think that U.S. troops in Iraq have found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda, and 15-34% think that U.S. troops have found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And if I am concerned about public belief in clairvoyance and the like, it is largely because of my suspicion that credulity in minor matters prepares the mind for credulity in matters of greater import — and, conversely, that the kind of critical thinking useful for distinguishing science from pseudoscience might also be of some use in distinguishing truths in affairs of state from lies. The degree of validity (if any) of this conjecture is an empirical question, which merits careful investigation by psychologists, sociologists and educational researchers. |
And finally
For a bit of fun, try the post-modern essay generator.
Click the link at the bottom to generate a new essay in a moment. If you are worried about your RAE rating you could always try submitting one to a journal.
This is a topic that I have kept well away from, because I have an obvious vested interest: “no pipe, no algebra”. But the topic does make an interesting example of the effect of political correctness on people who are otherwise impeccable in there attitude to evidence. Tim Luckhurst writes about this in The Independent (2 May, 2006).
“On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: “The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”
He was right not to fret. One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It tracked the health of 118,000 Californians over four decades in a rigorous attempt to identify a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (the scientific term for secondary smoke) and premature death. It concluded: “The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality.” ”
The paper in question is ‘Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98’, James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat 2003, BMJ , 326, 1057 . The publication was followed by a torrent of abuse, more
reminiscent of religious zealotry than of science. The responses have been analysed in an article in Public Understanding of Science (2005, 14, 5–23) by Ungar and Bray, ‘Silencing science: partisanship and the career of a publication disputing the dangers of secondhand smoke’ [ download pdf ].
I don’t know what the final answer will be about the risks of passive smoking, but as a pharmacologist, the higher levels of damage reported seem barely credible, bearing in mind that
“Reputable research shows that a non-smoker inhales between a 500th and 1,000th of the toxins inhaled by the smoker himself.”
It does seem that it is not only big drug companies, and deluded homeopaths, who are happy to distort evidence for their own purposes. Well-meaning zealots can do it too. That is just as scary.
“Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s 40-a-day cigar habit is held responsible for some of the greatest triumphs of British engineering. Unfortunately, it also represents an upturned middle finger towards the politically-correct mandarins of modern academia. With this in mind, Brunel University has removed the famous stoogie from a new, life-size statue of the eminent Victorian. The bronze is based on the National Portrait Gallery’s iconic photograph of Brunel standing next to the launching chains of his ship, the SS Great Eastern, in 1857. It was unveiled last week, revealing a close likeness, but – to the annoyance of Brunel fans, historians and the smoking lobby alike – no cigar.” The Independent , 18th July 2006.
Some scientific heros. Their longevity tells you absolutely nothing.
Transferred from the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
Follow-up
In the discussion of magnets on the Badscience site, a Michael King says that 4ulcercare will be included in Part IX of the Drug Tariff because it meets the criteria of the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA).
I presume this Michael King is Director of Planning and Corporate Affairs at the PPA, though he does not say so.
Michael King says
?There is no judgement offered about whether a product in the Drug Tariff
is more (or less) efficacious than any other, or the placebo effect.?
The criteria for inclusion in
Part IX of the Drug Tariff () include, in section 10 iii, ?They are cost
effective?
Will he please explain how a device can be cost-effective, if it is ineffective (relative to placebo)?
What the PPA says
Michael King has replied to my question by email (1 Mar 2006). He says
“The cost-effectiveness threshold for inclusion in the Drug Tariff is met if the ‘effectiveness’ of the device, as seen in data submitted by the manufacturer in support of the application, exceeds its cost to the NHS. ”
Sadly this is still ambiguous. It seems to suggest that that whatever data
are submitted by the manufacturer are taken at face value, without any attempt
to evaluate their quality. So I phoned King to ask if this was the case. He
was helpful, but he said that it was not the case. He told me that
the data were subject
to some sort of low level evaluation, short of the sort of evaluation that
NICE would do. This seems to contradict his earlier statement (above) that
inclusion in the Tariff implies no judgement about whether a device is better
than a placebo.
King said also that listing in the Tariff
“. . . is not a licensing decision nor a recommendation akin to the outcome of a NICE review”
The problem is, of course, that listing is seen as a recommendation by the public, by the Daily
Mail, and certainly by the manufacturer.
One thing, at least, is clear in this case. Whatever evaluation was done,
it was done very badly. But in order to try to find out exactly what evaluation
was done, and by whom, I’m having to resort to the Freedom of Information Act.
Watch this space.
What NICE says
Fraser Woodward (Communications Manager, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)) writes as follows.
“The test of “cost effectiveness” applied by the PPA when determining whether or not a device should go on the tariff is very different to the way cost effectiviness is assessed by NICE”
That is pretty obvious, but how is the public meant to know that, when they hear that the NHS has declared a treatment to be ‘cost-effective’, that statement can mean two entirely different things according to which part of the bureaucracy the statement comes from?
Several of the people who contributed to, and/or appeared in, the BBC2 series on alternative medicine, have complained that they were treated “like marionettesâ€, and that the programme was sensationalised and uncritical,
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
A good chance was missed to convey the facts and the science. Well below the BBC’s usual standard for science programmes.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
On 21 November, 2005, Dr David Spence appeared on the BBC’s Today Programme. He was being interviewed about a report that, he said, provided evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy. In fact it does nothing of the sort.
Dr Spence’s paper was published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. It is not really research at all. They simply asked 6544 patients who had had homeopathic treatment whether they felt better or not. Half the patients (50.7%) said they were ‘better’ ot ‘much better’. A further 20% said they were ‘slightly better’. The patients who had homeopathic treatment were not compared with anything whatsoever!
This is reported in a straighforward way. What is quite ludicrous is the stated conclusion of the paper:
“The study results show that homeopathic treatment is a valuable intervention”.
It is obvious that there is not the slightest reason to attribute the answers given by patients to the fact that they had been given homeopathic treatment. That would be the crudest form of post hoc ergo propter hoc error. It does not even show that the homeopathic treatment was producing a placebo effect.
Papers like this do not add to human knowledge, they detract from it. By reverting to pre-enlightment forms of argument, they mislead rather than enlighten. To make matters worse, this work was done at public expense, by the Directorate of Homeopathic Medicine, United Bristol Healthcare, National Health Service Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
What on earth is a respectable hospital and medical school, like those in Bristol, wasting money with this sort of mediaeval hindrance to medical knowledge? We are truly living in an age of delusions.
Download the paper and see for yourself [ Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. J Altern Complement Med. 2005, 11, 793-8. pdf file, 74 kb].
This letter to The Times points out the folly of making regulations that do not require any demonstration that the product works. Can you imagine a regulation for television sets that required only that they do no harm, but did not specify that they should show a picture?
| From Professor D. Colquhoun, FRS Sir, Congratulations on your report on the deficiencies found in complementary medicine practitioners (Body & Soul, January 10). In the face of such evidence it is natural to ask for more effective regulation of this very profitable industry. But the question is quis custodiet ipsos custodes? This question has serious implications for the universities as well as for the public (and the industry).The House of Lords report and the Government’s response to it, pointed out that the first step was to find out whether the complementary treatment worked (better than a placebo). They recommended that the Department of Health should fund research on complementary medicine, the first priority being to find out whether each therapy worked. The problem is that you cannot regulate properly an area when it is not, in most cases, known whether the product being offered has no effect above that of wishful thinking. This raises a serious question for universities, because it leads, naturally enough, to demands for better training. But how can a university run a course on a subject about which there is so little hard evidence? Tragically (for their own reputation), some of the new universities are running three-year BSc courses in such subjects as complementary therapies. I’m quite happy to believe that nice smells produce good placebo effects, but aromatherapy is not, by any stretch of the imagination, science, and in my view it is not honest to award Bachelor of Science degrees in it.The effect of such courses will be not to promote better regulation, but to give spurious respectability to an industry that, according to the Government, should (but does not) have, as its first priority, to find out what works and what doesn’t. Yours faithfully, DAVID COLQUHOUN, A. J. Clark Professor of Pharmacology, |