Thursday, 5 December 2019

Context Is Everything

It was one of those Hang on a minute moments.

Action for Safety sounds like a good idea, using celebrities to promote safer driving. The poster campaign features slogans about not driving while tired, looking out for pedestrians and so on. Celebrities include sports people and minor European royals.

The posters all state prominently that 3,500 people will die on the roads today. That’s 1,277,500 a year.

That seemed like a lot so I looked it up.

According to the latest government figures for the year ending June 2018, around 1770 people died on UK roads, about 4.85 a day. That’s quite a lot fewer.

Who is behind this campaign?

The organisation behind it is FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile), whose mission is ‘to bring coherent governance and safety to motor sport’. They also aim to ‘ensure that safe, affordable and clean systems of transport are available to all. The promotion of safe and sustainable forms of mobility has in turn led the FIA to commit to global sustainability initiatives and also to found its own major response to road safety concerns, FIA Action for Road Safety. This worldwide campaign, in support of the UN’s Decade of Action for Road Safety, aims to reduce fatalities on the roads by five million before 2020.’

All very honourable aims. But where do the stats come from? According to their fact sheet ‘Road crashes kill 1.3 million people every year’.

The source of this statistic is the World Health Organisation. Their site says that 1.25 million are estimated to have died in 2013 globally in road deaths.

So the FIA stats are not that far off. But the posters are very misleading, nowhere on them does it says these are global figures. They may be going for shock tactics to make people drive more carefully but is this a legitimate tactic? Is it ethical to be so misleading? It’s certainly unprofessional and amateurish.

If that was the UK figure it would be truly shocking but on a global scale is that significant? How does it compare with other causes of death?

According to the WHO, road injuries came eighth on the list of global killers in 2016, lagging a long way behind heart disease and stroke.

Three quarters of victims were men and boys, which would explain the prevalence of footballers and racing drivers on the posters as these are traditionally assumed to be male heroes and role models (but doesn’t explain why a princess of Monaco features…).

The distribution of deaths isn’t even globally either; some countries have much higher per capita rates than others. The worse death rates are in several African countries and Thailand. The UK has one of the lowest rates (and falling) while Monaco has the lowest of all (which might explain the princess on the poster).

That still makes them a pretty serious cause of death and a worthy campaign subject. But making the stats relevant for each country would make the campaign more relevant. Nearly five people a day every day is still too many.

The last part of the stated mission is 'This worldwide campaign, in support of the UN’s Decade of Action for Road Safety, aims to reduce fatalities on the roads by five million before 2020'. That's half a million out of 1.3 million a year for the decade of the campaign. Is that realistic in any way?

Although this is just a small example, it’s a useful skeptical reminder that without context statistics are meaningless. If even the good guys are misusing stats then it’s even harder to know who to trust, who to take seriously and who to dismiss. 

So yes, drive carefully and soberly and wide awake but keep the same attitude towards any stats you encounter along the way.

Wednesday, 13 November 2019

Modest Fashion - Don’t judge me in your Sister Wife dress.

First off, women should be able to wear whatever they want without male input or consequences.


So-called ‘modest fashion’ is not just a trend.

It’s a style that’s been around a little while that went viral over the summer with the Zara dress pictured above. My first thought when I saw it was that it looked pretty Amish but that’s just me.

One influencer says ‘"I feel like women are now dressing not to be sexy for men”. She’s being very optimistic/naive and also talking as if there is no history of women’s fashion.

What man would say this?: ‎"I feel confident and most importantly comfortable. I know no matter how much I ‎eat you'll never be able to see my food baby." Why would you want to hide a full belly? Who are you hiding it from? Men? – but women aren’t dressing for men now, I thought. Other women? Yay sisterhood. Not.

Back to the fashion history thing. A woman who runs a fashion agency dedicated to modest fashion says: "If we go back to Britain in about the 1950s ‎modest fashion was the norm. Everyone had longer hem lines and long sleeves”.

Nope. Fashion in the 1950s was about post-war austerity and came from a long tradition of women wearing longer skirts. It didn’t come out of nowhere. Mediaeval women were not prancing around in mini skirts and I don’t recall any Victorian boob tubes. The word ‘modest’ was not part of clothing vocabulary and fashion had strong elements of class and status signalling. There were plenty of sleeveless evening or summer dresses in the 1950s. Don’t just show someone wearing autumn/winter styles and extrapolate from that. Remember the iconic photo of Marilyn Monroe’s white dress blowing up over an air vent? That’s from 1955. Which is in the 50s.

What’s more, 50s underwear was uncomfortable and constricting, designed (by men) to create an hourglass figure (for men). See Marilyn, Jane Russell etc.

A quick debunk sidebar:
The Hemline Index suggests that when times are stable, hemlines get shorter (for example the 1960s) and when times are uncertain, they get longer (for example the 1970s) and there are more ‘comfort’ clothes. These are pretty uncertain times so it would follow that hemlines get longer – wouldn’t it? This may have been true in the past but fashion changes so fast now and is much more varied and accessible than it used to be so it’s much less of a reliable indicator. There is no one Look of the season. But it is true that when times are hard, we like to be comfortable and comforted. Sometimes. And other times we want to go out partying in something shiny and skimpy.

It’s not as if ‘non-modest’ clothes are uncomfortable and hard to move in, we’re not wearing corsets and crinolines. This is not some 1920s clothing revolution where women cast off the shackles of foundation garment hell.

There’s no mention of these larger clothes being better for larger women, that it’s a recognition of their needs. Nope. It’s skinny girls looking like they’re wearing big granny’s frocks.

There is an element of the fashion industry finally recognising that Muslim women have money and mainstreaming styles to cash in (the media is of course calling them Generation M). ASOS, H&M and M&S among others now sell ‘modest’ ranges. John Lewis says sales of midi dresses went up by 152% this year.

Fine, Muslim women who want to cover up now find it easier to shop and other women can get excited on social media about a new fashion trend without boring people like me raising the spectre of Cultural Appropriation.

But the language of ‘modesty’ and ‘hiding’ being parroted by non-Muslim women raises red flags of body shaming, fear of the male gaze and the implication that anyone not dressing like this is immodest and will face consequences. Yes, once again it’s women’s responsibility to cover themselves because men can’t be expected to control their urges and shouldn’t be distracted from doing important man things. While wearing whatever the hell they like.

The woman who said that women are no longer dressing to be sexy for men should remember that fashions come and go really quickly. Muslim women may continue to dress in a more covered way but the fashion world will count the money and move on - and the charity shops will be full of big shapeless clothes that no one wants any more. Women will still feel bad about their bodies and struggle with men’s behaviour. Freedom and comfort come from equal rights and equal treatment in a fair society. What's the dress to wear to get that?

Oh no, she’s gone all feminist-socialist over a bit of fashion. Here’s something from the modest 1950s to take the taste away.

Wednesday, 2 October 2019

Don't Do That, Old Man

This is what happened to me this afternoon:

Old Man in supermarket: You're a big girl. Tall girl.
Me: Don't be rude. Fuck off. Don't do that. Would you say that to a man?
Old Man: No because he'd knock me down.
Me: Then why say it to a woman?
Old Man: You're a bitch woman. A bitch and a slag.

(I walk away as it is - for some reason - unacceptable to punch old men.)

That’s the third time in a week an old man has accosted a woman about her appearance that I’ve experienced. The first time was an old man in a hospital outpatients department. She was a nurse, her job is to care for people so she had to put up with "You’re an attractive women. You’re a very attractive woman" and on and on.

The other time, a young woman came out of the Tube as I was walking by, stopped for just a moment to sort out her phone and an old man appeared as if out of nowhere “Are you a model? You look like a model” and so on (she didn’t, she was way too short). Was he lurking, waiting for a woman, any woman, or did he just see her and jump in?

Is it supposed to be cute that old men do this? Is it supposed to be a sign that there’s life in the old dog yet? Should we be flattered that someone old enough to be our dad or grandad wants to fuck us – because, let’s face it – that’s what men accosting women in the street really mean even if they’re too old to remember the last time and they have not one single viable sperm left.

Often when I get comments I just ignore them. Yes, I am very tall but I still wouldn’t feel safe challenging a man unless there were plenty of people around me, unless I thought I could run faster than him or unless he was really old and feeble.  Just because women don’t say anything doesn’t mean we like it, it just means we know it’s safer to walk away.

Do really old men suddenly get it in their heads to start talking to women about their bodies or have they been doing it all their lives – or at least wanting to and now think they can get away with it? This kind of male privilege and intrusive, abusive behaviour doesn’t come in the post with the pension book and bus pass.

I tweeted about the woman outside the Tube and some man replied that it was ‘just biology’ as if humans in general and men in particular are just a bundle of instincts that we can’t be expected to control, as if we have no choice at all. A bunch of women then piled on and he soon shut up.

Yes, these were three very small incidents but they happened in quick succession, they happen all the time. In some ways it’s no easier seeing it happen to someone else because you know your turn is coming.

So. Don’t. Just don’t. Not even if you're young. Not at any age. Do not talk about my body even if you think height is a neutral, non-sexual thing to talk about. It isn’t. Show some respect and listen to what we tell you. And what we tell you is: don’t.

Monday, 17 December 2018


Here we go again, then. The annual round-up of the good, the bad and the ugly in healthcare, nutrition and general daftness.

Let’s start with some good news: this is a great thread by Simon Singh on Skeptic successes in the past few years. 

Following a consultation, the Charity Commission has decided that charities must support their alternative medicine claims with good scientific evidence.

In other good news, homeopathy is no longer publicly funded on the NHS – and about bloody time too - but of course they won’t go down without a fight: homeopaths are going to take the NHS to court

Homeopathic vets also had a hissy fit because the RCVS demands its members use evidence-based treatments. Because science doesn’t know everything, right? Even though vets are scientists. 

Cancer patients using alt med rather than conventional treatments have a worse survival rate. And it’s not just people self-treating; research finds that ‘Doctors who are attracted to homeopathy despite a lack of evidence may be generally less good at keeping up to date on treatment guidelines and safety alerts or be less willing to work with colleagues to improve. Doctors who offer it to patients tend to do worst on scores for effective use of conventional medicines.'

Mixing alt med with real meds is like running an unsupervised and potentially deadly experiment.  Natural does not equal better. Or safe. Look at what happened to that great self-doser Dr Jekyll.

Twenty years on, the legacy of the MMR vaccine and autism scare lies continues to take its toll across Europe. Cases of measles have hit a record high, according to the World Health Organization. Experts blame the surge in infections on a drop in the number of people being vaccinated. Although, inevitably, it’s a bit morecomplicated than that.

There has been some interesting research on how anti-vax attitudes correlate with belief in conspiracy theories and how this may affect pro-vax campaigns. It’s not surprising that there would be cross-overs as the same mindset is transferrable from one false belief to another.

It wouldn’t be a Skeptic Round-up without some mention of La Paltrow. Don’t put coffee up your bum even if she tells you to. And don’t use live bee stings either, even if she says ‘I’m open to anything. I’ve been stung by bees. It’s actually pretty incredible if you research it.’ Probably not so incredible for the bees, though.

Paltrow says anyone who challenges the healing powers of her 'wellness' products is against the empowerment of women. As if that passive aggressive act would shut down all debate. Lucky for us, her main challenger is a woman.  The wonderful Dr Jen Gunter attended the GOOP conference and reported from the frontline of 'wellness' where she found that the Goop store is “90% quackatorium, and there was no evidence supporting Gwyneth Paltrow’s claim that Goop does not engage in pseudoscience as a commercial venture."

There is some good news. Goop has agreed to pay a substantial settlement over unproven claims about the health benefits of its infamous vaginal eggs.  ‘Under the settlement Goop is banned from making any claims regarding the efficacy of its products without reliable scientific evidence.’

Enough about her.

Plain packaging doesn’t decrease the number of smokers – quite the opposite. It’s also failed in France and Australia. It certainly wouldn’t have deterred me when I smoked. The intention may be to deter new smokers (children) but it's impossible to determine accurately whether any one factor has an influence on either current or potential smokers.

A naturopath treated a child with rabid dog saliva to cure behavioural problems, claiming he was in a ‘dog state’. She claimed that "The dog that bit him may have recently been vaccinated with the rabies vaccine or the dog bite in and of itself may have affected the boy with the rabies miasm … Either is possible and the phenomenon is well-known in homeopathy. A bite from an animal, with or without rabies vaccination has the potential to imprint an altered state in the person who was bitten, in some ways similar to a rabies infection."

A miasm is a homeopathic term for ‘the ghost of the disease state still rampant in the energy system.’  The non-homeopathic definition of the word is ‘noxious exhalations from putrescent organic matter; poisonous effluvia or germs polluting the atmosphere’. Pretty much sums it up. Just as well it wasn’t a werewolf that bit him.

Another naturopath is promoting peat tampons. Just don’t go there. 

Weight loss magnets – at last, what we’ve all been waiting for! Oh, wait a minute … This is why magnets don’t work like that.

Taking fish oil supplements for a healthy heart is nonsense says a Cochrane report.

Is sugar the new heroin? Normally everything ‘bad’ is compared with smoking these days. And ‘bad’ has become shorthand for ‘I disapprove of…’ Sugar is not addictive. Repeat. Sugar is not addictive. Sugar is not addictive.

The truth about Public Health England’s sugar reduction scheme: ‘The idea is to reduce sugar content in most foods by 20 per cent by 2020. The first target was a five per cent reduction by 2017 but this has not happened. It was never likely to happen. Instead, there has been a two per cent reduction across the eight categories that PHE is most interested in… Food companies need little incentive to shrink their products while keeping the price the same (Nestlé and Mars were frantically shrinking their products before the sugar reduction plan officially began - and before Brexit). But the government is now encouraging them to do it. Indeed, it is effectively compelling them to do it because that is the only realistic way of cutting sugar content in chocolate, confectionery and biscuits, which are the main sources of sugar.’

In some cases, the sugar content has gone down but overall calories have gone up. If you take the sugar out you have to put something in so that the product doesn’t taste like cardboard smeared in brown fat.

And other research states "We were unable to find evidence that any sugar tax actually implemented anywhere in the world has led to improvements in health." Sorry, Jamie Oliver. 

Water has become a big fad this year. There has been a new raw water craze. Mmm yummy poo and germs and bits of twig and insects and insect poo.

Need a mental boost? Try rosemary water. Only £4 a bottle. Check out the science section: ‘The herb features in Greek mythology, the New Testament, and Shakespearean drama’. Yes, it did say science.

Or there’s alkaline water that has been treated to have a higher pH level than the usual 6.5-7.5. The makers say it provides “better hydration” and is “designed to obtain optimum body balance” because it “uses specialized electronic cells coated with a variety of rare earth minerals to produce scientifically engineered water”.

Science says: “Your body regulates its [blood] pH in a very narrow range because all our enzymes are designed to work at pH 7.4. If our pH varied too much we wouldn’t survive… you’re literally just flushing money down the drain”.

A sceptical look at the long history of Personality Testing – including the bunk that is Myers-Briggs which is basically corporate astrology. 

Exorcism is on the rise. These truly are the Dark Ages.

A Mexican priest claims: ‘The vast majority of people who see him have normal problems or mental illnesses, and he says he has sent people to seek psychiatric help. But he says 2-3% show signs of demonic “vexation” … His subjects, he says, have problems that cannot be explained in normal medical terms. One, who he believes may have been cursed by her mother-in-law, feels an almost constant sensation of daggers entering her legs, knitting needles in her arms, and a clenched hand at her chin. Another was so obsessed by self-gratification that he masturbated 40 times a day. “Normally speaking it is humanly impossible … so that is a satanic thing”.’

I do like the term ‘vexation’ and will attempt to use it in general conversation. How does the woman know what daggers entering her legs actually feel like, or knitting needles in her arms? As a knitter, I can say that it would be bloody hard to stab with a knitting needle, they’re just not sharp enough. I’d use an embroidery needle.

It’s not just Mexico where exorcism is on the rise. A top Irish exorcist called for more exorcists because ‘there has been increasing evidence of the malicious activity of the evil one’. Pope Francis gave formal recognition to the International Association of Exorcists in 2014. According to Fr Collins, ‘it’s only in recent years that the demand has risen exponentially’ and he blames ‘a growing apostasy within the Church’. Scare tactics, then. Come back to Church or the Evil One will get you.

The ‘malicious activities of the evil one’ has a great ring to it. I shall be using it to refer to anyone I don’t like in future.

According to vets, the government is being very economical with the truth about the efficacy of badger culling: “Badger culling has not worked. They are issuing barefaced lies in this matter." The former head of DEFRA’s wildlife epidemiology unit who advised the department on its TB strategy for more than 40 years says: "Defra has been cherry-picking the science since they started culling. The fact that they are rolling it out on such a vast scale is a travesty of the available science." 

The Indian education minister says evolution is ‘scientifically wrong’ because no one has ever seen an ape turn into a man. He seems to be confusing science with shape-shifting. I have however seen a man turn into an ape on several occasions. Generally after the application of alcohol.

This debunks the myth that women talk more than men. Men of course have much more important things to say. At great length. Even when we’re the expert in the subject and they just read an article by Jordan Peterson and shut up or I’ll send you death threats on social media for daring to mention this. 

The ‘psychology’ of the power stance has also been debunked. Politicians should keep on doing it. So much of what comes out of their mouths is inane/terrifying/depressing that they might as well give us a laugh.

So-called ‘healing crystals’ often come from ethically and environmentally dubious sources. So they’re not just pretty shiny things.

Koko the gorilla’s language skills were not at all as we’d been lead to believe, more a mixture of wishful thinking and ignorance about how language actually works. Damn it.  Who doesn’t love a chatty gorilla with a pet kitten? 

There is no evidence that tech is as ‘addictive as cocaine’. Nor are cupcakes, ice cream, power, carbs, World of Warcraft, sugar etc etc. Claims are often based on a misunderstanding of what addiction is and an oversimplified description of what the brain chemical dopamine does, according to clinical psychologist Vaughan Bell.

Hunt’s screen time limits for kids is yet more evidence free policy, yet another moral panic: ‘the recognition of so-called gaming disorder by the World Health Organisation is premature.’.

Andy Przybylski, associate professor and director of research at the Oxford Internet Institute said: “The thing that is very, very important to understand about this is that these correlations are extremely small,” he said. “And 99% of a child’s wellbeing has nothing measurable to do with screens, no matter how you measure them.”

It turns out it’s a myth that Victorian doctors treated hysterical women with vibrators. Damn, that’s another fun one out the window then.

There are times when I so wish magic was real. A coven of New York witches put a hex on US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and, just to make the story even more fun, a Catholic priest and exorcist in California countered the spell by saying prayers for the justice at Mass, saying "This is a conjuring of evil - not about free speech."

They claim that similar hexes on Trump have been successful "We feel the rituals were a success as they sought to expose Trump for what he is, and that has happened on many levels; from the Russia probe to the exposé on his finances to Stormy Daniels."

It is of course impossible to tell without an unhexed control Trump whether they worked or not.

A real treat to end with– an archive of occult recordings. Everything from the voice of Alistair Crowley to voices beyond the grave to all manner of spooky shit. Enjoy.

For vaccination against nonsense, dangerous or otherwise, join us at London Skeptics in the Pub  or find your local Skeptics group. London is the original SitP and 2019 sees the twentieth anniversary of our founding. There will be celebrations and they will not be carb-free.

Saturday, 8 September 2018

How Old Is Your Heart?

Public Health England (PHE) in collaboration with the British Heart Foundation (BHF) has launched a heart check-up to identify ‘your heart age compared to your real age’.  Is it a valuable public health intervention or a waste of time and money?

It begins by asking age, gender, ethnicity and postcode.

Then: Do you have cardiovascular disease? No.

Do you smoke? No.

But I did. I quit two years, three months and thirteen days ago. Not that I’m still counting. But this does make a big difference. My heart is ‘older’ than it would be if I’d never smoked, I know that. It can take up to ten years for risk levels to return to those of a non-smoker.

Next it asks for height, weight and a few questions on medical history. Pretty standard.

Then it asks what your cholesterol level and blood pressure are. How many people know that?

And that’s it, end of test. It tells me that my heart age is four years older than my real age and says this:
 Your risk of having a heart attack or stroke within the next 10 years is 5.8%

Your heart age is an estimate because you don't know all your numbers. We've based your result on the national average.

If you have high cholesterol and blood pressure, your heart age could be as high as 69.

Make an appointment with your doctor, nurse or pharmacist to get your blood pressure and cholesterol tested.

There are no questions about alcohol and drug consumption, diet and exercise, all things which the NHS and PHE normally tell us make a big difference to heart health. I’ve lived in central London all my adult life and we keep being told how damaging pollution is to health and longevity so it might be a good idea to include a question on that.

The NHS is already struggling, does it really need a few million people making appointments to get their BP and cholesterol checked? Or do they expect people to rush out and buy self-testing kits? And then going to the GP when they get a high result. GPs have not surprisingly expressed concern about this test adding to their already extreme workload.

Is it good public health policy to frighten people with an unrealistic heart age? Who is the mythical ‘average’ person the figures are based on? I’m considerably taller, lighter and fitter than the average woman, for example (and an ex-smoker, yes, I know) so they can't use her to scare me like some sort of Baba Yaga.

There’s also the question of efficacy. NICE has already rejected the use of lifetime risk scores because of a lack of evidence, which means they will scare people, overload GPs - and not have any effect. It’s not even a case of the end justifying the means.

The people behind the project are defending it in various parts of the media by saying it will raise awareness and start a conversation. As an awareness raiser it fails because all it will do is frighten people into going to the GP, or frighten them and then they’ll carry on as normal, or make them think about making some changes and then give up after a few weeks because that’s how we operate. No imminent threat, no motivation.  Will there be any follow-up to see if people have taken action? Doubtful.

If it’s a way of collecting information about the population, then the holes in it make that information of very limited value – unless all PHE wants to know is how many of us don’t know our BP and cholesterol. This is not a compulsory test. The people doing it are self-selecting, opting in, and the reasons they do this could skew the results. Is it idle curiosity, concern, fear or some other reason? Is it mostly the group known as the ‘worried well’? People on very low incomes and many old people will be excluded because of lack of online access.

Heart disease is a serious and growing problem that takes long-term investment and lifestyle management to tackle.  According to the British Heart Foundation:

Heart and circulatory diseases cause more than a quarter (26%) of all deaths in the UK - over 150,000 deaths each year, an average of 420 people each day or one death every three minutes.

But hang on a minute… it also says:

Since the BHF was established the annual number of deaths from heart and circulatory diseases in the UK has fallen by more than half.

In 1961, more than half of all deaths in the UK were attributed to CVD (320,000 deaths).

Since 1961 the UK death rate from heart and circulatory diseases has declined by more than three quarters.

Would it not perhaps be worth looking at why rates have fallen, what else people are dying of, what interventions have worked in the past, where limited resources could be most usefully targeted? For example, obesity has risen since 1961, smoking rates have fallen and life expectancy has risen so people are more likely to have multiple comorbidities that accumulate with age – more than one potentially life-limiting condition at once.

As it happens, I did have my BP checked this week as part of an ongoing treatment for something not heart-related. I didn’t put it in the test because I wanted to see what results came up. The nursing assistant who checked it said he’d tried to take the test but it didn’t work because he was too young. He agreed with me about the flaws in the design. (My BP is great, thanks for asking).

If you do want to know about the state of your heart and its future, you’d be better off doing this:

Friday, 16 February 2018

Modern Life Is Toxic

There are two narratives we’re being fed at the moment, scare stories that are essentially about how modern life is killing us. Everything we breathe, everything we eat, can either kill us or make us fat or damage our children. There’s an underlying message of nostalgia for ye olden days when food was safe and chemicals were safely confined to the periodic chart on the classroom wall. The days before Brexit and Trump and Facebook and everything going to hell in a hand cart.

A study has found that the chemicals in cleaning products can cause serious lung function decline in women.

It says that ‘According to new research, women who work as cleaners or regularly use cleaning products at home experience a greater decline in lung function over time than women who do not clean.’

And of course the effect is being compared with smoking, because everything is these days, including sugar.

The phrasing is odd: ‘The effect of occupational cleaning was thus comparable to smoking somewhat less than 20 pack-years’. ‘Somewhat less’ is meaningless. Does it mean a bit less or a lot less? The effect of smelling a lovely flower is somewhat less than smoking.

The hydra of chemical versus natural is rearing its ugly heads again. In this vision of the world, natural (ie unprocessed) is always better even though cancer, ricin, deadly nightshade, botulism and many more things are natural. And a chemical is a chemical whether it comes from a lab or from a plant. The cleanest mountain air or spring water are made of chemicals.

The point is not whether these chemicals are harming us, it’s that the reporting is gleefully playing on our fears. At a time of national and global insecurity, people are more vulnerable to scare stories, we’re hyper-alert to yet more things that are threatening Life As We Know It.

The Evil Chemicals narrative ties in with the Ultra-processed Food narrative, the other monster that is crawling out of the night to stalk us.

The report the media has picked up on says that ‘a 10% increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet was associated with significant increases of 12% in the risk of overall cancer and 11% in the risk of breast cancer’.

However, Professor Linda Bauld, Cancer Research UK's prevention expert, said: 'It's already known that eating a lot of these foods can lead to weight gain, and being overweight or obese can also increase your risk of cancer, so it's hard to disentangle the effects of diet and weight.'

Dr Ian Johnson, from the Quadram Institute in Norwich, said the study had ‘identified some rather weak associations. The problem is that the definition of ultra-processed foods they have used is so broad and poorly defined that it is impossible to decide exactly what, if any, causal connections have been observed.’

And Professor Tom Sanders at King's College London said that mass-produced bread would be classed as ultra-processed, but a home-made loaf or bread from a posh local bakery would not. 'This classification seems arbitrary and based on the premise that food produced industrially has a different nutritional and chemical composition from that produced in the home or by artisans. This is not the case.'

This study is highly critical of the classifications used for ultra-processed food too.

There's a significant point in Professor Sanders’ comment about bread; there's a lot of food snobbery and smuggery going on, with the foods that are identified as being mostly eaten by lower income people being demonised whereas middle class food is more 'wholesome' and 'virtuous'.

The moral high ground food police probably don't count craft ale or artisan gin as highly processed and don’t seem to have noticed that even porridge made with soya milk and honey counts as 'ultra-processed'.

The smugness is about doing things more simply or more traditionally, buying food that doesn’t come in packaging. Yes, plastics are destroying the environment but food packaging extends the shelf life of products, causing less wastage and less environmental harm from producing (even) more than we need. It’s also a great boon to people too busy to shop for fresh produce and ingredients every day. It’s a complex problem not solved by ill-informed moralising or nostalgia.

Toxins (aka chemicals) have taken the place of diphtheria, polio and smallpox as the Invisible Evil (and plague if you go back further). But never fear, you can buy a detox from a wellness guru because your fear is their marketing opportunity.

It's not like things were any better in ye olden days when people breathed in coal or wood smoke or smog, and lots more people smoked. Sitting around in the cave or wooden houses before chimneys were invented during the long winters didn’t just make people smell like kippers, it caused serious lung damage.

Employment was much more lung-unfriendly too - mining, dyeing and tanning, the cloth industry or industrial scale laundries just to name a few.

Has there ever been a time in human history when our lungs were pink and flawless since we first learnt to make fire? It’s not modern life that’s killing us, being alive has always been dangerous. We just have more media to scare us about it now.

In ye olden days food was full of germs and poo and parasites as well as adulterants – for example alum, plaster of Paris and ash in bread.

In 1872, adulterants in food were found to include ‘strychnine, cocculus inculus (both hallucinogens) and copperas in rum and beer; sulphate of copper in pickles, bottled fruit, wine, and preserves; lead chromate in mustard and snuff; sulphate of iron in tea and beer; ferric ferrocynanide, lime sulphate, and turmeric in chinese tea; copper carbonate, lead sulphate, bisulphate of mercury, and Venetian lead in sugar confectionery and chocolate; lead in wine and cider; all were extensively used and were accumulative in effect, resulting, over a long period, in chronic gastritis, and, indeed, often fatal food poisoning. Red lead gave Gloucester cheese its 'healthy' red hue.’ Ice cream was found to contain ‘cocci, bacilli, torulae, cotton fiber, lice, bed bugs, bug's legs, fleas, straw, human hair, and cat and dog hair’.

Yum. So much for hipster nostalgia.

 Of course we need to avoid harm where we can but we need to separate real harm from hysteria, conspiracy theories and marketing opportunities. Headlines about city air being as bad as smoking don’t help. We’re never going to live some bucolic idyll in the Shires like hobbits.

Fear and guilt make for good headlines and clickbait but things are not getting worse. They’ve always been bad. The history of humanity is about processing, ingesting and inhaling stuff that's bad for us. Sometimes for fun.

Wednesday, 13 December 2017

Nonsense on Stilts 2017

Another year, another round-up of the dangerous and the daft. There was so much to choose from this year so this is just the tip of the iceberg of nonsense on stilts. As ever, it’s divided into health, diet and general craziness.

The Queen of Quacks, Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop business has spewed out some terrible old cobblers this year, some of which is potentially very harmful. Here is her nonsense about toxic tampons debunked by the excellent Dr Jen Gunter.

Advice given at her ‘health’ conference can be fatal and just in case you thought it couldn’t get any more insane, she is now selling psychic vampire repellent. Yes, really. 

Also in America, anti-vaxxers offered $100,000 for proof that vaccines work. Oh dear. The fact that they’re alive to perpetrate such arrant nonsense is proof enough, isn’t it? One word, anti-vaxxers: polio. Ever been in an iron lung? No. Why is that?

If further proof were needed, the tedious and notorious anti-vaxxer Wakefield managed to cause a measles epidemic in the US.

Earlier in the year it looked like homeopathy would escape an NHS prescribing ban despite cutbacks and despite the Chief Medical Officersaying it’s ‘rubbish’But reason and science have for once prevailed. NHS England has called for homeopathy to be blacklisted as a useless waste of money. Very well done to the Good Thinking Society for their campaigning work on this.

Vets also joined the campaign against homeopathy and then later in the year the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons issued a new position statement on the veterinary use of complementary and alternative medicines, homeopathy in particular, saying that vets must offer treatments that "are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles." The new position statement makes it very clear that homeopathy falls below this benchmark: "Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles."

One of the newer health fads is turmeric. Eat it, drink it, medicate with it. Harmless nonsense for people with more money than sense? Not when a naturopath kills a woman with a turmeric injection or when claims are made for it curing cancer.

I had an awkward conversation not so long ago with a woman who swears by turmeric lattes every day and demanded to know how I dare challenge ‘all the thousands of research papers’ that show it works. To her I say: show me this evidence. It could be a long wait.

And while we’re on spices, cinnamon won’t help you magically lose weight either. Sorry. 

The long-enduring myth that women synchronise periods was debunked. There is no ‘dominant super uterus in a group of women that makes everyone adjust their cycles’. So Super Uterus won’t be making an appearance in the next DC movie, damn it. She’d be so much more interesting than Superman, the most boring of all the supers.

As if UKIP wasn’t bad enough, one of their ‘politicians’ now sells industrial strength bleach as a medical cure at £22 for 60ml. David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College London, said “You don’t absorb oxygen through your stomach. There’s not the slightest reason to think it works for anything.” Assemble your own joke using the words UKIP, toxic, liars and why is Farage constantly on the news when they have zero seats in Parliament?

A wealthy autism charity is risking children’s lives, offering to pay for them to attend clinics offering pseudoscientific treatments and bogus diets, and it appears to endorse links between vaccines and autism. One of the treatments promoted is MMS, which the National Autism Society describes as a “bleach banned for human consumption”. There are claims it has been linked to at least one death. The Food Standards Agency has warned about its use, calling it an “industrial-strength bleach”. Yes, we’re looking at you, Mr UKIP.

There is yet more evidence that chiropractic is harmful and potentially deadly, and now chiropractors trying to scare women about our clothes, saying skinny jeans, handbags and big fluffy hoods are wrecking our backs. Dr Mary O'Keeffe, a back pain expert at the University of Limerick, says their research is "complete scaremongering and there is no scientific evidence to support any of it".

Earlier this year, a quack claiming to cure cancer by Skype (for money, of course) was found guilty under the Cancer Act and is now facing jail.

The spread of fake health ‘news’ is putting lives at risk. Some of the claims may contravene the Cancer Act 1939: you can report any claims that break the law to Advertising Standards.

I’m happy to report that the backlash against the vile, smug, judgemental and dangerous clean eating movement is gaining momentum. But nature abhors a vacuum so as soon as one diet fad dies, another rises to take its place. But calling them diets is so last year. Now it’s all about Wellness. There are endless books, videos and evangelists promoting their own brands of ‘better living’ which are really just diets wrapped up in very expensive merchandising and ingredients. Because wellness means thinness. There are no overweight Wellness gurus.

Celebrity-endorsed fad diets (sorry, Wellness programmes) are nothing new. Lord Byron’s apple cider vinegar diet was taken up by his many fans in the early nineteenth century and now it’s back. But without the poetry. Which is a blessing.

The low fat versus low carb battle rages on with both sides claiming the other will kill you. Some of the research is very flawed and the screaming headlines don’t help.  There is more and more conspiracy talk about Big Sugar.  The sugar lobby is undeniably powerful but conspiracy theorists have attributed it god-like powers to ensure that we poor fools think saturated fat is the devil. 

As Anthony Warner, aka the Angry Chef, says, this would require ‘paying off the medical establishment, the World Health Organisation, numerous charities, public health bodies and nutrition researchers around the world, and keep producing systematic reviews that show links between consumption of saturated fats and increased risk of heart disease.’ 

The amount of rage generated by daring to question the low carbers should set off the alarm bells that this is not just about food – as Dr Margaret McCartney found out to her cost on Twitter when she dared to write this reasonable piece about the lack of evidence. This is my piece on the cult-like ferocity of the low-carbers.

What no one has pointed out is that if we care about the planet, we should be eating fewer animal products, not more. High protein/high fat means more eggs, fish/seafood, meat and dairy when we should be aiming for a more plant-based diet. And shouldn’t we give at least a moment’s thought to the fact that there are still more underweight 5-19 year olds in the world than obese ones?

There’s a myth doing the rounds that sugar and other carbs ‘feed’ cancer. They don’t.

Do artificial sweeteners cause dementia and strokes? No.  

Does sugar cause or worsen Alzheimer’s? According to the tabloids, yes it does. According to the Alzheimer’s Society “What we don’t know is whether changes in brain glucose metabolism play a role in causing or worsening Alzheimer’s disease or whether the changes are just a by-product of damage already occurring to brain cells.”

Another potentially dangerous diet fad is the Ketogenic diet, which claims to cure everything from cancer to Alzheimer’s to pretty much anything you can name. Here’s a good video explaining what it is and why it is not a miracle (yes, he is a vegan but everything he says about keto stands up).

Yet another bit of dangerous garbage is the idea that everything bad that happens can be cured with an alkaline diet. And while we’re at it, you can’t cure cancer with ‘alkaline’ baking soda either.

Back to the Angry Chef who this time gets quite rightly angry about PETA claiming dairy products cause autism.

The Pioppi diet has gained popularity this year. As the British Dietetic Association commented: “the authors may well be the only people in the history of the planet who have been to Italy and come back with a diet named after an Italian village that excludes pasta, rice and bread – but includes coconuts”. Here’s conclusive proof that coconuts have never been part of a traditional European diet.

Do we need more protein in our diets? Only if you want to make very expensive wee wee.

A Church says starve for three days to cure homosexuality and that people are just claiming to be gay to get attention because they see celebrities doing it. This really doesn’t help when nearly half of lesbian, gay, bi and trans young people are bullied for being LGBT at school and when homophobic attacks in the UK rose by 147% in three months after the Brexit vote.

On a more cheery note there’s the daftness of dopamine dressing – dress yourself happy with bright colours. Unless you’re me and hate them. It’s yet another case of if you believe something you make it true, like wearing lucky pants can make you feel more confident and so perform better.

For a change, a bit of abuse of history instead of science: why lazy journos comparing Trump with Roman emperors are wrong.

Slimming pants! This is hilarious. There is no way that any of these claims stand up – detox, lose cellulite, lose weight, all the usual suspects. Plus, you look like a twat. No wonder they're on offer.

Men are better at understanding projection and therefore physics because they have to learn to pee standing up, according to three 'scientists'“Playful urination practices – from seeing how high you can pee to games such as Peeball (where men compete using their urine to destroy a ball placed in a urinal) – may give boys an advantage over girls when it comes to physics,” the academics wrote. They said this is significant, since the physics curriculum often uses projectile motion as the starting point for more sophisticated mechanics concepts such as force, energy and momentum.

If only the average man's aim was that good. And I’m not sure about the phrase ‘playful urination practices’. Oh, and correlation, causation, yadda yadda.

Not so funny is this: the United Nations pulled staff out of two districts in southern Malawi where a vampire scare triggered mob violence in which at least five people were killed.

No werewolf sightings this year but belief in ghosts is on the increase in America. Add your own Trump-based joke.

Eight out of ten UK water companies still use dowsing rods to 'find' water. Yes, really. I often consult the spirits of the dead for cooking tips. Who doesn’t? 

A lot of the media and some skeptics have dismissed dowsing as mediaeval. Here’s a good explanation of why that’s a lazy assumption. Have they looked at a cathedral or an illuminated manuscript lately? Mediaeval people were not morons, they just had less access to information than we do – although some of us still choose to ignore it. What’s more, ‘records of dowsing do not begin until the 16th century, and its popularity does not appear to have peaked until the 19th and 20th centuries’.

DNA sampling reveals that nine yeti specimens were in fact eight bears and a dog. Damn. 

Finally, an ancient fairy curse causes dips in the road in Ireland, according to an Irish MP. I love this one and really wish it were true. He said “if someone told me to go out and knock a fairy fort or touch it, I would starve first.” The council’s road department said the dip was due to an “underlying subsoil/geotechnical problem.” They’ll be sorry when their socks go missing and their cows’ milk dries up.

That’s it for another year. To help inoculate yourself against nonsense, this is a very good primer on how to read and understand a scientific paper and this is a handy 12 point guide to spotting bad science. Happy hunting.

Join us at London Skeptics in the Pub for a monthly dose of sanity.