Here are a few videos I've seen recently that I think are worth being passed on.
NASA's LRO launch
This is from a webcam aboard NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which launch a couple of days ago. This really is an awe-inspiring video, and it's incredible to see just how far up it goes in the six minutes of the video.
Having been born on the 80s, by which time the 1969 moon landing was just another piece of history, I find it interesting to wonder just how incredible it must have seemed at the time to see mankind make it's first steps to another body in the solar system.
Even if a manned mission to Mars launched in our lifetimes, I doubt it will be as much of a landmark as the moon landing was at the time. So it's a shame that, like all history, time has devalued its importance in the collective minds of those born since the 70s.
Colliding Particles
Part 4 of the brilliant Colliding Particles series of videos about CERN's work at the LHC. These videos are both informative and artful. Even though my knowledge and understanding of particle physics and of CERN's work could be politely described as woefully lacking, these videos manage to remain constantly fascinating, perhaps due to the humour and humanity with which they approach the subjects.
What would Jesus not do?
NonStampCollector has made a ton of brilliant videos. He excels in finding areas of Christianity whose lack of logic makes them worthy of intense ridicule, and then goes about delivering that ridicule expertly.
I think that humour and satire are probably among the greatest weapons sceptics and atheists have in fighting silly beliefs. I like to think that every time Eddie Izzard, Ricky Gervais or Tim Minchin mercilessly mock a certain stupid inconsistency of Christianity, for example, a few comedy fans who had previously been on the fence might lose just a little bit more grip on their belief.
Instruction Manual for Life
This nice and oddly haunting conceit aptly demonstrates the divisive nature of organised religion.
Opeth - Coil (live)
And for something comepletely different, a beautiful song by Opeth. When the vocals come in on the second verse, it gives me shivers.
To get the full power of the song, though, you need to listen to it in the context of the album where it is followed by the bludgeoningly heavy opening of Heir Apparent.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Metal is our Religion is better than...
The following post was originally written as an anouncement to members of the Facebook cause, Metal is our Religion.
Everyone knows the staples of any good religion are self-congratulatory smugness, insidious sectarianism, a dogmatic reluctance to try to relate with others and the odd superficial nod towards good deeds. In the spirit of at least three of these, it’s worth having a look at some other belief systems that Metal is our Religion is better than.
Christianity
I admit Christianity certainly has some good points, most notably the fact that it worships a long-haired zombie king who plans to come back to Earth to stage an epic final battle against the devil. However, Metal can match any religion in terms of zombies – Phil Anselmo, Nikki Sixx, Slash and Dave Mustaine have all died and it didn’t take three days of hanging around for them to come back and start touring again. And as for long hair, I think it would be foolish for anyone to argue that Metal doesn’t win on that count.
Aside from its plus points, Christianity also has a few worrying factors that count against it, such as:
1. The size of its holy book
- I like to read, but an inch thick tome where each tracing paper page is filled with multiple columns of tiny text? I’ll wait for the film to come out, thanks. Then I’ll watch it when it comes on TV… unless there’s something better on.
2. Transubstantiation
- The zombie god thing was going pretty well until he turned into a wafer. Not even Mike Patton would do that.
3. The fact that some of its institutions seem to have an alarmingly relaxed view on child molestation.
- I can only think of one member of the Metal world who has done anything as disgusting as the deeds found to be endemic in Irish Catholic reform schools, and that was Dave Holland, the ex-Judas Priest drummer. Tony Iommi, who he was working with at the time, promptly replaced all his drum parts as soon as he found out, an action considerably more honourably than the Vatican’s attempted cover-ups.
4. Its many historical attempts to kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them on certain details of their belief in God.
- With the possible exception of certain Norwegian black metal bands, it’s pretty unusual for members of the Metal community to kill people they disagree with. They’re more likely to pour out their anger in music, such as Machine Head’s beautifully aggressive Aesthetics of Hate. We take the moral high ground and end up with some brilliant music. Win win.
5. It’s not true.
- A problem for any belief system.
6. Inconsistencies.
- Jesus had long hair. Samson’s long hair even gave him his strength. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 11:14 tells us “that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him”.
7. The music.
- Alright, they’ve got Bach and Handel on their side, but I’m afraid they don’t make up for the harm caused to the world by the composition of ‘Oh When the Saints’. And when you factor in the interminable monotony of plainsong, I know which religion wins the battle for my iPod.
In conclusion, I think it is clear that the sensible choice here is to get up off the cold pew, grab your leather jacket and join the worshippers of the Riff.
Everyone knows the staples of any good religion are self-congratulatory smugness, insidious sectarianism, a dogmatic reluctance to try to relate with others and the odd superficial nod towards good deeds. In the spirit of at least three of these, it’s worth having a look at some other belief systems that Metal is our Religion is better than.
Christianity
I admit Christianity certainly has some good points, most notably the fact that it worships a long-haired zombie king who plans to come back to Earth to stage an epic final battle against the devil. However, Metal can match any religion in terms of zombies – Phil Anselmo, Nikki Sixx, Slash and Dave Mustaine have all died and it didn’t take three days of hanging around for them to come back and start touring again. And as for long hair, I think it would be foolish for anyone to argue that Metal doesn’t win on that count.
Aside from its plus points, Christianity also has a few worrying factors that count against it, such as:
1. The size of its holy book
- I like to read, but an inch thick tome where each tracing paper page is filled with multiple columns of tiny text? I’ll wait for the film to come out, thanks. Then I’ll watch it when it comes on TV… unless there’s something better on.
2. Transubstantiation
- The zombie god thing was going pretty well until he turned into a wafer. Not even Mike Patton would do that.
3. The fact that some of its institutions seem to have an alarmingly relaxed view on child molestation.
- I can only think of one member of the Metal world who has done anything as disgusting as the deeds found to be endemic in Irish Catholic reform schools, and that was Dave Holland, the ex-Judas Priest drummer. Tony Iommi, who he was working with at the time, promptly replaced all his drum parts as soon as he found out, an action considerably more honourably than the Vatican’s attempted cover-ups.
4. Its many historical attempts to kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them on certain details of their belief in God.
- With the possible exception of certain Norwegian black metal bands, it’s pretty unusual for members of the Metal community to kill people they disagree with. They’re more likely to pour out their anger in music, such as Machine Head’s beautifully aggressive Aesthetics of Hate. We take the moral high ground and end up with some brilliant music. Win win.
5. It’s not true.
- A problem for any belief system.
6. Inconsistencies.
- Jesus had long hair. Samson’s long hair even gave him his strength. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 11:14 tells us “that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him”.
7. The music.
- Alright, they’ve got Bach and Handel on their side, but I’m afraid they don’t make up for the harm caused to the world by the composition of ‘Oh When the Saints’. And when you factor in the interminable monotony of plainsong, I know which religion wins the battle for my iPod.
In conclusion, I think it is clear that the sensible choice here is to get up off the cold pew, grab your leather jacket and join the worshippers of the Riff.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
My Back Hurts - Poke Me with Toothpicks!
thelondonpaper, the only newspaper I read regularly, and one which I am generally willing to defend as being relatively thoughtful and intelligent, especially for a free publication, has joined the bandwagon for proclaiming that acupuncture works based on a recent study.
Apart from a few commendable nods toward scepticism, and a fence sitting conclusion that "the jury's still out", the overall tone of the article was, in my opinion, weighted in favour of the position that acupuncture is at least worth a try. In fact it ends with an entirely useless "case study":
Which, in turn, concludes:
Perhaps I should explain what this study actually said and how this, and most other papers, got it wrong.
The study randomised 638 adults with lower back pain into 4 groups: individualised acupuncture (an acupuncturist chooses the pin points based on a consultation), standardized acupuncture (pin points are chosen from text book positions corresponding to the teachings of traditional chinese medicine), simulated acupuncture (a placebo which uses non-penetrating toothpicks, but looks and feels the same to the patient and practitioner), or no acupuncture. All subjects continued to receive any standard care as well as the treatment associated with their group.
Placebo controlled trials like this are designed to test one thing: does this modality work better than placebo. If it does, it is good evidence that it is a worthwhile treatment with a real medical effect. If it performs as well as placebo, then its effects can be put down to those of placebo itself, and the null hypothesis can be accepted.
In this case, the two acupuncture groups scored remarkably similarly to the placebo acupuncture group. All of these performed better than the group that received no acupuncture, as would be expected.
What this shows is that acupuncture, individualized or standardised, performs no better than placebo, and this study can therefore be seen as evidence against its efficacy.
However, this is not the conclusion that the authors arrived at when they stated:
What they're saying is, because placebo acupuncture (poking with toothpicks, need I remind you) is as good as actual acupuncture, this must have therapeutic effect too!
This is exactly like trialling a new heart disease pill against a placebo sugar pill and then, on finding that they offer the same level of benefit, stating that sugar must actually have clinically useful effects for heart disease aswell!
This is not the proper conclusion of this trial! The proper conclusion is that acupuncture performs no better than placebo, and therefore can be assumed to be offering nothing but placebo benefit.
This doesn't mean that the placebo effect can't be quite impressive. It certainly can be. The placebo effect is an incredibly interesting, subtle and potentially powerful effect. The more invasive and extravagent the treatment, the greater the placebo effect. And acupuncture is up there for invasiveness and extravagance. And it's quite expensive, which always helps.
That's all this study shows that acupuncture is: placebo. To claim anything else of it is to speak above the level of evidence given.
So, this is the letter I've sent to thelondonpaper's letters page:
Apart from a few commendable nods toward scepticism, and a fence sitting conclusion that "the jury's still out", the overall tone of the article was, in my opinion, weighted in favour of the position that acupuncture is at least worth a try. In fact it ends with an entirely useless "case study":
There was only one thing for it. We sent our promotions manager Sarah Cox to an acupuncturist to relieve her chronic back pain...
Which, in turn, concludes:
My scepticism gave way to belief
My back and shoulders seemed looser. The dull ache had eased. I’ll definitely do another session.Don't get me wrong, this was by no means the worst reporting of the Cherken et al. study (I still love ya, thelondonpaper, with all your wacky joined up lowercase letters!), but it would still give the impression to someone unaware of the science that it is worth shelling out money ("A one-hour session with Steve Kippax costs £80", the article helpfully informs us) for a treatment with no really compelling evidence.
Perhaps I should explain what this study actually said and how this, and most other papers, got it wrong.
The study randomised 638 adults with lower back pain into 4 groups: individualised acupuncture (an acupuncturist chooses the pin points based on a consultation), standardized acupuncture (pin points are chosen from text book positions corresponding to the teachings of traditional chinese medicine), simulated acupuncture (a placebo which uses non-penetrating toothpicks, but looks and feels the same to the patient and practitioner), or no acupuncture. All subjects continued to receive any standard care as well as the treatment associated with their group.
Placebo controlled trials like this are designed to test one thing: does this modality work better than placebo. If it does, it is good evidence that it is a worthwhile treatment with a real medical effect. If it performs as well as placebo, then its effects can be put down to those of placebo itself, and the null hypothesis can be accepted.
In this case, the two acupuncture groups scored remarkably similarly to the placebo acupuncture group. All of these performed better than the group that received no acupuncture, as would be expected.
What this shows is that acupuncture, individualized or standardised, performs no better than placebo, and this study can therefore be seen as evidence against its efficacy.
However, this is not the conclusion that the authors arrived at when they stated:
"Penetration of the skin appear(s) to be unimportant"!? In acupuncture!? Acupuncture - the therapy entirely charactrised by penetration of the skin with needles?Although acupuncture was found effective for chronic low back pain,
tailoring needling sites to each patient and penetration of the skin appear to be unimportant in eliciting therapeutic benefits.
What they're saying is, because placebo acupuncture (poking with toothpicks, need I remind you) is as good as actual acupuncture, this must have therapeutic effect too!
This is exactly like trialling a new heart disease pill against a placebo sugar pill and then, on finding that they offer the same level of benefit, stating that sugar must actually have clinically useful effects for heart disease aswell!
This is not the proper conclusion of this trial! The proper conclusion is that acupuncture performs no better than placebo, and therefore can be assumed to be offering nothing but placebo benefit.
This doesn't mean that the placebo effect can't be quite impressive. It certainly can be. The placebo effect is an incredibly interesting, subtle and potentially powerful effect. The more invasive and extravagent the treatment, the greater the placebo effect. And acupuncture is up there for invasiveness and extravagance. And it's quite expensive, which always helps.
That's all this study shows that acupuncture is: placebo. To claim anything else of it is to speak above the level of evidence given.
So, this is the letter I've sent to thelondonpaper's letters page:
By the way, the quote I used ("is good for your back") was in the print version, but isn't in the online version, linked to above.I'd like to point out the recent study you mentioned yesterday does not show that acupuncture "is good for your back". The study was designed to test whether there was any benefit of real acupuncture over placebo acupuncture (using not-penetrative tooth-picks, unbeknownst to the patient). It found that there was not. Any benefit observed owing to the acupuncture conditions was entirely explainable by the placebo effect of a novel and theatrically invasive intervention. To claim that because receiving acupuncture fared as well as being poked with tooth picks shows that both have clinical benefit is a misinterpretation of the evidence.
Tim, London
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Professor Regan's Ice Bucket
I was impressed by the aims of a new BBC2 series called Professor Regan's Pharmacy. The idea is that Lesley Regan, clinical professor of surgery at Imperial College London, assesses a number of products that appear in pharmacies. She then grants those that meet her standards of evidence a position in her own (presumably hypothetical) pharmacy.
The second episode aired last Thursday at 9 and is available to watch here, at least for the moment. I assume there'll be another one on tonight.
This last episode was specifically about medicines. In general it was very good, and it's extremely commendable that the BBC would give over an hour of their peak slot to a show that promotes evidence based medicine and spreads the word that homeopathy is rubbish. Incredible, unlike many shows about science, when assessing these claims, they actually showed people reading papers and looking at tables of numbers rather than just standing in a white coat fiddling with test tubes.
However, I did find myself getting annoyed at a few things in the show. Like all programmes with even the most tangential relation to science, they performed their own small 'experiment' to demonstrate some of the findings they were talking about. And just like all programmes that do this, the experiment was entirely useless, when it could very easily have been a lot better.
The experiment was done in order to demonstrate the finding that name-brand painkillers have been found to be more effective at managing pain than cheaper generic brands. This is a fascinating bit of research that demonstrates the power of the placebo effect by showing the additional benefit afforded a flashier looking product over its medicinally identical but less well packaged equivalent.
They did this by getting 5 rugby players to see how long they could hold their hand in a bucket of ice, first after having taken what they thought was Nurofen, and second, after having had what they though was some own-brand ibuprofen. Their 'study' gave the expected result: that they could endure the cold for longer after they'd had what appeared to be a branded painkiller (it turned out they had taken the same pills both times).
However, their study really didn't show anything. For a start, they had a meaninglessly tiny sample, but more importantly, they each went through the two conditions in the same order. By the time they put their hands in the ice the second time, their hands probably still hurt from the first time, so of course they wouldn't last as long. There are many other more subtle order effects too. For example, in the first trial, they might have tried harder, at least partly out of a desire to beat the other subjects. The second time, there would be less of that feeling of competition and resolution.
I understand that certain concessions have to be made to make a programme watchable - nobody would sit through an hour of scientists sitting around designing a counterbalancing method to properly randomise their conditions or a 6-part series that consists entirely of watching people punching endless numbers into SPSS. However, this 'experiment' could have been made about 100% better if they'd just got another 5 subjects and got them to do the two conditions the other way around. Obviously it's not a study that would have been published in the Lancet, but at least the results could have been slightly meaningful. As it is, all they showed is that if you put your hand in a load of ice twice, you'll probably keep it there longer the first time.
In a way, the fact they bolstered their message with a meaningless bit of filler about some rugby players and a bucket of ice is irrelevant - the actual research that they were supporting already exists, they were just illustrating it. But I don't see the point of scrimping on that last little bit of detail that would have made it so much more useful. Especially given that the central idea of the show is that evidence and the scientific method is important.
The second episode aired last Thursday at 9 and is available to watch here, at least for the moment. I assume there'll be another one on tonight.
This last episode was specifically about medicines. In general it was very good, and it's extremely commendable that the BBC would give over an hour of their peak slot to a show that promotes evidence based medicine and spreads the word that homeopathy is rubbish. Incredible, unlike many shows about science, when assessing these claims, they actually showed people reading papers and looking at tables of numbers rather than just standing in a white coat fiddling with test tubes.
However, I did find myself getting annoyed at a few things in the show. Like all programmes with even the most tangential relation to science, they performed their own small 'experiment' to demonstrate some of the findings they were talking about. And just like all programmes that do this, the experiment was entirely useless, when it could very easily have been a lot better.
The experiment was done in order to demonstrate the finding that name-brand painkillers have been found to be more effective at managing pain than cheaper generic brands. This is a fascinating bit of research that demonstrates the power of the placebo effect by showing the additional benefit afforded a flashier looking product over its medicinally identical but less well packaged equivalent.
They did this by getting 5 rugby players to see how long they could hold their hand in a bucket of ice, first after having taken what they thought was Nurofen, and second, after having had what they though was some own-brand ibuprofen. Their 'study' gave the expected result: that they could endure the cold for longer after they'd had what appeared to be a branded painkiller (it turned out they had taken the same pills both times).
However, their study really didn't show anything. For a start, they had a meaninglessly tiny sample, but more importantly, they each went through the two conditions in the same order. By the time they put their hands in the ice the second time, their hands probably still hurt from the first time, so of course they wouldn't last as long. There are many other more subtle order effects too. For example, in the first trial, they might have tried harder, at least partly out of a desire to beat the other subjects. The second time, there would be less of that feeling of competition and resolution.
I understand that certain concessions have to be made to make a programme watchable - nobody would sit through an hour of scientists sitting around designing a counterbalancing method to properly randomise their conditions or a 6-part series that consists entirely of watching people punching endless numbers into SPSS. However, this 'experiment' could have been made about 100% better if they'd just got another 5 subjects and got them to do the two conditions the other way around. Obviously it's not a study that would have been published in the Lancet, but at least the results could have been slightly meaningful. As it is, all they showed is that if you put your hand in a load of ice twice, you'll probably keep it there longer the first time.
In a way, the fact they bolstered their message with a meaningless bit of filler about some rugby players and a bucket of ice is irrelevant - the actual research that they were supporting already exists, they were just illustrating it. But I don't see the point of scrimping on that last little bit of detail that would have made it so much more useful. Especially given that the central idea of the show is that evidence and the scientific method is important.
Thursday, 9 April 2009
More Bad Science
If you have already read Ben Goldacre's book, Bad Science, head over to his blog where he has posted up a whole new chapter that wasn't in the first edition. Obviously, if you haven't already read it, get it and do.
The reason for the chapter's exclusion from the first pressing is that its subject is Matthias Rath, a vitamin pill pseudo-scientist whose marketing of a multi-vitamin 'cure for AIDS' in South Africa has had demonstrable and unequivocally tragic effects. At the time of the book's original publication, legal proceedings were going ahead for a libel case that Rath had brought against Ben Goldacre personally, and against the Guardian, for criticising his practices in his column.
Now that the case has been dropped, signalling a great win for common sense, free speech and science, Goldacre has been able to publish his true thoughts on the situation. As he points out, after preparations for legal proceedings, "I now know more about Matthias Rath than almost any other person alive". And this chapters demonstrates that.
This should be read by anyone who asks what's the harm of a little bit of alternative medicine or herbal quackery.
The reason for the chapter's exclusion from the first pressing is that its subject is Matthias Rath, a vitamin pill pseudo-scientist whose marketing of a multi-vitamin 'cure for AIDS' in South Africa has had demonstrable and unequivocally tragic effects. At the time of the book's original publication, legal proceedings were going ahead for a libel case that Rath had brought against Ben Goldacre personally, and against the Guardian, for criticising his practices in his column.
Now that the case has been dropped, signalling a great win for common sense, free speech and science, Goldacre has been able to publish his true thoughts on the situation. As he points out, after preparations for legal proceedings, "I now know more about Matthias Rath than almost any other person alive". And this chapters demonstrates that.
This should be read by anyone who asks what's the harm of a little bit of alternative medicine or herbal quackery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
