Science and Inquiry discussion

For February 2015 we will be reading Bad Science. Please use this thread to post questions, comments, and reviews, at any time.

I see there are at least two different editions of this book.

US Edition on Amazon.com, published by Faber & Faber and Macmillan, 304 pages, 12 chapters.

UK Edition on Amazon.co.uk, published by Harper Perennial and Fourth Estate, 382 pages, 16 chapters including 11 from the US edition.

Which is recommended? The UK edition is probably available in the US as used.

Do you know what the extra content is?

I listened to the audio edition & don't recall how many chapters. I liked it quite a lot & gave it 5 stars here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I don't have books in my hands, but judging from the Amazon samples, the two Tables of Contents are as follow:

1 Matter
2 Brain Gym
3 The Progenium XY Complex
4 Homeopathy
5 The Placebo Effect
6 The Nonsense du Jour
7 Dr. Gillian McKeith PhD
8 `Pill Solves Complex Social Problem
9 Professor Patrick Holford
10 The Doctor Will Sue You Now
11 Is Mainstream Medicine Evil?
12 How the Media Promote the Public Misunderstanding of Science
13 Why Clever People Believe Stupid Things
14 Bad Stats
15 Health Scares
16 The Media's MMR Hoax

1 Matter
2 Brain Gym
3 The Progenium XY Complex
4 Homeopathy
5 The Placebo Effect
6 The Nonsense du Jour
7 The Nutritionists
8 The Doctor Will Sue You Now
9 Is Mainstream Medicine Evil?
10 Why Clever People Believe Stupid Things
11 Bad Stats
12 The Media's MMR Hoax

Presumably because people in the US haven't had the pleasure of Gillian McKeith (or to give her full medical title, Gillian McKeith) being featured on their TV screens. You haven't missed much.

I guess I listened to the second version that Tomislav listed. I recall a chapter titled, "The Nutritionists", at any rate. That's one bad thing about audio books, it's very difficult to go back & find info.

The author has a website here:
http://www.badscience.net/

Foot baths to suck out toxins & brain gym. I'd never heard of the last. I knew some people that were into the first, though. It's pretty amazing that brain gym could be accredited in any college.
http://www.braingym.org/

This is sort of an amazing coincidence. Just two weeks ago, a friend described to me the foot bath that he had undergone, exactly as described in the book Bad Science. He is scientifically oriented, so he was just flabbergasted when the treatment removed all the pain in his knees from some injury for a couple of weeks. He had no idea how the treatment "worked". So did the treatment simply act as a placebo?

He does talk about the placebo effect & it's a lot more complex & far reaching than I had realized. Apparently it can work even when people know the cure is fake. Different color or sized pills can have different effects, again even when people know there is no real difference.

I read this book a year or two ago, the U.S. Edition (checked it out from a public library), and if I recall correctly, I believe I read in a GoodReads review that there was some drama with the publisher that may well have had a serious legal component and this is actually why the U.S. book is shorter. I don't recall the details offhand but may be something to look up.

I thought the book was so-so but likely because I had already read several books covering a lot of the same ground.

The Wikipedia entry doesn't mention why the two editions would be different in length, but it does have the TOC with a short description of each. Wish I'd thought to look at this while listening to the audio book & writing my review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Scie...

Chapter 7 is titled differently in both, but I believe they're the same. Dr. Gillian McKeith PhD is a nutritionist.

One reason the British edition didn't have the vitamin chapter is the vitamin pill magnate Matthias Rath was suing Goldacre & the Guardian. They won the suit & you can read about that here:
http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/mat...

The bit on Professor Patrick Holford can be read here:
http://www.badscience.net/2007/09/pat...

I'm not sure about the rest.

Jim wrote: "He does talk about the placebo effect & it's a lot more complex & far reaching than I had realized. Apparently it can work even when people know the cure is fake. Different color or sized pills c..."

Funny also is the reverse-placebo effect. Some drugs don't work unless the patient knows he is receiving it. For example, anxiety sufferers who use Valium in pill form don't gain any relief when the drug is administered to hospital patients through drip, even at double the normal dosage.

That's wild, Robbower. People are weird & very complex. It blows my mind that we tend to polarize everything, yet there is little about us or the world that deserves it. It's not a fight or flight world any more, yet we're still wired that way. It leads us into stupid arguments & worse conclusions all the time. I'm surprised anyone caught the Valium & didn't just say it didn't work.

Well, I'm in the US, but my used 16-chapter UK edition just arrived.

I just finished reading the book--it is very engaging. The book is not about all branches of science--primarily just medical science. Here is my review.

I read this last month and quite enjoyed it. It really opened my eyes about how things are reported in non-science places and how biased this can be even when it looks like balanced coverage on the surface (I've also started to see that in other things too so watching the news less and less now!). Here's my review

Good reviews!

Sam, in yours, you write I also cringe at how non-science subjects are treated the same as science, and frequently found myself dispairing at the examples used by Goldacre to show how science and these alternatives differ and the importance of these difference and in making these widely known and properly covered.

Could you expand on that thought some? Provide some examples?

I think the best example is homeopathy and the weighting this is given in medical debates etc. Now don't get me wrong I think it does have some role to play and it can help ease some ailments (I worked in a homoepathy and health foods store for a couple of years so can appreciate some things they do) but when it is used or seen as an alternative to science/medicine things begin to fall apart.

The biggest difference can be seen in the claims they make and the studies they do to back them up. As we know for the world of medicine all studies are rigourously checked and challenged and claims have to be backed up buy figures, stats etc. But when you look at homeopathy this is not the case, often claims are made with no basis at all yet they are reported in the media with the same gusto and so the general public end up rather misinformed.

When working in the health store it was always obvious when something had been celeb endorsed or undergone a recent media blitz as we sold out of particular items that usually didn't go at all. And that was despite us querying whether the customers actually needed it or not (the store I worked for had trained all staff in the products and had a standard practice of checking that people knew what they were buying, what it was for etc.). We even had some seriously ill people come to us rather than their GP thinking that we could help just as much if not more so than 'regular' medicine (these people really worried me) which shows how badly the differences between the two are reported.

Now I understand better. Thanks. Yes, I agree with you. I liked what Goldacre said about an ignorance tax. I feel the same way about it. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to go overboard & that can be deadly when the 'remedy' is improperly labeled or pure BS.

I guess everyone has now heard about how the NY attorney general is going after some of the scam supplements. It's about time.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02...

No problem Jim, its always easier with examples isn't it. I think people just like the idea of quick fixes or being in control of their own 'medicines' rather than being told by doctors so they cling to homeopathy as a way of doing that. Either that or they really are just a bit dim!

Could bad biological science be a new level of Darwinian selection based on culture? The homeopathic, New Age, anti-vaccination, anti-GMO, tom-cruise-style gullibles producing fewer viable progeny?

I don't see any evidence of that. Wishful thinking.
;)

Now that would be good...although if it were that easy I'm sure junk food, smoking etc would've been just as efficient. ;-)

I just finished the chapter on the placebo effect, and near the end he suggests that there may be an ethical role for the placebo benefits of alternative practices (like homeopathy) in cases where medicine is unable to help. Anybody have any ideas how that could be done, maintaining a useful belief in the efficacy of the placebo benefit, without undermining the role of medicine itself?

Well, people do react favorably to placebos, even when they know that they are simply placebos.

Regarding ethical use of placebos. I think a health-care worker always has an obligation to give as much clear, science-based information to a patient as currently exists. However, many patients can't or won't understand and use that information.

My wife suffers from anxiety. She has used a commonlly prescribed medication (Valium) for over thirty years. Two medical doctors and one psychiatrist have told her that the dosage she uses is so low that it is believed to be ineffectual for her condition.

She believes that this low level dosage of Valium will prevent 'Panic attacks', which she has experienced twice in her life. She is 64 years old, and experienced major panic events in her 20s.

I know from several episodes in the past that if she runs low on the Valium, her anxiety increases.

Her doctor knows that the drug is acting as a placebo, and the dosage is so low that there are minimal risks involved. She knows (at some level) that it's a placebo. But her quality of life suffers, and her health may be at risk if the placebo is withdrawn.

Thus, I believe that she is fully informed, but chooses to believe that this particular 'sugar pill' improves her health and quality of life.

Jim wrote: "I don't see any evidence of that. Wishful thinking.
;)"

Do you know of any emperical evidence, one way or the other? For example, is there any work on whether cultures that promote anti-science healthcare promote higher or lower infant mortality?

The only examples I can think of are just the opposite since they'd have to die off before breeding & aren't.

Robbower wrote: "Regarding ethical use of placebos. I think a health-care worker always has an obligation to give as much clear, science-based information to a patient as currently exists. However, many patients ca..."

the placebo effect is well-described in the literature, but there is an additional consideration that needs to be kept in mind. Not everyone reacts the same to a specific medication dosage. It is very possible that the amount of valium that she takes is the right one for her, however small. My two cents...

The final chapter, dealing with MMR vaccinations, is really timely with respect to the outbreak of measles among Disneyland visitors in the news recently. Just yesterday I saw an AP story entitled "Anti-vaccine mothers discuss their thinking amid backlash", in which three moms give the reasons for their resistance. Goldacre's assessments were spot on; the article had a tone of neutrality, even while some of the reasons were plainly misconceptions. My summary of the reasons stated in the article is:
Mom #1: had a side-effect experience with an anti-malaria medicine, and now does not trust the medical establishment. She cites the Wakefield 1998 publication and says the body of research is inconclusive. Beside autism, she is concerned about doses of synthetic additives found in vaccines, such as aluminum and mercury.
Mom #2: the article does not actually give her reason; just states that she feels vilified and ostracized because of her decision not to vaccinate.
Mom #3: is concerned that vaccinations contain "toxic chemicals". She builds immunities in her children through a natural diet. She is not worried about measles because her children have strong immune systems. She is not worried that her children will infect others, because she informs everyone that her children are not vaccinated.
Their sources of information include "medical studies, books, news stories, and networking on social media".

Oy! Crazy people, but I can feel a bit of pity for those who can at least point to a particular article. Not much, but a little.

Staying properly informed is tough. Many experts in many fields will say how easy it is to find the proper information & they're right - if I know where to look, how to evaluate what I'm reading, & have the time. Quite often I don't bother - it can be a lot of work & time - but just listen to the pros & try to apply some common sense.

Goldacre's way of thinking & tone were the things I liked best about the book. He didn't baffle me with BS, but laid it out in understandable terms & told me where to look to make up my own mind.

He also mentions how many people point to conspiracies among various groups. I recently read Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History. It's amazing how much we love conspiracies. I like them myself, but then I generally realize that most are too greedy & egotistical to make them work. Besides, I've seen my family try to decide on what to have for dinner.
;)

I do like a good conspiracy theory too but I have noticed that people can be very selective about what they include in such things.

For example the three anti-vaccine moms indicate that part of their reasoning is the use of additives in vaccines and toxic chemicals but I wonder if they apply the same to their food. I note that mom #3 states she gives her children a natural diet but unless that means fully organic, small-scale, free range etc. with no processed foods at all then her kids are get their dose of additives and toxins that way. Not to mention all the lovely toxins they'll get from living in the modern world.

I wonder whether this occurs to people who say they don't trust the medical establishment.

Good point, Sam. I wonder how many toxins are free roaming. Back in the 70's, air pollution was so bad that I heard living in NYC was like smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day. I've read articles that say reusing some plastic water bottles for more than 6 months or a year can be bad since the plastic breaks down & can start poisoning a person. (Might have had something to do with UV exposure, too.)

Even 'organic' labeling is open for some debate. I've read articles that say it's often complete BS. Organic gardens don't have to test for prior use of the land. I know of at least one that's on land that was contaminated by a state maintenance shed. It belongs to a high end restaurant that charges extra for the produce they raise themselves. It's kind of a joke in the area.

I've raised a lot of my own food & it's never as pretty as what's found in the grocery store's organic section possibly because I won't use a lot of chemicals that are allowed even on organics. At least one of the studies I skimmed pointed to high levels of several 'natural' pesticides. Apparently a lot of pesticides occur naturally & can be used in their 'natural' forms & we started distilling them to reduce bulk, but also to use more exact amounts.

Fully organic meat isn't always a great idea. In some places, it's not really legal or even possible. Animals pass around diseases just like people do. Testing for TB & such, plus inoculations against various diseases are a must. 40 years ago we fed medicated feed for chicks at times, else they'd die or have a tough time fighting off coccidiosis. Our chickens & ducks were truly free range although the hawks came back in such numbers that we had to start building runs in the 90's.

I bet there's a lot, not to mention substances that aren't toxins but aren't natural either but just loiter in the environment waiting to become something terrible (and let's face it there are so many occurances where we just don't know where things go).

Personally I think the organic, free range and other labels started out with good intentions but as always big business stepped in and made them more lax, things are more complicated (mostly due to our past practices) and people aren't willing to pay for proper food so they got diluted. I favour my local farmers markets where the people selling the food are the ones that produced (there's even one stall that labels his meat products with the animals names as well as the usual stuff). That's what food should be to me, yes it's not free of everything but then in this world nothing ever will be.

On the subject of animal inoculations, this can be reduced on mixed farms where herds are smaller as diseases can be managed easier using other methods. It's the appraoch of huge mono-herds that has made this more necessary. Although again I see and accept the need for it as much as I do for inoculating us human folk. Wonder if the anti-vaccine lot will ever start on those vaccines...

I agree. Yes, folks have taken exception to vaccines, at least I've heard of it in cows. We've had more cases of TB in raw milk because of it. I believe they have in chickens & pigs, too. Yes, the big, mono-culture, mass producing farms are more susceptible to disease, but any farm can get them.

We all buy new animals, swap fertile males, & such. A quarantine period is best, but not always possible & not all diseases show immediately or are stopped by normal measures. Almost every time we get a new horse, they wind up passing a cold around. They have to have a clean Coggins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_i...


Still, morons try to shortcut that, too. It's ridiculous, but they think if the horse is on their property & not leaving, there's no reason to worry. Crap! If you read the above, look at the size of the quarantine area needed. I think it's 50 miles in diameter. I believe there's only one place in the US that even bothers & we've got a lot of space. Most countries couldn't even if they wanted to. So every now & then, someone gets it & a bunch of horses have to be put down. Luckily, it generally kills them fast so doesn't get many, but then the authorities have to stomp in with hobnailed boots to keep it from spreading. It really sucks.

Not directly related to this book, but here is an interesting article on why so many 'reasonable' people disbelieve science.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/201...

Worst book I have ever read,No need any explains.
Not give any informations,
As I am pharmacist ,I have regret to spend money for this book and time.