Media Watch - Science, pseudoscience and nonsense in the media

Myksyk

Following on from williamgrogan's thread on reflexology stemming from an uncritical piece in the Irish Times, I think it would be a good idea to discuss media coverage of science and pseudoscience.

I'd be interested to hear of any piece in the print, audio or visual media which demonstrates poor coverage of scientific subjects or uncritical coverage of extraordinary ideas, claims and practices.

Myksyk

Saw an interesting bit in The Sunday Times magazine's Alternative Health section. In replying to one query the AM practitioner alludes to 'empirical evidence' which she then explains in brackets as, and I'm paraphrasing a little, 'anecdote or testimonial told to your therapist'. Maybe this is the problem. Maybe AM people think anecdote and tesitomonial are empirical evidence. This would explain a lot!

Barnowl

The Guardian Newspaper published an interesting piece on biometric eyescans and fingerprints on Nov. 12th last. It emphasised the very high reliability of iris scans as a basis for a national identity register. Whatever your political views on the issue of identity registers, think of the poor iridologists who rely on selling the idea of a changing iris reflecting changes in health which they can diagnose and treat with all kinds of wonderful mumbo jumbo. Will this pseudoscience fade away as a result. I doubt it, but it will be interesting to see what strategies they invent to persist.

Any iridologists out there willing to give it a first shot?

ecksor

Barnowl, by contrast I'd offer the viewpoint that biometric scanners have been plagued with problems due to the ease of copying and (more relevantly) the fact that the human body does change quite a bit as we go through life. The iris is relatively dependable from a biological point of view (as opposed to the "He's wearing contact lenses" sort of shenanigans) as far as I know though (but I'm only going on fairly non-detailed reports I've read).

PaulP

The Irish Times (usually on page 2) is fond of uncritical stories about all sort of quacks which invariably end with details of how to contact the quack. I once wrote a letter to the editor asking why the IT was effectively providing free advertising to anyone, let alone people making all sort of ignorant and ludicrous claims while taking money from the deluded. Of course the letter was not published.

ecksor

Actually, I wrote a mail to the editor once about the poor standard of reporting on Internet Security about 3 years ago and never got a response. (It was basically just publicity for a company iirc).

Myksyk

Michael Shermer's 'Skeptic' column in this month's Scientific American is on Alternative Practices and the harm they do. Has anybody seen it?

ecksor

I actually bought a copy of it, haven't had a chance to read it though.

davros

Originally posted by Myksyk
Michael Shermer's 'Skeptic' column in this month's Scientific American is on Alternative Practices and the harm they do. Has anybody seen it?

It can be read online here.

I accept the point about the schlepping about with a terminally ill person and the potential for clashes between herbal and conventional medicines. But they are easy arguments to make. He didn't explain why we should consider reflexology harmful when it is being used to "cure" insomnia, say.

GuanYin

There have been a few artciles in the various scientific regulars regarding alternative therapies in the past few months.

To answer the question on reflexology, the biggest issue with all alternative therpies is that they are generally unregulated. Many of the large practices are affiliated, but the actual standard and certifcation of chinese medicine courses and other alternative therapies varies enormously.

This means that often you have ridculously untrained people administering treatments without any sort of record keeping and procedural "norm".

I've gone to holistic treatments where I've had the person mispronounce or incorrectly identify anatomy to me, it doesn't exactly give you any degree of confidence in the treatment!

Barnowl

While in the case of reflexology being used to "treat" insomnia, there is not likely to be any direct or even indirect harm done to the patient there are other kinds of harm which may well occur as a consequence of this kind of activity.

Anecdotal claims of success, ie that reflexology "cured" the insomnia, add to the cumulative mass of such "data" that is constantly used to bolster all types of alternative medicine including potentially much more harmful practices.

In a general sense this contributes to the illusion that alternative treatments are indeed efficacious and to the erosion of a scientific and skeptical attitude to extraordinary claims.

seamus

My Mum practices some alternative therapies. Nothing involving the adminstering of any type of foodstuffs or the bending of limbs though.

She's always told people not to take her word as the final diagnosis though. She used to be a nurse and always tells her clients that medicine and alternative therapies work best side-by-side, not when substituting one for the other.

The main problem is that people read it as an "alternative medicine", i.e. that it's just as good as standard medicine. It's not. There are some things which can be helped by alternative therapies that medicine can't help, and vice-versa. But mostly they work best in a complementary role.

davros

I didn't mean to start up a discussion of reflexology or alternative medicine in general. On the topic of AM in the media, my point was just that this particular Sci Am article picked easy targets and doesn't really answer the question it poses of whether AM in general is harmful (if it had done, it would have mentioned points like syke's and Barnowl's).

From another segment of the media entirely, I noticed an article in Ireland on Sunday (I, um, happened to see the paper somewhere ) describing how a psychic had told the parents of the two murdered Soham girls more than the police had. Told the parents their children were dead only a day or so after their disappearance, in fact. Disgusting stuff.

Myksyk

I agree with Davros. I finally got around to reading the article and it let me down a little. I think it's important to be clear about what harm AM can and can't do. It is often the indirect harm that is ignored and bothers me, such as the intellectual dishonesty and erroneous ideas about the human condition which are sold with the practices. But perhaps we could continue that particular point on the AM thread.

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by davros
It can be read online here.

I accept the point about the schlepping about with a terminally ill person and the potential for clashes between herbal and conventional medicines. But they are easy arguments to make. He didn't explain why we should consider reflexology harmful when it is being used to "cure" insomnia, say.

Perhaps the general points to derive from Michael Shermer's very short article are
1) There is either tried and tested mainstream medicine or so called 'alternative medicine' which is untested.
2)There are better things to do with your time than a wild goose chase to the AM practitioner.
Certainly as regards terminal illness such a wild goose chase could trap patients in a state of denial and impede acceptance of their condition (although Shermer didn't point this out).

williamgrogan

Here we go again. Another article ¼ page in size in today’s (29/12) Irish Times promoting, “Cosmetic Acupuncture” and naming the “doctor” or is it “chancer”, who operates from his “surgery” no less. His address is given.

This silly article without a single dissenting opinion goes into details about how the “chi” or “energy” flows properly through the bodies “energy channels (meridans)” after "therapy" and thereby “cures” wrinkles, tightens the pores, increases moisture to the skin etc..

Who is the author, Jenifer Miller?

A ¼ page add in the IT would cost thousands. For Dermot O’Connor the “founder of the International Institute of Medical Qigong” this is serious free publicity.

What’s going on? What do we do?

joemomma

I heartily recommend The Guardian's weekly Bad Science column: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/

It's included in their 'Life' supplement on a Thursday.

williamgrogan

Very funny article. Maybe you can post other funny ones from the Guardian in future?

I have a programmer friend who is normally more logical than Dr Spock who started buying and giving as presents a "stick on crystal thingy" that absorbed dangerous radiation from moble phones.

Are the papers being paid for these articles? Can we find out?

There is a Press Complaints Commission. There is also in the UK and Ireland an Advertisment Watchdog ASAI?.

These things are straight forward frauds.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
There is a Press Complaints Commission. There is also in the UK and Ireland an Advertisment Watchdog ASAI?.

We don't have a PCC in Ireland but, as you say, there is the ASAI.

It's worth a try. IrelandOffline members did manage to embarass Eircom into withdrawing an ad or two by complaining to the ASAI.

I wonder if there is any way of influencing the content of newspaper articles though. In utter contrast to the Guardian, the Irish Times listed an A-Z of life strategies on Saturday. In there was 'Complementary Therapy', 'Echinacea', 'Holistic Treatments', 'Jali Neti' (a new one for me), 'Kinesiology', 'Reflexology', 'Rebirthing'. The author was Maura O'Kiely.

A suggestion to the Irish Skeptics Society for the end of 2004: a press release of resolutions and 'strategies' for 2005 that such journalists can draw on.

williamgrogan

I was referring to the PCC because the Guardian is a UK publication. You cannot complain to the ASAI unless its an add. However I think this would include any "add" where the paper was paid.

Note: ASAI is funded by the advertising industry.

Excuse me being sceptical, but why do the newspapers publish all this rubbish. Are they being paid? Who are the writers of these articles. I don't recognise the names.

We need to get to the bottom of this to fight it.

Can we complain to the police? Fraud is a crime. Selling fake medicine is a crime.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Fraud is a crime.

Fraud has to be knowing. I think sellers of crystals and alternative medicines largely believe in what they are selling. I can't blame them for that when there is so much endorsement for those beliefs in the media.

I do think there is potential in using existing laws and regulations to pressure the ASAI, Irish Medicines Board and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs to rein in currently unchecked claims.

GuanYin

Originally posted by davros
Fraud has to be knowing. I think sellers of crystals and alternative medicines largely believe in what they are selling. I can't blame them for that when there is so much endorsement for those beliefs in the media.

I do think there is potential in using existing laws and regulations to pressure the ASAI, Irish Medicines Board and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs to rein in currently unchecked claims.

What they are saying isn't strictly false.

Quartz definitely absorbs some electromagnetic waves, it will usually redirect most of it (although you can probably treat it to increase this effect) though and there is no guarentee its not gonna be redirecting it straight at your brain.

williamgrogan

What they are saying isn't strictly false.

These people are not saying anything about what quartz is strictly doing or is not doing, What they are selling is a product that cures you or makes you fell better. It doesn't and that's the fraud. Maybe the originator of the con knew that there was a connection between radiation and quartz and based the bogus treatment on this.

I very much doubt that its necessary in law to prove that a fraudster knew he was defrauding. Otherwise most fraud cases would fail on this point. Why is this stated?

I think these people could be sucessfully prosecuted but the police and the DPP couldn't be bothered. In the USA they are continuoulsy jailed and fined, see the Quackwatch newletter.

GuanYin

These people are not saying anything about what quartz is strictly doing or is not doing, What they are selling is a product that cures you or makes you fell better.

make people feel better?

I have a programmer friend who is normally more logical than Dr Spock who started buying and giving as presents a "stick on crystal thingy" that absorbed dangerous radiation from moble phones.

I thought you said it was just to lessen exposure to radiation from mobile phones?
If thats the case then it may do it, probably not very effectively but unless it quotes numbers then its not fraud.

williamgrogan

makes people feel better

referred to the previous article from the Guardian.

The mobile phone gadget is also fraud as it does not lessen the risk, if there is any, from mobile phones.

For fraud to be proven a jury would have to decide that someone paid money for a product or service that on balance didn't do what it said it would. There is a concept here of a reasonable expectation. To be "scientifically/technically" accurate to a miniscule degree would not be a defense.

A fraudster cannot claim that the sticky on thing did this. Holding a pin between the phone and your head would probaly deflect some radiation but that couldn't be sold as a device to protect you either.

Needless to say the jury would have to be convinced........

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Excuse me being sceptical, but why do the newspapers publish all this rubbish. Are they being paid?

I don't know, but I see ridiculous rubbish in my own area too occasionally, often with quotes from a consultancy company and descriptions of their services.

Technology in general, and sporting issues are shockingly misrepresented to the general public too in any area that I feel that I'm qualified to judge the situation.

It appears to just be a fact of life, newspapers have to say something or else there's no newspaper. Research would be a luxury that there is no time for and so you just print the words of an expert, self-proclaimed or otherwise. This is probably more to do with the economics of running a newspaper than anything else.

The crucial thing is that readers should be equipped to read a newspaper without taking the contents at face value as the truth, which is where a society such as this comes in. Pragmatically, I would say that an awareness campaign is a good thing, offering the sceptical viewpoint is a good thing, and if you want to actually make a difference then try to get an agreement with a newspaper that the society will write a column once a week that will critically analyse the claims of an article of its choice and present a reasoned, level and rational alternative viewpoint that doesn't slag off the journalist or the people being written about. You get to spread the message, they get to fill a few inches, and you might make a difference. Making complaints will not get you anywhere.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
For fraud to be proven a jury would have to decide that someone paid money for a product or service that on balance didn't do what it said it would.

No, I don't agree. Such a prosecution would be taken under some kind of Trade Descriptions or Consumer Information Act. The Theft and Fraud Act is reserved for cases of pursuing gain by dishonest deception.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm open to correction on details but I don't think we have have any basis for suspecting fraud on the part of crystal salesmen or alternative medical practitioners.

The use of the word is making me nervous. I would prefer that we leave allegations of fraud to the DPP and actual determinations to judges. They cannot be sued for libel the way you and I (as moderator of this discussion) can.

It would be a fine start, as Ecksor says, to seek to persuade by the force of a good argument.

williamgrogan

then try to get an agreement with a newspaper that the society will write a column once a week that will critically analyse the claims of an article of its choice and present a reasoned, level and rational alternative viewpoint that doesn't slag off the journalist or the people being written about

Good idea and has the benefit that journalists are generally lazy and will print "copy" sent to them.

In other words we use their laziness in the same way as the snake oil salesmen do.

Myksyk

What do people think of the ongoing Princess Di conspiracy theory being mentioned at every turn in the press?

Myksyk

Nice to see no replies on that one .. it is in fact the most uninteresting story in the media!!!

sextusempiricus

Did anyone read the British 'Times' this Saturday? It contained small glossy booklet as part of it's 'Body & Soul' section entitled 'Complimentary Therapists Guide 2004.
This is Part 1 and is about acupuncturists, homeopathists and herbalists. I'll write a fuller account when I get time but I'll leave you with this anecdote from actress Joan Collins on page 8,

If I do something ridiculous, such as carrying a suitcase filled with books - and put my back out - I will go and have acupuncture, and it usually works.

Wow! Impressed? Perhaps Joan pays no heed to the idea of spontaineous recovery of strains.