18 April 2010

Winnipeg Skeptics Presentation: Homeopathy

This past week was World Homeopathy Awareness Week, and so it seems fitting that the Winnipeg Skeptics had scheduled a presentation on the subject of homeopathy. I've posted the talk that I gave below.



While preparing for this talk, I briefly considered diluting what I had to say. I figured that it would be a nice bit of homeopathic humour, and although the idea wasn't especially original, I felt that it had a certain amount of charm. Until some back-of-the-envelope calculations revealed that dissolving my talk to a standard homeopathic dilution of 30C would give me a little less than one femtosecond in which to speak. (If you don't know much about homeopathy, you'll get that joke later. And no, it still won't be funny.)

I sort of feel bad, picking on homeopathy—on the pseudoscience scale, it's just one notch below the idea of a flat earth. It offers the traditional alt-med package: a panacea with no side-effects. And homeopathy has a special place in my heart.

"So what is homeopathy?" you might ask. It's a common misconception that it consists primarily of herbal remedies. Homeopathy is often confused with "naturopathy", but it's not just a special blend of "herbs and spices": it's much more ridiculous than that.

Doctor Steven Novella does it no injustice when he calls it prescientific sympathetic magic.

Homeopathy was created by Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann ("Sam", to his friends), a German physician, as early as 1796 (although Hahnemann did not use the term "Homeopathy" for his cures until 1807). Hahnemann was appalled by the state of medicine in his day, and rightly so. Bloodletting, purging, enemas, and the like were all still in common use at this time, and it would be more than fifty years before Ignaz Semmelweis's proposal that hand-washing significantly reduced mortality was finally accepted by the medical community (thanks to the germ theory of disease, popularised by Louis Pasteur). In those days a visit to a physician could easily kill you. Hahnemann said:

My sense of duty would not easily allow me to treat the unknown pathological state of my suffering brethren with these unknown medicines. The thought of becoming in this way a murderer or malefactor towards the life of my fellow human beings was most terrible to me, so terrible and disturbing that I wholly gave up my practice in the first years of my married life and occupied myself solely with chemistry and writing.

This seems fair. Unfortunately, this "chemistry" of his wasn't so good. Hahnemann subscribed to a vitalist philosophy in which illness is posited to be a result of disturbances in one's innate life force (miasms), and he rejected the notion that disease could be caused by invading entities: in other words, what we now call the germ theory of disease. Here's how homeopathy works (or perhaps, "here is homeopathy's proposed method of action" would be a better phrase, as the best meta-analyses seem to show no effect at all).

We begin with Hahnemann's ipse dixit "Law of Similars": this is the voodoo part. Beginning with the observation that a particular treatment for malaria (cinchona bark) produced symptoms when ingested that were similar to the symptoms of the parasitic infection that it was meant to treat, Hahnemann declared similia similibus curentur (or "let like be cured by like") to be a fundamental healing principle. Put simply, if a substance causes a symptom in an otherwise healthy individual, it can be used to treat this symptom in a diseased individual. This is presumably why rubbing minced onions in one's face is such an excellent remedy for hay fever.

Unfortunately, reality had to intrude and ruin everything. You see, many of these so-called remedies were actually highly dangerous, or at the very least distasteful. These ingredients include dog faeces, eye of pheasant, arsenic, and cobra venom, among a plethora of more mundane things. And so, in a rather generous attempt to make his remedies less dangerous, Hahneman invented the principle of serial dilution, also known as the "Law of Infinitesimals". This rule states that as a remedy is diluted, its potency is increased (in direct contradiction, I hasten to add, to the dose-response relationship on which much of modern medicine is based).

And so, as you might guess, homeopathic remedies are really quite dilute. Although the procedure may vary slightly, it goes something like this:

  1. Select a "remedy" (anything from grass to loon feather to red wine) and a dilutant (usually either water or ethyl alcohol).
  2. If the remedy is not already a liquid, put the substance in solution. This may involve grinding it into a paste or saturating water with it; insoluble solids, such as bone or oyster shell, may be ground with lactose in a process called trituration.
  3. Take one drop of the remedy liquid and dilute it in 99 drops of dilutant.
  4. The remedy must be succussed. This involves shaking it vigorously ten times. Several reports indicate that Hahnemann had a saddle-maker fashion him a leather striking board stuffed with horsehair. Hahnemann believed that this process "potentised" or "activated" the healing energy of the solution.
  5. You have now made a 1C homeopathic remedy. For a 2C solution, repeat steps three and four again, and again for a 3C solution, etc.
  6. Once dilution is completed, the remedy may be used as is, or used to saturate lactose pills.

The dilution of homeopathic remedies is measured on several scales, the most common of which are C and X (sometimes D). A 1C solution is one part "active" ingredient and 99 parts water (or alcohol), a dilution of 1 in 100. A 1X or 1D solution is one part "active" ingredient and 9 parts water (or alcohol), a dilution of 1 in 10. Consequently, a 3C solution is the same as a 6X solution: one part active ingredient in 1,000,000 parts water.

But now back to chemistry. In 1811, the Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro proposed that the volume of any gas is proportional to the number of molecules that comprise it, irrespective of the nature of the gas in question. Avogadro's work was built upon by those who came after him, eventually resulting in the calculation of what came to be known as the Avogadro constant, which some of you may remember vaguely from high school chemistry: roughly 6.02 x 1023. This is the number of elementary entities in one mole of any substance, and specifically the number of atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12.

So what does all of this mean? Well, what it means is that you can't dilute something forever. In fact, with just a little bit of math, plus knowledge of the molecular mass of the dilutant (which can be gleaned from the nearest periodic table), it is fairly straightforward to calculate exactly how far one can dilute something before no molecules of the original substance are left at all.

After some simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, it turns out that once a substance has been diluted past 25X (or roughly 13C), the chances of the remedy having a single molecule of the orginal substance left are less than 50/50. The standard homeopathic dilution recommended by Hahnemann? 30C, a whopping thirty-five orders of magnitude more dilute!

So there's literally nothing to homeopathy. But that's not the only problem.

The Law of Similars betrays an extremely superficial understanding of medicine. So-called "allopathic" medicine (the alt-med practitioner's pejorative term for scientific medicine) is frequently accused of being concerned with only the symptoms, rather than the root cause of disease. This is patently absurd when one considers homeopathy's purported method of action, which involves the assumption that there is some fundamental connection between a disease and a substance that happens to create a similar set of symptoms. In fact, the idea of like-cures-like predates Hahnemann by quite a bit, with the German-Swiss physician Paracelsus quoted as saying "What makes a man ill also cures him," in the sixteenth century.

This fallacious argument from antiquity notwithstanding, I have heard many homeopathic practitioners argue that the Law of Similars show that homeopathic solutions function in a fashion very similar to vaccines. I can agree that someone with little or no understanding of a vaccine's method of action might see it that way; but it is clear that anyone who would make this argument has no business dispensing medical advice. A vaccine introduces and incapacitated pathogen to the body's immune system, in a very real way teaching the immune system how to deal with that particular virus. A homeopathic remedy, well... doesn't do much of anything.

To get around this inconvenient bit of math, homeopath Jacques Benveniste proposed in 1988 that water (and presumably alcohol, as this is another popular dilutant) was capable of "remembering" substances with which it had come into contact. Benveniste was a little shady on the details, and it remains unclear how, even if the water did remember the substance, it could influence the body in any way with such a "memory". While Benveniste published several trials with positive results, this "water memory" has proven irreproducible under double-blind conditions. In fact, according to the journal Nature, liquid water is incapable of maintaining ordered molecular networks for more than a fraction of a nanosecond. More recently, homeopathic proponents have opined that water memory has "something to do with quantum mechanics".

This water memory charade has been highly criticised, and in fact raises more questions than it answers. For example, its memory seems rather selective. To quote Tim Minchin: "It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And whilst its memory of a long-lost drop of onion juice seems infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!" To quote Richard Dawkins: "Every time you drink a glass of water, the odds are good that you imbibe at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell." Although Benveniste claimed that succussion was necessary to initiate water memory, the mechanism of action has yet to be explained.

Benveniste is, in fact, the recipient of two Ig Nobel awards in Chemistry. The first, in 1991, was for being a "prolific proselytizer and dedicated correspondent of Nature, for his persistent belief that water, H2O, is an intelligent liquid, and for demonstrating to his satisfaction that water is able to remember events long after all trace of those events has vanished." The second, in 1998, was for a paper titled "Transatlantic Transfer of Digitized Antigen Signal by Telephone Link", in which he described a mechanism for packaging homeopathic "molecular activity" into email attachments. The award cites "his homeopathic discovery that not only does water have memory, but that the information can be transmitted over telephone lines and the Internet."

A recent, extensive review of the evidence by the Science and Technology Committee of the United Kingdom (where homeopathy is covered by the National Health Service) concluded that there was no reason to believe that homeopathy worked. While regulation of such products in the United States in nominal, Health Canada's Natural Health Products Regulations under the Canada's Food and Drugs Act is responsible for overseeing homeopathic remedies in Canada. To quote from their website:

Through the Natural Health Products Directorate, Health Canada ensures that all Canadians have ready access to natural health products that are safe, effective and of high quality, while respecting freedom of choice and philosophical and cultural diversity. [Emphasis added.]

When regulating homeopathic remedies, Health Canada mandates that evidence for efficacy be presented if the manufacturer wishes to include recommended uses for the product. These high standards of evidence may include simple references to "traditional use", or may go further, referencing either provings or the homeopathic materia medica. Note that several reference materials that Health Canada deems acceptable for evidence of efficacy predate the germ theory of disease by several decades.

For those who are wondering, a homeopathic proving involves the administration of undiluted homeopathic ingredients to one or more participants in a "trial"; in fact, Samuel Hahnemann's own ingestion of cinchona bark might be considered the first homeopathic proving. After exposure to the substance in question, subjects are prompted to describe any emotional or physiological effects that they experience. These effects are noted, as the homeopathic philosophy dictates that after dilution these are the symptoms that the remedy will treat. Note that no form of blinding or control is mandated.

One homeopathic proving describes a remedy "made by exposing powdered milk sugar to a powerful telescope in Boston, Massachusetts while it was focused on the planet Saturn during April 2009." Yes: this "proof" describes a homeopathic remedy in which the active ingredient is Saturn.

Things are further complicated when companies bypass the standard Health Canada or FDA approval process by claiming that their product is homeopathic, when in fact it contains dilutions of only 1 or 2X. This can pose a problem when the active ingredient is dangerous, as was the case with Zicam, a cold and flu remedy containing measurable quantities of Zinc, which reportedly caused 130 consumers to lose their sense of smell!

I will finish by quoting the late Perry DiAngelis, former contributor to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe:

Are you sure the Law of Infinitesimals refers to dilution and not the IQ of adherents to this theory?

References:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf
http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/04/remedy-regulation-homeopathy-in-canada.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/index-eng.php
http://www.interhomeopathy.org/trituration_proving_of_the_light_of_saturn
http://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=list_remedies
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/e-mailed_antigens_and_iridiumrsquos_iridescence/
http://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=list_remedies
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/442424/Paracelsus
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31388177/ns/health-cold_and_flu/
Hahnemann, Christian Friedrich Sammuel. The Organon of the Healing Art (5th/6th edition). 1833/1921.

Further Reading:
http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/04/slipping-through-cracks-health-canada.html
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=5 (especially http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3961)
http://www.skepticmoney.com/yeast-gard-cools-vaginal-burning/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penta_Water



Edit: Also check out this article by Dr. Steven Novella discussing Hyland’s Teething Tablets, "homeopathic" tablets for babies that "contain measurable and variable amounts of an actual drug, in unsafe doses, and without safety caps".

10 April 2010

Skeptical Investigations: The Psychic Fair, Part 3

In case you missed them, I'll link to parts one and two.

We were at a psychic fair, so I figured that I might as well get a reading.

Oddly enough, her testimonials were 100% positive.

One of the psychics billed herself as 90% accurate, and I was in favour of seeing her. Unfortunately the line was appallingly long, and I heard from several people that she was "bad" (I can only guess at what that means). So I asked around, and soon the four of us (myself, the missus, and two friends) were waiting to see a tarot card reader who was supposed to be excellent. There was some debate, then and afterward, regarding whether a tarot card reader could be considered a "psychic". Probably not, and some (but not all!) avoid making claims about the future, but regardless the practice of tarot certainly does involve certain, shall we say... unjustified metaphysical claims?

One of my friends went first. I couldn't hear any of what was said, as it was quite loud in the church, but afterward, he actually seemed impressed. This is completely understandable. He was apparently told that his sister was on some sort of journey (why such information would be useful to him, I have no idea; presumably the psychic was showing off)—which she was.

"I see a haircut in your future..."

Unfortunately, I can't really comment on this as I didn't hear exactly what was said, and have to rely on second-hand reports. Even if it were as simple as the reader saying, "Your sister is on a journey," this would not be an extraordinary claim. In the event that my friend has a sister (he does), she would be likely to be near in age to him, and thus the appropriate age to go on a trip (after high school, with friends, etc.). Even if she weren't on some sort of vacation, journeys are so often metaphorical! The reader has only to claim that she is seeking out her true self (again, not an extraordinary claim for someone in her late teens or early twenties), and suddenly she's right! In the event that my friend did not have a sister (I'm not convinced that he hadn't mentioned his family earlier in the reading, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), the reader had certainly seen us milling about before the reading—if he didn't have a sister, he obviously had two close female friends who could easily fit the bill: "someone who is like a sister to you".

When it came time for me to take a turn, I tried to be earnest and excited; ready to learn. I wanted to see what would happen, and I didn't want to get the reader's back up by being overtly skeptical. I didn't want to lie to the reader, but I also didn't want to supply her with any unnecessary information. Being no slouch, I had removed my wedding ring before entering the fair, and my OUT Campaign lapel pin as well. One of my friends later claimed that removing my wedding ring was a form of lying, and this resulted in quite a rousing debate between the two of us. I define a lie as an intentional misstatement of fact, and I believe that failing to provide information is not the same as providing false information. She disagreed, opining that my wedding ring was part of me, which I found to be an unjustified assertion. But I digress.

Throughout the experience, the reader was constantly seeking confirmation, and I decided to give it to her. "Is any of this making sense to you?" she'd ask? "Absolutely!" I'd say. I understood exactly what she was trying to achieve, and it made perfect sense to me!

One of my friends decided to try a different tactic. About halfway through her reading, she started answering "no" to that question. Apparently the reader was somewhat upset by this, and began thrusting her finger into the tarot card in question, as though my friend were myopic and unable to make out the figures and symbols that were so apparent to her.

I made a recording of my reading so that I wouldn't have to spend my time madly scribbling notes, however it was very loud in the church and at times I couldn't make out what the reader was saying. (It didn't help that for the first half of the reading there were folks wandering around banging drums. At one point in the recording one of them is heard to say, "Just clearing the energy...") I've transcribed the reading in its entirety here, with a summary of the predictions made at the end. You'll see me repeating what she says quite a lot; I did that to ensure that I had heard her correctly, and as a way to remain involved without volunteering too much information.

Reader: Have you had your cards done before?
Gem: No, I haven't.
Reader: Oh, good: a virgin! Okay...
Gem: Just tell me what to do.
Reader: Nothing!
Gem: Oh. [Laughs.] Well, that's easy!
Reader: Tell me what you want to look at.
Gem: I... I'm not sure what you mean.
Reader: School, work...
Gem: Oh!
Reader: ...girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever.
Gem: Relationships, I guess.
Reader: Okay, relationships?
Gem: Sure.
Reader: All right, all right. [She shuffles, then lays out the cards in three stacks.] Pick one.
Gem: A pile?
Reader: Yep.
Gem: That one.
Reader: [She begins laying out cards.] We are definitely looking at the changes around you.
Gem: Okay.
Reader: Like... it's like the end of one era and the beginning of a new era.

Gasp! I got married less than three months ago! How did she know?

She may have, but she probably didn't. Let's look a little more closely at this statement. I'm in my mid-twenties: I'm at the age when people are graduating from university, switching from "jobs" to "careers", getting married, having their first children, buying or renting their first homes... I'll readily admit that I was a little startled when she said this (unaccountably so), but that's the point. It's a Barnum statement: we're all going through changes all the time, and I helpfully filled in the blank with the specific recent change that occurred in my life. If she'd said it to you, what would you have thought of?

Unfortunately, she ruins the illusion with some needless shotgunning.

Reader: You accomplished something, you finished something: maybe school, maybe university... something. You finished something, so you're moving on.
Gem: Okay, that makes sense.
Reader: You're really looking. Did I do the right thing? Where am I going? What am I—? You know? Those kind of things.
Gem: Yeah.
Reader: Pick one card that's gonna be you.
Gem: Why not this one?
Reader: Okay. [She flips the chosen card.] Well, you're definitely a pentacle man.
Gem: Okay. What does that mean?
Reader: That your feet are frequently firmly planted on the ground. You know what you want and you're gonna go for it. It's almost like you're making a plan...
Gem: I make a plan...
Reader: You know what I mean?
Gem: Yeah.
Reader: In your family... it's like you hold it together. You know.
Gem: Yeah. For sure.
Reader: It's like you outsmart them. Is that the truth?
Gem: I don't know. I mean, my family's pretty smart folks...
Reader: But you outsmart them, and I'll tell you why. [She gestures toward a card.] See this male? See this female? That's saying to me—see how they're chained?—that's saying to me: sometimes you have, like, arguments.
Gem: Arguments. Yeah.
Reader: You can be aggressive.
Gem: Yeah, I can get into arguments.
Reader: It's not like punching or kicking or screaming. Nothing like that. Maybe it's like a lot of yelling.
Gem: Yeah, I... I can yell too much sometimes.
Reader: Yeah, that's what this here is saying. [Unintelligible. There are drums in the background. It's something like, "It's an issue that involves your concerns."] Emotionally you know how to hold it together. You... you're starting to get a grip.
Gem: I'm starting to get a grip on things.
Reader: Yeah. Does that make sense to you?
Gem: Yeah, sure.

This is a fair example of the rainbow ruse: I'm aggressive—she notes that I'm not violent; it wouldn't do to call a paying customer a brute!—but I'm not, because emotionally I know (or am learning) how to hold it together.

Reader: Now, over here, see that woman peeking? Okay, sometimes you take on too much.
Gem: I take on too much.
Reader: Imagine you're walking down the street carrying a bunch of logs. You take on too many goals at times.

More Barnum. (And a metaphor that doesn't go anywhere.) Everyone I know complains about how busy they are, about how they're always taking on too much. This statement may seem tailor-made to fit me, but just about anyone would think so!

Reader: Okay? But look over here. You've got a nine and a nine, right? Now over here with all the work and all the knowledge you have, you can work at home.
Gem: I can work at home?
Reader: Yeah, you can work in an office and you can work at home. Okay? Now over here you have the world. Now that's saying to me that you're going to learn a lot of things in your life. You're very intellectual, you're very smart.

She thinks I'm smart! How flattering!

Gem: I love to learn.
Reader: Yeah. You are very smart. And that's one of the wishes you have from Heaven.
Gem: I'm sorry? That's—
Reader: That's one of your wishes from Heaven.
Gem: That's one of my wishes from Heaven?
Reader: Yeah.

Damn. I was hoping that my wish would be for more wishes.

Reader: Right. It's good to have to know, to learn, to grow. You're always gonna grow, you're always gonna learn in your life, because that's who you are—that's what you are. You're a pentacle: a pentacle is a learner, a pentacle is—
Gem: A pentacle is a learner...
Reader: Yeah. Like movement. There's a lot of movement, okay?
Gem: Like from place to place?
Reader: Yeah, like going all over, visiting, or whatever, working all over. I don't see you just staying in one spot.
Gem: Hm. That makes sense.
Reader: Does it?
Gem: Yeah.
Reader: I don't see that, not now.

I'm confused here. It seems like one moment she's telling me that I'm a vagabond, and the next I'm a homebody. Maybe I was giving her mixed signals.

Reader:Right now, you're very excited, right now you're very happy, right now you want to fly.
Gem: Yeah, I do.
Reader: Like that's where you're at right now. You're in the right spot.
Gem: I'm in the right spot right now?
Reader: Right now. Should you decide to pack your suitcase and take off, hey, go for it!
Gem: Hm. Maybe I will!
Reader: You know what I'm saying? 'Cause... because the energy around you right now is to learn.

Wow, I didn't know that I was in for an energy reading, too! I was just in this for the cartomancy!

Gem: It's to learn?
Reader: Yeah, and to grow. You want experience. That's why you have the world, that's why you have this. It's gonna happen.
Gem: Great!
Reader: But you know, for the next couple months, you are gonna be bored a little. It's like you're tying up loose ends. You know, it's like, "Oh, I gotta do this, I gotta do that, I gotta do this, I gotta do that." If you haven't already started that process. But you're definitely tying up loose ends. So let's look at something else.
Gem: Okay.
Reader: You wanna look at something else? You're just ready to jump up...
Gem: Well, I'm... I'm excited about this! Uh...
Reader: Did any of this make sense to you?

Notice how she's constantly looking for course corrections? It actually began to get rather bothersome, having her ask "Is this making any sense to you?" all the time.

Gem: Yeah! Yeah, absolutely. Um... How 'bout... how 'bout work?
Reader: [She lays out more cards.] You're going to be negotiating, eh?
Gem: Negotiating...?
Reader: Like making a contract. Negotiating.
Gem: Okay.
Reader: [Unintelligible.] Not right now.
Gem: Not right now. Okay.
Reader: [Unintelligible.] I'd wait until... Let's see, what is today. The twentieth?
Gem: Yeah, I think so.
Reader: Okay. I would wait until the third or fourth.
Gem: April third or fourth. And then I'll be negotiating?
Reader: The opportunity's gonna come to you, okay?
Gem: Okay. Like, for a job?

Perhaps this is quibbling, but I never claimed to be unemployed, or even interested in another job. I'm quite happy where I work, and I'm not looking to go anywhere else.

Here I'm doing something that some might consider lying. It's certainly intentionally deceptive. But I'm not making any misstatements of fact. Besides, she's the fortune teller: if she's just reading the cards, they're not going to be swayed if I try to nudge her in another direction.

Reader: Yes.
Gem: Yeah? Okay.
Reader: Show your enthusiasm.
Gem: Okay.
Reader:But after like the third or the fourth, that's when you'll have your interview... I don't know. I'm just saying... that would be the proper time, 'cause then you'll get what you want. Should you go tomorrow, or on Monday—say you go on Monday, or on Tuesday—'cause the cup is upside down, eh?
Gem: Okay...
Reader: It's not right side up. You won't get the money you want.
Gem: Okay.
Reader: You understand?
Gem: Yeah. So... so I should hold out?
Reader: Yeah... I would go to the interview, but I would be careful.

At least she's not telling a guy who's presumably unemployed to blow off all of his interviews until next month. That's something.

Gem: Be careful. Okay.
Reader: 'Cause you are going to negotiate. All right? Interesting, eh?
Gem: Yeah!
Reader: Let's look at a girlfriend.

She's playing the odds, there, I guess.

Gem: Okay.
Reader: [She lays out more cards.] It's saying: "Quit listening to Dad."
Gem: "Quit listening to Dad?" He does like to give advice... [Laughs.]
Reader: You know yourself, you know your brain, just do what you want. All right?
Gem: Okay. Sure.
Reader: If you listen to Dad, you're not going to have a good choice... in your life, when it comes to women. [Unintelligible. Could be, "Where he's like, old school."] So how was this?
Gem: It was neat! Yeah, you know, like I feel like I've got a direction now.
Reader: Yeah, that's the whole thing.
Reader: Uh, we don't, like, per se, uh, give... Well, I did say some things that were in the future... [Unintelligible.] So you gotta be very careful. And how I know that, I'll let you know right now, is I follow the moon system, eh?
Gem: The moon— Which system is that?
Reader: Ah! Well you should learn it! All people should learn it. Right now the moon system, right now, is growing into a full moon, eh? It's growing this way. So that means, uh, like this would be the perfect time to go for a job, this would be the perfect time to buy that
new car or date that new girl.

Sounds like lunacy, to me. ;)

Gem: Okay.
Reader: Now the next moon is gonna be going this way, and things are gonna work against you. But you can still work with it. You can still work with it. You know, just like when you're going to a meeting just say something like, um, "I want to decrease that negative power he doesn't think I can't do it." Like that. Like that's how you handle it.

She gave me her card, I thanked her and paid her, and that was that.

Although she gave out several pieces of generic, fortune-cookie-style advice: "It's good to have to know, to learn, to grow." "You know yourself... just do what you want." She also made several claims about my personality (these are staples of cold reading, and are generally used to impress the client with the reader's insight). These aren't predictions, but are instead observations (or simply guesses), and are not of any particular use to me. Her hit rate varied (I've never listened to my father's advice about women, sometimes to my detriment. I do love to learn.) She was no Gregory House, but she didn't do too badly.

She only made a few real predictions, which I've summarised here:

Prediction: I'm going to move from place to place. I'm not going to stay in one spot.
Specificity: Very general.
Hit/Miss: Who knows? Probably a hit, but there's no time-frame given. We're going to TAM in July, and the missus wants a proper honeymoon, so we will be travelling this year. But that's certainly not a low-probability hit.

Prediction: I'm going to be bored for the next couple of months.
Specificity: Specific, but subjective.
Hit/Miss: Miss! I'm implementing two new power forecasting systems at work, organising meetings for the Winnipeg Skeptics, preparing a presentation on homeopathy for next week, auditioning for a play, planning a trip with the missus to Vegas for TAM, and trying to finish all of the DLC for Fallout 3 before Super Mario Galaxy 2 comes out!

Prediction: I'll have a job interview after the third or fourth of April.
Specificity: Specific on the event, but vague on the time-frame.
Hit/Miss: Miss! (Although she didn't give an expiry date for this prediction, so if I ever go to another interview in my life this will be a hit.) Originally the prediction was pretty vague, but I nudged her in the direction of a job interview, and she then confirmed that this was what she was talking about.

It's worth noting that during the time-frame that she gave for my interview (after the third or the fourth of April), the moon was waning (the full moon having occurred on the thirtieth of March), which directly contradicts her advice about getting a new job when it is "growing into a full moon" (waxing). To be fair, I think that it's all balderdash, but I figured that I ought to point that out.

So that's it for the psychic fair! I bought some lovely tarot cards as a souvenir, and we were on our way.

What can I say? I'm an unabashed packrat, and I love kitsch.

05 April 2010

The Revenge of Big Sunscreen

This entry is a response to several comments made about my post from last year, in which I dissected a Fabutan advertisement made up to look like a newspaper. Blogger comments are limited to 4,096 characters, so my response to the comments grew into its own post. You can find the original post here.



Hi, everyone.

First of all, thank you for your comments. I certainly appreciate the input and the opportunity for discussion on this topic. As my response exceeds the 4,096 character limit imposed by Blogger, my response to your comments can be found here.

I'll respond to the comments in the order in which they were received.

Anonymous:

preparing your skin for summer is a good thing. Either put it in moderation indoors... or go outside not knowing the UV index, an just burn yourself???

This commenter seems to be suggesting that by tanning you are "preparing your skin for summer". This seems to be a myth. According to the World Health Organization, "A dark tan on white skin only offers an SPF of about 4." The Canadian Cancer Society agrees, stating, "A tan offers almost no protection from sunlight or burning."

This comment also suggests a false dichotomy: either tan indoors (receiving a stable level of radiation) or walk around unprotected outdoors (receiving an unknown level of radiation). One easy alternative comes to mind: wear sunscreen. Also, most weather sites list UV indices alongside current conditions, so it is unnecessary to "go outside not knowing the UV index".

Fabutan's clear suggestion (in their editorial-style cartoon) that "the experts" claim that UV radiation poses cancer risks only because they stand to profit financially from the sale of sunscreen is not only absurd, but harmful. That is rank conspiracy-theory nonsense. The evidence that ultraviolet radiation increases the risk of developing various cancers are legion.

Anonymous:

it is pretty obvious why MEN's skin cancer cases have increased... Men are more likely to work OUTDOORS and burn and are less likely to tan or even to use sunscreen.

Although I agree that it's possible that men are more likely to work outdoors than women, I disagree that it's "pretty obvious" that this is responsible for the increase in melanoma incidences; it certainly could be responsible for any increased risk of cancer in men over women, but not for an increased risk of cancer in men over time. If this were the case, then it would necessitate a significant rise in the proportion of men working outdoors over the last several decades. Although I was not able to find any statistics specifically relating to the trend of indoor and outdoor work over time, I find this proposition questionable. If you are asserting that this is the case, please provide evidence.

Also... YES Fabutan is tryign to make money. Who isn't? But the difference is tanning isn't a Multi-billion dollar a year industry like the sunscreen industry.

When I stated that Fabutan was trying to make money, I did so only to illustrate that their characterisation of "Big Sunscreen" as a money-grubbing industry is irrelevant; of course every business is geared toward making money—to claim otherwise would be absurd! But it seemed that Fabutan was attempting to poison the well while ignoring the fact that they are also trying to make money. And I'm curious as to the relevance of your assertion that sunscreen is a multi-billion dollar/year industry. What are you trying to imply?

You are insane. Last year the Canadian Gov't issued tannign beds as a carcinogen... teh same level as BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, salted fish and red wine! That's where that came from. So pretty much our gov't says you have jsut as much chance of getting cancer from drinking red wine as using a tanning bed.

I'll assume that your denigration of my sanity was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the passage you cited, rather than a simple ad hominem. It was actually the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer that initially classified tanning beds as a Group 1 carcinogens (although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Canadian government followed suit), but thank you for clarifying that it was these reports that Fabutan was referring to in their advertisement. In case you're interested, you can find the full text of the reports here:


I recommend taking a look: they're eminently readable and well-referenced. You will be required to log in to view more than the abstract, but registration is free.

I find myself puzzled by your obvious upset at the fact that tanning beds received Group 1 classification, "teh same level as BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, salted fish and red wine!" You state that this means that "our gov't says you have jsut as much chance of getting cancer from drinking red wine as using a tanning bed". I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that's simply not true. The Group 1 classification indicates that the substance in question is "carcinogenic to humans"; it does not state that all Group 1 substances are equally carcinogenic. But even if it did, your argument is specious. Even if salted fish, red wine, birth control pills, and tanning beds were equally carcinogenic (although comparing the consumption of foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals to time spent in a tanning bed presents a conundrum, to be sure), that does not indicate that the danger of indoor tanning is in any way lessened. If you were to find out tomorrow that drinking cola posed the same cancer risk as smoking cigarettes, does that lessen the danger posed by tobacco? No. It does suggest that you might want to at least consider cutting back on your Pepsi consumption. From Part A, above:

The Group confirmed that combined oestrogen-progestagen oral contraceptives increase the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma...

I'm sorry if this news disappoints you, but oral contraceptives are linked to increased incidences of cancer. Although some women are unaware of the risks (which also include deep-vein thromboses, which can lead to strokes), many conclude that the risk is worth the benefit. Presumably you make the same cost/benefit analysis when you decide to drive your car to work in the morning, although roughly 40,000 people die in motor-vehicle collisions every year in the United States alone.

My point is that few things are risk-free. But it makes sense to limit exposure to risk where possible, especially if there is little or no corresponding gain.

Also just to let you know... anybody that lives north of Atlanta, Georgia doesn't get enough vitamin D from the sun in the winter months... here in good old Canada that is just about 6 months! Half a year! You would need to drink about 8 glasses of milk a day to get the minimum amount of Vitamin D from milk.

You're saying here that vitamin D deficiency is a serious concern, and here we agree. (You may notice that I've changed my tune a bit on this point; I make every attempt to remain open to being convinced by the preponderance of evidence.) Canada's Food Guide recommends 200 UI of vitamin D each day for adults under 51. However, many dietitians argue that this is insufficient, and 1,000 IU or more may be beneficial. Although two cups (500 mL) of milk will provide you with 90% of your RDI of vitamin D, you would need ten or eleven to reach the 1,000 IU recommended by the Harvard School of Public Health.

But tanning is not the only alternative to drinking milk! Taking a vitamin supplement may be a better choice than going to a tanning salon, both in terms of monetary cost and in terms of overall effect on one's health.

Too much or too little of anything is bad!

Although "moderation in all things" may seem like a fairly good rule of thumb, it is obviously not universally applicable, and your assertion is therefore flawed. We can all think of plenty of activities that are harmful even when undertaken in moderation. (I'll avoid invoking Godwin's Law, here.) You claim that "too little of anything is bad", and you may be tautologically correct, but I know of no evidence that none is "too little" when it comes to suntanning.

Yes teh studies have been done... tanning beds apprently cause cancer... OH WAIT did they mention that sunscreen companies funded these studies? oh and did they mention they included skin type one tanners? Skin type one tanners include albino or fair skinned, freckled people who are discouraged to tan indoors and outdoors because they burn very easily.

This appeal to motive is a logical fallacy. The fact that "Big Sunscreen" has a vested interest in such studies is irrelevant unless you can show an undeclared conflict of interest which resulted in fraudulent research. Oh, and the studies that I have quoted throughout this rebuttal? Not funded by sunscreen companies!

Also, I think that it is important that users with all skin types are included in the studies. Although users with lighter skin are nominally discouraged from tanning, the darkening of the skin is the predominant motivator for tanning bed use, making tanning more prevalent among those with lighter skin.

Maybe you should quit your day job and go work for Cosmo.

I'm sure that they'd pay better.

Maddie:

The guy who wrote this has a degree in Computer Science....not a phd in medicine of any sort.

You are correct, I hold no degree in any relevant medial field (dermatology would be ideal in this case, I think). But you'll note that my post quotes from the Canadian Cancer Society, and I'll follow it up with a quotation from the World Health Organization, as published in the Lancet:

The use of UV-emitting tanning devices is widespread in many developed countries, especially among young women. A comprehensive meta-analysis concluded that the risk of cutaneous melanoma is increased by 75% when use of tanning devices starts before 30 years of age. Additionally, several case—control studies provide consistent evidence of a positive association between the use of UV-emitting tanning devices and ocular melanoma.

Unfortunately, Maddie's comment is also a red herring. She commits the genetic fallacy by suggesting that because the argument does not originate with an expert in a relevant field it is invalid, regardless of its content. Although expertise is a fairly good heuristic to use when evaluating advice, it is important to remember that arguments ought to be evaluated on their own merits. If I may quote Gallileo:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Of course the "Good Job dummy" is just icing on the ad hominem cake.

Anonymous:

I would just like to know if you went into that Fabutan and talked to one of the staff? They attempt to educate their clients about both the benefits and the risks of tanning. They promote SMART TANNING as opposed to safe tanning, as there is no such thing.

I think that this is my favourite comment, because it makes no attempt to dispute the safety issue.

No, I haven't gone into Fabutan to talk to a staff member; I'm not interested in tanning. I'm pleased to hear that they accurately discuss the risks of tanning with their clients.

My issue isn't with Fabutan employees, but with the advertising campaign portrayed here. It misrepresents the evidence (calling it "scare tactics"), and suggests that sunscreen corporations are lying about the risks of tanning with the sole intent of obtaining our money. It is outrageously misleading in its treatment of the facts.

It's propaganda. That's my problem.



Let me be clear: I am not saying that moderate indoor tanning is by necessity harmful. The original post was merely a response to some of the misleading claims and wild innuendo made in the Fabutan advertisement.