Home Blog Page 17

The “child identifies as wolf” story was only ever about bullying, not ‘species confusion’

Brian Eggo
-
0
The “child identifies as wolf” story was only ever about bullying, not ‘species confusion’

If you ever want to strike fear and inspire outrage in the hearts and minds of the right-wing media and their audience, all it takes is three words: “I identify as…”. It’s like a Bat-Signal summoning a cacophony of caped culture war crusaders, echo-chamber-locating every tiny morsel of perceived ‘wokeness’ they can gorge upon to help spread their misinformation guano.

Those three terrifying words are of course most associated with the ongoing battle for trans rights, so it’s perhaps not surprising that those who are against such things are particularly keen on grasping at examples of identification that fall outside of gender as it helps both their slippery slope argument and the reinforcement of their favourite ‘joke’.

Imagine therefore the number of whispers that must have been passed to prompt what appears to be some classic FOIA request-fuelled muck raking by the tabloids to dredge up the recent story of a school in Scotland that allegedly “allows a pupil to identify as a wolf”.

The story seems to have been copy/pasted across all of the usual suspects: The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Record, GB News, and The Telegraph to name but a few. With the rabble well and truly roused the disbelief and anger reverberated around social media. TalkTV even used it as an excuse to criticize the new Labour government (please don’t lycan-subscribe).

I’m somewhat embarrassed to say that I came across this story because it was shared on Facebook by a friend of mine who should know better (and has been informed of such). Even at first glance it looked questionable – after all, it hasn’t been too long since fact-averse podcaster Joe Rogan kicked off baseless rumours about litter boxes in schools for pupils who identify as cats and was subsequently chastised from all directions, even including the immune-to-irony writers at the Daily Mail. With suspicions of sensationalism, I posted a message about the wolf story on the Glasgow Skeptics Facebook page asking if it seemed questionable. The general consensus in the comments was yes, but this was just the beginning. A few days later an email arrived in the Glasgow Skeptics inbox from a member of staff at the school in question. They had spotted my Facebook post and felt compelled to make contact.

According to them, the real story is “neither as interesting nor as dramatic as those headlines would suggest”. Unfortunately, it is considerably more depressing and tells an age-old story that we really shouldn’t still be dealing with in these supposedly enlightened times.

In Scotland, as part of the transition from primary to secondary school (ages 11-12) there are handover discussions from representatives of one school to the other. During a very busy meeting there was a passing remark of one child who “identifies as a wolf”, but there was no time for elaboration and mental notes were made to deal with that situation if and when it arose. Many weeks passed in the new school term without any sign of wolf-like behaviour from the pupil in question, but eventually they confided in a member of staff that the bullies who had tormented them in primary school were keeping the momentum going in secondary school.

If you are a young person experiencing bullying, guidance and support can be found in various places such as Kidscape, the Anti-Bullying Alliance, and the National Bullying Helpline. Please seek help if you need it. 

The child is something of a loner, perhaps finding it hard to make friends, which makes them an easy and obvious target for the less pleasant proportion of the playground population. Upon enquiry about the wolf persona, the child struggled somewhat to explain it, but essentially it appears to be some form of disassociation, protection, and perhaps even escapism of sorts.

It’s heartbreaking enough that this is happening, but to have their story paraded across the tabloids and social media for the real baying mob to howl about will surely cause even more hurt, and could even spark an increase in the bullying that possibly led to the creation of this persona in the first place. As for that persona, according to my source “The child has never, in secondary school, exhibited any sort of animal behaviour. Never expressed identity as, affiliation with, behaviour of any animal.”

So, to be clear: The bullied child wears school uniform and not a pelt. The bullied child does not disrupt classes with ear-shattering howls. The bullied child has never bitten any of the other pupils. The bullied child uses the bathroom as normal and does not request to defecate in nearby forests. The bullied child has never urinated near their desk to establish territory. The bullied child has not demanded that the school canteen caters for dietary requirements such as moose, elk, or bison. The bullied child has never made the excuse “Sorry, I ate my homework”.

A bullied child sits on the floor with their head on their knees and arms wrapped around themseves as three other children taunt them from close by, in a classroom
Let’s end bullying. Follow links to resources above if you need some support. Image by Mikhail Nilov, via Pexels

The bullied child’s wolf ‘persona’ has not had any impact on the ability of other pupils to get on with learning, nor has it required any form of special accommodations from staff. All of the images popping into the heads of those who read any of the articles, and all the snarky comments and fury on social media that it generated, were based on fiction. The real problem here is bullying, and not an unconventional child’s desire to find some form of escapism to help deal with it.

The one thing that the papers did get right is that there is indeed no such condition as ‘Species Dysphoria’.  It certainly doesn’t appear in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), although there has been some limited scholarly discussion around the topic using the term ‘Species Identity Disorder’. It’s unclear whether the council involved actually used that term, or whether it has been fabricated by the storytellers. Even if it was the former, it can easily be attributed to a somewhat clumsy but genuine attempt to explain the child (allegedly) being a furry.

Either way, it facilitates an interesting bait and switch in the articles as the headlines start out with “identify as”, then subtly move to “identify with” a few paragraphs down. There’s much misunderstanding about the furry community (you can find an excellent mythbusting article here), and in the vast majority of cases it’s a harmless hobby that facilitates escapism, creativity and self-expression. Despite that, it’s still deemed a danger by the anti-woke brigade. This is possibly because there is a statistical skew away from heterosexuality and gender norms, so the story has an overpowering stench of a sideswipe at the trans community. It’s also notable that furries have an above average percentage of neurodivergence in their community, and it’s thought that being able to create a persona that is very different from your day-to-day one may be helpful in helping you cope with social difficulties, or at least temporarily escape from them.

So, despite the fact that the school in question has not had to make any accommodations for the child’s wolf persona, even if they had it might not necessarily have been a bad thing. The initiative that’s taking a beating for those non-existent accommodations is the Scottish Government’s Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) policy. There’s nothing in there that suggests taking over-the-top measures to incorporate every aspect of every child’s identity, but it’s clearly aware of the diversity of personalities, ideals, problems and passions across a school’s population, and the need to support them all as best as possible during a crucial time in their development. 

There’s certainly no mention of Species Dysphoria and how to deal with it. Even the evidently positive Wellbeing Wheel is displayed with the accusation that it’s being used as a vehicle to usher in some kind of ‘woke agenda’.

Wheel of misfortune – the Wellbeing Wheel has four outer categories (Successful learners, Confident individuals, Effective contributors and Responsible citizens) with eight inner categories (Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, Included, Safe and Health) that each have descriptions of what those mean. These radiate out from ‘Best start in life: Ready to succeed’.

The Daily Mail unsurprisingly tries to strike an additional blow below the belt as their article concludes with an elongated commentary from Christopher McGovern of the Campaign for Real Education (CRE), and former adviser to the Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street. McGovern uses the story as a springboard to dive into a tirade about “the ‘woke’, politically correct, victimhood industry that currently defines too much schooling”, with a blissful lack of awareness that he’s ranting about something that simply isn’t happening. Perhaps the organisation he represents should consider advocating for digital literacy, fact-checking, and critical thinking on the curriculum. The CRE advocates for a return to a more authoritarian method of teaching, and McGovern’s anti-woke soundbites and opinion pieces seem to pop up in the media with monotonous regularity.

So, now that we’ve unmasked the real villain, very much like an episode of Scooby Doo, we find the culprit to be much more mundane than we were initially led to believe. There are lessons to learn for all parties:

To the casual reader: please be careful when reading ‘news’, as there’s almost always more going on than will ever be reported. Consider what you’re not being told, what the real harm is, and who the actual antagonists are in the story. Don’t eat what they’re feeding you without at least giving it a sniff!

To the news outlets reporting on this, and other similar stories: you can do much better, but I think you know that already.

To the bullies: you will, with great certainty, regret your current behaviour. Get hooked on kindness instead. The dopamine hit is much better, and it’s infectious. There’s even science to back it up! Make amends if you can.

To the young person at the heart of this story, or anyone else in a similar situation: this is not an easy road you’re on, but things get better. Your tormentors will invariably grow tired or grow up. You’re at the perfect age to discover who you are and who you want to be, so go explore and express yourself. You will find your tribe, or will be just fine as a lone wolf if that’s what you want. You do you!

Floral alchemy: the even stranger Brazilian cousin of Bach Flower Remedies

Mauro Proença
-
0
Floral alchemy: the even stranger Brazilian cousin of Bach Flower Remedies

This story was originally written in Portuguese, and published to the website of Revista Questão de Ciência. It appears here with permission.

I don’t usually talk about my old job. In addition to remembering stressful and, on many occasions, embarrassing situations, I felt embarrassed when explaining my duties. But it was a turning point in my career: in addition to forcing me to exercise critical thinking, it allowed me to meet many practitioners and users of less-conventional pseudosciences.

Among these meetings, I partially remember a conversation with a couple of floral alchemists. I had never heard of the subject and they kindly explained to me what the practice consisted of, its daily applications in many patients, and how it could be used concomitantly with other supplements and substances that are beneficial to the body to strengthen the immune system and prevent diseases.

They also advised me, if I was interested, to research Joel Aleixo’s AlkhemyLab, one of the greatest Brazilian experts on the subject. I thanked them, wrote down the information, already thinking about how it could be used in an article, and went back to work.

This happened in 2022, and since much more important news came out, I ended up leaving the topic aside. Furthermore, I hadn’t heard anything about the practice for more than two years, which could indicate that they were no longer attracting followers. Unfortunately, I was very wrong.

In a moment of relaxation, while watching YouTube, I received a notification that Paranormal Experience, a podcast that gives space for interviewees to talk about different religious, cultural and philosophical systems, was starting a live broadcast called “Alchemy’s Look at the World – Joel Aleixo”. Naturally, I took this as a sign from the Flying Spaghetti Monster to watch the three-hour broadcast and delve deeper into floral alchemy.

According to autobiographical narratives found in videos and interviews, at a certain point in his life Aleixo had a mystical, perhaps mediumistic experience, followed by a prolonged period of fasting, and from there he received the power to “read” auras, both of people and plants, which gave him the ability to discover which plant preparations would best serve to resolve the “imbalances” of his patients.

Among intriguing statements that appeared in the podcast, the interviewee claims, with great conviction and based on his clinical consultations, that 90% of the patients who seek him out are sick, and also carry with them a story of sadness.

Based on this, he concludes that diseases are not real entities, but rather manifestations of the patient’s “internal fragmentation.” For example, physical fragmentation presents itself in the form of cancers and tumours, while spiritual fragmentation translates into disillusionment and depression. The role of the alchemist would be to penetrate the heart of the matter, explore this story of sadness, and not restrict himself to treating the symptoms alone.

None of this should sound like news to anyone familiar with the most common clichés of health-related pseudoscience – the myth of the “single cause” (all diseases would have a common “root cause”) and the restoration of health by restoring some lost “balance.” This was the common view of human health in pre-scientific times, before the discovery of microorganisms and genetics. Pseudoscientific proposals revive this outdated way of thinking, simply by incorporating modern concepts such as “energy” into the vocabulary.

Aleixo also resurrects the demonstrably erroneous notion that humans use only a small portion of their brain capacity. In the particular version of the myth propagated by him, we use only 4% of our brain, while geniuses such as Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Tesla and Einstein used 8%, due to a brain expansion that allowed them to see a new spectrum where they glimpsed the past, present and future.

During the following hours, other even more problematic misinformation was propagated, such as the therapeutic suggestion of using demineralised water with diamond particles to treat intrauterine trauma (negative information acquired and stored before birth) – we will come back to that.

The new Bach?

Despite many similarities with the Bach Flower Remedies that were developed by English homeopath Edward Bach, the “alchemical” system developed in Brazil is different. According to the Alkhemylab website, the main difference is that the native floral system uses precepts of alchemy throughout the process, from planting to harvesting. Here there seems to be a somewhat eccentric use of the word “alchemy”. Normally, the term refers to the ancient art of purifying, refining and mixing substances that, in addition to a strong empirical aspect – which led to the development of techniques later adopted by chemistry, such as distillation – also involved magical, superstitious beliefs and philosophical speculation.

In the case of alchemical florals, the flowers are grown in mandala-shaped beds, designed to reproduce the patterns of nature. They are harvested according to the lunar cycles. After harvesting, they are transferred to a warehouse, where they are stored in oak barrels and soaked in grain alcohol, remaining at rest for a complete lunar cycle, totalling 28 days.

Four scientists working together in a laboratory. They're all wearing white lab coats and looking at plants in glass specimen containers.
Workers wearing lab coats inspect plants in jars (illustration only; not an image from a flower alchemy business)

After completing these 28 days, the flowers are divided into two distinct destinations: those that will be sent to the laboratory for the production of alchemical compounds in spray form, and those that will be used in the production of subtle florals – vibrational florals that act on changing behaviours and the “soul”. The latter are sent to the chapel, a space specially prepared to contemplate the twelve astrological houses. There, the flowers are placed in copper tubes, allowing them to receive the influence of the astrological sign of the person who will ingest them.

Intrauterine Traumas

If these delusions were not enough to make us look at the practice with disbelief, we can return to something that is taught to students of the alchemy school, according to the content presented in “Module 1 of the Joel Aleixo Floral System” of 25 June 2019, and in the work “Intrauterine Traumas” 2nd edition of 17 March 2016. Students are instructed about ancient alchemists, the history of the practice and exposed to some petty allegories to give them the vague impression that the study of alchemy and florals would be “scientific”. For example, it is suggested that the alchemists pointed out that all matter was made of mercury (related to expansion), salt (stabilisation) and sulphur (contraction), but that in fact this was an allegory for electrons, neutrons and protons.

Students also learn the history of Edward Bach, the creator of flower remedies. In addition, to increase the credibility of the practice, the World Health Organization and the inclusion of flower remedies in the National Plan for Integrative and Complementary Practices are mentioned.

Surprisingly, it is possible to find in the midst of this material a warning that flower remedies do not replace “allopathic” treatments (a pejorative term used by alternative medicine to refer to scientifically based medicine) and that their effects have not been scientifically proven. Also, students are informed that the use of flower remedies is preventive, and that “allopathic medicine” is responsible for treating diseases.

However, the very next page in “Module 1” seems to forget those stated limitations, and turns into a pamphlet to help the future alchemist indicate the products produced by Alkhemylab. Here we find a floral compound for everyday stress and extremely appealing promises, such as the compound “Flower of Life”, suggested for the elderly and patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment (pre, during, post).

Furthermore, when students are instructed about subtle flower remedies, those with “vibrational effects”, they learn that they can be divided into three levels according to their action on the human body and psyche. The explanation of the mechanism of action involves the inappropriate and ignorant use of the word magnetism (in nonsense concepts such as “magnetism of warm colours”).

Even more pernicious, in another work, entitled “Intrauterine Traumas”, it is taught that a woman’s gestation lasts 12 months (3 months of spiritual pregnancy and 9 months of physical pregnancy), and that the mother’s negative experiences throughout the process are “imprinted” on the foetus, as “carbon crystals” encapsulated in the bones. These crystals are said to be responsible for many health problems for the baby, such as congenital malformations and genetic syndromes. Depending on the quantity and severity of the trauma, the crystals can penetrate deeper into the bones, reaching the bone marrow, compromising the immune system, causing anaemia and, in extreme cases, leukaemia.

None of this makes any sense. In practice, what we have here is a pseudoscientific mix of concepts used to construct a narrative that blames mothers for their children’s health problems.

A smiling pregnant woman with shoulder-length hair lies on her back on a medical bed, looking at a screen showing the live ultrasound imaging that a healthcare worker is performing, using equipment pressed to her abdomen
A mid-pregnancy ultrasound scan in progress – these are used to check for healthy foetal development. Image via MedicalPrudens on Pixabay

Stop being picky!

While gathering information for this article, I came across the following on the São Paulo city government website: “Learn more about therapy with alchemical flowers: Therapy is available to employees at HSPM”. According to the publication, the therapy aims to promote a state of harmony and balance through comprehensive health treatment in the physical, mental, social, emotional and spiritual spheres. It is also stated, with the authority of an official communication from the government, that alchemical flowers can help the patient to carry out their life projects, in addition to bringing awareness to the individual’s life process, including daily life, past and future.

Of course, some advocates of alternative practices could argue that, even without scientific support (and, in fact, making claims that contradict basic scientific laws), alchemical flower remedies can provide emotional or psychological comfort, which is true – except, of course, when they blame pregnant women for the illnesses their child will have in the future, which is not at all comforting.

As discussed in the chapter “Does Truth Matter?” in the book “Trick or Treatment: Truths and Lies About Alternative Medicine,” many advocates of alternative medicine point out that even if the practices lack scientific evidence, they can act as a placebo, providing relief and hope for patients. However, as the authors themselves point out, medications with proven efficacy already trigger a placebo effect. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that alternative treatments and practices that operate only as placebos can end up diverting patients from treatments that really work and prevent serious outcomes.

Knowing how much money is allocated to the health sector and how much the sector remains outdated in several aspects, it is imperative that we discuss whether it is a good decision to allocate even a tiny portion of this amount to practices without scientific support. Short answer: no.

March for Life: The UK’s anti-abortion movement is becoming more organised and emboldened

Abigail Kennedy
-
0
March for Life: The UK’s anti-abortion movement is becoming more organised and emboldened

The March for Life UK’s pro-life health summit this year centered on the theme “Abortion isn’t Healthcare,” a message that echoed throughout the event as various pro-life groups gathered at the Emmanuel Centre in Westminster. These groups expressed perspectives aligned with the broader pro-life movement, emphasising ethical, moral, and religious arguments. The core message was clear and unwavering: “Life begins at conception, no exception!”

I attended the summit undercover to understand the perspectives of British abortion opponents and assess whether, like in the US, the pro-life movement is gaining momentum in the UK. Until now, I believed there was little political traction for pro-life legislation, especially after the Conservative government was voted out in July, taking prominent pro-life MPs like Jacob Rees-Mogg with it. While the US pro-life movement is often seen as extreme, it’s crucial to recognise that rights can be reversed in the UK as well. We cannot afford to be complacent; understanding the influence of these political minorities is essential.

Upon arrival at the summit, I was met by shouting counter-protesters and heavy security, which initially reassured me that I was entering a small subsection of a minority mindset. However, this sense of reassurance quickly faded once I stepped inside. The crowds far outnumbered the protesters, and the event exceeded my expectations in size, budget, and organisation. What I had assumed to be a fringe gathering turned out to be a well-funded, professionally coordinated movement that could be more influential than I had previously thought.

In the event’s organisational space, tables were set up around the room, each occupied by various pro-life associations. I stopped to speak with a young man from ‘Abortion Resistance,’ a smaller, youth-led group focused on mobilising younger generations. A young male spokesperson for the group expressed frustration over the lack of strong pro-life stances among UK right-wing figures, remarking that “in an Andrew Tate culture, too many on the right are pro-choice because they think they can get laid more.” Although his comment seemed absurd at first, it highlighted a valid point: right-wing politics in the UK tends to focus on issues like immigration, leaving reproductive rights largely sidelined.

As I continued exploring the room, I was invited to participate in a segment on a pro-life-focused radio station, presumably seeking guests to boost their dwindling audience. I also engaged in a conversation with representatives from ‘Students for Life,’ a group particularly focused on supporting students like myself.

At every table, the message to pro-choice individuals was clear and consistent: “there are other options.” The organisations I spoke to implied that many in the pro-choice camp are unaware of alternatives, believing abortion is their only option. The pro-life representatives aimed to reassure women that they were there to support them in choosing life. Curious about the specifics behind these claims, I asked what support they would offer if I, as a student, became pregnant. While they mentioned financial aid, their answers were vague, stating that the amount would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

What stood out to me, and felt disappointing though not surprising, was the language used to describe the motivation behind their initiatives. One volunteer explained that the financial aid was meant to help the woman “keep the baby” rather than support her in continuing her education. This was striking because, although the ‘Students for Life’ website claims, “We aim to support pregnant students and parents on campus and believe that no student should have to choose between education and having a baby”, it became clear in our conversation that their primary goal wasn’t about empowering women to pursue both; it was about ensuring they kept the baby.

Many organisations, particularly those run by Catholics, emphasised that their pro-life stance extended beyond abortion to include opposition to suicide, IVF (in vitro fertilisation), and assisted dying (euthanasia). In conversations with the Catholic Medical Association, which helps healthcare professionals integrate their faith with clinical practice, and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), which advocates for the defence of “life from conception to natural death,” this broader perspective was clear. Both groups, along with others, shared the belief that life is sacred and divinely ordained, viewing practices like IVF and euthanasia as unnatural and contrary to the will of the Christian God. This alignment reflects a broader pro-life ideology that could influence healthcare policy beyond reproductive rights.

When it came to IVF, Fiat Fertility was the only group at the summit specifically focusing on alternatives. Represented by key speaker Ira Winter, they presented a different approach to fertility treatments. During our conversation, a young man and woman tailored their pitch to me, correctly assuming that I wasn’t currently seeking pregnancy. What stood out was how the woman avoided mentioning fertility, IVF, or “natural conception” until the very end. Instead, she focused on how tracking menstrual cycles could aid conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. Only as the conversation was ending did she bring up her belief in “fertility windows,” suggesting that ovulation tracking could resolve fertility issues for couples. It was clear to me that she likely hadn’t experienced fertility struggles first-hand, which made her approach feel somewhat detached from the reality many couples face.

After visiting the various stalls, I attended a pro-life talk aimed at ages 13-17, led by Dr Liz Corcoran, chair of the Down’s Syndrome Research Foundation, titled “The Truth About Life with Down’s Syndrome”. Despite being 21, I can often pass for a teenager, so no one questioned my presence as I quietly joined the circle of chairs next to Dr Corcoran. Based on what I had read on her website, I knew her advocacy for individuals with Down’s syndrome was deeply personal, rooted in her love for her brother with the condition. I expected the talk to be a heartfelt reflection on life with Down’s syndrome, filled with personal stories and insights into both the challenges and joys of loving someone with the condition. However, Dr Corcoran focused almost entirely on the technical history of prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome, missing an opportunity to humanise the issue for her young audience. Instead, the talk centred on demonising pregnancy screenings for the condition.

At one point, Dr Corcoran asked us to visualise 100 pregnant women, each carrying a baby with Down’s syndrome, gathered in the centre of the circle. She then asked how many of them would choose to abort, using exaggerated language and imagery for emotional impact. I correctly answered 90%, but her response felt judgmental, as she critiqued those who opt for termination without addressing the complex realities behind such decisions. The discussion lacked balance and compassion, turning into moral condemnation. Despite the talk being titled “The Truth About Life with Down’s Syndrome”, there was little focus on the actual experiences of people living with the condition, perhaps because no one present had it. It would have been far more insightful to hear from her brother or someone else with Down’s syndrome, either in person or remotely.

This tone felt especially troubling given the young, impressionable audience. There was no exploration of the societal support needed to make raising a child with Down’s syndrome more feasible, no inclusion of voices from individuals with the condition, and no emphasis on the broader need for societal acceptance and resources. The talk became yet another platform for guilt-driven rhetoric, devoid of compassion or balance.

My main takeaways from the March for Life UK summit were that it was a well-organised and financially robust display of the pro-life movement in the UK, revealing a level of sophistication and structure that surprised me. While the summit’s organisation was impressive, its messaging lacked the nuance and empathy necessary to foster real dialogue on such a complex issue. Nevertheless, the event highlighted that, while reproductive rights in the UK may seem secure, the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the US has emboldened pro-life activists and sparked renewed concern about the potential for similar shifts in the UK. Key subthemes such as opposition to IVF and assisted dying underscored the movement’s broader agenda, rooted in religious beliefs about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.

Despite the veneer of offering support and alternatives for women, many interactions revealed that the primary goal of these groups remains focused on preventing abortion rather than genuinely empowering women to make their own choices. The summit left me with a sobering reminder: although the pro-life movement in the UK may not dominate headlines, it is increasingly organised and persistent, and its influence should not be underestimated.

Rights that seem settled are never entirely secure, and continued engagement and vigilance are necessary to ensure they remain intact.

Could AI help fix the issues of ineffective alternative medicine regulation?

Michael Marshall
-
0
Could AI help fix the issues of ineffective alternative medicine regulation?

As I have covered in the pages of this magazine previously, the official regulation of alternative medicine in the UK is far from straightforward. The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) and General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) are the only statutory regulators of pseudomedical disciplines, while other therapists are left only to voluntary regulation via an ‘Accredited Register’. More broadly, all advertising (including website and social media content) in the UK is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority, and consumer protection law is upheld by Trading Standards – the latter of whose budgets have been under severe strain along with all Local Authority spending, rendering it practically impossible to receive even a response to a complaint, let alone action.

Beyond those organisations sits a small network of skeptical activists, whose interests in consumer protection sees them engaging with the regulatory framework by seeking out misleading health claims and reporting them to the relevant regulator or register. For some of the most fortunate of that small band, doing so has become a full-time job.

This voluntary role of external watchdog can feel like an uphill struggle and a thankless task, though success is possible: for example, despite the GOsC’s initial (and farcical) insistence that no complaints would be investigated until they’d first been looked at by the Advertising Standards Authority, reporting misleading claims by osteopaths seemed to make an appreciable difference. A review in 2015 by my colleague at Good Thinking found that 33% of osteopaths were in clear breach of advertising standards; by 2017, after submitting hundreds of complaints to the GOsC, that figure had dropped to 16%. It is currently unclear whether those gains have stood the test of the last seven years.

As for the chiropractic industry, in 2021 I conducted an audit which found that 56% of fifty randomly chosen chiropractors were making claims that were not compliant with the advertising code. After several discussions with the GCC, I decided to contact those chiropractors directly, to let them know of my concerns, to direct them to which parts of their advertising I felt were non-compliant, and to invite them to update their messaging rather than begin the lengthy process of making a formal complaint. Of the 28 chiropractors I’d identified as making erroneous health claims, 21 updated their advertising as a result of my email approach, with many thanking me for directing them to the problematic content. It was an unexpected outcome – and one whose lasting impact is yet to be assessed – but one that highlighted that many practitioners are genuinely willing to try to stay within the guidelines, if they’re helped to do so. Clearly, there is a role for a regulator to take a proactive approach, rather than to wait for complaints to come in (or, worse, to wait for other less specific regulators to have investigated and made a ruling).

While osteopaths and chiropractors are the only alternative medicine practitioners who are subject to statutory regulation, other alternative healthcare practitioners are subject only to voluntary regulation, via the Professional Standards Authority’s Accredited Register (AR) programme. Inclusion in the AR programme is not a mark of efficacy, but it is meant to be a mark of good governance, and of trustworthiness – essentially, a sign that unprofessional behaviour or misleading health claims will not be tolerated. For many of the organisations who have signed up to the AR scheme, the risk of the latter is likely minimal – it’s less likely that practitioners in the fields of play therapy, sports rehab or counselling are comprehensively filled with false health claims. However, in the case of other accredited registers, the risk of being seen to endorse pseudoscientific modalities is much higher – such as in the case of the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC).

The CNHC was set up in 2008 as a voluntary register, and currently oversees more than 6,000 registrants, including from the fields of aromatherapy, colon hydrotherapy, craniosacral therapy, kinesiology, naturopathy, reflexology and Reiki. It is by some margin the largest register in the PSA’s Accredited Register scheme, and the breadth of pseudoscience it regulates no doubt makes it’s remit tricky to manage. At least when the Society of Homeopaths were part of the PSA’s AR scheme, it’s 1,400 members all broadly believed in the same core principles (the SoH, it’s worth noting, withdrew from the AR scheme in 2021 after members were discovered to be promoting homeopathic vaccines and cures for autism); the same cannot be said for modalities like Reiki, aromatherapy, or naturopathy, whose fundamental principles share little in common, and in many cases are fundamentally incompatible with one another.

To date, the CNHC’s approach to regulation has been a manual one, with members of the CNHC’s small team searching their database periodically to peruse member websites, looking to spot claims that don’t have a solid foundation. The limitations of this labour-intensive form of regulation ought to be readily apparent: even if it took as little as 15 minutes to scour and fully evaluate the claims on a given website, the CNHC would struggle to review 25 websites per day – barely scratching the surface of their 6,000+ membership. In reality, with so many different members to review, and such a wide range of therapies, based on such a divergence of theories, the chances of a misleading health claim being spotted by the regulator is very low – meaning the chances that a false health claim will find its way to a vulnerable member of the public is incredibly high.

The scale of the health misinformation problem among CNHC registrants was today highlighted in a new paper, published in the online journal Royal Society Open Science, in which researchers trained an AI tool to scan and evaluate health claims from over 11,000 web pages, representing 725 of the CNHC’s registrants. The AI tool, developed by independent IT scientist Simon Perry, also produced a rationale for why each claim was judged false.

According to the study, 97% of the websites in question contained health misinformation, including some claims related to the treatment of cancer – claims which could therefore be in breach of the Cancer Act (1939). To ensure the tool was accurate, results were compared to the independent findings of a group of experienced skeptics tasked with appraising a sample of the CNHC registrants’ websites, who found a similar prevalence of misleading health claims.

Among the results, the paper analysed claims from 240 reflexologists, 236 of whom were found to be making claims that could not be substantiated, while 146 of the 149 Reiki practitioners assessed were making problematic claims. Elsewhere, all of the 20 “Healing” practitioners, 18 Kinesiologists, and 26 Shiatsu massage therapists were found to be making misleading health claims. Examples of claims which were flagged by the AI tool as erroneous include an acupuncturist who claimed to be able to resolve a chronic knee problem within three sessions, a detox therapy which proponents claim is effective in curing hangovers and relieving allergy symptoms, and an aromatherapist who claimed to be able to prevent shingles, pneumonia and chicken pox.

“It was believed by CNHC and PSA that only 30% of the websites regulated by CNHC contained false claims”, explained Simon Perry. “While we did not look at all therapy types, we demonstrated that in the therapy types we did look at, the problem is much more serious – 97%”.

A laptop on a table Image by LUNEMax from Pixabay

“We have also demonstrated that, using Large Language Models, it is easy and cheap to analyse thousands of web pages and check for false claims with the same accuracy as an expert,” he continued. “That low cost is particularly significant. We estimated it would cost $150,000 to do this manually, or around $500 with ChatGPT4. But OpenAI halved their prices by the time we started, and it cost $250. It has again halved twice since then, bringing the cost to just $60. That’s to check through 12,500 web pages – but CNHC would only need to do this once. After that, it’s completely feasible to check all the websites every day, scanning for changes, and picking up false claims as soon as they come online. The CNHC and other regulators of pseudoscientific health practices can now choose to largely automate the compliance process”.

While the paper has only just been published, I have been aware of its findings for some time, as I’ve been working with the research team all year to put the findings to the CNHC and to find ways in which to help the CNHC take effective action to protect the public from misleading claims. As a result, following on from my experiences with chiropractors, I randomly selected 100 therapists from the study’s results, and contacted them to bring their attention to the issues the AI had identified.

Once again, the response was interesting. Discounting the 21 practitioners for whom no contact details were listed, or whose email address bounced, I was left with 79 registrants that I was able to successfully contact. Of those, half never responded, but of the responses I received, 4 had already made edits to the site by the time I got in touch, 5 indicated that they’d be speaking to their professional organisation for guidance, and 15 indicated that they were very happy to make changes, and thanked me for my help in bringing their attention to the issues. Only 7 responded to refuse to review their content at all, and instead asked that I make a formal complaint so that the ASA could make an assessment – which, naturally, I happily did.

Many of the registrants I contacted responded to say that they do strive to stay within the guidance, but that they struggle to understand what they can and can’t say; most seemed unaware that the ASA provides a free service to check advertising copy for compliance, so that any issues can be spotted before being shared with the public.

It seems to be the case that there is an appetite among many CNHC registrants to understand the rules, and to stay within them, and what is needed is proactive engagement to help them identify and correct misleading claims. Clearly, the CNHC’s current approach of manually finding, scrolling, reading and checking websites, page by page, is not sufficient, and as a result thousands of false health claims are finding their way to the public, via websites whose pages carry the stamp of legitimacy of an accredited register. This latest research has demonstrated that there is a smarter, quicker and far more effective way of spotting claims that go far beyond the evidence.

Equally, the fact is that half of those registrants I reached out to never even responded, and a fifth were uncontactable in the first place. Of those I did hear from, 10% were unwilling to listen to my concerns – which illustrates how important it is that the proactive engagement and enforcement comes from the register themselves, whose carrot of cooperation is backed up by the stick of potential removal from the register.

What does this mean for the future of alternative medicine regulation? According to Perry, the next step could be to replicate the study with other regulators, such as the GCC, GOsC or Society of Homeopaths, while the same tool that highlighted the scale of this problem can also be used to monitor the effectiveness – or otherwise – of any corrective action the CNHC take.

The tools are out there to make regulation less random, and more strategic and targeted – this latest research is a perfect illustration of that. As I’ve also discovered, the will is there among some therapists to ensure they’re not misleading the public; and where there isn’t the will to clean up their act, regulatory action has to be taken. This applies not just to the CNHC, but to all healthcare regulators and registers. Ultimately, ineffective regulation only harms the end user: the patient or consumer who puts their trust and their health into a treatment that cannot possibly help them.

Does the colour of a pill really influence what kind of placebo effect you’ll experience?

Mike Hall
-
0
Does the colour of a pill really influence what kind of placebo effect you’ll experience?

Interest in homeopathy seems to be on the wane, but maybe that’s just my bias.

While homeopathy is naked pseudoscience, it nevertheless yields occasional positive results in clinical trials. For scientists, skeptics, and those with an interest in the philosophy of science, this serves as an example of how poor trial design can lead to unreliable conclusions. Homeopathy, like acupuncture, has a habit of showing strong effects in badly designed trials, and small or no effect in well-conducted ones. If the heyday of homeopathy is over, perhaps we need a new paradigm to illustrate how weak design can mislead us?

I propose: the powerful placebo.

Over the coming months, I hope to explore some of what has been described as the crème de la crème of placebo effect research, scrutinising the biases, flaws, and weaknesses that challenge the widely accepted view of placebos as having real, powerful therapeutic effects. We will examine the primary literature to see if the work is really as compelling as some would have us believe.

Blackwell 1972, originally published in The Lancet, is a favourite of science communicators, who breathlessly claim it as a demonstration of how the colour of a placebo pill changes its effect. Blackwell took 56 medical students at the University of Cincinnati and randomised them to receive either blue or pink placebo pills. A further 44 students declined to take part, after learning what the study involved.

The students were told that they would receive either a sedative or a stimulant drug, but that they would not know which. They were also given a list of effects and side effects they could expect to experience as a result of taking the drugs. Six effects and six side effects for each, for a total of 24 expected effects.

The pill colour was assigned randomly, resulting in 29 of the students being given blue pills, and the remaining 27 receiving pink pills. In fact, all of the pills were placebos; there were no real drugs involved. Blackwell reports:

“There were two significant differences due to colour, both indicative of the blue capsules producing more sedative effects than pink capsules. 66% of subjects on blue capsules felt less alert compared with 26% on pink; 72% on blue capsules felt more drowsy compared to 37% on pink.”

Aside from the fact that ‘less alert’ and ‘more drowsy’ are arguably the same thing, there are more serious concerns with the study’s methodology if we are using it to support such extraordinary claims.

For one thing, it is only single-blind. Reading the paper, this seems to have in fact been an exercise to teach a group of medical students about placebos that their professor decided to write up for The Lancet after the fact. As a class exercise, of course the professor knew that the pills were placebos, and knew what the expected effects were. In an illustration for students, that is to be expected. But today this paper is used to support the purported effects of pill colour generally.

Moreover, the professor provided the students with a list of effects they can expect to experience after taking the pills. They were told that stimulants would make them more cheerful, more talkative, more alert, less drowsy, less sluggish, and less tired. They were also warned the stimulants would make them more tense, more jittery, more irritable, less relaxed, less calm and less easy going. Sedatives were said to cause the opposite effects, so less cheerful, more sluggish, and so on.

Since the students were asked to self report their condition after taking the pills, it’s hardly surprising they reported some of the many effects they were told to expect. Confirmation bias, if nothing else, would lead them to notice and report the changes highlighted by their professor, even if they may have ignored those same changes had they not first been prompted to look for them. In psychology, this is referred to as priming.

Researchers frequently overlook this and fail to acknowledge that there is a distinction between the reported effect of an intervention and the true effect, because of the role of bias. In fact, a 2010 review on placebo effects for Cochrane concluded that it is ‘difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting’.

It is also notable that, despite the potential confounding role of bias, only two of the 24 effects that students were asked to look out for rose to the level of statistical significance. The paper does not give specific p-values for those two findings, but notes that findings were reported as ‘significant’ if p<0.05.

For those who aren’t statistical experts, the p or probability value tells us how likely it is that we would see these results if the null hypothesis is true – in this case, if there is no actual effect of the pill colour. A p-value of 0.05 means there’s a 5% chance of observing these results purely by chance, assuming no real effect. However, each comparison made is another roll of the dice, another opportunity to obtain a false positive by statistical fluke, and Blackwell tests against many different outcomes.

One common technique used to account for this is the Bonferroni Correction, which adjusts the p-values to account for the number of comparisons being made, reducing the chance of a false positive.

While the paper does not present the raw data, sufficient data is provided for us to work backward the raw figures, at least for the two significant findings. We know how many participants there were in total, and we know how many were given each colour. The paper reports that 66% of people who had blue pills reported less alertness, which equates to nineteen people (65.51%). Applying the same methods to the other groups, we can determine the raw figures for the two ‘significant’ colour findings.

Less AlertMore Drowsy
Blue Pills (n = 29)19 (66%)21 (72%)
Pink Pills (n = 27)7 (26%)10 (37%)
(n = number of participants)

From here, we can compute our own p-values, using a chi-squared test, and apply a Bonferroni correction. This reveals that, once adjusted for multiple comparisons, neither alertness (p = 0.072) or drowsiness (p = 0.19) are actually significant findings.

While this study may have originally been designed as an educational tool for medical students, its citation by science communicators today as robust evidence of a powerful placebo effect invites a higher level of scrutiny. It is perhaps no surprise it fails to hold up when evaluated against more rigorous standards than it may have originally been designed to bear.

This is a small, single-blind study, based on self-reported data – a potent combination that opens the door to all sorts of biases. Worse still, the students were primed with a list of possible effects, making it more likely they would report something, even if they hadn’t felt much. This isn’t good science, it’s a recipe for false positives.

Of course, Blackwell was not the final word on pill colour and placebo, there are other studies that claim to find an effect, but those are stories for another day.

Donald Trump’s debate performance proved he has mainstreamed extreme conspiracy theories

Dave Hahn
-
0
Donald Trump’s debate performance proved he has mainstreamed extreme conspiracy theories

On the 10th of September the US presidential race held its first and likely only debate between former president Donald Trump and current vice-president Kamala Harris. By most accounts, Harris won the debate, clearly articulating positions (though not specific policies) and defending her work in the Biden administration. The former president however, degenerated into a series of anti-immigrant talking points that he kept circling back to at the expense of taking legitimate shots against the current administration.

This was expected. The appeal of Trump back in 2016 – the only substantial policy he seemed to push for was the same as what we would find from UKIP: no more immigrants. The only salient difference is that in the US we have a land border that can be exploited for fear. Aside from “Mexico” the former president was always talking about an amorphous problem of “them.” “They” are stealing our jobs, creating crime, and draining our resources. This time though, the claims were different, they were more specific – but also they were strange, strange even for a person who placed a plaque on his golf course commemorating a US Civil War Battle that never happened.

For non-skeptics, or even for skeptics who are not into the conspiracy theory parts of life; the claims seemed absurd and shockingly abrupt. For those of us in the conspiracy theory world, they were shocking but for a much different reason. Earlier this year I was forced, in the name of intellectual honesty, to defend David Icke when he criticised people like Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Tim Pool, and David Rubin (the latter two have recently been discovered as being paid by the Russians, in an effort to sow division and chaos in American politics). I reference that article because Icke called these people the “Mainstream Alternative Media,” (MAM) and this debate showed us that these are the people that the former president and his inner circle are getting their information from. We know this because of four distinct things that Trump said during his debate with Harris.

I’m going to start with the most visible of Trump’s comments: that “they” (immigrants) are eating people’s pets in Springfield OH. While the internet has had a joyful reaction to this claim, we should take care of what this means. It’s not a dog whistle as some have said, it’s just a whistle. The point of this story is to take the familiar trope that immigrant populations eat “weird food” and wrap that up in an insidious claim that that they are roving the streets looking to abduct and kill our beloved pets. This reduces these populations to being nothing more than vermin animals like coyotes or badgers, that need to be culled.

The story that this claim is based on is a bit convoluted. There was a woman who was recently charged with killing and eating a cat, which did not take place in Springfield but in the city of Canton, OH. This person was not only not a Haitian immigrant, but she was also not an immigrant at all. One of the stories about a murdered pet can’t seem to be proven to have happened at all. Then there are two stories which involve actual Haitian immigrants. The first is a bus accident in 2023 which resulted in the death of child. The second was a report to police that a group of Haitian man had killed some Geese. The reason that this story doesn’t fit with the anti-immigrant narrative that the Trump-Vance campaign is pushing is that the concern wasn’t that someone’s pets had gone missing, but that the men in question had killed the Geese out of the appropriate hunting season. The concern was found to be baseless; but these stories form the nucleus of the conspiracy. Since then there have been bomb threats to Springfield’s city hall, elementary, and high school.

The border claims are different. As I wrote in the introduction, Trump’s position has been that the border needs be “secure.” This is because, as he claimed during the debate that the populations coming through the Southern border are nothing more than criminals, terrorists, and people who have recently been let out of “insane asylums.” For the last one I’m sure he’s trying to evoke images of Gotham City’s Arkham Asylum and not an actual mental health facility.

The tendency to those opposed to these ideas is that this is, again, par for the course for anti-immigrant racism. However, this go around the language is more extreme. Over the last few years, the talk from the MAM has not been about immigrants stealing US jobs, rather to characterise immigration as an invasion. It’s no longer people willing to work for less pay than the average American, but ‘military aged’ men who are trained and waiting to destroy the country. It’s no longer an economic worry, it’s now the same claims that we hear from  “Great Replacement” conspiracy theorists online.

Since 2020 Alex Jones has pivoted from a general hate for immigrants to specific fear-mongering that Democrats are brainwashing foreign populations, bringing them into the US, and then forcing them to vote. This is nothing more than the talking points that Tucker Carlson has provided when he talks about immigrants destroying the “normal” America and directly citing the “Great Replacement Conspiracy” theory. Trump is just smart enough to stop talking before he begins blaming Klaus Schwab and George Soros; but not enough to never make these claims to begin with.

He’s getting this information from news sources that he trusts, but none of these sources are what we should think of as mainstream. This is part of a disturbing feedback loop the former president is involved in. He makes an immigration claim, and someone like Alex Jones repeats it but looks for some story – any story, which tangentially is related to that claim. In this case we get a triple hearsay story about a dead cat in a tree which is then amplified through anti-immigrant conspiracy theorists like Charlie Kirk and Alex Jones. Jones discussed the story in his coverage of the debate the next day with a caller from a different county, completely unrelated to the “pet” situation, which again, did not happen. It’s only purpose is to inflame racial prejudices, which vice-presidential candidate JD Vance openly admitted to.

The third clue is that of his reference to Aurora, Colorado. Trump said this:

“You look at Springfield, Ohio. You look at Aurora in Colorado. They are taking over the towns, they are taking over buildings They are going in violently. These are the people that she and Biden let into our country, and they are destroying our country. They are at the highest level of criminality, and we have to get them out — we have to get them out fast.”

The criticism over his immigration rants has been focused on pets, probably because it seems more absurd, and it is certainly more personal to pet owners. However, the Aurora claim is that a Venezuelan prison gang has taken over the apartment complex and claimed it like some kind of feudal lord, or perhaps one of two excellent action movies where gangs have taken over the totality of a residential area.

The claim Trump is repeating concerns an apartment building was turned into a stronghold for the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. While city officials have reported that there has been some gang activity in the city, crime in Aurora is down and the building in question was closed by officials for safety and health reasons. The owner of the building, who has been fighting numerous complaints, claimed that the gang’s control over the building made it impossible to make repairs. The story seems to be that a slumlord is pretending that his negligence is the result of immigrants rather than anything else.

The story has been circulating in conspiracy theorists’ anti-immigration rants for a while now. It was only a few weeks ago that I became aware of it on Jones’ show (via Knowledge Fight). It’s one of those stories that seems too good to be true if you are touting the fears of immigrant invasions.

The next clue, in the words of Vox, is Trump’s reference to the failed coup attempt as “J6.” This is the term used online for the assault on the US Capitol when Trump’s loss in the 2020 election was being certified. No one, outside the internet, refers to it as “J6.” As Levitz points out J6 is an “abbreviation that few who have never been subject to a microblogging platform’s character limit would have any reason to use or even recognize.” In other words, it gets called “J6” on Trump’s social media platform and Twitter in order to save on the character limit. No one abbreviates it like that, other than conspiracy theorists who believes the contradictory notion that the failed coup was actually a “false flag” by the deep state but also that the incompetent insurrectionists did nothing wrong. Trump’s further reference to “Ashli Babbit,” the conspiracy theorists’ martyr of the failed coup attempt, rather than the police officers that were killed, is a stark display that the conspiracy theorists’ telling of the event is the one which he prefers.

We’re entering into a difficult and dangerous period where the most extreme conspiracy theories are getting traction with a person who once was the US President and could very possibly return to that office. While the stark comments about the murdered and eaten pets are getting some of the more mainstream conservatives to condemn those statements, that does little to call them back. It certainly doesn’t stem the aforementioned bomb threats to those communities nor does it lessen anti-immigrant feelings. These conspiracy theories are only getting more extreme as conspiracy theorists can justify their position with the Trump campaign’s endorsement, an endorsement they helped create.

Trump’s lies aside, what is the basis for our revulsion at the idea of eating cats and dogs?

Gabriel Andrade
-
0
Trump’s lies aside, what is the basis for our revulsion at the idea of eating cats and dogs?

In the recent presidential debate in the United States, Donald Trump said, in reference to immigrants:

In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.

This claim has been thoroughly debunked. As one Springfield police spokesperson said:

we wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.

Trump was trying to pull a very old trick in the populist handbook. Throughout history, accusations of cannibalism and unusual eating habits have often been used as a tool for dehumanising and delegitimising specific groups. Such accusations were commonly employed by European colonisers against indigenous peoples in Africa, the Americas, Oceania, and other regions as a means to portray them as savage and uncivilised, justifying their subjugation, exploitation, and even extermination.

These narratives of cannibalism and unusual eating habits were not only used to create fear and misunderstanding among different cultures but also served as propaganda tools that facilitated the expansion of empires and helped maintain power dynamics that favored European interests over those of colonised peoples.

But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that Trump’s claim is true. If someone steals someone else’s pet to eat it, then certainly it is objectionable. Yet, the theft itself does not have the shocking effect that Trump was intending. If the claim were that migrants steal pigs and cows to eat them, probably few eyebrows would be raised; after all, these types of thefts do happen occasionally. The shocking effect pertains to the type of animals being eaten: dogs and cats.

The animals that are eaten each year in the Yulin festival in China are not stolen. Quite the opposite, they are raised and killed by farmers, and their meat is sold and eaten by attendees. Yet, this festival elicits particular animosity in many people, because the animal species served on dishes are dogs.

There are some legitimate concerns about the miserable conditions in which dogs are kept in cages in preparation for the festival. But this is where the hypocrisy begins. Those Westerners eager to criticise such conditions in far-away China ought to begin their activism closer to home. Farms and slaughterhouses in most – if not all – Western countries are not exactly humane. As Peter Singer sensibly points out in his classical manifesto Animal Liberation:

To protest about bullfighting in Spain, the eating of dogs in South Korea, or the slaughter of baby seals in Canada while continuing to eat eggs from hens who have spent their lives crammed into cages, or veal from calves who have been deprived of their mothers, their proper diet, and the freedom to lie down with their legs extended, is like denouncing apartheid in South Africa while asking your neighbors not to sell their houses to blacks.

It is hard to find any significant moral difference between the Yulin festival and, say, Thanksgiving. If we come to agree that we have stronger obligations towards animals closer to us as a species – an assumption that would still be debatable – then perhaps eating dogs is worse than eating turkeys. Additionally, on account of their intelligence, cats and dogs probably have more elaborate consciousness than turkeys, so that might also lend some support to the idea that we are more justified in eating turkeys instead of dogs.

But what about pigs? Many studies suggest that pigs are as intelligent as dogs, if not more. Yet, few people in Western countries have moral qualms about the Saturday afternoon pork barbecue.

These inconsistencies reveal that most people’s judgments about which animals can and cannot be eaten are determined by specific cultural circumstances, and not substantial moral concerns. Anthropologists have long sought explanations for these variations in food taboos. For example, Marvin Harris famously explained that dogs are a food staple in China because that nation has traditionally struggled to find other sources of protein, and the advantages usually provided by dogs in Western societies – eg companionship – can be provided by other animals or humans. This explanation may or may not be accurate, but it does seem that, whatever the reason a society chooses not to eat a particular animal, it has little to do with morality itself.

A black and tan short-hair dachsund looking with 'puppy eyes' behind the photographer
This pup is skeptical

Some people in Western nations might agree that there is a huge moral inconsistency in opposing the consumption of dogs and cats while thoroughly enjoying pork chops and Big Macs. These people would be willing to remain silent about the Yulin festival, provided dog-eating stays in China. But in their view, if a Haitian immigrant eats a dog in Springfield, that is unacceptable. As per their argument, dogs and cats have become lovable companion species in Western countries, so eating such animals hurts the sensitivity of most people and should therefore be outlawed.

This is not a very good point, for the same reason that blasphemy should not be considered a crime. By and large – some extreme cases might still be open to discussion – the offensive character of an act should not count towards its morality or legality. If you are offended by someone eating dogs, look the other way; bear in mind that many of your eating habits probably offend other people, too.

Furthermore, in claiming that eating dogs would be fine in China but not in the United States, there is a stench of moral relativism. Many post-modern critics have regrettably engaged in this intellectual vice, often claiming that human sacrifice would be morally wrong in 21st Century London, but it was not morally wrong in 16th Century Tenochtitlan because ultimately, morality is relative to the cultural context. Similar things are said about female genital mutilation, foot binding, and a host of other barbarous practices in non-Western nations, all in the name of postcolonial liberation. I counter that sound morality is universal. While there may be space for context dependence in some cases, most actions are universally right or wrong. Consequently, eating a dog – or a pig – is either right or wrong, regardless of whether it is in Yulin or Springfield.

Ultimately, if you are fully concerned about the welfare of animals, you have no other option but to become a vegetarian. It is of course hard being a vegetarian, and possibly there is no such moral requirement. Perhaps the ontological gap between our species and the rest allows us to eat animals. But moral consistency is a requirement, and if you oppose eating dogs and cats, then you must also oppose eating pigs and cows. If you choose not to be a vegetarian and enjoy that delicious steak, then you must refrain from criticising an immigrant for eating a dog. Arbitrarily deciding to oppose one but not the other, is a form of bigotry. Bigotry is a universal wrong, and it is the kind of moral flaw to which a demagogue like Trump was pandering in his now infamous remarks.

When it comes to science, the standard has to be truth and accuracy – not false balance

Hayley Stevens
-
0
When it comes to science, the standard has to be truth and accuracy – not false balance

It’s normal to have different opinions from those of others around you about many things in life – Marmite, for example. Fashion, parenting styles, whether abstract art is any good – these are the sorts of many-sided conversations popular throughout society and the foundation for debates on daytime television shows like Loose Women, This Morning, or The Wright Stuff. Listener phone-ins on radio stations are also a staple of our culture. Exploring diverse viewpoints can make for interesting (and sometimes frustrating) viewing or listening.

When it comes to reporting, it’s reasonable to assume that the media’s job is to strive for objectivity and to present the truth as fairly and accurately as possible. One way to achieve this is through striking an impartial and balanced approach where all perspectives of an issue are fairly represented, with the audience left to weigh things up and form their opinions. While this might be an excellent approach for subjective matters – such as whether Jaffa Cakes are a biscuit or if it’s wrong to wear t-shirts for bands you don’t listen to – not all subjects should be treated with this kind of balance.

When the media misapply the principle of ‘balance’ to topics of science and fact, the effort to be impartial can lead to the false presentation of unscientific information as factual, respected opinion. This phenomenon, known as false balance, occurs when claims lacking a scientific basis are presented as equally credible as the scientific facts that counter them.

Whether it’s reporting on climate change, vaccination, sex and gender, or something different, the media habit of giving a platform to fringe views for the purpose of balance threatens to mislead the public and undermine the value of the role of science in society. As such, skeptics need to be mindful of how we engage with the media, considering whether our time and effort is spent on media projects that may unintentionally promote pseudoscience.

This is a responsibility that requires a lot of work to uphold and is often easier said than done. As a skeptic who researches and writes about paranormal phenomena, I often get invited to participate in paranormal media projects. These projects are pitched as a refreshing take on centuries-old discourse, with assurances that the shows will amplify the voice of reason fairly. However, I am often left disheartened when I eventually become involved in said projects, as this is frequently not the outcome.

Presenter of the BBC's Uncanny podcast, Danny Robins, looks back at the camera while walking away, wearing a red raincoat. The image background is a mix of 'spooky' things, from a large wood cabin-style house with a figure int he window, to a tall bigfoot-like silhouette on the right, and a glowing full moon in the sky.
Via BBC.co.uk: “Danny Robins investigates real-life stories of paranormal encounters. So, are you Team Believer or Team Sceptic?”

The BBC podcast ‘Uncanny’ provides an excellent example. As a contributor to Season 1 of the podcast, I found myself placed in a ‘skeptic vs believer’ scenario where my well-researched, rational explanations for reported ghost phenomena were treated as equal to claims from paranormal proponents, often citing misinformation, or stating personal opinion as fact. Attending a live event for the show, it dawned on me that I might not be there because I had something valuable to say but because the label of “skeptic” made the ghost stories feel more serious. Talking directly to the eyewitnesses on stage, I felt I had to tread carefully for the risk of venturing into villain territory. I couldn’t shake the feeling that this is not how science is communicated in a space in which it is valued.  

Ultimately, I declined to continue contributing to future seasons of the show because I felt that by doing so, I might unintentionally lend credibility to false claims reinforcing unscientific ideas. Engaging with misinformation can shift public discourse away from evidence-based discussions, which can impact personal decision-making and even public policy. Does a paranormal podcast have enough sway to change public policy? It’s unlikely. However, a wealth of research shows that people who hold paranormal beliefs are often more likely to buy into other forms of unscientific belief, too, such as conspiracy theories and alternative health claims.

This sort of false balance is common across mainstream media platforms, where the desire for impartiality often results in a misleading presentation of scientific discussions. In the not-too-distant past, this was quite common in discussions around climate change, where media outlets gave equal airtime to climate scientists and climate change deniers despite the overwhelming consensus on human-caused global warming.

When the media participate in this reporting style, they create a false impression that there are divides within the scientific community on the issue, which is far from the truth. It also provides those who promote unscientific ideas with an authority they do not have and have not earned, which can have dangerous implications regarding the spread of misinformation rewrapped as genuine concerns. These instances of false balance reporting by mainstream media companies lead to significant consequences for audiences, such as the rejection of vaccines or the denial of climate change.

This issue is not only found within mainstream media. The rise of social media content creators who interview controversial figures spreading misinformation has become troubling, particularly when unscientific claims go unchallenged. In many cases, content creators – often lacking the scientific literacy required to fact-check their guests – present these interviews as groundbreaking disclosures, inadvertently lending credibility to the falsehoods shared with impressionable audiences. This content is frequently shared without disclaimers or warnings from social media platforms, often spreading misinformation unchecked.

Most notably, Joe Rogan, host of “The Joe Rogan Experience”, faced significant backlash after featuring guests who spread misinformation about COVID-19 and promoted vaccine denial (such as Dr Robert Malone and Alex Jones). Rogan was criticised for allowing these guests to promote unscientific views on a large platform without challenge.

Joe Rogan and Alex Jones recording an episode of the Joe Rogan podcast
The most famous podcaster in the world promoting the conspiracy theories of his long-time friend, Alex Jones.

In stark contrast is the appearance on the “Checkup Podcast” of Dr Steven Gundry, a cardiothoracic surgeon and bestselling author known for his provocative health and nutrition claims. When Gundry controversially suggested that smoking might be linked to a longer lifespan, host Dr Mike directly challenged him on these claims – something that Gundry’s health and nutrition claims typically do not face.

More often, hosts of other podcasts react with uncritical admiration – as in his appearances on the Lewis Howes Podcast and Hone Health Podcast. During those interviews, the lack of critical questioning or fact-checking contributes to an echo chamber where pseudoscientific ideas and even dangerous health claims are treated as valid, sowing distrust in credible scientific information.

When I see science communicators and skeptics appear on “The Joe Rogan Experience” as guests, I often pause and wonder whether this was a good choice given the sort of misinformation shared on that particular platform. With good preparation, sharing a platform with those who work to promote pseudoscience can be beneficial in reaching broader audiences with scientific arguments. However, the risks of legitimising misinformation can be significant if this approach is misjudged or if scientific counterarguments are subject to stylised editing.

My personal example of how this can go wrong proves that this is not always an approach that is successful, and it has associated risks. However, what’s clear is that skeptics can play a role in addressing the false balance that various forms of media give to unscientific claims and their proponents through direct or indirect engagement. As sceptical activists, we can combat false balance by engaging with media platforms that prioritise evidence-based reporting and do not treat our contributions as equal to those spreading misinformation. We can create our own content (through blogs, podcasts, videos, and more) to contribute to challenging misinformation.

Additionally, building relationships with journalists who report on misinformation critically and pitching well-researched stories can all make a difference, as can reporting those instances where misinformation is uncritically shared in the media, and making an effort to promote content from reputable sources (even just hitting the like button on a well-sourced YouTube video or following a podcast on social media can help). By holding media creators accountable and supporting media literacy, we can ensure our contributions are treated seriously, allowing the public to make well-informed decisions and reasoned judgements based on good evidence.

When media platforms present both sides of a scientific debate as equally valid, it creates a false equivalence that undermines efforts to promote scientific truth and critical thinking. By leaving it up to people to decide for themselves, creators patronise their viewers or listeners by suggesting they’re giving them the right to make their own decisions without acknowledging they’ve polluted the information needed to make these decisions with misinformation.

Skeptics can strengthen the impact of our effort to challenge misinformation by making careful decisions about when not to share a platform with those who promote it or when an opportunity might present itself to effectively counter misinformation directly. This approach reinforces the importance of basing public discourse on good information and scientific evidence, rather than giving undeserved legitimacy to unscientific claims through the uncritical sharing of platforms.

1...161718...152Page 17 of 152

Expert skeptical analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal.

[email protected]

About

Categories

Shop