Home Blog Page 36

Why does exposure to the sun cause our skin to age, and what can we do about it?

Alice Howarth
-
0
Why does exposure to the sun cause our skin to age, and what can we do about it?

The world of skincare is not a place for the faint-hearted. It is such a dizzying mix of advice and recommendations, advertising and ‘science’ that any wander through this world leaves you feeling like you are not doing enough for your health or appearance. The only way to make yourself feel better, it would seem, is to spend sometimes hundreds of pounds on products you will use religiously for a few weeks before you end up exhausted by all the time you’re spending slathering on potions, oils and creams.

There are a range of reasons we feel we have to invest time, money and energy into our skin. One of the main reasons seems to be to maintain a youthful appearance for longer. Anti-aging is a huge part of skincare marketing and people (women especially) are targeted from an early age to start protecting their skin from the effects of aging.

The science of aging

There are two types of aging – intrinsic and extrinsic.

Intrinsic aging is the type that is genetically accounted for. It happens naturally pretty much no matter what you do. This is the kind of aging that leads to changes in skin elasticity. This type of aging is also called chronological aging and is the one you cannot really do much to change. The characteristics of intrinsic aging include smooth, unblemished skin with a loss of elasticity, fine wrinkles and paling of the skin. The skin gets thinner and the small blood vessels in the skin reduce in quantity.

In addition to the natural course of aging, we also have extrinsic aging. This is the one our behaviour has a say in. By far, the two biggest factors which cause extrinsic aging are smoking and exposure to UV light.

Smoking reduces the elasticity of skin and reduces collagen levels in the skin. This means the skin gets hardened, slack and rough. We have evidence from multiple studies over a number of years showing that smokers have increased wrinkling compared to non-smokers. The evidence is consistent and overwhelming – smoking tobacco increases skin aging.

Photoaging

Exposure to UV light from the sun is thought to account for up to 90% of visible skin aging. UV light causes an increased level of specific proteins in the skin called enzymes. The enzymes that are increased in skin exposed to sunlight are responsible for degrading important connective tissue. After repeated exposure the skin starts to sag and to form wrinkles. Sunlight exposure increases the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and free radicals in the skin. ROS and free radicals damage the DNA which increases your risk of skin cancer, but they also increase the levels of those degrading enzymes even more. In addition to all of that, UV radiation interferes with the immune system and may even prevent cell death in sun-exposed skin which can also contribute to an increased risk of skin cancer. The characteristics of photoaged skin include nodular, leathery, blotchy skin with coarse wrinkles and furrows. The skin has irregular pigmentation and obvious marking on the skin and the elasticity is severely damaged. Blood vessels become dilated and there is pronounced inflammation.

What works?

It should be clear, now, that the two most useful ways to prevent visible skin aging are to minimise intake of cigarette smoke and to minimise skin exposure to damaging UV rays.

image of a person's knee with white sunscreen and a hearth drawn into the sunscreen

Sunscreen

To protect your skin from UV damage, apply a daily sunscreen with a high factor SPF and high-quality UVA protection (4 stars or above). SPF protects your skin from burning and from the damage associated with that but it does not protect against UVA radiation. UVA damage is invisible, although it does cause darkening of pigmentation, and is very deeply penetrating. You need a sunscreen that protects against both UVA and UVB damage.

Topical Retinoids

While most skincare products have very little evidence supporting their use in preventing or reversing the signs of aging, there is one active ingredient that does seem to help.

Retinoids are a family of chemicals which include retinol (vitamin A) and similar compounds. The potential of retinoids in treating aging was discovered in the 1980s when scientists treating photoaged mice noticed repair of the skin and reduction in wrinkling. We now know that retinoids encourage cell growth and can reverse some of the effects seen in photoaged skin and you can buy skincare products which have retinoids in them. There are two downsides to using retinoids on your skin – firstly, retinoids can cause some sensitivity making the skin red and sore which means some people cannot use them at all and most people need to build up their usage from a low dose (0.1%) used infrequently (1-2 times per week). Retinoids can also make your skin more sensitive to UV damage. This means if you are using retinoid skin products you need to be extra careful about staying out of the sun.

Prevention is better than cure

Ultimately, the best thing you can do for your skin to prevent visible aging is to protect it from harmful damage caused by smoking or sun damage. Of course, if you enjoy the relaxation of using different products on your skin, then go right ahead. But the best way to protect your skin is to use a decent sunscreen and to refrain from smoking.

You will also be doing wonders for your risk of lung and skin cancer!

Sources

The Better Way conspiracy conference went all-in on the moral panic around trans people

Aaron Rabinowitz
-
0
The Better Way conspiracy conference went all-in on the moral panic around trans people

For the past year, I’ve written several articles on the Better Way Antivaxxer conference in Bath highlighting both what was included (American Covid skeptics getting co-opted into full-scale antivaxxerism) and what was notably absent (anti-trans activism). In particular, I pointed out that anti-vaxxer rhetoric and ant-trans rhetoric has significant overlaps, in particular their shared fear of (((transhumanists))) as the arch villains of our global story. Given the significant rhetorical overlaps, I found it odd that trans issues were not mentioned a single time during the inaugural Better Way conference, and wondered whether that odd absence was deliberate or a fluke. So, when I learned the conference was returning to Bath with a whole morning session entitled “From AI & Transhumanism to Being Human”, I had to see if the silence on transgender medicine would hold. It did not, in one of the darkest ways imaginable.

Like much of the conference, the transhumanism morning was largely a mix of boilerplate fear mongering and technical difficulties, with the added joy of endless cringe jokes about AI coming to silence the truth-sayers. As usual, speakers lamented the supposedly beneficial technologies that sinister globalists are developing to undermine the sanctity of life. Old standards like gene splicing and vaccines filled with microchips got heavy play, while the speakers struggled to substantially integrate fear of AI into their conspiracy theories. One continuing oddity is the way that these speakers fixate on Klaus Schwab like he’s the devil incarnate, but can’t bring themselves to condemn Elon Musk for Neuralink, the most well-known version of the sort of mind/machine technology they’ve been freaking out about for years.

It was the first proper speaker, Vera Sharav, that hit me the hardest. Sharav is a medical conspiracism activist and holocaust survivor who founded the Alliance for Human Research Protection, an antivaxxer activist group that promotes Sharav’s movie “Never Again is Now Global”, alongside speeches from RFK Jr. Sharav has faced criticism from organisations like the Jewish Forum for Democracy and against Antisemitism for comparing the Covid vaccine to Zyclon B, the chemical used in Nazi gas chambers.

Sharav’s speech wasn’t primarily about Covid, nor did it spend much time on vaccines. It was a speech I’d heard many times before, because it was the textbook right-wing anti-trans conspiracism that Jennifer Bilek, James Lindsay, Matt Walsh, and others have mainstreamed into anti-trans politics. According to these conspiracy mongers, gender affirming care is a (((globalist))) plot to use our children as test subjects for radical transhumanist technologies that will allow these depraved elites to escape death, while the rest of us die from the effects of their evil testing.

Sharav opened the speech by claiming that “transhumanism and technocracy” are fundamentally about population reduction experiments, “eugenics on steroids”, that aim to replace genuine humans with superior cyborg models. According to Sharav, “a transhuman creature will have no gender, no imagination, no empathy, no soul, and no god”. While the last two seem true of any entity in this world, it’s unclear why a transhuman being should lack imagination or empathy, two very useful skills for almost any set of goals. As for lacking gender, it seems that transhumanism makes this more of a personal choice, something that “gender critical” activists should theoretically support, so it is odd to hear the abolition of gender lamented in this way.

Unfortunately, the throwaway line about a genderless transhuman presaged the core of Sharav’s talk:

The transhumanist mindset has given rise to the desecration of children’s body’s and minds. Children are the prey of a morally depraved two-pronged assault, yet few are raising their voices. Child trafficking for the amusement of pedophiles and a diabolical medical crime, namely the mass transgender sexual transition experiment on children. Children are being subjected to experimental, cross sex hormone therapy and transgender surgical mutilation of their sexual organs, thereby preventing human birth. Children and adolescents are being mislead to believe that choosing one’s gender is a form of freedom.

In this one paragraph you have harmful misinformation about gender affirming care mixed with two distinct but related kinds of antisemitic blood libel conspiracism: Qanon pedophilia theories, and the Jennifer Bilek/Keith Woods style claims of Jews testing on gentiles to achieve immortality. Sharav literally says “transhumanists seek to extend the lifespan of the master caste infinitely and indefinitely”. As someone who grew up hearing stories of the holocaust, it would give me significant pause if I started spouting off about the “master caste”.

Sharav’s rhetoric cribs directly from the recent queer theory moral panic pushed by right-wing American activists in their ongoing attempts to undermine our public school system, which they rightly see as an existential threat to their regressive worldview. Sharav claims, with zero evidence, that:

Transgender promoters have penetrated the educational institutions across the country. They lobbied for legislation and LGBTQ education in schools, normalizing what is clearly not normal. Children as young as three are being indoctrinated in preschool to regard transgender as normal or desirable. It’s fun! Women’s private spaces, including women’s sports and college housing opened their doors to any man who chooses to identify as a women. Even women’s toilets are no longer off limits.

It is crucial to understand that Sharav and other religious activists at this conference are advocating for the maintaining of traditional gender roles, not just caution with regard to gender affirming care for minors. Laura Aboli, an entrepreneur and activist, wrapped up the transhumanism talks by referring to transgender activism as an “evil psy-op” aimed at undermining our perception of objective reality. She claimed that the movement was using orwellian techniques to indoctrinate adults into claiming that “2+2=5” and children into believing that “gender is a choice”.

Nor was this anti-trans sentiment confined to the transhumanism section. In a recent episode of Skeptics with a K, Michael Marshall discussed several more examples throughout the conference, where leaders and speakers attacked LGBTQ+ activism and treated gender affirming care as the sort of evil a normal person would violently resist. Equally disturbing was the persistent fear mongering about dysgenics, the theory that modern society is causing humans to devolve or degrade in various ways. It went beyond fear of us offloading mental tasks to AI and ventured into fear of corrupted biology that was pure “blood and soil”. Tess Lawrie, the lead organiser for the conference, asked the transhumanism panel if we need to store human sperm and eggs in a human seed vault to hedge against the rise of post-human entities. The paranoia was so dark and absurd, it harkens back to the discussion of “precious bodily fluids” in Dr. Strangelove.

It was not entirely surprising to hear this rhetoric take its rightful place amidst all the other (((globalist))) conspiracism on display at Better Way, especially since a speaker on the first day of the conference praised James “OK groomer” Lindsay as a reliable source. It was clear that his work had found fertile ground in this community.

What struck me as more viscerally horrifying was hearing a holocaust survivor promoting the antisemitic conspiracism of a literal nazi. Even that shouldn’t have been surprising, since I gave a Skepticamp talk at last year’s QED (2023 tickets available now) about how some Jewish politicians will promote antisemitic conspiracism when it serves their ends. Still, it should be upsetting to hear blood libel coming out of the mouth of a holocaust survivor, no matter how jaded one gets from engaging with this material. Here is a person who survived scapegoating and extermination, promoting conspiracism developed by nazis and white Christian nationalists, for the express purpose of scapegoating and eradicating trans people. The only thing that could made it worse was knowing that much of the audience would readily accept the existence of trans individuals as further proof we’re living in fallen times.

The reason this matters is that social psychologists are actively debating the degree to which conspiracism puts people at risk of spiraling into further conspiracism. If the Better Way conference had gone a second year with zero mention of trans issues, that would give us some reason for hope that conspiracism doesn’t tend to beget conspiracism. Instead, what we have is the exact opposite, a community that appears to go from 0 to 100 in its promotion of anti-trans conspiracism.

I believe the most plausible explanation for that rapid onboarding of a new conspiracy are the significant overlaps between anti-trans conspiracy theories and anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories. This is stark evidence that conspiracism communities are susceptible to similar sounding conspiracy theories, and further proof of the inevitable slide towards antisemitism, even when the speaker truly believes in the promise of “Never Again”.

I believe we should be seriously concerned, because individuals who fell into these conspiracism communities during Covid seem at high risk of migrating from the waning discussions of Covid to the ever-present culture wars around trans rights and whatever marginalised community becomes the next target of right wing moral panics. Given how it is still culturally acceptable in many social spheres to be only skeptical of gender affirming care for minors, especially compared to vaccine skepticism, I expect that many fledgling conspiracists will gravitate towards those friendlier waters.

If a literal holocaust survivor can succumb to promoting nazi holocaust propaganda repackaged for trans people, we need to take seriously the virulence of these ideas and the likelihood of continued spread and cross-pollination. The enthusiastic onboarding of anti-trans, antisemitic conspiracism at Better Way should make us very worried about what is to come.

“What Nonsense!” – unpacking popular pseudosciences for a Brazilian audience

Carlos Orsi
-
0
“What Nonsense!” – unpacking popular pseudosciences for a Brazilian audience

Over the past week, both the print and digital editions of the third book that I’ve co-authored with Natalia Pasternak have been released. This marks five years since our lives intersected, and this time, following “Science in Daily Life” and “Against Reality,” the title is “What Nonsense!” In this book, which is currently only available in Portuguese, we delve into a variety of systems, doctrines, and beliefs that share a common feature: they make false assertions about how the Universe – or at least the part inhabited by Homo Sapiens – operates.

Some are examples of classical pseudoscience. Others are of mystical or artistic origin. Some oscillate between the two, positioning themselves as mysticism or art when they face scientific criticism, yet claiming scientific credibility when selling their ideas to the public. Regardless, they all present depictions of physical and biological reality that contradict the world’s facts, as validated by the most reliable science available. These misleading depictions, if taken seriously, can lead to serious damage to our finances, our emotions, and our health. They offer maps that have the traveller wandering in circles, or worse: leading them in the opposite direction to their intended path.

Examples of the fallacies we expose and dismantle in the book include the purported enhancement effect of homeopathy’s infinitesimal dilutions, the psychodynamic unconscious theory of psychoanalysis, the vital energy concept of reiki, archaeological remnants attributed to astronaut gods, and the astrological influence on human personality. It isn’t particularly useful to replicate, in this context, the facts and arguments that confirm these ideas as fallacies – if that were feasible, we wouldn’t have needed to write almost 400 pages. However, it might be worthwhile to discuss the choices involved in this project a little more.

Of course, we are aware that this is a “controversial” book, in at least four respects.

Firstly, in the most obvious sense: much of the content contradicts common sense, and even some academic-intellectual consensus. To use another cliché, this is a book that takes the reader out of their comfort zone. We do not do this out of malice, obstinacy, or to shock the bourgeoisie, but because it’s necessary. Individuals who are navigating their interactions with the world using flawed maps and poorly calibrated compasses deserve a warning, even if these maps and compasses are typically safeguarded from the most cutting criticism by a blend of social convenience and intellectual laziness that occasionally passes for politeness.

Secondly, as a consequence of the first, we are highlighting, on a highly visible platform, significant cracks and ruptures in the theoretical and practical foundations of systems that provide income or social prestige (or both) for many people. Paraphrasing the epigraph of our second book, “Against Reality,” it’s challenging to convince someone of a truth when their livelihood crucially depends on ignoring that truth. Regarding this, the best thing to say is that we didn’t fabricate anything – all the factual claims made in “What Nonsense!” are grounded in high-quality scientific work and are properly cited. The opinions and conclusions offered follow logically from these facts. Furthermore, it’s only fair that the public has access to a critical evaluation of the therapies and systems discussed in the book, presenting an alternative to the barrage of outlandish promises and hollow self-praise that promoters, defenders, and sellers of these ideas flood the media and social networks with. “What Nonsense!” is a droplet of sobriety in a vast ocean of intoxicating marketing.

A third potential point of controversy is the so-called “aggressive tone” of the title: what does “nonsense” mean? Who do we hope to convince by referring to people’s treasured beliefs as “nonsense”? The title has a backstory related to Natalia’s personal experience, which we share in the book, and it lends a gentle and even slightly humorous edge to the choice – but of course, you have to read the book to learn the specifics.

Beyond the autobiographical backstory, the choice of “What Nonsense!” partly stems from one of our inspirations, the Spanish book series ¡Vaya Timo! It also comes from a desire to make a cultural impact and bring the wider issue of pseudoscience into public debate: a book titled “Pseudoscientific or Empirically Unwarranted Current Beliefs” probably wouldn’t garner as much attention.

The fourth way in which the book is likely to incite “controversy” is by serving as fodder for crude trolling attempts, on apps and social media, by the most audacious and disgruntled entrepreneurs and zealots. If history serves as any indication, this wave of negativity has a specific target here in Brazil – Natalia Pasternak.

She is, of course, the more notable, recognisable, popular (and photogenic) half of our author duo. We’ve had book signings where a reader has collected her autograph, glanced at me – the short-sighted, portly guy at the next table – and asked, “But who is this guy?”

Given the disparity in visibility, it’s somewhat understandable that most of the criticism (as well as the praise) is directed her way. But the imbalance is more than just quantitative. The vitriol aimed at Pasternak, ranging from infamous puns involving her name to grotesque lies about her life and career that, if they don’t constitute slander and defamation, come perilously close – you can practically see the hatred seeping from the corners of the tweets – is deplorable. As for me, when they remember to target me, it’s weak jokes and feeble attempts at disqualification.

Part of this can perhaps be explained by her high public profile, but it’s hard not to detect a whiff of misogyny as well. Of the four “controversies,” this is the least productive and the most irrelevant – except perhaps as a subject for sociological, psychopathological, and cultural analysis.

When it comes to questions of “who is it aimed at” and “who is the audience,” the initial answer is culture at large. We aim to challenge the prevailing epistemic complacency and bring certain issues that have been overlooked, or only discussed among enthusiasts and specialists, into a wider arena. The second answer relies on understanding the composition of the audience. In regard to any pseudoscience, we can categorise the population, albeit roughly, into the following groups: entrepreneurs, zealots, believers, uninformed, curious, skeptics, and indifferent individuals.

Entrepreneurs have a significant investment in pseudoscience – either as its creators or as individuals who have made it the centrepiece of their business models and lives. They can be charlatans (knowingly selling nonsense), or they can be genuinely convinced. Zealots are always sincere, functioning as the ardent fans and apostles of the entrepreneurs, with a considerable emotional investment in the doctrine. Believers are firm supporters of pseudoscience, but their emotional investment is noticeably less than that of zealots.

Uninformed individuals lack significant investment (financial or emotional) in the topic, but believe in pseudoscience simply because they’ve never encountered a compelling counter-argument, or because they constantly see the topic portrayed positively in the media. They might think, “If there was something wrong with it, someone would’ve warned me by now, right?”

Curious individuals have heard about the topic and would like to know more. Skeptics acknowledge that nonsense is nonsense, but are concerned about its impact on individuals and society. And the indifferent individuals either don’t care or aren’t even aware that the pseudoscience in question exists.

In this demographic stratification, our goal is to alert the indifferent, empower the skeptics, satisfy the curious, enlighten the uninformed, and provide believers with ample material for reflection. It’s unlikely that we’ll receive an honest and fair hearing among the zealots and entrepreneurs, but perhaps, just perhaps, we may plant a seed of doubt in some of them.

“What Nonsense!” doesn’t originate in a vacuum. In addition to the Spanish books in the ¡Vaya Timo! series, clear influences include collections of skeptical articles by Martin Gardner, primarily his pioneering work, “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science,” from 1957. His most comprehensive collection, “The Night is Large,” which compiles texts written between the 1930s and 1990s, was published in 1997. Gardner passed away in 2010.

If we wish to trace the lineage further, we could reach what is sometimes regarded as the first popular science book of the modern era, Sir Thomas Browne’s “Pseudodoxia Epidemica,” published in 1646, subtitled “Inquiries into Vulgar and Common Errors.”

“The first, the father of all causes of common errors, is the common infirmity of human nature, evidence of whose deceptive condition is found in none other than the mistakes we make,” writes Browne. Science emerges precisely from the recognition that human fallibility is a universal condition – that no genius, leader, messiah, or priest is immune. Ultimately, we are all susceptible to nonsense.

Tony Stockwell on tour – the dying embers of the celebrity psychic era?

Hayley Stevens
-
0
Tony Stockwell on tour – the dying embers of the celebrity psychic era?

Tony Stockwell is one of the UKs better-known touring psychics, having performed previously as one of The Three Mediums alongside Derek Acorah and Colin Fry. In 2009 he toured with the controversial American psychic James Van Praagh, and has countless television and book credits to his name. Last month, I attended one of Stockwell’s demonstrations of mediumship, in the same venue that previously hosted Derek Acorah (whom I once got to witness incorrectly guess the gender of a dead baby to the mother’s face).

For me, the first red flag was the wordy disclaimer on the venue website. It claimed that “recent legislative guidelines insist that any Evening of Mediumship should be billed ‘for entertainment purposes.’’

This is likely referencing the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 which prohibited people from obtaining payment from people by pretending to have psychic abilities when they don’t, unless making it clear it’s just for entertainment purposes. The 1951 act was replaced with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which protects consumers from unfair sales and marketing practices. A lot of psychics still use the “entertainment only” disclaimer, even though they don’t need to by law.

I didn’t realise until I arrived at the venue that I’d booked a seat in the VIP section, which was the front six or so rows. It became clear that these rows were filled with devotees, or at least, people who were associated with local spiritualist churches, and who had attended a lot of Tony Stockwell’s performances and psychic workshops. There were moments when Stockwell seemed to share in-jokes with lots of people in the audience. When prompted to reveal who had been to a demonstration before, the majority of the 300+ members of the audience raised a hand. Stockwell delivered some very precise information to some audience members and some very imprecise information to others. It was difficult to know who in the audience he knew or, at least, was familiar with.

He also delivered some troubling messages that had the potential to be damaging to the person they were intended for. One woman was told somebody had stolen her mother’s ring, for example. It seemed, to me, irresponsible to deliver such a message without knowing the circumstances of that person, and the impact that message could have on their life and the lives of those also involved in such an allegation. During the evening, Stockwell used some vague descriptions of people that nobody recognised or claimed, and some of the spirits he claimed to communicate with were almost caricature in nature – an Irish man who liked to drink, large in stature, called Mick. Anyone want to claim him? No, onto the next one…

During the interval, I remained seated and the woman sitting next to me started up a conversation. She did her absolute best to convince me to attend my local Spiritualist church, and was able to list off all the local churches, what days and times they met, and at which ones you were guaranteed to receive a message. “The one in Westbury” she warned “is just a collection of everyone in the audience trying to claim messages that aren’t for them, so best avoid that one”. I found it interesting that she hadn’t spotted the same thing happening in that very room. She told me she just wanted evidence that her family were still with her, and she explained how she’d had many psychic messages coming through for her at different shows and at church meetings. She radiated genuine hope.

The marketing copy for the Stockwell tour claims that “Tony certainly uses his natural wit, showmanship and Cockney charisma to entertain but more importantly, Mediumship has the potential to change someone’s life and instil in them a sense of peace, comfort and purpose. We hope that nobody can fail to come away untouched by the experience.”

During the second half of the show it became really clear that what Stockwell was doing did have the potential to be life-changing, but not necessarily in a good way. For example, a lot of the people in the VIP section would claim Stockwell’s psychic messages as intended for them when the information didn’t really seem to fit. The alleged spirit only had to be the right gender and roughly the right age for people to decide it was the spirit of the person they were hoping to hear from, even if Stockwell provided information that they didn’t recognise. It struck me that the VIP section that I was sitting in was full of the most hopeful people in the room. They were desperate for validation, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Mixed in with that desperation was hope. Not the hope to be entertained by “Cockney wit”, but the hope for any sign that the people they love haven’t left them forever. They paid extra to be closer to the action, to improve their chances, ever hopeful…

Stockwell served them what they were desperate for, through what struck me as occasionally good cold reading skills with some potentially pre-established knowledge thrown in. It felt as though these hopeful audience members were going through a form of strung-out bereavement, because for as long as you are told you can communicate with the dead and are given a reason to keep believing it, you cannot fully come to terms with the finality of death. For as long as you cannot come to terms with a bereavement, you look for continued validation wherever it can be found. The hope of communication seems to be enough to keep people returning, until their threshold for acceptable evidence of an afterlife communication is reduced to the spirit medium just needing to detect the right gender of their deceased relative before offering some vague platitudes of lives well lives.

Psychics and mediums touring the UK with live demonstrations is not a new thing, but times have certainly changed. Stockwell and other well-established psychics like Sally Morgan or the now-deceased Derek Acorah and Colin Fry, used to tour grand theatres where there could be over a thousand people in the audience on any given night. Now, such tours visit smaller, rural venues that seat a few hundred at full capacity. No new “greats” have risen up the ranks to replace Acorah and Fry, and so the few remaining psychics who were once considered household names trundle on.

General interest in psychic shows appears to be declining among the general population who aren’t willing to pay the still-expensive ticket costs for something we’ve all seen before. That is except for those few devotees who attend show after show, because people like Stockwell are always guaranteed an audience full of the hopeful and desperate.

Yet, sitting in the audience that evening, I felt as though I was watching something once spectacular that had faded and was clinging on. There stood a man who had once performed to thousands now performing to a few hundred. Billboards with his name on now swapped for A3 posters on a sandwich board outside. The psychic medium seemed, to me, as desperate as the audience he stood before, and yet although so much has changed there are some things that never will.

One aspect of the performance that hasn’t diminished is how the deeply Spiritualist tone of the show felt too heavy to be entertainment, the offer of VIP seats felt gaudy, and the platitudes shared felt rehearsed and hollow. Same as it ever was.

Democratising science and increasing public access, with the Collaborative Library

Anja Harrison
-
0
Democratising science and increasing public access, with the Collaborative Library

In today’s information-driven world, where misinformation is widespread, it is crucial to cultivate critical thinking skills and approach claims with skepticism. However, scientific research, one of the cornerstones of progress, often remains confined within the realms of academia. Limited accessibility and complex language in traditional scientific publications are barriers to accessing and understanding scientific knowledge. Paywalls and expensive subscriptions exclude people who cannot afford them, while technical language alienates non-experts who may be interested in engaging with science.

Solving these problems is the main motivation behind The Collaborative Library, a new platform designed to broaden access to scientific knowledge. It serves as a repository of science resources, ensuring that scientific knowledge is freely accessible to all. Rather than being a static collection of resources, we’ve designed it to be a dynamic space that invites professionals, experts by experience, academics, and students to contribute content and actively participate and review materials. Feedback from the community of users, including the public shapes a library that reflects diverse voices and perspectives, helping us to represent, grow and evolve.

Our free online repository serves as a platform where vetted lay summaries of peer-reviewed scientific articles are published in various accessible formats. Our mission is to increase access to fast, reliable, and easy-to-understand scientific research for students, academics, professionals, and the wider public. By encouraging users to make informed decisions, explore multiple sides of an argument, and delve deeper into the complexities of the world, we want to foster intellectual empowerment.

We would also like to encourage individuals to question ideas and challenge commonly held beliefs and feed people’s curiosity, open their minds, and invite them to embark on a shared quest of knowledge.

All our materials are free to access and use and could be a valuable tool for teachers and students. Teachers can incorporate recommended resources from the library into lesson plans, encouraging students to question and evaluate the most up-to-date information critically, and get used to evidence-based reasoning from an early age. University students benefit from accessing lay summaries and interdisciplinary resources, enriching their academic work and broadening their understanding.

For researchers, the Collaborative Library serves as a bridge between specialised fields, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and communication. By contributing their own lay summaries of their own research articles, researchers can boost their public engagement profile and create research impact, which is a valuable currency measuring the extent to which research outcomes, findings, and outputs create positive changes or advancements in the world.

In an era plagued by misinformation and pseudoscience, the Collaborative Library aims to become a trustworthy source of evidence-based, yet easy-to-understand information. We are dedicated to making scientific knowledge accessible to everyone, regardless of their educational background or expertise. By breaking down barriers and providing free and open access to a wide range of resources, we empower individuals to stay informed, understand complex concepts, and make informed decisions in their daily lives. The platform’s potential impact will extend beyond academia and research, as it encourages the public to access, understand, and engage with scientific knowledge.

Our work has only just begun. So, if you have a moment, please check out our site and decide for yourself if it’s a worthy project – we’d love to see you join us in our quest to democratise science and build the largest repository of multi-media lay summaries globally.

Aseem Malhotra’s antivax crusade threatens to undermine trust in doctors – the GMC need to act

Matt Kneale
-
0
Aseem Malhotra’s antivax crusade threatens to undermine trust in doctors – the GMC need to act

The UK Health Security Agency recently warned of up to 160,000 preventable measles cases in London if the uptake of the MMR vaccine doesn’t improve. Low uptake of the measles vaccine persists, even decades after the discredited Wakefield study falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism. Misinformation about vaccines can cause long-term harm.

It was this concern that led me to report a doctor to the UK regulator – the General Medical Council (GMC) – for spreading false information about the COVID-19 vaccine. To my great surprise, the GMC has up to now refused to even investigate the issue, despite dozens of complaints.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra, is a private practice cardiologist and author whose works includes “The 21 Day Immunity Plan” – marketed as boosting immunity to COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic, he has used his status as registered medical practitioner to spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation to over 550,000 followers online.

In September 2022, and ever since, Malhotra has asserted controversial links between mRNA vaccines and heart disease, and led a call to suspend the UK vaccination program. He has used Twitter to voice his concerns, stating,

As a cardiologist, it’s my responsibility to urgently inform every doctor, patient, and member of the public that the mRNA product likely contributed to all unexpected cardiac arrests, heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failures from 2021 until proven otherwise.

Yet, there is no scientific evidence that supports his claim.

Malhotra cites a narrative review that he authored, published in the low-impact Journal of Insulin Resistance – a journal that hadn’t published for years, and where Malhotra sits on the editorial board – which veered entirely off the journal’s intended scope. The review was littered with non-peer-reviewed references, inaccurately attributed sources to prestigious journals, data figures from a recognised anti-vaccination organisation, and sources that bore editorial “expressions of concern.” Given the subject matter was beyond the journal’s communal expertise, it raises serious questions about the availability of suitable peer reviewers, beyond potential biases from the editorial board.

I reported Malhotra’s behaviour to the GMC in late 2022. Although the GMC conceded that his statements deviated from standard medical perspectives, they chose not to investigate. Their decision was partially driven by a fear of inadvertently boosting his media presence, implicitly acknowledging that his message was not in the public’s interest. They argued that his comments were not “egregious enough” to question his professional competence. Despite additional requests from myself and others for an internal review, backed by evidence of further outlandish claims, the GMC remained unresponsive.

As a result, I have initiated judicial review proceedings, asking the High Court to examine the GMC’s decision. Judicial review allows the court to scrutinise public bodies’ decisions, assessing alleged flaws in reasoning or legality. My legal argument contends that the GMC wrongly applied an absolutist free speech defence, rather than properly considering whether Malhotra used his medical status to spread vaccine falsehoods.

Recently, the GMC removed a surgeon from its register for promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories online. Regulators from the United States to Canada and Australia have also acted against other medical practitioners for their vaccine misinformation – some of whom have literally shared the same stage as Dr Malhotra during his international speaking tours.

Doctors deserve considerable latitude to express dissenting scientific opinions informed by evidence. However this freedom doesn’t absolve professionals of their fundamental duties to demonstrate integrity and honesty, avoid conflicts of interest, and maintain public trust. These principles, emphasised by the GMC in their Good Medical Practice guidelines and social media advice, are fundamental. Disseminating clearly misleading claims about vaccines breaches these widely recognised professional duties.

Malhotra’s behaviour appears to be escalating, with unvalidated claims that regulators criminally colluded with pharmaceutical companies to hide vaccine harms. His aim no longer appears to be constructive scientific discourse, and there are multiple examples of him insinuating, without any evidence, that various high profile deaths were due to vaccines. His statements risk fuelling paranoia and mistrust, discouraging vaccination against a deadly virus and driving paranoia about the future use of mRNA platforms.

Research shows vaccine misinformation on social media deters uptake. When doctors spread unproven assertions to hundreds of thousands of followers, consequences for individual and for public health are profound. If regulators like the GMC ignore doctors who promote medical misinformation, public confidence plummets, while vaccine hesitancy climbs. This jeopardises community protection against infectious diseases and risks public health in future outbreaks. Doctors spreading online misinformation must be seen to be violating professionalism as seriously as they would be in the context of serious clinical errors. Protecting patients demands consistent regulation in both spheres.

Most doctors recognise that disseminating misinformation contradicts their ethical responsibilities. However, inconsistent oversight allows a vocal minority to endanger public health while retaining professional legitimacy. This judicial review is a defining moment in which an independent body will pass judgement on whether the GMC can abrogate its responsibility when doctors misbehave on social media. The ramifications of this case stretch far beyond one doctor: they will influence future decisions by the GMC and, conceivably, regulators in other countries.

The social contract that a doctor has balances our privileges with our duties to honesty, integrity and public wellbeing. Free speech doesn’t absolve professionals from these obligations. I’m legally challenging the GMC to establish that doctors must be held accountable for online misinformation, as they are for clinical negligence in person. This will help restore public trust and safeguard patients from medical disinformation. If this case fails, it could have wide-reaching implications that harm the safeguards for the public – the very safeguards the GMC was formed to ensure work correctly.

If you agree that this is an important cause, one way you can support us is to sign our petition to the GMC, and to share details about it with your friends and colleagues.

While I have been given support in taking this case forward by the Good Law Project, there is nonetheless some personal financial risk in taking this case forward, if the High Court decides that costs cannot be capped. As such there is a real risk this action could falter before it is even tested in court. If you are able, you can support this legal action by making a donation at actions.goodlawproject.org/gmc.

I think it is vital that doctors with fringe and false beliefs are not able to undermine the public’s trust in life-saving medicines, and if you agree, I’d greatly appreciate your support.

So-called alternative medicine and vaccine hesitancy

Edzard Ernst
-
0
So-called alternative medicine and vaccine hesitancy

Numerous studies have linked vaccine hesitancy or refusal with the belief in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Yet, large-scale data on this topic were so far scarce. Now, two sizable investigations from France shed more light on the issue.

In the first study, the researchers investigated the factors associated with the coverage of seven childhood vaccines or vaccine groups in the 96 French metropolitan departments. One of the factors investigated was the local interest in SCAM.

In order to assess it, the investigators created an ‘Alternative Medicine Index’ based on departmental internet searches regarding SCAM. The assumption was that internet searches being a reliable indicator of the public’s actual interest in a given topic. They then conducted multiple regression analyses. The results showed that the Index is a significant explanatory factor for the departmental variance in vaccination coverage rates, exceeding in importance the effect of other relevant local sociodemographic factors.

The second study presents the results of a survey conducted in July 2021 among a representative sample of the French adult population (n = 3087). Using cluster analysis, the researchers identified five profiles of SCAM attitudes. They then compared these SCAM attitudes to vaccine attitudes. Attitudes to SCAM had a distinct impact as well as a combined effect on attitudes to different vaccines and vaccines in general.

The results showed that the hesitant, pro-SCAM attitudes are often combined with other traits associated with vaccine hesitancy such as distrust of health agencies, radical political preferences, and low income. Both SCAM endorsement and vaccine hesitancy are more prevalent among the socially disadvantaged.

Drawing on these results, the researchers argue that, to better understand the relationship between SCAM and vaccine hesitancy, it is necessary to look at how both can reflect a lack of access and recourse to mainstream medicine and distrust of public institutions.

The complex relationship between enthusiasm for SCAM with vaccine hesitancy is fascinating and has thus been discussed repeatedly over on my own blog:

What seems to emerge from this body of evidence is the notion that a cross-correlation exists: an attitude against modern medicine and the ‘scientific establishment’ determines both the enthusiasm for SCAM and the aversion to vaccination.

What, however, seems far less clear is what we could do about it, and how we can educate people such that they no longer are a danger to themselves and to others.

The real story behind those crystal skulls Indiana Jones went looking for

Sean Slater
-
0
The real story behind those crystal skulls Indiana Jones went looking for

Have you seen the new hugely successful/box office bomb (delete as necessary) Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny? I haven’t, but then again if I wanted to watch an old man riding a horse down St Vincent St, I’d just pop over to Glasgow Skeptics.

In the film, as in all the others in the franchise, there is a MacGuffin to drive the plot along. In this case, it is the Dial of Destiny, aka Antikythera mechanism, sometimes referred to as the Archimedes dial. The previous films’ plot devices ranged from the Biblical Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, to The Hindu Shankara stones and, in the fourth (and by far the worst) movie, Mayan crystal skulls.

Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World book cover featuring a silhouette of Stone Henge and a skull which twinkles.

I think we can safely ignore the ridiculous movie plot depicting the crystal skull as the head of a literal glass-boned skeletal alien waiting to be reunited with its body, so it and its companions can return to their home planet. But this film’s MacGuffin is at least a real phenomenon. Strange crystal skulls do exist – Arthur C. Clarke used one to represent his Mysterious World TV show and subsequent book, and many believe them to have supernatural powers, or at the very that they prove neolithic native Meso-Americans had some incredible and unknown ability to fashion glass, but not metals.

But where do these objects come from? How were they made? And what do they tell us about their maker?

The real Indiana Jones?

Let me introduce you to Mr Frederick Albert (F.A.) Mitchell-Hedges (1882-1959), as it was he who first brought a crystal skull (the one featured on the cover of Clarke’s book) to the attention of the wider public. A seasoned traveller and self-proclaimed adventurer, Mitchell-Hedges had a radio show in 1930’s New York, where he regaled his audience with tales of escaping from “native savages” or wild jungle animals in dramatic fashion, when searching for lost civilisations. A proto-Indiana Jones in many ways.

In 1954, he published the modestly titled book Danger My Ally, detailing his ‘True-life adventures’ exploring lost-cities and lost-worlds. In the chapter The Skull of Doom and a Bomb he reveals that his daughter, Anna, was in possession of a crystal skull that she had found 30 years before in the jungles of Belize when she had accompanied her father exploring the Mayan ruin of Lubaantun. Mitchell-Hedges senior concluded that the skull was over 3,600 years old, and that it was used by Maya priests to strike people dead by the force of their own will. But, he added, “It has been described as the embodiment of all evil. I do not wish to try and explain this phenomena.” [sic]

A crystal skull
The crystal skull at the British Museum

Several other skulls have been identified around the world. There is one in the British Museum which they describe as:

Purchased from Tiffany of New York in the late 1890s, the skull had passed through many hands and was said by G. F. Kunz in 1890 to have originally been brought from Mexico by a Spanish officer ‘sometime before the French occupation of Mexico’ [1860].

Another was sent to the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. anonymously in 1992 and the accompanying letter said it was part of an 19thC Mexican general’s collection of ancient Mayan artefacts. A third is in the Musee De L’Homme in Paris, and a further 9 are in private hands.

There are modern reproductions. However, it is generally accepted there are twelve surviving Mayan skulls. Innumerable legends have grown up, usually about thirteen such skulls being gathered together in a Mayan temple to complete some sort of task – often to save humanity, or affect the Mayans’ enemies, or similar.

The objects are a perfect synthesis of numerous pseudosciences: they are made from a single quartz crystal with all the woo associated with crystals, they are representative of a little-known and mysterious ancient culture who could seemingly do things we cannot now do, and of course, they are human-like skulls – they look freaky. All of this gives them a prominence that most archaeological objects would never normally obtain.   

Maya Mackems

But, how on earth did the ancient Mayans make them?

The truth, of course, is that they didn’t.

Tellingly, no skull has ever been found in any official or academically driven excavation in Mexico or elsewhere in Central America. Indeed, in December 1943, F.A. Mitchell-Hedges disclosed in a letter to his brother that he had purchased the skull (the one he says his daughter found in the 1920’s) from London art-dealer Sydney Burney, for £400. Despite this, right up to her death in her 90’s, Anna Mitchell-Hedges continued to claim that the skull was found by her in Belize when she was a child.

Analysis of the British Museum skull and other examples show that the quartz itself is chemically identical to natural crystals found in southern Brazil – a distance that would not have been insurmountable for Central Americans, but a highly unlikely location, given that no trade route has ever been identified over that sort of distance in that period.

The same analysis found that using traditional tools and resources available in pre-Columbus America would have taken over 150 years constant work to have sanded quartz into such a smooth finish. However, the skulls themselves showed marks consistent with post-industrial rotary power tools.

Mexi-con

A black and white photograph of a white, slender man with dark hair and a dark moustache. He is wearing a suit and a long coat and standing in front of a board of artifacts.
Eugène Boban, main French dealer in pre-Columbian artifacts during the second half of the 19th century. Source: Wikipedia

In 1870’s France, an antiquarian called Eugene Boban was commissioned by Napoleon III to collect Aztec and other native American artifacts for display in Paris. He travelled to Central America in search of objects for his Emperor, and after his return opened a shop in the French capital, called Antiquites Mexicaines, specialising in Meso-American objects. He later moved his business to New York via Mexico City, and was responsible at the very least for the British Museum and the Parisian Musee sales. In all likelihood, he was responsible for selling many of the skulls to the wider public.

Boban had collected innumerable objects over the years spent in Mexico, and when he left for France with his haul, his friend sent him a bon voyage letter, adding:

Flood France with your curiosities, and squeeze all the ugly metal out of them that you can in exchange …

Unfortunately, not long after his shop had opened, the Prussian army laid siege to Paris and that was soon followed by the Commune Revolt. It would be several years before he made a major sale.

Southern Brazil, where the quartz comes from, has a large immigrant German population. Many emigrated there in the mid-19th Century, a few from the little Rhineland town of Idar-Oberstein where they took with them their professional and long-standing skills of gemstone cutting. They retained close links with the town of their birth and sent several examples of quartz and other gems back to Germany to see what the skilled artisans could make of them.

They fashioned the quartz into skulls. Most likely as an object for marketing the skills of the cutters in turning a lump of quartz into a beautiful object. There is good reason to believe that M. Boban later visited the German town (just a few miles over the French border) and purchased some or all the skulls to sell in his old curiosity shop, passing them off as ancient Aztec/Inca artifacts due to the style. It is possible, but cannot be confirmed, that he commissioned the objects and asked for them in the style fashionable at the time, following recent European involvement in Mexico.  

Dismissed as novelties in museums, they were largely forgotten about until Mitchell-Hedges claimed the one he had bought from an art-dealer was a mysterious Mayan object with an evil history found by a young girl in a lost-city. From there the skulls became more well known to the wider public and took on supernatural connotations thanks to a continuous stream of “believe-it-or-not” books and magazine articles.

There is no doubt they are interesting curiosities and excellent examples of the gem-cutting skills found in 19thC Idar-Oberstein but ancient Meso-American objects with supernatural powers they almost certainly are not.

1...353637...152Page 36 of 152

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

[email protected]

About

Categories

Shop