Home Blog Page 99

Donald Rooum (1928 – 2019): Cartoonist, Campaigner and Skeptic

0

I had only just recently stepped into the Big Shoes on The Skeptic’s editorial team when I gave a talk as part of a regular Sunday morning series at the home of free-thinking in London, Conway Hall. At packing-up time, I was approached by a small, aged attendee who smiled broadly as he introduced himself: “Hello. I’m Donald!”

Of course, I knew Donald Rooum’s work. He had generously contributed to the magazine since its earliest days, having written to founder Wendy Grossman after just the first issue to offer his services. Donald created the cartoon strip ‘Sprite’ for the magazine.

Cartoon by Donald Rooum. Panel 1. Stonehenge - two people walking as one says "I agree this is a lovely place but I don't sense anything supernatural", panel 2. a sprite says to the people "neither do I. And I've been here five thousand years"

“The first character is named Donald and is based on me” he explained in an interview with The Comics Journal in 2002, “and the other character is Titania. She is a lady sprite who has a habit of disappearing into a swirl of smoke.” The love-struck Titania is always trying to reach through Donald’s scepticism, but it is so resolute that he simply cannot see her. “Some of the time I merely take a swipe at something in the world of the paranormal, but the best Sprite cartoons are the ones where I revert to the main plot.”

That meeting in London was the first of many – we moved in the same circles and bumped into each other often. The main thing that struck me was that, at an age when most people get a pass for snoozing, Donald was always sharp, alert… and smiling.

He had trained in commercial design at the Regional College of Art, Bradford for four years and became a professional typographer, later lecturing in typographic design at the London College of Printing until his retirement aged 55. His parallel career as a cartoonist saw his work appear in publications like The Daily Mirror, Private Eye and The Spectator and even the British women’s publication She. He greatly admired and was influenced by the British cartoonists who illustrated children’s comics in the early twentieth century – people like Reg Parlett, Roy Nixon, Ken Reid and The Bash Street Kids’ Leo Baxendale. Later, he expressed an admiration for underground comix artists Gilbert Shelton and Hunt Emerson.

But I suspect that Rooum will be most remembered for exposing corrupt British police officers in the notorious ‘Challenor’ case of 1962. Rooum was one of a group protesting against a visit to London by far-right and “inherently undemocratic” Queen Frederika of Greece when he was arrested. Officer Harold Challenor said “You’re fucking nicked my beauty. Boo the Queen, would you?” subsequently adding a rock to Rooum’s belongings: “Carrying an offensive weapon – you can get two years for that”. Fortunately Rooum had his solicitor take his jacket to a forensic scientist who confirmed that there was no trace of rock dust, or wear and tear in Rooum’s pockets, proving that the object could never have been there.

Rooum’s evidence led to an acquittal at his trial. A subsequent trial against Challenor and three other officers for perversion of the course of justice followed. Challenor avoided culpability, having been certified as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, but his three colleagues were sentenced to three years each. A Parliamentary enquiry, in what became generally regarded as a whitewash, eventually exonerated Challenor and placed the blame for the incident on his mental condition as opposed to any institutional deficiencies. However, the blatant corruption and political biases within the Met., not to mention Parliament and the legal system, were exposed. Unusually for a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia – a chronic condition for which drugs in the ‘60s weren’t up to much – Challenor was subsequently employable enough to find work with the firm of solicitors who had defended him.

Donald Rooum

Donald’s retirement from teaching at the London College of Printing freed him up to spend more time on art and his lifelong political interest in anarchism. He was a devoted volunteer at Freedom Press, an imprint which has published seven collections of his fortnightly cartoon ‘Wildcat Anarchist comics’. The strip takes stereotypes and gently prods at hubris within political movements. I recommend them. He was a humanist and a keen supporter of Humanists UK. He noted that many of his anarchist colleagues could be anti-science, but he himself was pro-science, even having gained a first class degree in Life Sciences in adulthood.

Donald’s partner was Irene Brown, with whom he had three daughters and a son. To judge by the attendance at his memorial gathering at Conway Hall in January of this year, he also had a large group of loving friends who regarded him very highly.

Founder of The Skeptic, Wendy Grossman said to me: “It’s a great loss. He was a defining part of the look and feel of The Skeptic. Humour is a crucial part of both the magazine and skepticism in general.” Former editor Professor Chris French said “The thing I loved most about Donald’s cartoons was that his gentle humour was as likely to be making fun of sceptics as it was of believers. He recognised the irrationality in all of us.”

Donald Rooum had a life that was very fully lived. He contributed greatly to free-thought causes all his life. And he was sparkling and alive in a way that many people don’t manage to maintain over a whole lifetime. R.I.P Donald. We will miss you.

Rectal ozone therapy: Brazil’s latest COVID-19 pseudoscience

The town of Itajai in the southern Brazilian state of Santa Catarina has been the focus of much puzzlement during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The town’s mayor – who is a medical doctor – has adopted a particularly striking strategy: to throw at the virus every conceivable alternative therapy or social media hype he can find.

It started with homeopathy, which he wanted to distribute as a prophylactic, using healthcare agents to deliver it personally to people’s homes, before moving on to hydroxychloroquine, then ivermectin and more recently, ozone therapy delivered by rectal insufflation. You don’t have to be an expert in medical terminology to work out how the ozone makes its way into the patient.

This last one, announced in early August, attracted a lot of attention – not just because of the obvious cheap jokes, but also because, in Brazil, the most vocal promoters of ozone therapy have strong links with the antivaccination movement, and they have powerful friends in high places.

A diagram of the earth with a representation of the ozone layer. Three arrows represent the damaging radiation from the sun.

Ozone is a corrosive, toxic gas. We need it in the stratosphere to block harmful UV radiation from the Sun, but closer to the ground, where people can inhale it, it is a health hazard and an indicator of air pollution, a component of smog: it can be formed by chemical reactions involving automobile emissions.

“Ozone therapy” is the putative use of ozone to treat health complaints. As it is common in the world of so-called complementary and alternative medicine, ozone has been proposed as a cure for every disease and condition under the sun, from HIV infection to cancer. Predictably, it has also been offered as a form of relief for COVID-19.

Itajai’s move was not exactly original: in April, a clinic in the United States was forbidden from promoting ozone as a cure for SARS-CoV-2. The FDA does not authorize the use of ozone therapy for any condition, and has stated that “ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy. In order for ozone to be effective as a germicide, it must be present in a concentration far greater than that which can be safely tolerated by man and animals”.

In Brazil, the Federal Board of Medicine forbids the use of ozone in regular clinical practice: ozone therapy can only be offered in the context of medical research. This fact, however, did not stop the Ministry of Health from including this modality in the official list of alternative medicines officially adopted by Brazil’s national healthcare system. In 2018, ozone therapy joined the other 28 CAM modalities currently paid for with taxpayers’ money (the list includes old chestnuts like homeopathy and acupuncture, alongside less popular ones like Reiki or Family Constellations).

The Ministry of Health’s official website describes ozone therapy as a “low-cost safe therapy” that can be used for several health conditions. It states: “Some health sectors regularly adopt this practice in their clinical protocols, these include dental care, neurology and oncology”.

It is quite shocking to realise that the Federal Board of Medicine restricts ozone therapy to experimental protocols in clinical trials, but the Ministry of Health states that the practice is already in use to treat neurological conditions and cancer.

In 2017, the then Senator (and former governor of the northern state of Rondonia) Valdir Raupp proposed a bill that, if approved, would authorize the practice in the country, effectively overruling the Board of Medicine. The bill has already been approved by the Senate and now waits for a vote in the Lower Chamber of Congress.

When an outbreak of mass psychogenic illness – caused by fear and stress related to vaccines – followed a vaccination campaign for HPV infection in another northern Brazilian state, Acre, proponents of ozone therapy tried to get the authorities to interrupt the vaccination and use ozone to treat the girls affected. Since then , the ties between pro-ozone and antivaxx movements in Brazil have strengthened.

Such an alliance is troubling, not least because the ozone lobby has shown an alarming level of access to public authorities, including senators, ministers and at least one mayor – that of Itajai. Vaccination coverage in Brazil has been dropping in recent years, mostly due to logistical difficulties, and an added layer of ideological fearmongering does not help.

Unlike anthroposophy, chiropractic, “energy” healing or homeopathy and other kinds of CAM, ozone therapy doesn’t depend on blatantly antiscientific principles, neither does it, in principle violate scientific laws.

Ball and stick diagram of ozone - three molecules of oxygen represented by balls, connected by sticks

The ozone molecule is made of three oxygen atoms linked together. The “common” oxygen molecule, that is essential for all multicellular life on Earth, has only two atoms. There are several modes of action proposed to try to explain why ozone therapy would be expected to work for something (there is no evidence that it does, though, for anything). One such purported reason is the ability of ozone to kill fungi, bacteria and destroy viruses (in vitro only – as has been correctly noted elsewhere bleach, soap and handguns also can kill microbes, in a lab dish), and there’s even a proposed “biochemical cascade” offered to “describe” the supposedly beneficial action of ozone in the blood.

Despite these scientific-sounding trappings, ozone therapy sits quite comfortably with the more extravagant varieties of CAM, and several of its proponents adopt their language, modes of discourse and beliefs without compunction. One publicity piece goes so far as to assert that since ozone produces “positive” ions, it is capable of neutralizing “negative” influences, such as viruses and parasites. The disingenuous conflation of the technical and metaphorical senses of “positive/negative” is an old trick from the CAM repertoire.

Alternative therapies and pseudoscientific beliefs seem to sprout from the same roots, defined by an absence of evidence and a hostility towards mainstream science. That such hostility expresses itself in antivaxxer rhetoric may be regrettable, but it should not be surprising.

What should be noted, though, is that here in Brazil this pseudoscientific network that promotes irrationality and magical thinking is well organized politically, cultivating friendly lawmakers and government officials. The scientific community, on the other hand, is scattered, disorganized and only comes together as a political entity when funding is under threat. Funding is essential for science, of course, but so is the ethos of respect for evidence. Brazilian scientists who ignore the corrosion of this principle do a disservice to themselves and to the society they serve.

An unhealthy dose of viral conspiracy

The thing with conspiracy theories is that they go right to the top: the brain. Seeking out information which supports our pre-existing beliefs is what humans are good at, and these confirmation biases help fuel conspiracy theorising behaviour. Finding information which supports our suspicions and beliefs is a comforting behaviour, which is why we tend to reject conflicting information as less likely to be accurate and as from untrustworthy sources (even when it isn’t). The pattern seeking habits which are hard-wired into our brains make it easy for us to connect dots which aren’t connected and see motives and intentions where none truly exist. In some instances, this is harmless and will cause people to see faces in toast, but in the right (or wrong) circumstances it can have devastating consequences.

Belief in conspiracy theories often correlates with feelings of powerlessness and a perceived lack of control in one’s life. Conspiracy theories offer up a person or group to pinpoint as responsible for a secret plot or nefarious plan which allows an individual to feel as though they are regaining some control and order in the chaos. However, conspiracy belief doesn’t help thwart these anxieties in the long term as the theories don’t address the actual cause of the issues a person may be experiencing in their life. Subscribing to one conspiracy theory and accepting that someone is out to get them is likely to make an individual consider other conspiracy theories to be plausible too. As a result, a person’s level of mistrust rises, as do their anxieties about their perceived lack of control and power and the world around them, and so a vicious cycle ensues.

People protesting at Queen's Park, Toronto in April 2020 - signs read "End the lockdown", "welcome to the NWO, poverty, famine, death, government over reach, lying media, I do not consent" and "this is about tyranny vs. freedom".

I live in the sleepy Wiltshire town of Bradford on Avon and recently I accidentally became caught up in a conspiracy myself. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, Bradford on Avon Town Council put a one-way road system in place and cordoned off parts of the road so pedestrians can socially distance while using the old, narrow pavements. This did not go down well with motorists and, according to some, was in fact a plot for some form of social domination and control by outside forces. My involvement? I’m an administrator for local Facebook groups, and along with my fellow administrators, I deleted threatening and slanderous comments that people made in the groups. As a result, it was claimed that we were complicit in silencing people who dissented, clearly at the order of the New World Order town council.

As one of “the admins” I noticed that during the UK lockdown the posting habits of group members shifted and there was a very obvious increase in the amount of misinformation being shared by people which they hadn’t fact checked. This inability to distinguish facts from fact-like fictions is partly due to a lack of critical thinking skills – which would allow an individual to analyse and fact-check information in a rational manner – exacerbated by the sheer volume of information a person is subjected to daily, much of which they probably don’t understand. The World Health Organisation refers to this as an Infodemic, described as ‘an over-abundance of information – some accurate and some not – that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it.’

So, while furloughed from my full time job, I found my time taken up instead with fact checking the claims people were making in social media groups, deleting hoaxes and false claims all while urging people to fact check for themselves, and offering a list of ways in which they could. On several occasions, to refute the false claims being made in the groups, I shared links to academic studies which was met with responses like “I trust common sense more than universities”, “I don’t trust official sources”, “wake up”, and “they tell you what to think because they don’t want us to think for ourselves.”

At a time when the world is gripped by a viral pandemic which not only kills people at an alarming rate but is leaving survivors with serious health issues, this sort of sharing of misinformation and distrust of factual sources can have serious consequences. Especially as research has found that people who believe in false reporting and conspiracy theories about diseases are ‘less likely to behave in a way that would protect themselves and others, such as washing their hands frequently and keeping away from other people if they have any symptoms.’

Research conducted by Ipsos Mori for King’s College London also found that almost 60% of those who believe there’s no evidence that COVID-19 is real use Facebook to source the information on which they base such beliefs. Meanwhile 60% of those who believe the virus is linked to 5G radiation got their information from YouTube. Both platforms have rolled out responses to the spread of such potentially dangerous misinformation by users, while also collaborating with the World Health Organisation and the National Health Service to provide accurate information about COVID-19.

However, earlier this month, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) released a report which condemned the misinformation tackling efforts of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube after they found fewer than 1 in 20 reports of false or misleading information were dealt with by the platform. For example, CCDH researchers reported 569 posts by Facebook users which shared rule-breaking misinformation promoting anti-vaccination narratives. One example included the claim that the only way to catch a virus was to be “injected with one via a vaccine”. Only 14 of the reported posts were removed, and Facebook added warnings to just 19 others meaning the platform acted on less than 6% of the reports.

COVID-19 protests in Berlin, 2020.

Yet, it’s also important to question whether deleting misleading posts is the most effective way of stemming the spread of this sort of misinformation. During the lockdown in the UK, social psychologist Dr Daniel Jolley was interviewed on The Guardian’s ‘Science Weekly’ podcast about the psychology of conspiracy theories. Jolley suggested that by deleting misleading posts about subjects like Coronavirus and 5G, platforms such as Facebook and YouTube could risk playing into the narrative of conspiracy theorists who may see such reactions as proof of a cover-up. Just as I experienced when deleting Facebook posts made by others about the social distancing efforts in my town. Jolley suggests that allowing conversations about conspiracy ideas to happen openly could be the right move, but in a way which makes clear that the claims made are not factual.

For example, inoculation interventions which offer pre-emptive warnings about subsequently viewed misinformation have been shown to reduce the persuasiveness of the misinformation. While research in the US and India has shown that helping people to develop their digital literacy by teaching them critical thinking skills and how to spot fake information can improve their ability to fact-check information they encounter online, while elsewhere researchers found that communicating fact-based information about the risks posed by infectious diseases, such as Measles, can be a more effective way of countering anti-vaccination beliefs and arguments compared to directly countering and debunking anti-vaccination conspiracies.

Ultimately, human biases make us all susceptible to conspiracy theorising. There is scope for social media platforms to do more to counter the sharing of misinformation by their users – especially that which leads to violence or promotes dangerous health claims. Some are calling for government interventions to make social media companies legally obliged to step up their game on this front. Whether this happens or not, it’s clear that the key is finding the right evidence-based approaches to take when tackling conspiracy theorising to ensure the most effective outcome in helping people stay informed.

Chiropractors love to claim their treatments are ‘individualised’, but they’re wrong

Why do people turn to alternative medicine? Reams have been written on the subject but it seems to boil down to a few key factors: patients want to be seen as more than a collection of symptoms and want to feel in control of their care, particularly when dealing with chronic conditions. The focus on “evidence-based medicine”, while one skeptics understandably enthusiastically support, can often have an unfortunate side-effect of forgetting about the patient, “devaluing” their agenda in comparison to the agendas of researchers and practitioners. Patients want to feel seen and heard, to be treated individually and holistically in a way that allows them to form an “alliance” with their doctors to improve their wellbeing.

As a society, we assume that alternative practitioners provide these individualised, holistic, treatments because it’s what such practitioners are constantly telling us. But do they? As skeptics we are unlikely to be in a position to compare conventional and complementary treatments, but last year I had cause to take the plunge and enter the world of chiropractic. My sister had been suffering from severe back pain and her doctor had been less than helpful – they had been stereotypically dismissive of her pain and the huge negative impact it was having on her health and wellbeing. In desperation she turned to a local chiropractor and my skeptical alarm sounded. I didn’t know much about chiropractic beyond what I learned during the now-infamous libel case between Simon Singh and the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) back in 2010.

In an article outlining the many risks and dangers associated with chiropractic, Singh wrote that the BCA “happily promotes bogus treatments” – the BCA took exception to Singh’s article, and sued him for libel, withdrawing the case after a judge ruled that Singh’s words were fair comment. I knew that chiropractic manipulation has been the cause of strokes and has even led to death , but I also knew that my sister would just roll her eyes at me if I started on a diatribe against it. So I took a different tack.

The head, neck and upper back of a teaching skeleton shown from behind

Instead, I visited the same chiropractic clinic. I was given an assessment lasting half an hour (far longer than I’ve ever got from an NHS doctor), was invited to a free half-hour talk, and then had another half-hour session where we went through my ‘report’ and discussed treatment options. It was all very welcoming and seemed to be doing everything that alternative medicine promises – it provided long appointments that gave me the opportunity to discuss all my problems rather than rush through them; I was invited to talks to further inform me about the background to chiropractic; and I was given a personalised report and treatment plan.

While there is much that can be said about all the steps on this process (and I have), I want to focus here on the supposedly individualised nature of all of this. From my experience at the clinic, and the subsequent free “spinal check-up” I attended recently, the individualised nature of these treatments are massively overstated. It was this fact, more than anything else I discussed, that helped convince my sister not to waste her hard-earned money on these treatments, and I want to explain how this worked in the hopes of helping others.

My sister visited the chiropractor for debilitating back and leg pain (later diagnosed as sciatica) that left her in agonised tears. I visited as a “birthday treat”. I had a few aches and pains – a dead arm in the mornings and generalised stiffness – but nothing too major and nothing that I couldn’t live with. We had two very different sets of symptoms, with two very different levels of impact on our lives. Yet despite this, when comparing notes we discovered we had exactly the same series of tests and were provided with exactly the same treatment plan. When I went back recently my original aches and pains had disappeared, to be replaced by some new ones (oh the joys of middle age!), yet I was given the exact same set of tests and offered the exact same treatment plan.

In fact, the treatment plan is so generic that the company offers payment plans built around it. You can bulk-purchase 12 or 24 sessions at a time, each lasting 15 minutes, although it was emphasised that only a small portion of this would be active treatment, the rest was for “relaxation”.

A dentist works on a patient's teeth - image by Erik Christensen (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Chiropractic likes to compare itself to dentistry. The comparison was even made in the talk I attended, and it can be found on chiropractic websites all over the internet. It is the result of a model proposed in 2005 to enable “the chiropractic profession to establish cultural authority and increase market share of the public seeking chiropractic care”. The aim is to make people see going to the chiropractor as something routine and regular. The most obvious difference between dentists and chiropractors is that dentists only expect you to visit once a year if you have no concerns, whereas chiropractors expect much more frequent visits.

But the comparison fails even more when you look at the supposed ‘individualised’ treatments for problems. If I went to the dentist with a superficially chipped tooth I’d expect a very different treatment plan than if I had periodontitis. This simply does not happen with chiropractic: it doesn’t matter if you’ve merely over-exerted yourself in the garden or if you have slipped a disc, the treatment plan is the same – see them twice a week for three months, then reassess and move to once a week or a fortnight for another three months and reassess again. This is not remotely individualised, and simply would not fly in any legitimate health intervention.

My aches and pains got better. The NHS doctor said I had carpal tunnel and would most likely sort itself out; they were right. My sister’s back (fortunately) has also got better. Sciatica often does. Had we followed the advice of the chiropractor, both of us could have spent hundreds on treatment that would have appeared effective because we got better, even though we got better anyway. Chiropractic relies on this regression to the mean, and takes credit for it. But more than that it claims to be individualised while giving the most generic and impersonal treatment I’ve ever received from a medical practitioner. I was seen as nothing more than the nerves in my back, all of which were just waiting to cause me problems. It was not holistic, I was not ‘seen and heard’, and the only result, had I pursued treatment, would not have been reduced pain but a reduced bank balance.

The development of the Skeptic Movement – Part 2

In my previous article, I introduced what could be considered the first era of skepticism, from the founding of the Association against Quackery (Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij – VtdK) in the Netherlands through to the work and death of arguably the first skeptical celebrity, Harry Houdini.

By the time of Houdini’s passing in 1926, the skeptical movement had coalesced around two key aims: fighting quackery, and testing claims of the paranormal. As the 20th Century entered its new decade, skepticism would develop a more structured scientific approach.

The Second Era

The skeptical timeline continues with 1934 Karl Popper defining the principle of falsifiability, 1949 the founding of Comite Para, 1951 Bertrand Russel publishes his Liberal Decalogue, 1964 James Randi announces his paranormal challenge ad 1976 the foudning of CSICOP.

Principles of Falsifiability

Karl Popper’s 1934 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery was a milestone in both the world of science and consequently in the world of the skeptical movement. It was the last step in the preceding path of thought regarding a new approach to scientific thinking and testing. Popper’s ideas of critical rationalism, finding the balance between opinion pluralism and relativism, is a cornerstone of skeptical thinking. As were, of course, his two key principles of falsifiability:

  1. Claims must be formulated in a way that can be tested
  2. A theory confirmed by experiments is only valid as long as it is not disproven

The first modern skeptics’ group

Originally, the Belgian Committee for Scientific Investigation of Purported Paranormal Phenomena (Comité Belge pour l’Investigation Scientifique des Phénomènes Réputés Paranormaux), today The Belgian Committee for the Critical Analysis of Pseudosciences (Comité belge pour l’analyse critique des parasciences), Comité Para for short, is the first skeptical organization to apply skeptical thinking to a variety of fields and disciplines. It was founded in 1949 in reaction to the hyena-like behavior of post-war psychics, and a result of seventeen academics banding together to examine the validity of radiesthesia

Comité Para is still a very active group and it’s the motto “Do not deny anything a priori, do not assert anything without evidence” is universal to the skeptic movement. 

The Decalogue of Bertrand Russell

The next milestone is the liberal decalogue of Bertrand Russell, published in the New York Times in 1951. Though it was meant as a pathway leading away from fanaticism, it encapsulates the basics of critical thinking and skeptical thought and is still shared by skeptics and atheists as a guideline. Some of his points must be presented with an explanation, however, to adjust to postmodern thinking. 

At the time, we cannot exactly say that his ideas were popular among the general public, however, they did make their mark among academics, which, in the beginning, was the group from which skeptics came from. 

Testing the Paranormal

The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge is legendary in the Skeptic movement. The work of James Randi truly brought the discipline of questioning and the need of verifying from the realm of academia into the consciousness of the general public.

Skepticism Anchors in the USA

In 1976 Paul Kurtz was inspired by Comité Para and co-founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) together with Randi, Isaac Asimov, B. F. Skinner, and Carl Sagan. Later renamed to the Center for Skeptical Inquiry. This, in turn, inspired the founding of many organizations worldwide. Various personalities lent their fame to this organization and to its goals, helping it to gain renown. The creation of CSICOP is the ending of the second era, in which we saw the creation of skeptics groups and more comprehensive development of skeptical thinking.

The Third Era

The skeptical timeline continues. 1980 the airing of the TV show Cosmos with Carl Sagan. 1989 The first European Skeptics Congress, 1994 the founding of the European Council of Skeptical Organisations, 1995 the first World Skeptic Congress, 2003 the first The Amazing Meeting, 2011 the first QED conference, 2019 now.

Cosmos

The airing of Sagan’s Cosmos added another component to the skeptical movement. Not only did it promote questioning, it truly started explaining the science on the basis of which we can question. Though this sounds completely logical, communicating science the way Sagan and his contemporaries worldwide started to do was something quite new and revolutionary. He also got kids excited about science and started a whole genre of science shows. Today, communicating science is as important, if not more, than questioning and debunking of claims.

Meetings, Conferences, Congresses

In the ’80s and ’90s skeptical groups started popping up left and right. Among them were my home group Sisyfos (1995), the German GWUP (1987), the Swedish VoF (1982), Italian CICAP (1989), and Spanish ARP-SAPC (1986). After the first European Skeptics Congress in 1989 and the fall of the Iron Curtain, skeptic groups in Europe started to communicate with each other more, creating an umbrella organization to ease the process and band together under – the European Council of Skeptical Organisations (ECSO). 

Skeptics started to meet across borders, communicate, and take advantage of the development of technological means to stay in touch, share experience, and spread their work. Also, with the new influx of members, the skeptical movement stopped being the domain of simply intellectual skepticism but became the home of skeptical activism.

The Fourth Era?

Skeptical activism leads to the question of “Why do we do this?” For skeptics, it is a question of being right and providing correct information. For skeptical activists, it is a question of consumer and public protection. These ideas aren’t mutually exclusive, but an individual’s preference of one over the other does form the way of their approach to skepticism and their role in the movement. 

Because of various motivations and entering points, we can see an overlap between the skeptical movement, the free-thought movement, rationalists, atheists, secularists, and humanists, including categories of humanism, such as feminism and racial equality. 

Though skepticism, as a school, is about rationality and objectivity, the skeptical movement is about embracing our humanity and using the tools we have to promote science, evidence-based public policy, quality education, and debunking baseless claims and beliefs, no matter where they are promoted, or who promotes them. 

Netflix’s (Un)Well leaves me (un)impressed

Every so often a new health documentary appears on Netflix, and every time I can feel the dread rise in my chest as I anticipate the questions and requests that typically come my way (“Have you seen it?”, “What did you think of it?”) along with the inevitable misinformation that I’m asked to correct.

When the trailer for (Un)Well appeared, I found myself filled with curiosity instead of dread. It seemed… interesting? That feeling lasted about as long as the intro sequence to the first episode. It was largely downhill from there.

(Un)Well is a 6-part documentary series in typical Netflix style: no narrator, lots of fancy B-roll, and a hell of a lot of fence-sitting. Each episode covers a particular trend in the Wellness industry: essential oils, tantric sex, breast milk for athletes, fasting, Ayahuasca, and bee-sting therapy. The description states that it aims to deep-dive and shine light on these, which is a noble goal in theory, but in practice they made such a mess of it that even the few good parts can’t make up for the over-confident characters and the dangerous messages they spread.

First and foremost, this documentary series falls prey to the common issue of false balance. Instead of outright condemning the various risky practices, they simply tell a few stories, bring in a few experts, and leave you to make up your own mind. To portray someone’s anecdote as being equivalent to an expert’s researched verdict is misleading. The two are far from the same. But how can an expert saying that consuming breast milk ordered via Facebook carries great risks possibly match up to someone claiming it cured their prostate cancer? The emotional weight of the story is far more convincing to a susceptible lay audience.

Dr Joy Bowles. She is smiling and has a cool short hair cut with highlights of silvery grey through the front. She is wearing metal framed glasses, a chunky black necklace and a dark magenta blazer. Image source: https://www.ejoybowles.com/bio.html#/
Dr Joy Bowles

Speaking of experts, they don’t receive anywhere near enough airtime in this series. We see incredibly articulate and intelligent arguments made by the likes of Steven Novella, Christy Harrison, and Dr Joy Bowles (who utters the most iconic line: “People say there are lots of studies – I used to think that was impressive too”. BURN) but they are cut short to make way for footage of vulnerable and sick individuals desperately trying whatever it takes to heal themselves. We see Dr Steven Novella expertly break down the components of bee venom only to immediately return to ‘The Heal Hive’ where founder Brooke Geahan (who has the audacity to name her social media @everydayexpert) says “we don’t know why it works”. We definitely needed more from the experts here.

In addition, there simply wasn’t enough emphasis on the potential for harm. During most episodes we hear from someone who has suffered greatly, or even died, as a result of the therapies and practices mentioned: whole-body rashes from essential oils, sexual assault in tantra workshops, death by water fasting, death by ayahuasca, and death by bee sting. We watch a group of people partaking in a (likely illegal) ayahuasca ceremony in the US where one woman has a bad reaction and stops breathing. The facilitators group around her asking each other “what do you want to do?” as if the answer was not blatantly obvious. Cue me shouting at my TV screen “call an ambulance now!” to no avail. Spoiler alert: she survived, and left terrified at the idea of trying that again. These stories are an important component, and yet the absence of a narrator meant the audience’s attention couldn’t be fully directed to where it was most needed.

It’s worth pointing out a few things that this documentary series did well. They discussed the issue of cultural appropriation in the Wellness industry, which is a huge problem that is too often swept under the carpet. During the ayahuasca episode we hear a local healer says that westerners want to take everything from them, including their spirituality. He’s not wrong. There are also some interesting overlaps between Wellness practices and religion. “Dr” Z, a blogger and chiropractor who sells essential oil masterclasses, claims that Jesus cured his depression (but Jesus couldn’t extend that to acne, apparently that was too hard); a father in Gaza states that “Bees receive divine messages from God” while holding down his son so he can be stung behind the ears to cure his hearing issues; and a tech-CEO in Silicon Valley asks “did God tell us to eat three meals a day?” as part of his argument for fasting (the irony of his name being Woo was not lost on me). Wellness can be cult-like, with a community to rival that of organised religion, and when so much of the documentary was focused on the US it didn’t surprise me to see so much religious narrative present. While they didn’t explicitly delve into this, it was interesting.

Feminine hands held over a bible, with a pen in one hand as if studying.

It’s clear to see why many of the individuals we follow through the episodes try these unusual and unproven therapies – they’re desperate, vulnerable, and willing to try whatever it takes to improve their lives in the face of difficult diagnoses and years of chronic illness. Of course they are. I think many of us would struggle not to do the same if we were in the same position. I have no anger to direct towards these individuals, I reserve it entirely for those creating shiny healing centres with false promises and false hope, for those profiting from people’s vulnerability. These are the people who say “I feel like I’ve played a positive part in these changes [in people]”, yet would never say “I feel like I’ve played a part in the negative things that happen”. Willing to accept all the praise yet none of the responsibility.

Overall, (Un)Well was majorly disappointing. I wouldn’t recommend wasting your time with it. What I would suggest, instead, is that you listen to myself and cardiothoracic surgeon Dr Nikki Stamp analysing the claims on our podcast, In Bad Taste, so that you can argue with Auntie Karen when she brings up essential oils as a cure for all your ills.

Hilary Evans Paranormal Picture Library: Fairies Dancing in a Ring

This image depicting fairies dancing in a ring comes from around 1600 and was in its original form a woodcut, before being beautifully hand-coloured to appear in an issue of The Strand magazine in 1892.

Fairies Dancing
A group of fairies dancing in a ring close to the doorway of their fairy mound circa 1600

Before the English Reformation fairies seem to have been a part of normal folkore, but after it they acquired a Satanic tone as the new Protestant theology held that everything not made for good by God was against Him.

Fairy folklore throughout the British Isles was influenced by the presence of (often circular) iron-age earthworks whose human origins were not properly understood. Notice also that there is a door which goes into the mound, into fairyland.

If you see a fairy gathering like the one depicted, remember not to join in with the dance – you will not escape alive.

Are digital pregnancy tests simply taking the pee?

0

Picture the scene: someone you care a lot about buys a medical test over the counter, but instead of buying the one that’s a few pence per test, they insist they want the more expensive one because they think it’s “more accurate”.

Being the good skeptic that you are, you wonder if that’s really true. How does the pricey test compare to the budget one? You’ve heard all the stories about people being scammed out of money for little more than branding. So you buy the test. You take it apart to see how it works. And it turns out it’s exactly the same as the budget one, only 20 times the price. You fire out a ranty tweet explaining your findings and excoriating the company who produced the needlessly expensive test. Case closed, right?

That’s what one Twitter user did when their wife wanted to confirm their pregnancy with a digital test. She’d had a positive test from a few of the cheaper strip tests but she wanted to confirm it with a “more accurate” digital test. The husband was skeptical, so he took apart the test to look inside. And, lo and behold, the test was a simple strip packaged up in some plastic casing with electronic detectors and an LCD screen that announces if you are “pregnant” or “not pregnant”.  A few months later, once the pregnancy was announced, he fired off the tweet showing the scam and the tweet went viral. At the time of writing the initial tweet has over ten thousand likes and hundreds of replies.

A stripped back digital pregnancy test and the testing paper within it. 

Source: https://twitter.com/CrunkComputing/status/1292930670583406592

I have to confess; I liked the tweet myself. It’s a good tweet: it illustrates very neatly that more expensive pregnancy testing methods work the same way as the cheaper ones. But there is a problem here. I mean it’d be a fairly dull story for me to tell you if there wasn’t.

Once this first tweet went viral, a second Twitter user did the same thing, buying a test from a brand called Equate, and took it apart. Being a techy person they stripped it all the way back, talked about how it all worked and how much of a waste of plastic and technology it was to generate these single use devices and then charge people more for something they don’t need.

But what neither tweeter – and many of the responders – failed to consider, was whether it really was something that people who want to test for pregnancy don’t need? Is it really a pointless piece of e-waste that’s filling up landfill and scamming people who might be pregnant, or does it serve a genuine purpose?

To understand this, it’s important to understand how pregnancy tests work, and how the simple strip tests differ from the digital tests. So first let’s take a look at the simple strip test. On Amazon you can get a pack of 15 for less than £3 – that’s 20p per test. It says “99%” accurate.

The tests are a fairly straight forward antibody test looking for a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). HCG is produced by the placenta. You only have a placenta if you’re pregnant. Clever ey? The small absorbent strips are infused with an antibody that recognises and binds to HCG which is linked to a gold nanoparticle. If there’s any HCG in your urine, it binds to the gold labelled antibody and along with the urine it absorbs its way up the strip until it reaches the test line. The test line has another antibody on it and if (and only if) your urine sample has interacted successfully with the first antibody (i.e. there’s HCG in the urine), then this second antibody binds to it and the test strip turns pink.

Positive result; pregnancy. However, tests can go wrong for loads of reasons. Maybe during manufacture the machine misses the strip and fails to add any antibody to that test strip. If that happened, then there’s nothing to turn pink if there’s HCG in your urine, which means a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean no pregnancy. So you need a way to prove the test is definitely ok and it’s definitely working. There’s a third antibody on a second line (keeping up?) and as the urine continues to travel up the absorbent paper, it reaches this second line, the control line and no matter whether there’s any HCG or not, it recognises the gold-linked antibody and it turns pink. The control line proves that the antibodies definitely got added to the paper, and that all the antibodies are doing what they should do and reacting in the right way.

Diagram illustrates what is described in the text about how strip tests work - two pregnancy tests side by side. The first test is treated with a pregnant urine sample containing HCG which travels up the strip as described in the main text showing a pink test line and pink control line. The second test is treated with a not-pregnant urine sample and shows a blank test line and a pink control line.

You have three potential results:

  1. The test line is pink and the control line is pink = positive result; the test worked and you’re pregnant
  2. The test line is not pink and the control line is pink = negative result; the test worked and you’re not pregnant
  3. The test line is either pink or not pink, and the control line is not pink = inconclusive result; the test failed, you can’t be sure the result is accurate, you need to take another test

These simple test strips are great. They’re really, really accurate, and they’re really, really cheap. But they are not perfect.

They aren’t always easy to interpret – it’s not a yes or no answer, it’s contingent on that control line showing that the test worked properly. There are many reasons why a person might find the control line confusing and make a mistake in reading the test. Especially if the result holds some emotion for them.

The other problem is that you need to dip them into a urine sample. These test strips have a small line a part way up the test that is the “max dip” line. You need the urine sample to absorb slowly up the strip so it encounters all the antibodies in the right order. So you can’t just pee on the strip. You need to pee in a clean, disposable pot and dip the strip into the pot and hold it there for 5 seconds. Not everyone has access to the facilities that allow them to pee into a such a pot. Either they don’t have access to a pot they can pee into, or they don’t have access to a safe bathroom that gives them the space and privacy to pee into a pot.

And then there’s the issue of ability, or disability. The test strips are a small, thin piece of paper about the size of a coffee stirrer. If you have mobility problems in your hands you might struggle to hold it. It’s also a visual test, the lines are quite small. If you have visual impairment you might struggle to read the test. You might not have someone you feel comfortable (or safe) asking for help.

The plastic, digital tests that have been doing the rounds on Twitter work in exactly the same way – a simple test strip. They cost around £8.50 for two tests on Amazon. But inside the plastic casing are some small LED lights that light up the test and control line and two light sensors that detect the result. They then use a small computer to convert the result into words. They have multiple benefits. Firstly – they’re really easy to interpret. It says “pregnant” or “not pregnant”, no checking and rechecking the instructions to be absolutely sure you got it right. I can’t overstate how reassuring that is for people who want to be really, really sure about the result.

Secondly, they’re much easier to use. These tests keep the strip encased in plastic and they have another absorbent strip that sticks outside of the plastic. You can hold that part into the flow of your urine. No need for a pot, no dipping. Which means you can take the test anywhere. If you don’t have access to clean, safe, private bathroom facilities, you can still find a place to take these tests. The tests are also much bigger, they’re easier to hold if you have mobility issues and the test identifies the line for you. You don’t need to worry if you can’t quite see a faint line. The sensors are way more sensitive than your eyes. And if you have visual impairment that allows you to read a digital screen, they are easier to read. Not perfect for people who are blind or visually impaired but certainly better. Because of that, you could argue, as tech blogger Naomi Wu does, that these digital tests might be more accurate, purely because they’re easier to use: you’re less likely to make a mistake and the machine can detect weak results. But, the companies who sell these tests do not claim that they are more accurate. Their promotional material says the same as the paper test strips: “99% accurate”. Any notion that these are more accurate comes from the perception and assumptions of the consumers (albeit a perception the manufacturers and advertisers may not go out of their way to dispel).

But it’s still important; if people think they’re more accurate and are buying them solely for that reason – then that is wasteful. And these digital tests are single use tech and plastic that are thrown away after use. They can both be useful tests for accessibility purposes, and a waste of plastic, electronics and money for people who don’t need them. Companies could work to make streamlined, less wasteful digital tests or even reusable plastic tests that can be fitted with paper test strips. But I guess that nuance is hard to get across in 240 characters.

If you want to hear more about pregnancy tests including how the tests that tell you how far along you are work, and that weird Tik Tok trend, listen to episode 285 of Skeptics with a K.