I have never been very good at dealing with people. I lack empathy, and communicating causes me anxiety. Even the thought of the most basic of small talk can frighten me to the point of avoiding it (and then seeming rude and cold).
I was in the office kitchen this morning, brewing a nice cup of Keemun, when I notice a new piece of paper on the kitchen noticeboard. It extolled four unknown properties of mobile phones, and suggested that people spread it to their friends. A couple of the claims didn't ring true for me, so I checked and it seems that it is a regurgitation of a well know hoax come urban myth.
So what do I do? I don't want my friends and colleagues being taken in by this. As a matter of principle I don't want anyone falling for mindless rumours, particularly ones that run against common sense. I don't know who put it up, but even if I did, how would I approach them?
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
25 March 2008
15 February 2008
Fluoridating MPs
A missive that I sent to my MP, Hugh Bayley, using the excellent Write To Them service.
---
Dear Mr Bayley,
I noted last week that the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson MP, is
leading a drive to encourage the fluoridation of water supplies. Two
parts of his statements seemed important to me. Firstly, he suggested
that there is strong evidence that the fluoridation of water is of
benefit to dental health. Secondly, he encouraged debate of the issue
at a local level.
In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned a systematic review from
the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of
York into the efficacy of fluoridating drinking water supplies. This
review was 'unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in
the fluoridation literature world-wide'[1]. The CRD has been at pains
to make its findings known, and to ensure that they are understood. In
fact, it released a statement asking that the relevant decision makers
make themselves aware of the contents of the report. The full text of
the statement and report can be found on the CRD website at
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm .
Given the results of the review, commissioned by the Department of
Health, I am surprised that the Minister is supporting this initiative.
As my MP, I was wondering if you would be able to find out why this is
so, especially given the recent emphasis placed by many members of the
government on making evidence based decisions. Clearly, this policy is
in conflict with the existing evidence.
In addition, as the Minister suggested asked that debate occurs at a
local level, I would like to add my voice to those asking that the York
water supplies are not fluoridated, if for no other reason than it
seems foolish to waste public money on a project that has no shown
benefit. If of course any future well-conducted studies were to show
benefits of water fluoridation, I would happily change my position.
Yours sincerely,
LSNDuck
[1] CRD, October 2003: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
---
Dear Mr Bayley,
I noted last week that the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson MP, is
leading a drive to encourage the fluoridation of water supplies. Two
parts of his statements seemed important to me. Firstly, he suggested
that there is strong evidence that the fluoridation of water is of
benefit to dental health. Secondly, he encouraged debate of the issue
at a local level.
In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned a systematic review from
the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of
York into the efficacy of fluoridating drinking water supplies. This
review was 'unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in
the fluoridation literature world-wide'[1]. The CRD has been at pains
to make its findings known, and to ensure that they are understood. In
fact, it released a statement asking that the relevant decision makers
make themselves aware of the contents of the report. The full text of
the statement and report can be found on the CRD website at
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd
Given the results of the review, commissioned by the Department of
Health, I am surprised that the Minister is supporting this initiative.
As my MP, I was wondering if you would be able to find out why this is
so, especially given the recent emphasis placed by many members of the
government on making evidence based decisions. Clearly, this policy is
in conflict with the existing evidence.
In addition, as the Minister suggested asked that debate occurs at a
local level, I would like to add my voice to those asking that the York
water supplies are not fluoridated, if for no other reason than it
seems foolish to waste public money on a project that has no shown
benefit. If of course any future well-conducted studies were to show
benefits of water fluoridation, I would happily change my position.
Yours sincerely,
LSNDuck
[1] CRD, October 2003: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd
01 February 2008
Response from the Green Party
At the end of November, I wrote to the Green Party explaining why I had decided not to renew my membership. The text of my e-mail can be found in my previous post.
I was surprised to receive a response from the membership secretary of my local party. He said:
I am glad that at the local level there are options to reduce the large amounts of paper sent out by the party. It is also heartening to see a positive response to my comments concerning the level of scientific literacy within the Green Party.
Although I won't be rejoining in the near future, some of my confidence is the common membership of the party is restored.
I was surprised to receive a response from the membership secretary of my local party. He said:
Sorry to hear you're not renewing your Green Party membership. I agree with your point about scientific illiteracy and also that there are ways to reduce quantities of paper we send.
York Green Party also has a supporters' scheme, where for £5 a year you can remain a supporter. The quantity of literature you receive is much reduced, but it means you are still kept in touch with regarding news and events.
I am glad that at the local level there are options to reduce the large amounts of paper sent out by the party. It is also heartening to see a positive response to my comments concerning the level of scientific literacy within the Green Party.
Although I won't be rejoining in the near future, some of my confidence is the common membership of the party is restored.
Depression and Omega 3, a follow up
Before Christmas Henry North London, the writer of the Musings of the Medic blog suggested the use of Omega 3 fats(commonly found in certain fish and food supplements) for assisting with depression. I asked for some references, and Henry kindly provided a link to an article which cited a study (link to the abstract on PubMed).
This study was unfortunately not of much use. First, it wasn't looking at depression, but at anger disorders. Secondly, the study looked at two cases, both pre-pubescent boys. A sample size of two is not large enough to draw any form of conclusion, however well designed and run the study is. The article which cites this study seems to have, will good intentions no doubt, jumped on the bandwagon without applying any critical thought to the study.
A wider search on PubMed reveals a large number of papers on omega-3 and depression. Overall, it is very inconclusive. The handful of papers relating to actual studies are of very small sizes, or of a nature that can indicate possible correlations, but not causations.
One study offers more firm conclusions, indicating that a low dose of Ethyl-Eicosapentaenoate (an omega-3 fatty acid) can offer short term benefits over and above placebo in long term depressed patients. However, the study only covered twelve weeks, and was still fairly small (n=70). The conclusion of the freely available full text states "Its position in the treatment spectrum will be established only by further trials."
There seem to be some positive indications for the use of omega-3 fats in the treatment of depression, but large long-term intervention studies need to be carried out before anything like a firm conclusion can be drawn.
This study was unfortunately not of much use. First, it wasn't looking at depression, but at anger disorders. Secondly, the study looked at two cases, both pre-pubescent boys. A sample size of two is not large enough to draw any form of conclusion, however well designed and run the study is. The article which cites this study seems to have, will good intentions no doubt, jumped on the bandwagon without applying any critical thought to the study.
A wider search on PubMed reveals a large number of papers on omega-3 and depression. Overall, it is very inconclusive. The handful of papers relating to actual studies are of very small sizes, or of a nature that can indicate possible correlations, but not causations.
One study offers more firm conclusions, indicating that a low dose of Ethyl-Eicosapentaenoate (an omega-3 fatty acid) can offer short term benefits over and above placebo in long term depressed patients. However, the study only covered twelve weeks, and was still fairly small (n=70). The conclusion of the freely available full text states "Its position in the treatment spectrum will be established only by further trials."
There seem to be some positive indications for the use of omega-3 fats in the treatment of depression, but large long-term intervention studies need to be carried out before anything like a firm conclusion can be drawn.
14 December 2007
Depression and Omega 3
Via Mental Nurse and Musings of the Medic I came across a claim for the efficacy of Omega 3 fish oils in treating depression. Unfortunately, Musings of the Medic didn't quote any sources.
A quick check of PubMed showed some studies that are suggestive of positive results, but that state that further research is required before strong claims can be made.
When the internet has been turned on in the new house of ducks, I shall pursue this further. Or when I get bored at work.
A quick check of PubMed showed some studies that are suggestive of positive results, but that state that further research is required before strong claims can be made.
When the internet has been turned on in the new house of ducks, I shall pursue this further. Or when I get bored at work.
24 November 2007
E-mail to the Green Party
Dear madam/sir,
Thank you for all of your recent correspondence concerning the lapsing of my Green Party Membership. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.
I have a great affinity with the principles, and the majority of policies of the Green Party; more so than with any of the other political groups. This extends not only to your stance on environmental issues, but to the wider issues such as benefits, education, and foreign policy. In any future elections, I am most likely to vote for a Green candidate.
However, I no longer feel it appropriate for me directly support the Party with either a financial contribution, or by being a full member. I have two reasons for this.
I strongly believe that the best way for a party such as the Green Party to be successful, it should base its policies and campaigning on as firm as base as possible. Having been brought up and educated with a strong scientific basis, and having observed the increasingly populist form that recent politics has taken, it seems that a truly benevolent government should be focusing on what works, what can be shown to work, and to what can rationally be expected to work.
Whilst a large proportion of formal Green Party policy has been formed in this way, I am increasingly concerned by the behaviour of senior Party members who are abandoning these principles and resorting to positions that seem more interested in manipulating irrational fears than in the realities of a given situation.
As a brief example, there was some brief concern over the potential dangers of wireless computer communications. These concerns have very little basis either in observable effect, or in the theories that underlie our current understanding of the physical world. There are certain parts of the media, and opportunistic politicians, who I had no surprise in seeing jump on this and create irrational fears and ban everything headlines. I did not expect this behaviour from senior members of a party that I had joined at least partly on the basis of its rationality.
I fully accept the right of any individual member to hold some particular views that do not agree entirely with the policy of their party. There are of course one or two points in which I disagree with Green Party manifestos. However, there is also an added responsibility upon senior party members, particularly those who are frequently providing a voice for the party in public fora, to be consistent with party policy, and where they are known to disagree, to at least be sure that their disagreement in based on a tenable position.
On a second, more practical note, I have been astounded by the amount of information I have received from the Green Party during my year as a member. Communication is a very important part of any political movement, but the volume of paper that I have received, frequently with separate mailings from different sources containing exactly the same information has almost disgusted me.
In addition, none of this sources seem to offer alternative methods of communication, most notably in my mind an e-mail or internet based method of delivery that would reduce the amount of physical resources used.
I repeat that I will continue to vote for the Green Party at every opportunity. I will continue to support the aims of the Party where I can, both in practical acts, and in communicating with friends, relatives, and in dealing with important issues. However, I cannot consider offering financial support, or continuing my formal relationship with the Party given my concerns raised above.
Yours sincerely,
LSNDuck
Thank you for all of your recent correspondence concerning the lapsing of my Green Party Membership. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.
I have a great affinity with the principles, and the majority of policies of the Green Party; more so than with any of the other political groups. This extends not only to your stance on environmental issues, but to the wider issues such as benefits, education, and foreign policy. In any future elections, I am most likely to vote for a Green candidate.
However, I no longer feel it appropriate for me directly support the Party with either a financial contribution, or by being a full member. I have two reasons for this.
I strongly believe that the best way for a party such as the Green Party to be successful, it should base its policies and campaigning on as firm as base as possible. Having been brought up and educated with a strong scientific basis, and having observed the increasingly populist form that recent politics has taken, it seems that a truly benevolent government should be focusing on what works, what can be shown to work, and to what can rationally be expected to work.
Whilst a large proportion of formal Green Party policy has been formed in this way, I am increasingly concerned by the behaviour of senior Party members who are abandoning these principles and resorting to positions that seem more interested in manipulating irrational fears than in the realities of a given situation.
As a brief example, there was some brief concern over the potential dangers of wireless computer communications. These concerns have very little basis either in observable effect, or in the theories that underlie our current understanding of the physical world. There are certain parts of the media, and opportunistic politicians, who I had no surprise in seeing jump on this and create irrational fears and ban everything headlines. I did not expect this behaviour from senior members of a party that I had joined at least partly on the basis of its rationality.
I fully accept the right of any individual member to hold some particular views that do not agree entirely with the policy of their party. There are of course one or two points in which I disagree with Green Party manifestos. However, there is also an added responsibility upon senior party members, particularly those who are frequently providing a voice for the party in public fora, to be consistent with party policy, and where they are known to disagree, to at least be sure that their disagreement in based on a tenable position.
On a second, more practical note, I have been astounded by the amount of information I have received from the Green Party during my year as a member. Communication is a very important part of any political movement, but the volume of paper that I have received, frequently with separate mailings from different sources containing exactly the same information has almost disgusted me.
In addition, none of this sources seem to offer alternative methods of communication, most notably in my mind an e-mail or internet based method of delivery that would reduce the amount of physical resources used.
I repeat that I will continue to vote for the Green Party at every opportunity. I will continue to support the aims of the Party where I can, both in practical acts, and in communicating with friends, relatives, and in dealing with important issues. However, I cannot consider offering financial support, or continuing my formal relationship with the Party given my concerns raised above.
Yours sincerely,
LSNDuck
31 October 2007
Obesity evidence
Interestingly, following my recent post concerning Junkfood Science and obesity, a major report has been released on the subject.
The Expert Report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective is produced by the World Cancer Research Fund. According to the website the report is:
I shall read as much as I can, consider the evidence used, and report back here.
The Expert Report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective is produced by the World Cancer Research Fund. According to the website the report is:
the most current and comprehensive analysis of the literature on diet, physical activity and cancer.
I shall read as much as I can, consider the evidence used, and report back here.
30 October 2007
Newcastle University organic food study
Yesterday, the Guardian and the BBC website reported news concerning an EU funded study into organic foods carried out led by the University of Newcastle.
The Guardian article was titles 'Organic food is healthier: study', whilst the BBC used "Organic produce 'better for you'". Both indicate that the study showed organic foods (in this study, fruit, vegetables, and cow based products) to be more healthy than non-organic food.
Unfortunately, none of the news coverage linked to more detailed information, and I couldn't find any after some cursory searching.
Using the coverage as the sole source of information, I have the following concerns about the report:
It has yet to be published, or peer reviewed. Thus no comment can be passed on the accuracy of the study, or the interpretation of results. Unusually, the BBC noted this.
The main basis for the the organic fruit and vegetables being considered more healthy is that they contain higher levels of anti-oxidants than non-organic comparisons. Whilst many claims are made for the health benefits of anti-oxidants, there is very little evidence to support them. The majority of studies have either shown no benefit, or in some cases, a reduction in benefit where additional anti-oxidants are applied.
It may be that anti-oxidants are good for us, in which case these organic crops will be better in that sense. The coverage, however, incorrectly assumes that this is true, invalidating the conclusion that the study shows the organic produce to be healthier.
Assuming that the journalists were reasonably true to the press release they were given, the information seems remarkably scant. Some mention is made of increased levels of some fatty acids as well as other 'nutrients'. No details of which, and in what quantity were given.
The release itself stated that there were wide variations in results.
So, whilst it may be that organic produce is better for us in some ways than non-organic, as it stands at the moment we can't say so with any degree of certainty. This release of information does not change that position, despite the inference from the news coverage otherwise.
The Guardian article was titles 'Organic food is healthier: study', whilst the BBC used "Organic produce 'better for you'". Both indicate that the study showed organic foods (in this study, fruit, vegetables, and cow based products) to be more healthy than non-organic food.
Unfortunately, none of the news coverage linked to more detailed information, and I couldn't find any after some cursory searching.
Using the coverage as the sole source of information, I have the following concerns about the report:
It has yet to be published, or peer reviewed. Thus no comment can be passed on the accuracy of the study, or the interpretation of results. Unusually, the BBC noted this.
The main basis for the the organic fruit and vegetables being considered more healthy is that they contain higher levels of anti-oxidants than non-organic comparisons. Whilst many claims are made for the health benefits of anti-oxidants, there is very little evidence to support them. The majority of studies have either shown no benefit, or in some cases, a reduction in benefit where additional anti-oxidants are applied.
It may be that anti-oxidants are good for us, in which case these organic crops will be better in that sense. The coverage, however, incorrectly assumes that this is true, invalidating the conclusion that the study shows the organic produce to be healthier.
Assuming that the journalists were reasonably true to the press release they were given, the information seems remarkably scant. Some mention is made of increased levels of some fatty acids as well as other 'nutrients'. No details of which, and in what quantity were given.
The release itself stated that there were wide variations in results.
So, whilst it may be that organic produce is better for us in some ways than non-organic, as it stands at the moment we can't say so with any degree of certainty. This release of information does not change that position, despite the inference from the news coverage otherwise.
28 October 2007
Introduction: Junkfood Science
One blog that I have been keeping up to date with recently has been Junkfood Science. Written by Sandy Szwarc, a qualified nurse, if focusses on the science and issues around obesity. The position of the blog is largely against the message delivered by governments that there is an obesity crisis that is threatening the health of the (western) world. The main points seem to be:
1. Obesity doesn't cause disease or medical conditions as is widely reported. It can be a marker for causes, but isn't one of itself.
2. In some situations, obesity can have positive health influences.
3. Highlighting the discrimination against the obese, including the negative effect that the 'war on obesity' has on this.
4. Indicating that the 'war on obesity' is a potentially large market, especially when reinforced by government campaigns.
5. That the obesity crisis is largely a false interpretation of the real situation.
Generally, the posts are well structured and written. Sandy Szwarc makes frequent references to studies and publications, and offers her analysis of their findings, which commonly run against the popular interpretations.
The clarity and apparent evidence base of these claims has caused me to consider the subject in greater depth. That the main emphasis of Junkfood Science runs against popular opinion, and the beliefs that I have been taught, and with apparently reliable evidence in support, have interested me a great deal.
I have briefly looked at some of the opposing views, some of which are very vehemently against Sandy Szwarc, but I think I will do so in much greater depth, and report what I discover here.
1. Obesity doesn't cause disease or medical conditions as is widely reported. It can be a marker for causes, but isn't one of itself.
2. In some situations, obesity can have positive health influences.
3. Highlighting the discrimination against the obese, including the negative effect that the 'war on obesity' has on this.
4. Indicating that the 'war on obesity' is a potentially large market, especially when reinforced by government campaigns.
5. That the obesity crisis is largely a false interpretation of the real situation.
Generally, the posts are well structured and written. Sandy Szwarc makes frequent references to studies and publications, and offers her analysis of their findings, which commonly run against the popular interpretations.
The clarity and apparent evidence base of these claims has caused me to consider the subject in greater depth. That the main emphasis of Junkfood Science runs against popular opinion, and the beliefs that I have been taught, and with apparently reliable evidence in support, have interested me a great deal.
I have briefly looked at some of the opposing views, some of which are very vehemently against Sandy Szwarc, but I think I will do so in much greater depth, and report what I discover here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
