nz skeptic

Talking the talk? Time to walk the walk

2010-12-06T20:52:00.000+13:00

As a skeptic one of the things I would like to see from other people is an open mind. But sometimes it's easy forget you can be equally close-minded in your own beliefs.

It's not an easy thing to do, especially when you think you're being skeptical. Or in this case perhaps a tad cynical.

To say I'm not a fan of the social media phenomenon of changing your avatar or updating your status to support a particular cause is somewhat understating it.

It started with women posting the colour of their bra to support breast cancer awarness and it's been near constant since then.

The latest, changing your avatar to a cartoon character to show your support in the battle against violence on children, seems equally fatuous to me.

I mean who supports doesn't want to see breast cancer eradicated? Would not changing my avatar mean I was somehow advocating violence against children? Of course not.

In fact I made the point vociferously on Facebook and twitter and followed it up in the best way I thought possible - donating some money to the Starship Foundation.

I did this because I strongly believed that one million people changing their avatar will change nothing while actually giving some cash might do some good...

And there I sat, smug because I'd actually did something other than piss around with my picture on Facebook. Until someone sent me a direct message on Twitter.

"Quick question: had the Facebook campaign not been out there, would you still have made a donation today to Starship?"

And that's when it struck - that moment of realising you talk the talk but not always walk the walk.

The truth is I do donate to charity. I've raised thousands over the year. But the chances of me looking for a charity which can help children who have been abused and donating in the next few months was low.

So while I believed I was being open minded and skeptical I wasn't really.

I then had an ongoing conversation with that person who had changed their avatar, researched charities in New Zealand and then donated. And, as she rightfully pointed out, if she had done that then she's likely not to be the only one.

And by my donating I had proved her point. Although I didn't agree in the slightest with the campaign as a direct result I ponyed up cash. In her words 'Surely it's a good thing?"

That was an eye-opening conversation. We started off in polar opposite positions and ended up broadly agreeing. And it felt good.

Now I'm not arguing I was completely wrong. I still wish those who jump to show their support online would actually end up doing something more.

And the only discussion I've seen coming out of the issue has been about the cartoon character, not the problem.

But more importantly for a skeptic it's a gentle reminder that when you hope for people to open their mind you can't afford to close yours.

The healthcare irony

2010-10-19T17:11:00.001+13:00

First I'd like to apologise for being away from nzskeptic and sciblogs for so long. This tends to be a pattern with my blogging, but it's not random.

For over a decade now I've struggled with bipolar disorder, particularly the depression aspect which leaves me barely functioning. All my effort goes into my job hence everything else tends to get ignored.

I tell you this not because I want sympathy or because I want to excuse my shoddy blogging schedule, but because I believe it plays a large part in me being the skeptic I am.

It certainly made me face my own failures and question my beliefs which I think led to my skepticism.

But back on to the main topic of this post - the healthcare irony.

I use the word irony (hopefully in the proper, non-Alanis Morrisette way) because the further we develop as a society the more backwards our attitude to healthcare seems to become.

Of course this is a generalisation, but it saddens me greatly people seem to be more inclined to believe something natural is inherently better than a drug that originates in the pharmaceutical industry.

After all the active ingredient in anything, natural or not, is a chemical and at it's fundamental a natural chemical is no different to a manufactured chemical.

In fact a number of the drugs I used to work with were generated using some natural plant material as a starting point (there's that damn irony again!).

But I don't honestly know what it says about us as a society or species that we seem to be intent on believing vast conspiracies are out to harm us or keep us from living a full and healthly life.

The latest to make me question our collective sanity is the so-called miracle cure for AIDS, herpes, hepatitis A, B and C and a plethora of other deadly illnesses, Miracle Mineral Solution.

I first read about this in the NZ Herald on Friday and again at Yahoo!Xtra today.

This product is being sold in New Zealand and around the world and consists of what effectively is an industrial bleaching compound.

(Of course, just because it's a bleaching compound doesn't mean it may not provide some kind of healthcare effect, but that's not the point of this blog.)

What is clear is this product is being marketed as a potential miracle cure and it can't possibly back that up with double-blinded studies.

And so faced with no clear evidence of efficacy the distributor relies on what should be a warning to anyone reading this kind of article - impugning our healthcare system and relying on anecdotal data.

This quote says it all for me:

"Read Medsafe's list of symptoms and just ask: what would chemo do to you?"

The sheer stupidity in that comment from one of the New Zealand distributors is breathtaking and the fact that such a statement won't convince any believer drives me mental (pun intended).

I could write a 1,000 word post on that quote along, but I honestly don't think it needs further explanation.

And, just for good measure, the Yahoo!Xtra story I mentioned earlier has comments on it.

Can you guess how many are in support of warning people about the medicine and how many are conspiracy theories or anecdotal stories about it doing what it says?

You don't need me to answer that, do you?

How much do you tell the kids?

2010-03-09T21:38:00.000+13:00

With a couple of young kids I've found myself becoming increasingly conflicted about just how 'truthy' I am with regards to those little white lies most parents see as normal.

I'm thinking of things like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and, yes, even God.

Every parent likes to think of their progeny as being intelligent and I'm no different. And with that comes the respect I have and my desire to be always honest with them and let them make their own decisions.

But it's hard. Hard because my innocent babies think the idea of Santa Claus giving them presents for being good is wonderous. And the pain of losing a teeth is overcome by the satisfaction and excitement of knowing that a coin awaits the next morning.

So what exactly should we tell our kids and what shouldn't we?

The most common way I've found of not dealing with this is deflecting the question back to the child in question.

"Does Santa exist, daddy?"

"Hmm. What do you think?"

But I can tell this is only going to get me so far. My eldest is just too inquisitive to let it stand. And they're both able to use my iMac to use the internet and I suspect it's only a matter of time before they try and find a cool Santa website and stumble on the truth.

(For what it's worth all proper parental controls are on to ensure they can't get to dodgy websites but I suspect belief in a jolly fat man with a white beard and sack of presents isn't filtered by this.)

So what do I say when my "Hmm. What do you think" is finally batted back to me with "It's a yes or no question, daddy. Does Santa exist?"

I suspect my skepticism will win through and I'll just confess. Probably out of earshot of the younger one so he can find out the truth for himself.

But is the right way to deal with it? Should I have told them the truth as soon as they understood the concept of the Tooth Fairy?

Or is little while lies to our kids acceptable? I'd be interested to hear from others what they would do, or have done, in similar circumstances.

Atheist bus campaign

2010-02-24T20:18:00.003+13:00

I've written in the past how my particular brand of skepticism includes atheism.

I see religion as no different to any other topic - provide me with the evidence and I'll reconsider my stance.

And so on to the news. You may have already read about the decision by NZ Bus to deny the Atheist Bus Campaign advertising space on their buses.

Now to some extent I believe they are entitle to accept and reject adverts as they see fit. But frankly I just wish NZ Bus would grow a spine.

Company spokesperson Siobhan O'Donovan said a number of people found the potential advert ("There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life") 'distasteful or distressing'.

This just winds me up no end.

I see, read and hear things every single day of my life I find distasteful and distressing (I listen to Newstalk ZB so it's not hard). But I have the option to ignore it if I so choose.

The thing I don't understand is why that simple message is so controversial. It's not like the giant billboard of the planes flying into the Twin Towers with John Lennon's famed 'Imagine no religion' lyric which was designed to be deliberately provocative.

The only conclusion I can draw is these people's faith is on such shoddy grounds that even suggesting to them there might be no god is enough to turn them to the dark side.

Frankly I feel sorry for people who found this distressing. If someone was to put up a sign on a bus saying "Atheists are probably going to hell" then I wouldn't be distressed. I'd probably laugh.

In the meantime those things which I (and many people I know) find truly distasteful and distressing - poverty, child abuse, racism, sexism - go unaddressed.

Hey, here's a thought. Maybe NZ Bus could have taken the multiple thousands the atheists were offering to pay and given their bus drivers a raise. Might have helped with the whole poverty thing.

Pyschic schmychic

2010-01-08T14:43:00.003+13:00

What do you do when friends pay money to see a 'psychic'? Do you spend time trying to convince them otherwise or do you just accept it and try and explain some of the hits afterwards?

I had often thought about this in the past and had always come down on the side of the former. Then I actually got some friends who paid money to see one and now I'm in the latter.

In fact, I'm now almost past the latter to the stage where I'm not even going to try and explain it because it turns out it doesn't actually matter what anyone else thinks.

And it's not like these people are unintelligent - they're not. These are clever people with good jobs, but seem willing to believe that someone who can make some educated guesses about them is able to see the future or talk to dead people.

The thing that got me (and led to a fair proportion of time speaking about it) was the disclaimer the 'psychic' gave up front - to paraphrase, 'this reading is accurate for today but you may make decisions in the future which will alter this and threfore you cannot come back to me and say this didn't come true'.

To an open-minded person I would have thought this would have raised a massive warning flag - and I like to think my friends are pretty open-minded. But no, this was accepted without question.

This so-called psychic just gave themselves the biggest out in the world and yet neither of my friends even considered this as a bad thing.

And then we got onto the hits - those things which were apparently so accurate that only someone who had special abilities would be able to know them. And yes, some good guesses were apparently made - but nothing beyond the bounds of some decent cold reading and a little research.

So I moved on and asked about things that didn't make sense. One of my friends said the 'psychic' had mentioned a name which didn't mean anything. I thought this would surely raise the alarm bells.

Nope, how wrong could I be. This just meant the person might not have come into their lives at this point, or maybe it was a reference to a family member they weren't aware of. Just great.

So, with tail firmly between my legs, I gave it one last shot. Both still have tapes of their visit to the 'psychic'.

I asked them to listen to the tape with a piece of paper in their hands and to mark all the things that were accurate and could apply only to them, things which were accurate which could apply to lots of other people and things which were inaccurate.

I'm figuring it's never going to be done.

So what do you do if a friend tells you they're going to see a 'psychic'? As much as it grates and goes against everything I stand for, in the future (at least with these friends) I might just bite my tongue.

It's TAM Australia, baby!

2009-11-30T18:38:00.003+13:00

Apologies for the lack of updates recently. Rest assured my skeptical brain has been working while the rest of me has been slightly worse than useless.

I'll be back with more regular updates now Real Life (TM) has once again deigned to allow me some spare time.

And what better way to celebrate my impending return than with the announcement of TAM (The Amazing Meeting) Australia?

The Amazing Meeting has been held since 2003 and has become the premier meeting for skeptics worldwide. Unfortunately for those of us outwith the United States it can be very expensive to attend.

Earlier this year the first international TAM took place in London and it was widely acclaimed.

And so hot off the back of that was the announcement that Australia will become a focal point for skeptics all around the world from 26-28th November next year.

It's a major coup for the Australian Skeptics and the list of skeptical attendees is already looking impressive.

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe cast (Dr Steve Novella, Bob Novella, Jay Novella, Evan Bernstein and Rebecca Watson) had already announced they would travel to Australia next year but this will now coincide with TAM Australia.

And if that isn't exciting enough, Skeptoid's Brian Dunning and skeptical podcaster and singer George Hrab will also be making the long trip.

Oh, and a certain diminutive magician widely loved by the entire skeptical community has also said he intends to be in Sydney.

One of the greatest things about the skeptical community is how in touch the 'leaders' are with the base. I've exchanged e-mails, Facebook messages and Tweets with the biggest names and it's amazing (no pun intended) to be able to do that.

And the highlight had to be an e-mail from the man himself, James Randi. I sent him some birthday wishes last year and I was stunned to receive a message back from him.

It was short, amusing and has become my most treasured e-mail. I'll be hoping Randi has fully recovered from his recent health issues so I may shake his hand next November.

Congratulations Australian Skeptics and I can't wait to meet everyone next year.

I'll be looking for cheap tickets to Sydney every day from now on!

Skepticism can be fun

2009-10-29T21:50:00.005+13:00

Skepticism can sometimes be a bit of a dry topic.

Good skeptical blog posts about efficacy of natural products may necessarily be hundreds (or thousands) of words long and include multiple references.

Not that that's a bad thing, of course.

But it doesn't always have to be that way. Sometimes less can say more.

And just recently I discovered a blog which does that brilliantly.

The guy's name is Crispian Jago and his blog has given me a huge number of laughs over the last few weeks.

His satire of South Park (called 'Skeptic Park' of course) is just perfect (part one, part two) and the time and effort he must have put into his Simpsons Skeptic video makes me feel way too lazy.

And I've already linked to his video showing how nonsensical homeopathy is by using his own urine as an example.

But the one which gave me the biggest laugh was his video 'The Benny Hinn Show':

Isn't it amazing how a 79 second video can entertain but also make a serious point at the same time?

I don't want to give you the wrong impression about Science, Reason and Critical Thinking because it also has some interesting, well written posts which aren't focussed on humour and there are some great videos from The Amazing Meeting in London.

So the best thing to do it head over there and subscribe to his RSS feed. I promise you won't be disappointed.

TVNZ's psychic step too far

2009-10-09T15:22:00.003+13:00

I'll wait with baited breath for the accusation of being 'closed-minded' and the pearl of wisdom that 'science can't explain everything' because those are the two things I read and hear most when I write or speak about psychics.

But sometimes it's worth hearing that rhetoric because the story is much more important, and that's the case today.

I imagine many of you are familiar with the disappearance of west Auckland todder Aisling Symes and the police search to find the two year old.

Stories like this really tug on my heart strings, particularly with two young-ish kids of my own.

I can only imagine the pain the parents are going through at the present time, particularly their desperation to hear anything which could help re-unite them with their baby.

But even knowing that the decision of TVNZ to put self-proclaimed 'metaphysical researcher' (ie psychic, medium) Deb Webber in contact with her parents is beyond the pale, in my opinion.

Media columnist John Drinnan wrote about the story eloquently in the NZ Herald this morning, so I recommend jumping over there and reading his words.

But the only thing I don't agree with Drinnan on is his characterisation of TVNZ's role as unsettling. I'd go way beyond that. It's utterly disgraceful.

Psychics, in my opinion, fall into two categories - those who know they aren't psychic and are deliberately using hot and cold reading techniques and those who seriously believe they have the ability to talk with dead people but are just good cold readers and intuitive.

I have no reason to doubt Webber doesn't seriously believe she has the gift of talking to the spirits.

But that doesn't mean she is and it certainly doesn't mean TVNZ should be facilitating any kind of meeting with parents who will be struggling to deal with the situation they find themselves in.

What makes it worse is TVNZ have a relationship with Webber because of her part in Sensing Murder, a show which to my knowledge - and of course I'll amend this should someone provide evidence to the contrary - has never resulted in the solving of an unsolved case.

The state broadcaster then used the knowledge they had filmed Webber and she had 'some information' on the case to ask "how seriously are police likely to take that information" at a media conference.

Unfortunately Drinnan's piece doesn't say what the police response to that inappropriate question was.

Is it too much to hope the police aren't going to waste precious resources on what is likely to be nothing more than an educated guess based on the history of these types of disappearances?

The last thing this devastated family need to hear is the words of a person who has been caught talking with the spirits of dead people who didn't exist.

Unfortunately I can't bring you Eating Media Lunch's deliciously satirical take on Webber and her ability to speak with non-existant spirits because the Sensing Bullshit segment has been removed from YouTube due to "use violation".

In my opinion the search for young Aisling should be left to the professionals and not because the spirits are telling me so.

Common decency is.

Here are some links if you want to read some more about psychics and the Sensing Murder television show:

Skepdic on psychics
CSI's story on 'psychic' John Edward
Skeptico's psychic debunking
Sensing Bullshit
Sensing Murder

Auckland Skeptics in the Pub

2009-10-03T18:01:00.004+13:00

Ever since I became aware I was a 'skeptic' I had struggled to find any kind of skeptical community to feel a part of.

That changed when I discovered podcasts like The Skeptics Guide to the Universe and even more so when I started using twitter regularly.

In fact, I conversed more with skeptics in Australia than I did with any in Auckland or even New Zealand.

But then I 'met' unifex on twitter. He is the organiser of Christchurch Skeptics in the Pub (SitP), webmaster of skepticsinthepub.net.nz and he offered some of his meetup.com credits to allow us to start Auckland SitP.

I set up the first meeting expecting 20 or so skeptics to crawl out of the Auckland woodwork but on the 10th September around 50 turned up at the Horse and Trap for the inaugral meeting.

Our numbers were definitely boosted by the attendance of special guest Kylie Sturgess, an Australian skeptic and a member of the Skeptic Zone podcast team.

She shared some of her experiences, recorded a conversation with a group of us to form part of the podcast (which you can download in mp3 format here) and even had time for some video shooting:

The meeting was a little disorganised, partly because no-one had any idea what was expected from the meeting, but despite that it was successful and plenty of ideas were shared for the next meeting.

And so this Thursday at 7.00pm another group of skeptics will gather at the Horse and Trap to listen to Matthew Dentith give a talk about conspiracy theories, have a beer and some snacks and do some networking.

If you're in the area feel free to drop in and check it out, and ideally join the group online so you can keep in touch with what's happening and help us build up our Auckland group.

Of course, if you're in Wellington or Christchurch then feel free to join their groups and head along to their meetings instead.

I promise you won't regret it.

Where's the harm?

2009-09-30T15:56:00.007+13:00

It's a question that's often asked about natural alternatives to pharmaceutical medicines and often there is no harm. (That doesn't mean there's any benefit either, but that's for another day.)

But that's not true in this heartbreaking case from Australia.

If the death of a child isn't hard enough, living with the knowledge you could have done something to save them must be a burden which can never be shaken off.

Unfortunately for Thomas and Manju Sam that is the reality. They've both been jailed for the manslaughter of their daughter Gloria because they didn't care for her as they should have.

Essentially they treated a very treatable condition - eczema - with homeopathy and ignored advice to get her seen by a real doctor.

This ended with the death of the nine-month-old in May 2002.

Now I have very little sympathy for the Sams. They obviously didn't set out to have their daughter die a slow and painful death so it may be that I appear heartless.

But when you read that Thomas Sam had "an arrogant approach to what he perceived to be the superior benefits of homeopathy compared with conventional medicine" then I find it hard to feel sorry they're spending time in prison for this.

And the reason I feel like that is because in the wide spectrum from conventional treatment to full-on woo, homeopathy is as psuedoscientific as they come.

My own (anecdotal) surveys have found people don't tend to know exactly what homeopathy is. They appear to know it's natural and have some vague idea it might be something to do with herbs.

But it's way worse than that.

At it's heart homeopathy uses the idea "similia similibus curentur" or let likes be cured by likes.

This premise came after the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, developed symptoms of malaria after swallowing some quinine-containing cinchona bark (quinine is a drug used to cure malaria).

This may sound vaguely plausible, and is often confused for the effect that allows vaccinations to work, but that is different.

In vaccinations a foreign antigen is used to provoke a response from the immune system meaning the body is prepared should the disease be encountered.

But that antigen isn't just any old thing which causes the same symptoms of the disease - often it's simply a weakened or inactive form of the actual pathogen.

And it gets worse. Homeopathy also works on the premise that the more dilute the sample the stronger its effect, something which is counter to all logical thinking.

Here's the excellent Science-based Medicine's take on the so-called law of infinitesimal doses.

The law of infinitesimal doses also runs contrary to chemistry, pharmacology, and thermodynamics. Homeopaths today use dilutions of substances which essentially remove all traces of the substance from the final dilution.

There is not likely to be even a single molecule of the original drug in the final remedy which is given to the patient.

Homeopaths conclude from this fact that the substance is transferring its essence to the water into which it is diluted. The more it is diluted, the more potent is the water.

They offer, however, no possible explanation for how simple water molecules can contain the essence of far more complex substances.
Modern homeopaths have also tried to rescue the notion of infinitessimals by invoking the concept of water memory. They claim that water molecules can form a structure that contains the information of the homeopathic remedy.
However, such claims are fanciful to the point of invoking magic and are devoid of any evidence. Water structure is very transient and ephemeral.
They last moments and could not survive repeated dilution, let alone ingestion, absorption into the body, and transport to whatever their alleged site of action is.

Essentially this means in all likelihood the solution you buy from the health shop or pharamacy is simply a sugar pill or a solution of diluant - most likely water.

It's no surprise, then, that I would never recommend homeopathy as a means of curing anything - bar thirst.

And I would certainly never allow anyone who recommends homeopathy to treat any of my friends and family if they were ill.

Anyway, humour is often an effective means of getting the message across and this clip from That Mitchell and Webb Look sums it up pretty well:

Unfortunately any examination of homeopathy and its place in treatment of 21st century diseases is too late for poor wee Gloria Sam.

Should you want to read more in-depth information about homeopathy then here are some excellent resource:

Science-based Medicine
Science, Reason and Critical Thinking
Skepdic
Homeowatch

Skeptical, not cynical

2009-09-29T20:51:00.015+13:00

First up, I'm incredibly excited about the launch of Sciblogs. My experience of New Zealand as an immigrant leads me to believe we often punch above our weight and it's great to see the Science Media Centre continuing that in an area close to my heart.

There are many great Kiwi bloggers writing about science and how it impacts on our lives and to have so many aggregated in the one place is a great achievement.

I was honoured to be asked to contribute to Sciblogs and delighted to be able to accept. For one thing in such esteemed company it's a nudge for me to write many more posts and keep a high standard.

We have our own scientific challenges in Aotearoa (just listen to talkback radio for a week and hear how many pseudoscientific adverts, advertorials and comments there are) and I look forward to writing about many of them in the future.

So welcome to a fantastic new phase for nz skeptic!

I hope many of you will be reading this blog for the first time so feel free to browse some of the (small) archive to get a better idea on what I write about.

But today I want to deal with one of the things skeptics are often accused of - and that's being overtly cynical rather than skeptical.

Of course there are many cynical skeptics - but this is a good time to point out one of the basic tenets of science, that correlation does not mean causation.

I could spend three hours writing and re-writing exactly why I think a cynic and skeptic aren't interchangeable but this passage from the Skeptic website's A Brief Introduction section says it far more eloquently than I could:

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo.

This is wrong.

Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed.

In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true.

When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Of course requiring evidence brings skeptics into direct conflict with anyone or anything that has or requires faith, but let's not jump too far ahead just yet.

I'll be writing about many things which will undoubtedly annoy people and provoke a strong reaction. This isn't my intention. I'm merely sharing the opinion I've formed based on my reading and research.

But the greatest thing about the internet is that people can disagree with me and we can debate the issues.

So when we get into the substantive posts about homeopathy, psychics and other woo areas then feel free to comment and tell me why you disagree with me.

And, being a skeptic rather than cynic, it means if someone points me to new information then I may even be forced to change my mind.

Now there's a challenge!

Supporting Simon Singh

2009-07-29T17:17:00.006+12:00

I can't state my support for Simon Singh enough. While I don't know the man personally, nor have I ever spoken to him, what he's going through in the name of science and skepticism shows a man whose principals put him head and shoulders above those in the various woo industries.

For those who don't know Simon is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association after he wrote a column in the Guardian. You can read more here.

In the meantime, like various other bloggers around the world, I'm republishing this article today. By doing so I show my support of both Simon and the desire to keep libel laws out of science.

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”.

In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor.

This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency.

Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic. In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches.

These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors. More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks.

This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures. Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain.

So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death.Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years.

Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck.

That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse.

She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature.

This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

New Zealand immunisation disgrace

2009-05-01T18:56:00.004+12:00

I heard a disturbing statistic on TV3's news last night - only 77 per cent of New Zealand's children are immunised. That puts us way behind the US and Australia (according to the story - I'm trying to find exact percentages) and puts us in real danger of a whooping cough (pertussis) and/or measles epidemic.

The good news is this information came from a Ministry of Health media release which quotes statistics for 2005. These were gathered, in part, as a baseline measurement before the implementation of a National Immunisation Register, and is a count of full immunisation of two years old.

New figures are due out any day now, and - fingers crossed - should show an increase in this amount.

The bad news is that, even in my wildest dreams, it's going to be nowhere near the 95 per cent required to make sure herd immunity covers all of the potentially devastating illnesses vaccinations usually cover.

But what really grinds, what really makes me sick to the bottom of my stomach, was the appearance of Sue Claridge from the Immunisation Awareness Society.

These are her exact quotes:

“For example in 2005 only 13 children died from infectious diseases. There were 90 children who died from car accidents. there were 30 children who died from cancer.

“If we're spending our public health dollar, where can we best spend it to improve the health of our children and prevent mortality."

Hey Sue? Sue? Do you think that the 77 per cent of children who are fully immunised actually stops some deaths? Actually, I don't want to even guess what her answer would be to that question. I hope no parents of the 13 who tragically died were watching.

As so to the Immunisation Awareness Society. Aside from the fact that their website is hideously broken in Firefox on Ubuntu 9.04, it sets out to present itself as a pro-choice website - they want parents to have the full facts before immunising their children.

Who could disagree with that, eh?

Ah, but there's a clue on the home page. Yes, it's a quote from a man named Archie Kalokerinos, or Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, M.D. as he's advertised there.

Apparently he was a proponent of Linus Pauling's discredited 'high vitamin C doses cures lots of illnesses' theory, and believes vaccination is a deliberate genocide against indigenous Australians and used to spread HIV in Africa.

Yes, that sends a positive, pro-choice message doesn't it?

Anyway, there are small sections of the site which support pro-choice, but overall it's an anti-vaccer's heaven. - there's even a quotation from anti-vaccine activist and author Eleanor McBean which says the only reason immunisation is still done is because all of the big pharmaceutical companies make too much money to stop. Ah, where would we be without conspiracy theories.

Oh, I almost forgot. There are some links to pro-vaccination websites on their site, but they're right at the bottom - underneath the Alternative Medicine section, including homeopathy.

Anyway, I'll keep digging, and I'll post the updated statistics on New Zealand vaccination once they're released.

In the meantime, hopefully anyone reading this can help pass on the pro-immunisation message.

Note: I have two children, one aged six and one aged four. Both are fully immunised and suffered nothing other than a sore arm and a little grouchiness post-injection. Just to prove I walk the walk, so to speak.

Addendum: I should, of course, have praised TV3 for actually covering this issue. I'm hopeful that this is the first of many times vaccination is covered in the New Zealand media.

Skepticism is hard

2009-04-28T20:03:00.006+12:00

The hardest thing about skepticism and critical thinking, for me, was giving up some of the ideologies I thought were positive.

The best example I can give is probably with politics. Traditionally I'm what you call a liberal - a left wing kind of guy who would traditionally vote for the furthest left standing for election.

In New Zealand that probably puts me in the Green camp. But the scientist in me finds that an intolerable position.

Not only was their opposition to the trans-Tasman amalgamation of medicine regulators TGA and Medsafe based on beliefs that were just plain wrong, their over-arching love of 'natural' products often invokes a huge amount of pseudo-science.

But the biggest thing is probably their anti-nuclear stance. I listen to the wonderful Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast, and I listened to his nuclear power podcast with a great deal of well. . . skepticism.

But in 10 minutes I was forced to face a firmly held belief and read more about the issue. The more I read, the more I realised the likelihood that New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance is probably based on information that is years, if not decades, old and any debate about nuclear power should be about the science as it is, not was.

I still think there's some validity in a country willing to push it's clean, green image for tourism purposes, but in a country which will face electricity shortages in the future it's madness not to debate the issue in a proper fashion.

The same is true for genetically modified crops. It only took 10 minutes to make me realise my long-held position against the crops was not only logically flawed but probably ignorant as well.

Of course, like a true skeptic I didn't just take Brian Dunnings word for it. Nor would he expect anyone to, I imagine.

I read, and - probably for the first time in my life - I'm making decisions solely based on critical thinking rather than because of where I am in the political spectrum or what I was brought up believing.

And you know what? It's not comfortable. Sometimes this puts me in the same box as right-wing politicians I would normally disagree with every ounce of my being.

Thankfully the internet - and Facebook and Twitter in particular - means a skeptic never needs to stand alone any more. And for that I'll be forever thankful.

Patrick Holford on Radio New Zealand

2009-03-03T20:53:00.011+13:00

I'll save further comment until I've actually had time to listen to Kim Hill's interview with alternative nutrionalist Patrick Holford from Saturday's programme. It would be unfair of me to comment completely after listening to less than 10 minutes of the bollocks.

Thankfully the Holford Watch website are on to it and have provided some thoughtful analysis of this man (who's thoughts on HIV and autism, amongst other things, are way out of the mainstream).

If you can bear to listen to it, here's a link to the Radio New Zealand website for the day in question so you can download it.

As an aside, this is the first time I've really felt a real part of the skeptical community. I want to thank The Skeptic Zone's Kylie Sturgess for getting the links to me in the first place - I obviously need to improve my New Zealand skeptical digging.

Dr Rachie (Rachael Dunlop) then tweeted about it, saying if she may try and critique the part of the interview which deals with her specialist area. I won't hold her to that because I'm not sure how anyone involved in The Skeptic Zone finds time for anything. I must ask them all for time management tips.

But the positive thing for me is the fact that there are so many tools which can mobilise the skeptical community quickly. It really is a privilege to live in the technological era.

As per Kylie's suggestion, I forwarded the links to NZ Skeptics and I'm now waiting to see if they will make any response. NOTE: Added April 28 - No response from NZ Skeptics, not even an acknowledgement of the e-mail. Disappointed.

(As of now, I'll just do normal hat-tips for anyone who sends me links, but I felt the first time deserved special comment.)

A NZ newspaper article against pseudoscience?

2009-03-01T19:34:00.006+13:00

Apologies for the lack of updates. I get pretty severe depression and it takes it toll. Thankfully watching '30 Rock' and taking prescribed drugs helps and so I'm back on my feet. Funnily enough, I"m not taking any homeopathic remedies like these guys suggest.

And talking about homeopathy. . .

I was surprised (and delighted) to see this Guardian article on the demise of complementary medicine courses in UK universities being reprinted in today's Sunday Star Times.

Unfortunately the Sunday Star Times has often been on the wrong side of the pseudoscience debate, with past features on television psychics and the like, so it's nice to see a pro-science article featured heavily.

Hopefully this is a positive sign for the future, and BSc degrees (like I have) can once again become a bastion of science rather than pseudoscience.

But I won't hold my breath - water homeopathy solutions are available in most of the pharmacies I've visited in New Zealand. A friend was even recommended a homeopathic remedy for a broken neck (not by a pharmacist, thankfully!).

And finally, I had a recent door-knock from the local Jehovah's Witnesses. Standing with by straggly beard and Iron Maiden t-shirt I obviously looked right for saving. When I told them I was an atheist, the lead wanted to know why. So I told her. I was rather surprised when she told me a growing number of scientists agreed that the order in the world demanded a designer to explain it.

'Not any credible ones,' I suggested and politely bade them farewell.

Bioresonance bollocks

2009-02-02T20:44:00.008+13:00

I first came across the following article in the paper copy of The Aucklander in July 2007. I didn't have a blog or know what I really wanted to do with my skeptical brain at that point. Now I do and, quite by accident, I found it again.

However time hasn't eased my disbelief - reading the article again just makes me shake my head. I just can't believe it was published:

http://www.quitsmokingclinic.co.nz/aucklander-article.html

Although the article is old, it's still being linked to on an active website and it's an indication of the scientific illiteracy prevalent in New Zealand media. Heck, I'm a scientist and I ended up as a sports reporter.

But this piece of 'reporting' is perhaps the most credulous piece of nonsense I've ever had the misfortune to read. And given we've had to put up with credulous psychic"Sensing Murder" reports in the past that's saying something.

There are just so many warning signs in this story that as soon as I read it, I knew bioresonance therapy was bollocks. But being the good skeptic I did my research and - surprise, surprise - the websites I found which actually looked at the science said it was total bollocks.

Here are the things I picked up on as being signs something wasn't right, along with my thoughts in parenthesis:

"two electrically charged balls" (Hmmm. It'll be magnets next. Would I be surprised to find something about it affecting blood flow because of the iron in the blood)

"85 per cent success" (Holy shit. This has 85 per cent success rate and I've never heard of it before. I must try and find some proof for that.)

"rebalancing energies" (Oh oh. Woo! I'm pretty much convinced that it's bollocks.)

"bioresonance inverts energy patterns" (Does it? But even if it does, what the hell does it have to do with nicotine addiction?)

"it's about desensitising and detoxing your body" (Ah, detox. Bollocks)

"four energy quadrants" (Bingo!)

"the Bicom can determine the energy pattern from this post-hoik and sets about reversing it" (What the?)

"All this is doing is helping the body heal and rebalance itself by connecting to healthy frequencies." (Oh my flying spaghetti monster, he's serious.)

"the machine dignfies me with a microwave like ping to confirm my new status as a freshly rolled non-smoker" (Wow, how easy. This is either a scam or every smoker in New Zealand should get a free treatment. Sarcasm in my thoughts - I really must get out more)

"It's the toxins leaching out of your skin" (Oh, holy shit. No. Please not. This is the worst thing I've ever read.)

"their bathwater turns brown" (Perhaps they're covered in the bullshit you've just spoken and it's washed off.)

"I'm cured" (yeah, I wonder how you're doing now a little while after the story was written. I'd lay good odds that you still smoke.)

Now I'm not saying the author of this article lied. It's possible he really has been cured of smoking and puts it down to the bioresonance therapy. However, there is a much simpler explanation. This is a clear example of someone volunteering and therefore already willing to give up smoking. He's most of the way there.

The placebo effect of using a geeky, scientific-sounding therapy then kicks in and bingo, his own willingness to give up smoking mixed with some woo and he's given up smoking.

My biggest issue with the article is that the author failed to do the simplest of research about bioresonance. A Google search brings up Ben Goldacre's colum in the Guardian from 2005 on bioresonance bollocks. That should have been enough to set the alarm bells ringing.

But no. No research, no science and no amazing cure for smoking.

I just hope that no-one in New Zealand has read this article and paid $350 for a treatment. I'd just feel guilty for not having shouted my mouth off about it sooner.

God skepticality

2009-02-01T19:57:00.010+13:00

The different 'varieties' of skeptic is one of the community's biggest positives, but it's also an issue that will means we can never be totally united. That's just something us skeptics need to deal with.

Thankfully there are communities (and podcasts) like the Skeptics' Guide To The Universe and The Skeptic Zone which can unite us around those things we agree on - and an excellent job they do of it.

The biggest unknown, as I see it, is the question of whether god exists or not.
I don't really care if a skeptic is an atheist, an agnostic or a theist. Some have made it known, some keep it to themselves. That's fine.

But my atheism is a big part of my skepticism - in fact it was probably the first step in my conversion from belief in faked moon landings and conspiracy theories to a fully-fledged skeptic. So, like it or not, I'll be dealing with atheism as part of nz skeptic.

That said, I wanted to share a piece I wrote for AUT's student magazine 'debate' about 18 months ago. It's a piece about that national anthem of New Zealand, a song called "God Defend New Zealand".

I think it's a good example of me using a bit of humour to make a serious point. Don't worry - I won't be regurgitating often - a new post will be up tomorrow!

God Offend New Zealand

Bertrand Russell, famous British philosopher, once wrote, "If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final results of all my efforts".

I get up in the morning, take a long look in the mirror and find myself agreeing with Russell. Each sag of fat reinforces the fact that an allegedly benevolent being didn't exactly give me a body I should be particularly thankful for.

Now it's not simply my pudgy body that leads me to the conclusion there's no God. Years of studying science, rational and skeptical thinking, and a family who let me make up my own mind, all pointed me to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Instead of sitting on the fence and getting splinters in my arse and calling myself agnostic, I came out of the closet. I am an atheist.

Now before some of you send me e-mails telling me I'm going to Hell, I'd like to state I'm not anti-religion. In fact, I'm right at the front of the queue demanding people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. Where I object is when it impinges upon other people.

New Zealand is rare in that it has two National Anthems with equal standing. However both contain multiple mentions of the word 'God'. 'God Save The Queen' (from what one may ask?) and 'God Defend New Zealand' by their very titles can reduce the feelings of national pride for non-religious people.

There are people, like Elizabeth McKenzie, President of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, who refuse to sing because God is mentioned. What better way to fire up the All Blacks than by playing a song that may draw feelings of apathy, or even anger, from a large proportion of the crowd?

The 2006 census showed 1.297 million people (or 31 per cent of total respondents) had no religious affilliation, creating by far the largest 'religion' in New Zealand. The next biggest religions are Anglican (13 per cent) and Catholicism (12 per cent).

Given the (righteous) moves to ensure that even the smallest minority has proper representation and aren't discriminated against, isn't it rather ironic that 31 per cent of the country is ignored by the official national songs? And at the same time it can be hardly claimed that the current anthems properly represents the 124 religions in New Zealand either.

Is asking the crowd to sing the national anthem at a rugby game discriminatory?

No, it's not, because people have the ability to ignore it, stick their fingers in their ears or make up their own words. But surely there are better ways to engage the population and not leave anyone out? New Zealand has some fantastic lyricists.

Wouldn't a Finn brothers' original song, or a Hone Tuwhare poem say much more about New Zealand and its people that a 19th Century dirge that has little relevance in the 21st Century?

I'm not writing this article to convert anyone. I'm not asking anyone to give up deeply held beliefs because someone you've never met says scientific consensus suggests it's highly unlikely God exists. I'm asking you to consider whether it's fair on almost one-third of the population to continue with songs that demand a religious outlook on life.

Perhaps I'm being a bit hard on Aotearoa. We're certainly not the worst country in the world when it comes to discriminating against atheists. We're nowhere near as bad as the United States, for example.

In a February 2007 Gallup poll only 45 per cent of US respondents said they would vote for an atheist for President. This was a whole 10 points behind the next least popular group - homosexuals. I think (or at least I hope) New Zealand wouldn't have such a problem with an atheist Prime Minister.

Now I don't want to be seen to be singling out religion. My skepticism and rationality isn't confined to that one topic. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor (the simplest solution tends to be the best one). What's more likely? Someone turning over a page in the telephone book by psychic power or by blowing on it? A psychic getting in contact with dead people or using well-documented cold-reading techniques and probability to be reasonably accurate?

Now, before I start a rant about faked moon-landings, creationism, homeopathy and UFOs, I am going to put down my proverbial pen.

I'd like to leave the last words to the sadly missed Douglas Adams from the ever-popular 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.'

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," said Man, "The Babel Fish* is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exis, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."

"Oh dear," says God. "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Now, as I'm sure you'll be glad to read, I'm off to disappear in a puff of my own illogic.

*The Babel fish is an amazing species of fish that can translate any language into any other making it popular in the realms of inter-galactic hitchhiking.

Gingko biloba and more about me

2008-11-25T09:42:00.006+13:00

Despite my first two substantive posts being about aspects of complementary medicine (and more specifically extracts and supplements) this won't be the primary focus of the blog. Later today I'll post my thoughts on television show 'The Mentalist' as well as typing up something I wrote for AUT's 'debate' magazine when I was studying for a graduate diploma in journalism.

Your view of my specific brand of skepticism should be developing so, to help you along, here's some personal background related to Gingko biloba.

Based on the opening paragraph you may have deduced I'm a journalist. Well I am, of sorts. I work on a New Zealand website updating just about everything but with a focus on sports. I also write match reports and other stories for the website as well as maintaining a sports blog.

But before I landed my dream job I was a scientist, specifically a laboratory manager. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry in my native Scotland and then briefly in New Zealand before heading to the health food and supplement industry.

Without going too much into the details (which will surely, as they say, come out in the wash at some point) my experience there only increased my growing skepticism in both the efficacy and standards of manufacture of a majority of supplements.

This wasn't solely related to the single company I worked for, but based on talking with other people at industry events and my experiences in the pharmaceutical industry.

In any case, to cut a long story short, I had had enough of science as a career. I was doing very little day-to-day science, and I got to the stage where I found myself hating the fact I was working for a company which I came to believe made unethical decisions when it suited the bottom line.

So I left. I packed up and went back to university to become a journalist - and in doing so found I wasn't too bad at writing rugby and basketball match reports and being free from the daily drudgery of 'science' actually reignited the passion I first had when I was doing experiments in the school laboratory.

That said, on to Gingko biloba...

Gingko is widely sold in New Zealand, usually as a memory aide.

But the science behind Gingko isn't exactly compelling. In fact the latest information seems to show it has little efficacy.

However, instead of writing all of the details, I'm simply going to point you in the direction of Dr Steven Novella's excellent Neurologica Blog, and specifically his entry on Gingko and it's ability to help dementia. His conclusion? You'll have to click through and read it for yourself, but don't be too surprised!

At this point, it's worth saying I'm a huge fan of Dr Novella and will surely link to him in the future. He is a shining light in the skeptical community. To be honest, I don't know how he does it. He has a family and career yet still finds the time to write for a multitude of blogs and host the world's best podcast, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe.

I hope one day I can meet Dr Novella and the rest of the skeptical rogues and pass on my gratitude for the enlightenment they provide to a huge number of people.

Back to the subject in hand. . .

My thoughts on the majority of life is that you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't impinge on others. If someone wants to buy a Gingko biloba supplement because they believe it helps, then that's fine. (My interest then becomes ensuring they get what they pay for and understand exactly what they're taking.)

Hopefully a few people will read and absorb the latest information on Gingko and make an informed decision as to whether to continue to take the supplement. A man can dream, can't he?

Hoodia gum - a weight-loss wonder?

2008-11-24T21:45:00.007+13:00

Apologies - this was supposed to have been posted yesterday, but two hours of sleep on Sunday night (Thanks Kiwis and All Blacks) put paid to a few plans.

I'm always suspicious of flyers left under the car windscreen. They're usually advertising cheap rug sales or wanting me to start a new part-time business to earn b1g D0ll4r$.

Usually the kids get them and they end up in bits on the back floor. But not on Saturday.

After a tortuous 45 minute grocery shop with the kids in tow, I was met with a folded A4 colour printed advertisement for Hoodia Gum, a 'medically proven weight-loss wonder!'.

Being a little on the large side, I'm always interested in losing weight without having to actually exercise and cut out eating of crisps and chocolate.

But, as the vast majority of us know, there's no magic bullet that's going to cause the weight to drop off. So with my skeptical-sense tingling I went for an exploration of the internet and the amazing plant that was the ingredient in the wonderous chewing gum, Hoodia gordonii.

So what did I find? Well, pretty much what I expected for a product promising the earth - lots of adverts and sites wanting to sell it to me and not a lot of information on peer-reviewed studies showing the stuff actually does what it's supposed to.

First up, the scientific studies on the traditional South African plant are sparse. Well, when I say sparse there appears to be one published study on rats, an "efficacy" study on seven people and one double-blind study undertaken by a company who manufacture Hoodia products which showed people taking the active ingredient (P57) consumed an average of 1000 calories less per day than those not taking it.

The real lack of clinical data and a single study (which may or may not have been peer reviewed as I haven't found the study online) is hardly convincing for a so-called weight-loss wonder. . .

I'm not going to go into too much further detail here (because as good skeptics you should do your own digging and reading on this) - but some other things I found disturbing about the product was the sheer amount of competing information the different manufacturers/sellers provided (like how quickly the product was effective, how much to take, how their product was the best because it contained certified Hoodia gordonii).

Here are a selection of the sites I visited (but obviously not all):

Slimfast Hoodia
Hoodia diet-pills
Hoodia Advice
Hoodia gordonii's Wikipedia entry

These are provided for illustrative effect and all (and many more dealing with Hoodia) are available through Google.

The fact that so many of the sites I visited were keen to point out the huge number of forgeries available on the internet also set alarm bells ringing - apparently there's just not enough Hoodia gordonii available to provide for the amount of products on the market.

Most also referenced a handful of media 'appearances' of Hoodia - mainly CBS's 60 minutes, the story of a BBC reporter (who ate a banana-sized piece of the plant, not a supplement) and an appearance in Oprah Winfrey's 'O' magazine. Wikipedia has a few more references, but those three tend to be the most popularly cited and all are a number of years old.

(Were this plant truly the answer to the world's obesity problem, is it too much to expect to see some recent information?)

While all of these may be interesting, again there is very little science there. When the majority of the advertising is centred on personal testimonials, you have to question whether the science supports what's been stated.

Now let's look at the Hoodia gum in the advert I received. The website I was directed to says the gum contains 120mg of 'pure Hoodia'. First up, that doesn't fill me with confidence especially as most products on the internet seem to indicate they contain more than this.

The flyer also claims that 'its benefits have been proven through the strict testing methods of western medicine'. For thit to be true I'd need to see some peer-reviewed double-blind studies showing some statistical significance - and as I wrote above, this just isn't the case.

So the conclusion? Hoodia gordonii, or to be precise it's active ingredient, may have some appetite suppression affect.

Exactly how much of the active ingredient this gum supplies is unknown and can't be deduced based on the information supplied. And with the lack of clinical study information freely available, a direct comparison of amount required to show any appetite suppresant effect versus amount supplied is impossible.

That, alongside the exaggerated claims, the warnings of fake Hoodia proliferation and the lack of reputable brands means I'll be avoiding Hoodia gordonii in any of its forms in my quest for the perfect body. I recommend you do too.

Note: I spent approximately 3 hours visiting and reading websites on Hoodia based on internet searches. I just don't have time to review all the information provided so I zeroed on the commonalities and differences I could find.

It goes without saying that, like all good skeptics, I would be prepared to re-evaluate my position based on scientific evidence if someone can point me in the right direction.

nz skeptic open for business

2008-11-22T22:20:00.006+13:00

This blog has been a long time in preparation.

It started as being part of a personal blog, but I quickly realised the subject was too important to deal with as a small part of that kind of blog and it died quickly.

But every time I read a story about the phony psychics of 'Sensing Murder' (or 'Sensing Bullshit' as the wonderful Jeremy Wells calls it), the latest cancer-curing vitamin product or how wonderful homeopathy is in the New Zealand press I cringe because I'm just letting it go by without comment.

So as well as picking up on international skeptical news (courtesy of my favourite skeptical outlets, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe, The James Randi Educational Foundation, Skepchick, Science Based Medicine, Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, NeuroLogica Blog, Skepticblog, The Skeptic Zone) I'll be looking at what's happening in Aotearoa and what's being reported in our press.

My desire isn't necessarily to convert anyone to my way of thinking - all I want to do is ensure people have as much information as possible so they can make well-informed decisions.

Throughout this blog's lifetime I'll be sharing more personal information about myself as and when it pertains to the skeptical subject at hand, but if you do a Google search on me you'll be able to find out more about me should you wish.

My first post of substance will be up tomorrow and I'll be having a look at the so-called 'weight-loss wonder' Hoodia gordonii.