New Zealand immunisation disgrace

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?