Good News for Simon Singh

Unlike in the United States, British libel law places the onus of a libel case not on the plaintiff but on the defendant.  In fact, the British system is so broken that States like California have passed legislation to protect their residents from libel lawsuits originating in the British court system.  For those who have not been following the Singh case, Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for libel after he correctly claimed that certain chiropractic “treatments” were, “bogus”.

Chiropractic is a type of alternative “medicine” based on demonstrably false principles with no basis in scientific medicine.  When Simon Singh pointed out that the myriad of ridiculous treatments promoted by British Chiropractors are absolute rubbish, the British Chiropractic Association attempted to bully him into silence.

Today, the judge in his case noted the, “chilling effect on public debate,” of British libel laws.  As can be seen in the video, the British Chiropractic Association, which removed many of the treatments that Singh called bogus from their website, still defend their use of the British court system to attempt to silence their critics.

Hopefully, this case will cause Britons to become more aware at the pseudoscientific underpinnings of  Chiropractic treatments.

LINKS:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/british-libel-laws-challenged-by-journalist-who-called-chiropractic-treatments-bogus/

When EM Radiation Passes the Property Line

A self-diagnosed sufferer of wi-fi induced illness in Albuquerque is suing his neighbor for not keeping her Skyping and Iphoning confined within her property line.

While the lawsuit has little chance of success given the nonexistence of credible medical evidence that electromagnetic radiation emitted from these FCC approved devices can have any measurable impact on the human body (much less cause illness), the story speaks as much to the general lack of understanding of science in America as it does for our overly-litigious society.

Arthur Firstenberg, in using the court system to attempt to intimidate his neighbor Raphaela Monribot into limiting her use of  wireless devices, exemplifies a classic case of abuse of the American court system.  The threat of a lawsuit, even a lawsuit without merit (in fact, the judge already threw out the claim that Mrs. Monribot’s iphone was causing his illness as States lack the authority over issue and is considering whether to dismiss the entire case) often is intimidating enough of a bully pulpit to coerce compliance.  Even if Arthur Firstenberg’s case is unsuccessful (as it most certainly will be), Mrs. Monribot may still be on the hook for legal costs required to defend herself against this frivolous lawsuit. 

Unfortunately, the unfounded paranoia over radio wave’s deleterious effects on human health are not going to disappear anytime soon.  Despite the complete lack of convincing evidence that there is any correlation (much less a causal explanation) between cellular phone usage and brain cancer, San Francisco Mayor (and potential future Lieutenant Governor) Gavin Newsom is pushing a requirement that all cellular phones sold in San Francisco disclose their radiation emission level.

Asking the public to understand the physics behind devices using EM radiation does not seem a likely solution.  The federal government, which regulates the electromagnetic spectrum, should remove the authority from State courts to adjudicate disputes or enact regulations regarding radio-transmitting devices.  It should also raise the barrier to filing lawsuits in Federal Court  to make it impossible to seek damages for symptoms of illnesses for which there is no strong evidence of their existence.

LINK:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/la-na-hometown-santa-fe28-2010mar28,0,7549400.story

Skeptical about Abstinence-Only Sexual Education

In a finding that will utterly fail to shock anyone who has ever been a normal teenager,

Sex education programs that encourage teenagers to delay sexual activity but also teach them how to reduce their chances of getting pregnant or a sexually transmitted disease cut risky sexual behavior, increase condom use and lower the chances of getting the AIDS virus and other infections.

Of course, the findings were condemned by advocates of abstinence programs, which is not surprising, because it has long been the suspicion that the advocates of abstinence-only sexual education are more concerned with trying to scare teens into not having sex rather than to actually reduce their level of risky sexual behavior.  Some abstinence-only advocates may genuinely believe that not encouraging/teaching those teens who have sex to do it safely will decrease risky sexual behavior, but the suspicion is that many of them are pushing the abstinence-only education program because it conforms to their moral beliefs that teens having sex is bad.

Of course, it will come to no surprise to just about anyone who has ever been a teenager that being told not to do something by a teacher is not necessarily going to be very successful in achieving its aims, especially when that means ignoring hormones are that are raging throughout the body.  And while there may be some evidence   that abstinence-only education delays sexual intercourse (which is presumably good because older teens are less likely to engage in riskier sexual behavior?) there is no good evidence, according to this review (by the Center for Disease Control’s Task Force on Community Preventive Services), that abstinence-only education reduces teenagers’ risky sexual behaviors.  Comprehensive sex education that discourages sex while educating students about how to have safe sex both delays sex and increases safe sex practices.

Of course, if my suspicion that abstinence-only advocates are driven by religious and/or moral agendas rather than by real concerns about increasing the sexual health of teens is true, then the abstinence-only proponents likely will not care what evidence-based evaluations reveal and will continue advocating it no matter how thoroughly it is debunked. 

Source:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/07/MNFV1AG9UI.DTL&type=education

John Stewart Takes on H1N1

The more I watch the Daily Show, a supposedly satirical parody of “real” news, the more I realize how far “real” news, especially the cable-variety, has fallen. 

[Apologies to those who live outside the US]

The Swine Flu Vaccine Swindle

The opponents of vaccines are out if full force campaigning against the H1N1 vaccine, and like usual, their scare tactics consist primarily of patently erroneous claims, combined with absurd hyperbole and twisted “reasoning.”

One popular claim is that the vaccines have not been adequately tested; they have not gone through the normal FDA review process.  A bit of research shows this to be a false claim.  The seasonal flu vaccine is already approved and extensively tested, as per FDA requirements.  When the FDA approved the seasonal flu vaccine, they also approved a method for changing the particular strains of influenza virus annually, without having to go through the approval process required for a new drug; in fact, without this sort of approval, the influenza vaccine would be useless, because the strains need to be changed every year, but it takes a number of years to get FDA approval for a new drug.

The FDA reviewed the H1N1 vaccine, and found that the vaccine itself was already approved under the original seasonal flu shot approval, as it consisted of a simple strain-change.  Despite claims by anti-vaccine scaremongers, the distinction between the seasonal flu shot and the H1N1 vaccine is no different than the distinction between the 2009 seasonal flu shot and the 2008 seasonal flu shot.  These are just different strains, and the H1N1 vaccine, in addition to all the tests required for FDA approval that were already conducted to approve the seasonal influenza vaccine, has, and is continuing to undergo safety tests.

What does make H1N1 different than the seasonal flu is that this is an apparently novel mutation that developed in a species other than humans, thus there is less immunity developed, and therefore it tends to be more virulent than other influenza strains.  This seems especially true among younger people who contract the virus, while healthy older people seem to be fairly immune.

Another point of contention is the use of adjuvants.  Adjuvants are chemicals that stimulate an immune response, which improves the efficacy of a vaccine, requiring a smaller dose.  Adjuvants have widely been used in vaccines in  the European Union for years, and there is no scientifically-supported reason to believe that they are unsafe; however, they have been the focus of a number of anti-vaccine diatribes.  On the internet, it is common to find claims that the H1N1 vaccine contains the adjuvant squalene, which is dangerous.  This claim is untrue on both counts.  Squalene has been approved for use in Europe for years, and the FDA-approved version of the H1N1 vaccine for mass distribution does not contain squalene. 

A final claim is that the H1N1 vaccine contains the preservative thimerosal, which has been linked to autism and other claimed medical maladies.   Large scale studies have repeatedly disproved the hypothesis that thimerosal is correlated with autism; however celebrities (rarely with any medical credentials) like Jenny McCarthy keep popularizing this false claim.  Thimerosal, at the tiny level used in vaccines, is safe.  Furthermore, only the multi-dose versions of the H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal.  Americans can obtain a thimerosal-free vaccine by using the per-packaged syringe or nasal mist form, although they should not have to worry about doing so.

The media is also responsible for conflagrating fear, both about the H1N1 virus and the H1N1 vaccine, because fear sells.  The bottom line is that the H1N1 is likely to sicken an individual, probably worse than the regular flu, but not likely to kill them.  Nonetheless, indicators seem to show that H1N1 is an unusually virulent strain, especially among certain high-risk groups such as the young and pregnant women.  As of this writing, the pediatric death toll is around the triple digit mark. 

The risk of dying from H1N1  is small but real; the risk of being sickened is extremely high, and the risk from the vaccine is negligible.  Everyone who cares about the health and well-being of themselves, their friends, and their family, should be vaccinated, and encourage the same of their loved-ones.  Just keep in mind that with the shortage of supplies, those who are in lower-risk groups should wait until there are enough supplies of the vaccine for those at greatest risk. 

REFERENCES (FURTHER READING):

[1]http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/vaccine_safety_qa.htm

[2]http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/thimerosal_qa.htm

[3]http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/public/vaccination_qa_pub.htm

[4]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boosting-vaccine-power

[5]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pandemic-payoff

[6]http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/25/h1n1-a-national-emergency/

Court Bans Ave Maria

 

A federal appeals court today banned the Jackson High School woodwind ensemble from playing Ave Maria, a religious piece of music by Schubert based on a traditional Catholic prayer.  The court ruled that the district superintendent did not violate students’ first amendment rights by restricting graduation music to secular works.

While it is unclear whether the superintendent made the right decision (there certainly is a place in our school system for religiously derived music so long as the intent of the selection of the music is not to promote religion, and a piece of classical music devoid of English lyrics in this case was probably not violating the establishment clause), it is clear that the court ruled correctly.  School administrators must deal with the often-ambiguous border separating the protection of students’ right to free expression and their right to not be indoctrinated by government promotion of religion.  In a graduation ceremony where a very small number of musical pieces may be played, there is nothing wrong with ensuring that the repertoire remain secular.  The only potential worry is that administrators may take this too far and try to ban high school bands from playing selections with religious antecedents altogether.

Sources:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/08/BAVK19K5EK.DTL&tsp=1

Missouri School Still Stuck in Precambrian Era

 

Shirts worn by the Smith-Cotton High School Band were confiscated by the school administrators because they portrayed the evolution of brass instruments.  Some parents were upset that the t-shirts made reference to evolution and complained, and rather than defend the creative license of their students, the school administrators demanded that the t-shirts be confiscated.   What makes this story more ridiculous is  that the school administration justified their decision by claiming that the shirts violated the establishment clause of the first amendment, because they promoted evolution, which they proclaimed as a religious belief.

If the high school is unable to distinguish between school-promotion of religion and a t-shirt that makes a vague reference to the evolution of man (which is science and not religion, for the record) then it has a serious problem with understanding and implementing academic and constitutional standards inherent in running a public school.  Any admissions official at a university who is looking over the transcript of an applicant from this Missouri high school has to give serious consideration as to exactly how to weigh an “A” in a biology class from a school district which cannot distinguish between  promoting religion and vaguely referencing evolution.  In case any readers from the Smith-Cotton High School administration are reading this,  science is not a religion, and evolution has served as the keystone of biology for well over a century. 

High school marching band can’t wear evolutionary T-shirts,; Tonya Fennel; The Sedalia Democrat; 29AUG2009.

Image Credit: Hal Smith/ Sedalia Democrat