WE’RE ALIVE! And we’ve got a good one! From August 31, 2014… yes, we’re that far behind…
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
WE’RE ALIVE! And we’ve got a good one! From August 31, 2014… yes, we’re that far behind…
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
From August 10, 2014. This was a doozy. Full show notes after the cut. Continue reading
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
On Wednesday, January 7, a US Second Circuit Court decision affirmed that New York students have to be vaccinated within two weeks of entering public school.
The plaintiffs “argued that the statutory vaccination requirement, which is subject to medical and religious exemptions, violates their substantive due process rights, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and both state and municipal law.”
One of the plaintiffs, Dina Check, testified that she is Catholic and stated, “How I treat my daughter’s health and her well-being is strictly by the word of God.” I don’t know a single Catholic who would say this; Catholics typically aren’t anti-medicine (with a few notable exceptions, like contraception). She even said this herself – she “testified that she did not know of any tenets of Catholicism that prohibited vaccinations.” She claimed that her child had had adverse reactions to vaccinations before, and that she asked God for guidance and protection. (The Almighty was unavailable for comment.)
On March 29, 2014, the gang talked about dieting – fad diets, diets that work, diets that could kill you, and so on. We also talked about what actually worked for all of us and why some diets just aren’t up to snuff. Read on for the show notes! We also have a couple of outtakes: here’s the first and here’s the second.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
I find it an interesting exercise to look at the difference between scientific and popular coverage of news stories about science.
For example, a bunch of stories have popped up recently about an experiment using transcranial magnetic stimulation to improve people’s memory. The technique sends an electromagnetic pulse into a targeted part of a person’s brain. In this experiment, researchers sent a pulse into a part of the brain that was connected to the hippocampus, a part of the brain related to associative memory that is typically not accessible without surgery, to see if the connections would transmit the pulse and have some effect on the hippocampus’ function. The results were that, after five 20-minute sessions (one per day), there was “increased functional connectivity among distributed cortical-hippocampal network regions and concomitantly improved associative memory performance”. Basically, they were given a memory test consisting of a set of arbitrary associations between faces and words that they were asked to learn and remember; those who received the placebo had no improvement, and those who had the real treatment did. However, these improvements only lasted for about 24 hours after stimulation. Various online news outlets have covered this in different ways. The most complete one I found was Science magazine, which has the entire study. But it’s highly technical and most people probably would zone out trying to read it. Research papers aren’t for everybody, of course. The one I found most accessible to the layman was from Popular Mechanics. They go into some possible concerns with the design of the study, including that there is a definite detectable difference between the placebo treatment and the real treatment. From Michael Fox, a neuroscientist at the Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the study:
“The real [TMS] causes a contraction on the scalp muscles, almost like somebody is tapping on your head,” he says. “The sham [TMS] feels much, much weaker. After having both, I’m fairly sure you could tell which one you had.” Unfortunately, as Fox points out, the scientists did not ask their participants which procedure they thought they had, which leaves a bit more room for a placebo effect to account for some of their results.
I didn’t see any mention of the duration of the effects in this article, however. The Newsweek article is kind of ridiculous, confusing transcranial magnetic stimulation for “using a powerful electromagnet to shoot electricity into a person’s head”. They also don’t appear to understand the difference between an MRI, which is all about investigating structure, and an fMRI, which is about investigating blood flow in the brain as an analog to mapping brain activity. They repeatedly make references to electroconvulsive therapy, which is totally irrelevant. No mention of the duration limitations. Even Medical Daily made the same false association in an article about a different TMS study:
What once was called “electroshock therapy” in the sordid halls of psychiatric institutions appears ready to make its return, though the newest incarnation of brain stimulation therapy is much more refined and much more targeted.
TMS is not electroconvulsive therapy. It’s a magnetic therapy that induces a small electric current in the wiring of the brain. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, TMS
uses a magnet instead of an electrical current to activate the brain. An electromagnetic coil is held against the forehead and short electromagnetic pulses are administered through the coil. The magnetic pulse easily passes through the skull, and causes small electrical currents that stimulate nerve cells in the targeted brain region. Because this type of pulse generally does not reach further than two inches into the brain, scientists can select which parts of the brain will be affected and which will not be. The magnetic field is about the same strength as that of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.
(The variant of TMS used in this new research – repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation – has been tested as a treatment for all sorts of disorders, including migraine, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, tinnitus and depression.) As I browsed through these various articles, I was struck by the different rhetorical techniques the authors used to try to snag the readers’ interest. Some started off their articles with gruesome bits of history, like Newsweek’s (misleading) mention of ECT. Others tried humor, making jokes about refrigerator magnets and metal plates in the head. Lots of articles had a basic summary of the experimental procedure, which was good, but few went into detail about how the study was blinded and placebo controls were used. As skeptics, I think it’s important for us to recognize that there’s often much more to any science story than a single source will tell us. It’s vital to sift through the information heap to find common threads and hard data, so that we can be sure we’re not just falling for one writer’s spin on things. Modern media is all about getting and retaining readers, and when you have a market crowded with sensationalist clickbait articles and pithy 5-second sound bites, it’s getting harder and harder for an outlet to stay relevant when they just want to report the facts. A few tips for the intrepid skeptics who want to be sure they’re getting the real story:
Now… go forth and read critically!
Back on March 11, Jon and Mike M. did a short mid-week episode on the science and controversy surrounding Splenda and Stevia, two popular natural sweeteners. Here’s our skeptical take on the claims made for and against both.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS