Archive for Skepticism
May 15, 2008 at 6:06 pm · Filed under Skepticism
The Quebec Human Rights Commission has quite rightly ruled that city councils, including Saguenay, should stop praying before or during council meetings because it violates religious freedom.
Sadly, the mayor of Saguenay, Jean Tremblay, doesn’t care about human rights because apparently he’s a religious bigot:
“I know they prefer me to stop, but I won’t do that,” he told CBC News. “For me, God is much more important than the commission. When I arrive on the other side, maybe in 10 years, 20 years, I don’t know, they won’t ask me if I follow the commission, they will ask me if I follow God. And I follow God.”
He also said that the 30 second prayer addresses all religions… Is that so Mr Tremblay? Do you mention Vishnu in that prayer? And Mohammed? What about Xenu? Buddha? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What about us atheists? How does the absence of religion fit into a religious prayer exactly? Or are we expected to leave the room while you wish to your imaginary sky friend?
Here’s an idea for you Mr Tremblay: Pray at home before you go to the meeting, or stop off at a church on your way. That way you’re only wasting your own time, not everyone elses.
March 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm · Filed under Skepticism
McGill’s Mini-Science program is about to start for the second year. This year the lectures will be tackling Ecology, Evolution and Extinction. From the article:
In a few weeks, McGill Mini-Science 2008: Ecology, Evolution and Extinction, will begin a seven-week run, covering everything from the science and polarizing controversy of evolution, to global change and extinction, to sustainability and biodiversity.
I hope they won’t dwell too much on the “controversy”, because as any sensible person knows, there is no controversy.
Though each lecture is tailored to engage, edify and entertain the layperson, the material will not be diluted and oversimplified.
I like the sound of that, dumbed down science is no fun.
“We have the best scientists in the world right here on campus,” Grant said. “What better way to give back to the community than to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas through this kind of outreach?”
I think the first part of that sentence should have “some of” in it, but I get what he’s saying, there are some very very smart people here.
Mini-Science begins on March 26 and will run every Wednesday until May 7. For details, go to http://www.mcgill.ca/science/mini.
February 29, 2008 at 11:55 am · Filed under Blogging, Skepticism
It’s February 29th today, so I thought, like 90% of bloggers on the planet, I would do a post about leap years.
Those silly people who think our planet is less than 6000 years old also sometimes think that the leap year thing is because science somehow screwed up and we have to fudge the numbers occasionally or that it’s because the Earth’s orbit is speeding up.
In fact, the leap year was refined over many years, starting with the romans who added an extra month every couple of years, basically whenever they felt like it, to keep the seasons in sync. Then Julius came along and realised the seasons were still all messed up, so abolished the extra month concept, replacing it with a slightly longer year of 365 days (it was 355 before) with extra days added to various months. There was also an extra day added every three years to try to keep the seasons lined up, but it wasn’t enough and they drifted again. A few years later the period was changed to four years, and things were better, but not perfect.
It wasn’t until the 1500s that someone realised that things weren’t quite right. It happened to be a Pope, Pope Gregory XIII to be precise. He noticed that if things carried on, Easter would eventually bump into Christmas, and we obviously couldn’t have Jesus being nailed to the cross on the day he was born, so he changed the rules, with the help of Kepler’s astronomical observations.
The Gregorian Calendar has been used ever since, and the leap year calculation remains unchanged. The calculation Gregory implemented is one I’ve used many times in computer programs. A year is a leap year if it’s divisible by 4 but not divisible by 100 except when it’s divisible by 400 (that’s why 2000 was a leap year).
Our year now averages out to be 365.2425 days long which is accurate enough that we’ll only be out by one day after 4000 years.
We need more Popes like Gregory XIII, even though he was a bit of a bastard to the English and Irish.
February 12, 2008 at 11:27 am · Filed under Skepticism
Today is Darwin Day, a day to celebrate the life of a man who built the foundations of the biological sciences we know today and a day to celebrate science and reason in general. I wanted to write something appropriate for the day but I couldn’t think of anything topical so I decided to step back in time and explain how I got interested in science.
When I started senior school (that’s high school in North American terminology) the sciences were still split into three subjects (combining them was a huge mistake as far as I’m concerned), physics, chemistry and biology. I was lucky enough to have excellent teachers in all three.
My physics teacher, Mr Williams, was probably close to retirement but he was still an inspirational teacher. His passion was electronics so we spent a lot of time on electricity but he still managed to cover the other aspects of physics. It was his fault that my bedroom was often cluttered with pieces of dismantled electronics.
My chemistry teacher, Mr Vine, was one of those scary, strict teachers (he once threatened to expel me for throwing magnesium powder into a Bunsen burner flame) but it was the kind of strictness that fostered respect. He also had a slightly inept side which caused at least two classroom evacuations: one when he accidentally dropped a large chunk of sodium down the sink and the other when he made mustard gas in the special gas chamber but forgot to turn on the extraction fan. He taught us well though, and I loved the practical aspect of chemistry but hated the theory side.
My biology teacher was my favourite teacher of all time. His name was Mr Tann. The last I heard he was an assistant head teacher, which seems a shame to me because teachers like that should be teaching, not becoming administrators. His teaching method involved sitting on his desk facing us, next to an overhead projector, scribbling notes and diagrams in many colours on the roll of transparency on the projector. Sounds dull but somehow he managed to make it a fascinating subject, and his practical sessions were always amazing.
Because of Mr Tann I also joined the pet club, a lunchtime club looking after the various animals in and around the biology lab. We looked after rats, hamster, gerbils, locusts, frogs, a piranha, ducks, chickens, rabbits and a hive of bees. It was because of this club, and the biology lessons themselves that I seriously considered becoming a veterinary surgeon. It was only the thought of having to spend another seven years at veterinary college that made me choose the easier option of computer science.
In my last year in senior school, Mr Vine the chemistry teacher took us on a school trip to London, and I discovered the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. Sadly I don’t remember who the guy was giving the lectures that year, but I remember thoroughly enjoying the entire lecture we went to. There were explosions and strange chemical reactions and interesting scientific gadgets and gizmos and an animated and passionate speaker.
From that year on it became part of my Christmas tradition to watch those lectures on BBC2. There is a different speaker every year and so it was in 1991 that I got to hear Richard Dawkins for the first time. His series of lectures were, of course, about evolution and I learned a huge amount in those five days. I immediately went out and got a copy of The Blind Watchmaker and followed it up with The Selfish Gene.
I was fascinated by evolutionary theory, and I was equally fascinated by the fact that some people didn’t accept it. I read some of the reasons behind this skepticism and they made no sense to me. I spent some time on the talk.origins newsgroup trying to understand these arguments and eventually trying to persuade these people that they were just plain wrong. A futile endeavour, but at the time an entertaining one.
Since then I’ve moved from newsgroups to blogs, but I still have an interest in evolution and the attempts to create a controversy over it. I followed the Dover School Board saga with mounting dismay and was thrilled with the happy ending. However it was a small victory in an ongoing battle; right now in Florida several counties are trying to introduce creationism into the science classroom and I’m sure that’s not the only state with these problems. Even in the UK there have been rumours of creationists making inroads and I hope the rampant political correctness going on over there doesn’t make that alleged controversy easier to preach.
January 30, 2008 at 10:01 am · Filed under Skepticism
Some good news from the UK today, apparently NHS trusts are rejecting homeopathy. This is despite people like Prince Charles trying to stick their nose into the debate; maybe when he’s King he can make a royal decree, but until then it’s a downhill slope for homeopathy. Only 37% of NHS primary care trusts still offer homeopathy services and at least 8 major homeopathy contracts have been canceled in the last year.
Homeopaths are saying they will survive, and maybe they will, but only as an insignificant service preying on the weak and gullible.
December 11, 2007 at 11:42 am · Filed under Skepticism
In a recent interview with the BBC, Richard Dawkins defined himself as a “Cultural Christian”. In his terms this means he’s interested in Christian traditions such as Christmas carols but he doesn’t have the underlying belief.
So can you be a Christian atheist? I’m not so sure. It’s all a question of definitions, but in my mind a “Christian” is someone who believe that Jesus Christ was the son of god, and by implication that a god exists. Therefore, cultural or otherwise, I am not a Christian.
Being interested in a particular tradition does not immediately make you part of the belief system behind that tradition. Enjoying Christmas carols doesn’t make me a Christian, it just means I enjoy some of the music that was inspired by Christianity. I’m sure there are Buddhists who enjoy Sarah Maclachlan’s beautiful rendition of Silent Night, but they wouldn’t call themselves Buddhist Christians.
I love Christmas, but I’m not a Christian, Yom Kippur fascinates me but I’m not Jewish, I enjoy the festival of light but I’m not Hindu, I dress my son up at Halloween but I don’t believe in witches.
By calling himself a cultural Christian, Dawkins is effectively redefining the word Christian, or maybe creating a new definition when used in conjunction with the word cultural. Either way, it doesn’t sit quite right with me.
October 25, 2007 at 10:30 am · Filed under Skepticism
After attempting to stifle criticism through legal means and having it blow up in their faces, the Society of Homeopaths have released a press statement. The best part of it is:
Due to the unpleasantness and surprisingly vitriolic nature of the postings on the Quackometer website and others, The Society has taken a conscious decision not to respond to these bloggers.
So basically they are now taking a homeopathic approach to criticism; take what they would’ve said or done and diluted it down until nothing is left, based on the theory that diluted vitriol will combat all the undiluted stuff.
I’m sure that will work almost as well as real homeopathy…
October 12, 2007 at 9:20 am · Filed under Skepticism
I’m reposting this article in full as the original author was forced to remove it from his site after legal bullying from the Society of Homeopaths. I’m not the only one to repost it. When will people learn that suppression of information by legal means will never work on the internet?
The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing
by Le Canard Noir
The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since Sense about Science, Simon Singh and the BBC Newsnight programme exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.
The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.
As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:
48: • Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority. • No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.
72: To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.
The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.
Straight away, we find that Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom specialises in asthma and works at a clinic that says,
Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems.
Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a leaflet that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,
Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. … The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs…
Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.
Asthma is estimated to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The Cochrane Review says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,
The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective.
This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.
However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that ’she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics’. Now, we have seen what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.
A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,
introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.
I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for ‘treating’ various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,
is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.
This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked scam recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.
Let’s remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.
there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won’t find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.
Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.
Ironically, the WHO has issued a press release today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the ‘immediate priority’ to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic crap costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?
I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?
It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?
At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?
July 25, 2007 at 11:27 am · Filed under Skepticism
In many cases the old saying is true, mother probably does know best. There are times when that is not the case though, especially where medical expertise is involved.
Why do parents feel they are more qualified than doctors when determining health treatments for their child? Every time a parent does this, they are putting their child at risk; in cases like the one happening now in Quebec, it is a fatal risk.
Three year old Anael L’Espérance-Nascimento has cancer cells in his brain and bone marrow. His doctors say he needs chemotherapy but of course his parents know better. Instead they plan to feed him organic vegetables to make him better. I’m sure eating organic vegetables is a good thing, but it won’t kill cancer cells, he needs the chemo! Yes, it’ll make him sick, yes, it’ll be horrible for everyone involved, but in the long run it could save his life. Organic vegetables won’t.
This sad story has two saving graces; firstly, organic vegetables are better than some of the very dubious alternative therapies they could have considered, and secondly Anael’s mother has said that if he doesn’t improve they will consider chemotherapy. I hope they don’t wait too long.
May 4, 2007 at 10:38 am · Filed under Skepticism
I was disappointed to see an advert for Narconon on network TV last night. I would like to point out a few things:
- Narconon’s “detox” methods are unscientific and potentially dangerous.
- The “treatment” costs $15,000.
- Narconon is a front group for Scientology.
- Scientology is a money-grabbing, lethal, criminal cult.
For more information read Narconon Exposed and Operation Clambake.
January 30, 2007 at 9:39 am · Filed under Skepticism
Since 1986, James Randi, through his Educational Foundation, has been offering a one million dollar prize to anyone who can prove their paranormal powers in a simple test. Prior to that he offered lesser amounts. Of course, so far, nobody has won the prize.
There has been no shortage of applicants though, so many that Randi has decided to change the rules a little. Too many of the applicants are either deluded dowsers or just mentally ill, so to weed out the kookiest kooks and just leave the prime kooks the rules now stipulate that the applicants must have a media presence. They don’t have to be world famous, they just have to have been in the media spotlight with their supposed powers.
The other, more interesting, change to the rules is that the JREF are now going to actively pursue some of the more famous flim-flammers. Not only is Randi going after famous kooks to get them to take the challenge, he’s also on the lookout for behaviour which could constitute a criminal offence.
So to help Randi with his new goals (not that he needs my help but the delusions of grandeur are talking to me again) I’ve decided to compile a list of the more infamous tricksters that I think he should be going after:
- Uri Geller - famous for his spoon-bending trick in the 70s and 80s, the last I heard he was offering business advice based on crystal woo. Randi’s been after him before and I doubt he’ll ever take the test, but it’s worth a shot.
- Sylvia Browne - Montel Williams’ favourite “psychic” who is now even more famous for being wrong a lot. She’s a fake and it hurts people. She has agreed to take the Randi Challenge but has since been playing dodge ball.
- Allison Dubois - the psychic whose claims of helping law enforcement agencies solve crimes and missing person cases inspired the TV show Medium, even though the claims have never been verified. She has refused the challenge before because she thinks Randi is “senile” and “unintelligent”.
- Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - The creator of Transcendental Meditation and the whole Yogic Flying phenomenon. If he can really fly, and not just bounce about on springy mats, why not prove it to Randi?
- James Van Praagh - Not only does he claim to be a psychic, he even gives lessons in becoming a medium. Most “mediums” will say it’s not something that can be taught, but not James. Perhaps he can teach Randi?
- Avani Water - There are many purveyors of so-called “oxygenated water”, but I picked this one because it’s Canadian. They claim that ” Tests and actual surveys [yes, actual surveys!] concluded that the added oxygen helps to promote good-health”. They also claim that “No, AVANI does not contain ANY chemicals.” What, not even water?
- Russell Grant - I had to mention at least one astrologer, so why not a brit? A mediocre TV celebrity who used to specialise in astrology but has since expanded into tarot and numerology. It’s about time someone put his “skills” to the test.
- Dr Stefan Schmidt - He claims he has proved that people can tell when they’re being stared at, even over CCTV. That should be easy for Randi to test, right?
- Maureen and Clayton Marolly - A Montreal couple whose living room has become very oily. They claim that people who bring religious icons leave with oily religious icons. That has to be testable.
Some may claim that the new rules makes it even harder to win the one million dollar prize, but that makes no sense. If someone really did have paranormal powers, fame would find them even if they didn’t want it and there would be no excuse for not taking the challenge.
November 3, 2006 at 10:03 am · Filed under Skepticism
Richard Dawkins was in Montreal on Saturday October 21st, and I attended his lecture “Queerer than We Suppose: The Strangeness of Science”. Although he’s on a tour promoting his new book (The God Delusion), this lecture wasn’t a direct promotion. He steered clear of talking about atheism until he was asked about it in the question and answer session at the end. Instead he talked about quantum theory, the mind’s model of the real world, and the idea of “middle world” where we reside, where rocks are solid and falling hurts. Middle world is between micro world and cosmic world, between the world where rocks are mostly empty space and can be passed through with ease, and the world where rocks are insignificant and light years can be travelled with ease.
It was a great lecture. I don’t think I actually learned anything (apart from a few good quotes), but it was more inspirational than educational. Dawkins managed to get a few digs in at things like intelligent design without turning the lecture into an atheistic rant (not that I would’ve minded that).
My favourite line:
Before 1859 [life] would’ve seemed very very odd indeed, now it just seems very odd.
My favourite quote:
Wittgenstein asked a friend “Tell me, why do people always say it was natural for men to assume that the sun went round the earth, rather than that the earth was rotating?” His friend said, “Well, obviously, because it looks as if the sun is going round the earth.” To which the philosopher replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth was rotating?”
My favourite exchange at the end:
Audience member: Why are the world leaders all insane?
Dawkins: They’re not all insane, are they? Well, ok, looking south of the border…
Audience member: We now have our share of south of the border here.
Dawkins: Oh, I can only convey my sympathy and hope it doesn’t last.
October 26, 2006 at 7:49 am · Filed under Skepticism
When someone tells me they are agnostic, I’m never entirely sure what they mean. To say you are agnostic without qualification is almost meaningless. Without specificity you may as well say “I don’t believe in anything” or “I believe in everything”.
There are two things you need to specify to bring meaning to your agnosticism.
The first is what exactly it is you’re agnostic about. For example, I am agnostic about dark matter. It helps solve some discrepancies in physicists equations, but we don’t really know what it is or if it really exists. The probability seems to be that it does exist, but that probability isn’t high enough for me to accept it. Therefore I am dark matter agnostic. To steal an example from Richard Dawkin’s new book, I’m also agnostic about life on other planets. Once again there is a reasonable probability that it exists, but the numbers are too vague to be sure.
You may say that stating you are agnostic about god is specific enough, but it’s not really. God means many different things to many different people. Are you agnostic about the Christian god? The Muslim god? Thor? Zeus? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you agnostic about a god who created the universe then left it alone or about a god who created the universe and still oversees it?
I’ve also heard things like “I’m agnostic because I have a feeling there might be something else out there”, or “I’m agnostic because there must be more to the universe”. This to me is like saying I’m willing to believe in anything that doesn’t seem to exist because, well, it might. By this definition we were all agnostic about ipods until five years ago, we just didn’t know it then. I don’t know about things I don’t know about is a pointless statement.
The second thing needed to qualify agnosticism is the degree of your agnosticism. Absolute agnosticism about something means you think there is equal probability of it existing or not existing. If the probabilities are unequal, then you are partially agnostic one way or the other. I’m absolutely agnostic about dark matter (mostly because “dark matter” doesn’t really offer anything explanatory), but I’m only about 25% agnostic about life on other planets and I’m well over 90% agnostic about the possibility of alien visitation.
Because nothing can be disproved, strictly speaking we are agnostic about anything which may exist. We are agnostic about fairies, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster and a Christian theist god. It is our degree of agnosticism which pushes us towards afairyism, asantaism, afsmism or atheism. As our degree of agnosticism approaches 100%, at some point we have to assume non-existance and abandon agnosticism for awhateverism. I am 99.9% agnostic about any supernatural entity therefore my agnosticism becomes atheism.
If you consider yourself agnostic, you must ask yourself what it is exactly you are agnostic about, and how agnostic you are about it.
September 25, 2006 at 8:09 am · Filed under Skepticism
Every Christmas, the Royal Institution in London puts on a series of lectures aimed at young people, known, strangely enough, as the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. They’ve been going on every year since 1825 when Michael Faraday started them, only stopping briefly when World War II was happening.
I attended the lectures when I was about 14, and watched them on BBC Two every other year. One speaker in particular became a hero of mine. His five lectures debunked many of the arguments against evolution and filled in many of the gaps in my own knowledge on the subject. Since then I’ve read his books and articles and kept a lookout for TV and public appearances.
Richard Dawkins is an eminent evolutionary biologist and a fierce atheist. He is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Along with his new book, he also has a new website, which went straight onto my sidebar. And he’s coming to McGill on October 21st; colour me excited.
August 14, 2006 at 7:50 am · Filed under Skepticism
Those who believe in alternative medicines often claim that science is somehow fighting against them, that science will never validate the therapies they believe in. Reasons given are many: the therapy won’t work under controlled conditions; science doesn’t consider the emotions of the patient; big pharma are conspiring to ridicule alternative medicine to increase their own profits; the studies are flawed; and the old favourite, well it works for me.
Sometimes though, science surprises the alties by validating one of these therapies. Take this recent study for example which shows that berberine, a substance used in ancient chinese medicine, may actually be useful against diabetes and obesity:
The researchers found that a dose of the compound, given orally, caused blood sugar levels to go down, led to fewer fats circulating in the bloodstream, made insulin work better and lowered the animals’ body weights.
Unlike the alternative medicide purveyors though, who will no doubt be marketing this stuff much more vigorously based on this study, scientists are cautious:
We would not recommend that anyone attempts to use this as a treatment in its current form as this research only focuses on animals. We will wait to see the results of further research with interest.
So what will happen if these findings are replicated and berberine is found to be safe and effective? If it works, it will be used in the treatment of diabetes and obesity and it will be medicine without any need for the “alternative” qualifier.
Next entries »
